Question on historicity of early Bible fragments

[Jimbo]

I’m reading ‘The Case for Jesus’ by Brent Pitre; which I picked up after listening to him on Catholic Answers live. So far, I’m very much enjoying it, but I’m struggling with a couple of things.

He makes an excellent argument about there not being any ‘anonymous’ gospels; and he gives some examples (papyrus 4, for example), that have explicit titles (the gospel according to…).

That got me interested in the early bible fragments. A gospel written by Matthew in the early 2nd century is very important. It could well have been written within the lifetime of the disciples.

But when I went online to look up things like papyrus 4 there are very few resources. Some repeat the same idea that it was only attributed to Matthew later. Some say that it is dated to the late 2nd century. And, most confusing, while in his book Papyrus 4 is attributed to Matthew, most sources I have seen say it has that on the ‘flyleaf’, but that its really the Gospel of Luke??

If that’s the case it seems to undermine Mr. Pitre’s argument.

Can anyone help with some good, solid sources for the early bible? And/Or show me some good solid sources that argue for an early authorship of the bible?

Thank yoU!

 

[MT1926]

Just jumping n board to see the answers if the more scholarly.

God Bless

 

[Jimbo]

Just a bump.

Does anyone have any places I can look if they don’t know directly?

I deal with alot of secular humanists who directly attack the historicity of the gospels, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

 

[patrick457]

That got me interested in the early bible fragments. A gospel written by Matthew in the early 2nd century is very important. It could well have been written within the lifetime of the disciples.

But when I went online to look up things like papyrus 4 there are very few resources. Some repeat the same idea that it was only attributed to Matthew later. Some say that it is dated to the late 2nd century. And, most confusing, while in his book Papyrus 4 is attributed to Matthew, most sources I have seen say it has that on the ‘flyleaf’, but that its really the Gospel of Luke??

I don’t have Mr. Pitre’s book, so I don’t know what he wrote, but about Papyrus 4. Yes, Papyrus 4 (P4) as we have it today is actually a manuscript of Luke, found in Coptos, Egypt and commonly dated to the late 2nd-early 3rd century. (This itself is not exceptional: many papyrus manuscripts of the gospels we have are from that date range.) P4 was found in a recycled state: it was found tucked in the leather cover of a 3rd-century codex of Philo. (Sheets of papyri were glued together and placed in the cover to fill up the space.)

Now the thing is, Papyrus 4 seems to be related to two other papyrus NT manuscripts: Papyrus 64 and Papyrus 67 (collectively known as the Magdalen papyri), which are fragments of a manuscript of Matthew. The handwriting between the two manuscripts are very similar, so it seems that both P4 and the Magdalen fragments were written by the same scribe. (Some would claim that they were originally from the same codex, though we can’t be sure.)

Here’s where the confusion lies. Among the papyri that was used for the cover of the Philo codex was a sheet of papyrus, one that contained the words “Gospel according to Matthew” written on it in Greek. It’s not technically one of the fragments of P4 (we don’t know whether this ‘flyleaf’ and P4 were from the same codex or not); it was only found together with P4 on the same codex used as a space filler.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Papyrus_BnF_Suppl.gr.1120_ii_3%28Gregory-Aland_papyrus_P4%29-_Gospel_of_Matthew%27s_title%2C_euangelion_kata_Maththaion.jpg/300px-Papyrus_BnF_Suppl.gr.1120_ii_3%28Gregory-Aland_papyrus_P4%29-_Gospel_of_Matthew%27s_title%2C_euangelion_kata_Maththaion.jpg

 

[patrick457]

I should add: the ‘flyleaf’ is our earliest material evidence that the Matthew was already given the title ‘Gospel of Matthew’ at the time this leaf was written (late 2nd-early 3rd century), if not before.* It doesn’t tell us anything about when the identification stated.

• The thing is, not all of the NT manuscripts found so far are in a pristine state. This is especially true for the papyri. What you often have is damaged codices, tattered pages or at the worst, scraps containing only a bit of text here and there. In ancient manuscripts, the title is usually often written at a flyleaf, at the beginning of the work and at its end. And it’s not always the case that the beginning and the ending will be preserved. Case in point: one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of Matthew is Papyrus 104, which contains the text of Matthew 21:34-37. Hardly a place where the title would show up.

Since the time of Papias (late 1st-early 2nd century), there was already a tradition that Mark and Matthew each wrote down the logia (literally ‘words’ or ‘sayings’ or ‘oracles’, although Papias uses the term in a much broader way: “the things either said or done by the Lord”) of Jesus: Mark, who supposedly got his information from St. Peter, simply transcribed what Peter said as he heard them (in the form of snippets or anecdotes), so that his work was not “in an ordered arrangement.” Matthew, meanwhile, Papias says, “ordered” the logia of Jesus “in the Hebrew dialect, and each person interpreted them as best he could.”

(It’s not exactly clear whether by Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ ‘Hebrew dialect’ Papias meant Matthew wrote in the Hebrew/Aramaic language or whether it was simply in a ‘Hebrew’, i.e. Jewish, literary style. The Church Fathers generally thought that he meant the former, so that later generations of Christians became obsessed with finding this elusive ‘Hebrew’ version of Matthew.)

Now Papias claims to have received this anecdote from ‘John the Elder’ or ‘John the Presbyter’ (who could either be the apostle - y’know, the son of Zebedee - or some other person - a disciple of the apostles?), so in a way, it is actually pretty early, way before our earliest surviving NT manuscript (Papyrus 52, 2nd-early 3rd century).

The tradition that Matthew wrote a ‘gospel’ is early (coming from the generation after the apostles at the latest), I don’t think anybody disputes that. Whether the information was accurate is another issue.

 

[Jimbo]

So maybe I misread Pitre.

It sounds like Papyrus 4 is entirely Luke, but that there is a bit of papyrus in there, that may have been glued together as a space filler that has the words ‘The Gospel according to Matthew’.

Pitre’s point was against the idea that the anonymous authorship of the early gospels. He claims (and I’ve read in some other places) that some believe that the early gospels were just written down folklore, not attributed to anyone. This undercuts their historicity and even brings into question Christ’s claim to divinity, as skeptics will attribute it to being added in the folklore later.

His point was that there were no anonymous gospels, that all the existing ones we know about are attributed.

I find this confusing because of your point:
" one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of Matthew is Papyrus 104, which contains the text of Matthew 21:34-37. "

Maybe this is what some people are claiming was anonymous? If the text is free standing, without the beginning and end that would have the attribution, they might say it is in fact anonymous?

He has other arguments I find convincing, but this one is tougher for me given the state of our understanding of ancient documents.

To summarize, it sounds like the earliest gospels we have in document form are from the mid 1st century maybe; so maybe close to 100 years after the death of Christ?

We do have attributed gospels, but we also have fragments of gospels that are out there that don’t have attributions because the beginning and ends of them aren’t there.

Does this sound correct?

 

[Jimbo]

And thank you much for your reply.

 

[patrick457]

Pitre’s point was against the idea that the anonymous authorship of the early gospels. He claims (and I’ve read in some other places) that some believe that the early gospels were just written down folklore, not attributed to anyone. This undercuts their historicity and even brings into question Christ’s claim to divinity, as skeptics will attribute it to being added in the folklore later.

His point was that there were no anonymous gospels, that all the existing ones we know about are attributed.

I’d approach this from another angle.

When we say the four canonicals gospels are ‘anonymous’, what it essentially means is: the authors don’t give their names within the text. This is especially true for Matthew and Mark. This is what sets the four gospels apart from most gospels that were written during the first four centuries - or from much early Christian literature, for that matter.

Most of these other gospels, they explicitly claim to be written by this or that person. (“These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.” “I, James, wrote this history when there was unrest in Jerusalem, at the time Herod died.”)

But you don’t have the same things with the gospels. Even in Luke-Acts or John, where the authors make the reader aware that they’re there, they never bother to name themselves within the text.

The closest thing you have for an actual title in Matthew’s or Mark’s case would be: “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham” or “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, son of God.”

I find this confusing because of your point:
" one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of Matthew is Papyrus 104, which contains the text of Matthew 21:34-37. "

Maybe this is what some people are claiming was anonymous? If the text is free standing, without the beginning and end that would have the attribution, they might say it is in fact anonymous?

He has other arguments I find convincing, but this one is tougher for me given the state of our understanding of ancient documents.

To summarize, it sounds like the earliest gospels we have in document form are from the mid 1st century maybe; so maybe close to 100 years after the death of Christ?

We do have attributed gospels, but we also have fragments of gospels that are out there that don’t have attributions because the beginning and ends of them aren’t there.

Does this sound correct?

 

[patrick457]

Darn it, I didn’t make it past the 20-minute edit. I submitted the comment without editing it properly.

I’d approach this from another angle.

When we say the four canonicals gospels are ‘anonymous’, what it essentially means is: the authors don’t give their names within the text. This is especially true for Matthew and Mark. This is what sets the four gospels apart from most gospels that were written during the first four centuries - or from much early Christian literature, for that matter.

Most of these other gospels, they explicitly claim to be written by this or that person. (“These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down.” “I, James, wrote this history when there was unrest in Jerusalem, at the time Herod died.”) But you don’t have the same things with the gospels. Even in Luke-Acts or John, where the authors make the reader aware that they’re there (which makes them much less impersonal than Matthew or Mark), they never bother to name themselves within the text.

AFAIK most people agree that the titles given to the gospels were added later - they were not original. In other words, when, say, Mark wrote his gospel, he didn’t name it Euangelion kata Markon “The gospel according to Mark.” That was appended later by someone else. In fact, it seems that Mark’s intended title for the gospel is what’s written on the incipit (the opening words): “The gospel of Jesus Christ, son of God.”

I personally think the argument that since the gospels were (originally) anonymous that that makes them unreliable folklore is weak.

In fact, you might say that the evangelists never named themselves within the gospels precisely because they wanted to give their gospels an air of authority and reliability, and because they wanted to focus the reader on the subject (Jesus) rather than themselves (the authors). In fact, you might say that that was their way of claiming that the real author of the ‘good news’ is Jesus/God. (You can see the same tactic in the historical works of the Jewish historian Josephus: in both Antiquities and the Jewish War, Josephus never names himself.)

Anonymous works implicitly claimed complete knowledge, objectivity and reliability. The claim of an anonymous work was higher than a given work, since when the author names himself, people are going to think, “Oh, that’s just his version, his idea.” People are going to see it as a subjective thing. You see a similar principle in say, encyclopedias, where the author of a particular entry is usually either given at the very end, or simply omitted: the entry would not have much of an impact or have this authoritative air if the author’s name was more prominent.

 

[patrick457]

To summarize, it sounds like the earliest gospels we have in document form are from the mid 1st century maybe; so maybe close to 100 years after the death of Christ?

We do have attributed gospels, but we also have fragments of gospels that are out there that don’t have attributions because the beginning and ends of them aren’t there.

Does this sound correct?

I’m not sure I understand you correctly, but I’ll try to make a stab at it again.

The current consensus is that the four gospels were written somewhere around the mid-to-late 1st century - usually somewhere within the mid-to-late 60s up to the 90s-100s. Back in the 19th century, a few prominent scholars controversially tried to date the gospels much later (mid-2nd century), but the discovery of earlier manuscripts eventually proved them wrong.

A few people nowadays try to push an earlier date for the gospels, a couple decades earlier than the current consensus (in other words, they would push for a dating somewhere during the 50s-60s), but all agree that they were written only a few decades or so after Jesus (not more than a century). And having a written biography appear within 30 to 50 years after the subject’s lifetime is actually pretty quick in terms of ancient documents.

The earliest fragments of gospel manuscript we have, based on the analysis of handwriting styles, date to around the mid 2nd century (AD 125-150). The fragment generally reckoned to be the oldest manuscript we have is this tiny scrap of papyrus known as Papyrus 52 (P52), which contains text from John 18:31-33 and 37-38. And since John is generally reckoned to be the latest gospel to be written (AD 90s-110s), this would make P52 a manuscript written just about a half-century after the gospel would have been originally published. In other words, it’s quite close in terms of time to the original.

Broadly speaking:

• The four canonical gospels were most likely written somewhere during the mid-to-late 1st century.
• The earliest surviving manuscripts of those gospels date to the mid-2nd century. Contemporaneous with (or just a tad earlier) these fragments, we have certain early Christian authors and documents quoting or alluding to one or more of these gospels - such as Polycarp or Justin Martyr or the Didache - but they never give any names of authors; Justin for example simply calls his source/s “memoirs of the apostles.” At the same time, there is already a sort of tradition (found in Papias) to the effect that Matthew and Mark each wrore down a kind of biography of Jesus.
• The earliest source to explicitly identify the authors of the four gospels is St. Irenaeus in the late 2nd-early 3rd century.

 

[Jimbo]

Thank you very much.

This does make more sense.

One thing I’m still not clear on:

I read:
“The current consensus is that the four gospels were written somewhere around the mid-to-late 1st century - usually somewhere within the mid-to-late 60s up to the 90s-100s. Back in the 19th century, a few prominent scholars controversially tried to date the gospels much later (mid-2nd century), but the discovery of earlier manuscripts eventually proved them wrong.”

and then…

"The earliest fragments of gospel manuscript we have, based on the analysis of handwriting styles, date to around the mid 2nd century (AD 125-150). "

If we don’t have any fragments of the gospel prior to 125… how do we get the idea that they were written around 60?

 

[Mintaka]

There’s a difference between Gospel manuscripts (manuscripts of the Gospel and nothing else) and Gospel quotes in other old manuscripts, or other works that we know are super-old because other super-old works quote them or talk about them.

Also, although scrolls didn’t normally have their title written anywhere except at the beginning and end, some codices (a codex is a book with pages and a spine, like today’s books) have labels on internal pages, just as some books today have running headers.

Anyway… Pitre’s point was that if a very early Gospel manuscript has any title information, it has the traditional attributions of the four Gospels. Meanwhile, books with known disputed authorship (like Hebrews) have many different title versions and attributions in their very early manuscripts. Since we have tons more early Gospel manuscripts than manuscripts of anything else whatever from the ancient world or from the Bible, we would have expected to see evidence of disputed Gospel authorship in some of those manuscripts, if anybody really had disputed it. But we don’t see that at all.

 

[patrick457]

If we don’t have any fragments of the gospel prior to 125… how do we get the idea that they were written around 60?

Well, there’s usually a difference between the date a work was written/published and the date of the earliest surviving manuscripts of that work.

Take for example the works of the Roman historian Tacitus. Tacitus as far as we know lived in the 1st-2nd century, but our earliest surviving manuscript of any of his works dates from the 850s (mid-9th century). That doesn’t of course mean that Tacitus actually lived in the 850s, or that his work was not put down into writing until then. It just means that any earlier copies of Tacitus that would have existed (and which this manuscript would have depended on) is lost or still undiscovered; it just so happened that the oldest one we have now dates from that time.

In the case of the gospels, we say that they would have been written somewhere during the mid to late 1st century because we can narrow the earliest and latest possible dates they would have been written using the following criteria:

• Most everyone agrees that Jesus was crucified somewhere around the 30s, so the gospels (which tell the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection) by necessity would have been written after the 30s, when these events happened. Our earliest possible date for the gospels (what scholars would refer to as the terminus post quem ‘date after which’) would therefore be the 40s, but even many scholars who date the gospels earlier than the current consensus think that this is too early, so they give a bit of an allowance: 50s-60s. (After all, you have other factors to take into account, like St. Paul.)
• Our latest possible date for the gospels (the terminus ante quem ‘date before which’) would be the time we see these gospels quoted or alluded to by early Christian authors and manuscripts of these gospels circulating. So we can say that the four canonical gospels were already in existence by AD 125-150.