Textual Criticism of Synoptic Gospels

[Furrowed Brow]

I have recently been involved in a discussion on Mark Priority, and have read several discussion over the years regarding gospel authorship. There are some basic assumptions taken as true. For example it is generally accepted as fact that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with polished Greek and the author of Mark’s Greek was more vulgar and prone to grammatical mistakes. The range of dates for a when a gospels was originally written seem to lie in the period 40 C.E.-95 C.E, though the actual dates for each gospel can be debated. But there is a disconnect I have been glossing over in my own thinking and I’d like an explanation.

Here is the list of earliest papyrus

The earliest Matthew papyrus are 150 C.E. and P104. Luke appears on P75 and dates to 175-225. There is much less Mark though there are sections on P45 dated 250 C.E. So when we talk about the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and say things like Luke’s Greek is polished or Mark’s Greek is not so good we are really talking about P104, p75 or P45 or documents that date even later, or am I missing something?

Whilst we might talk confidently about the grammar and scholarship seen on documents dated 150-250 how do we connect the quality of writing seen there with the presumed dates of original authorship around 50-95 some 55 to 100 years or so earlier. Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

How valid is it to talk about the grammar, agenda, and content of the writings of the original authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke circa 50-90 C.E. based on documents dated no earlier than 150 C.E? Should we really talk about the grammar, agenda and content of 2nd and 3rd century copyists? On what grounds do we assume vulgar or polished phrasing seen on a 2nd/3rd century document traces back to the 1st. How for example, can we be reasonable sure that Luke’s genealogy that starts with Adam really is a 1st century feature of Luke?

[ThatGirlAgain]

I have recently been involved in a discussion on Mark Priority, and have read several discussion over the years regarding gospel authorship. There are some basic assumptions taken as true. For example it is generally accepted as fact that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with polished Greek and the author of Mark’s Greek was more vulgar and prone to grammatical mistakes. The range of dates for a when a gospels was originally written seem to lie in the period 40 C.E.-95 C.E, though the actual dates for each gospel can be debated. But there is a disconnect I have been glossing over in my own thinking and I’d like an explanation.

Here is the list of earliest papyrus

The earliest Matthew papyrus are 150 C.E. and P104. Luke appears on P75 and dates to 175-225. There is much less Mark though there are sections on P45 dated 250 C.E. So when we talk about the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and say things like Luke’s Greek is polished or Mark’s Greek is not so good we are really talking about P104, p75 or P45 or documents that date even later, or am I missing something?

Whilst we might talk confidently about the grammar and scholarship seen on documents dated 150-250 how do we connect the quality of writing seen there with the presumed dates of original authorship around 50-95 some 55 to 100 years or so earlier. Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

How valid is it to talk about the grammar, agenda, and content of the writings of the original authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke circa 50-90 C.E. based on documents dated no earlier than 150 C.E? Should we really talk about the grammar, agenda and content of 2nd and 3rd century copyists? On what grounds do we assume vulgar or polished phrasing seen on a 2nd/3rd century document traces back to the 1st. How for example, can we be reasonable sure that Luke’s genealogy that starts with Adam really is a 1st century feature of Luke?

I was never big on textual criticism, so I do not have much to contribute to this thread. To me the several Gospels told stories that would have been understandable and germane to particular 1st century audiences. We see some clumsy insertions in Matthew and in Luke that might have been more appropriate to a somewhat later audience. If Matthew and Luke were rewritten for grammar and polish much later on, why would these 'sore thumbs' have been left in?

[Mithrae]

Excellent questions, though obviously way beyond my knowledge. Two quick points before I sign off for the night though..

First, it's worth bearing in mind that extant Greek gospel manuscripts may or may not be the only sources in consideration here. I'm not sure if that Wiki list includes other language versions, and it apparently doesn't include uncials like Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus - mind you I barely understand what 'uncials' means. And then there's quotations by early church fathers to consider also. How it all ties together I don't know.

But secondly, given the presumption that it somehow does tie together as biblical scholars seem to suggest - in that evidence for Mark from the first 3-4 centuries shows a consistent pattern of poorer grammar than Matthew or Luke - I'd suggest that it has considerable implications regarding claims of redaction, interpolation or editing which at times are so casually thrown around.

[Furrowed Brow]

If Matthew and Luke were rewritten for grammar and polish much later on, why would these 'sore thumbs' have been left in?

Not to say they were picked out to be polished. More we can only really to talk about the quality of the Greek of the copyist, or there must be a good reason to project back.

First, it's worth bearing in mind that extant Greek gospel manuscripts may or may not be the only sources in consideration here. I'm not sure if that Wiki list includes other language versions, and it apparently doesn't include uncials like Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus - mind you I barely understand what 'uncials' means. And then there's quotations by early church fathers to consider also. How it all ties together I don't know.

The dates for the various codex start at 325 I think. Depending on which one the latest date is 360. So anything we glean from these exists in the 4th century. I think we are really talking about P104, P75 and P45 and maybe some clever analysis of these and maybe some later papyrus.

For example and I don’t know the answer does the Greek in the Matthew and Luke that appears on P45 look more polished than the Mark on the same document. Is it as simple as that?

Presumably P104, P75 and P45 have different writers so the idea of a single document that is Mark or Matthew or Luke is based more on how the 4th century Christians collated these writings and not what we actually see on the 2nd/3rd century papyri.

[historia]

So when we talk about the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and say things like Luke’s Greek is polished or Mark’s Greek is not so good we are really talking about P104, p75 or P45 or documents that date even later, or am I missing something?

Having debated this recently in a couple of other threads -- and in doing so reading somewhat widely on this topic -- I'm pretty confident in saying that that is basically right.

It is important to note that modern, critical editions of the Greek New Testament follow an approach called "reasoned eclecticism," which draws upon a wide range of Greek manuscripts, early Latin and Syriac translations, and other texts.

So it's not as simple as looking at the oldest manuscripts. Just because a manuscript like P45 is older does not necessary make it more accurate. That seems somewhat counter intuitive at first, until you realize that a later copy from a stream of carefully copied manuscripts would more closely reflect the original text than an earlier manuscript that was itself poorly copied or taken from an exemplar that was poorly copied. So age alone is not sufficient.

Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the surviving manuscripts are an accurate copy of the original then they would, by definition, reflect the words of the original author. Only if they were not accurately copied would they reflect the words or phrasing of the scribe copying the text.

And I think we can more than "assume" this. This is a complex topic, but we have good reason to believe that there was at least one stream of accurate copying in the early church -- the Alexandrian recension -- and most modern, critical editions of the Greek NT draw heavily upon those manuscripts.

How valid is it to talk about the grammar, agenda, and content of the writings of the original authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke circa 50-90 C.E. based on documents dated no earlier than 150 C.E?

I think it's quite valid. Just to put this in perspective, the earliest extant manuscript we have for Plato's works are from 900 AD, a full millennium after they were written. The New Testament papyri are much closer to their autographs and more numerous than almost any other work of the ancient world.

I think it's also important to note one of the guiding principles of textual criticism is that the "harder" reading is preferable. We know that scribes have a tendency to smooth out or improve the writing of a text -- the very thing you're suggesting. But rather than being a hindrance, it's actually an important tool for finding the original text. When we see the harder reading in a group of manuscripts, that's likely the more original reading.

Should we really talk about the grammar, agenda and content of 2nd and 3rd century copyists?

I don't think so. If there was this level of free copying and changing of the text, we'd see far more variability in the surviving manuscripts. The differences between even the most different NT manuscripts is not great at all.

And that is the consensus of most text critics, including people like Bart Ehrman who is often quoted to the opposite effect. And to a large extent, I think we are somewhat reliant on their professional opinion in forming our own on this topic. I certainly am.

[Furrowed Brow]

So it's not as simple as looking at the oldest manuscripts. Just because a manuscript like P45 is older does not necessary make it more accurate. That seems somewhat counter intuitive at first, until you realize that a later copy from a stream of carefully copied manuscripts would more closely reflect the original text than an earlier manuscript that was itself poorly copied or taken from an exemplar that was poorly copied. So age alone is not sufficient.

Ok so say there are later Alexandrian documents and that for good scholarly reasons the expert trust the fidelity of the copying. But we still have a major disconnect in the time line. P75 I think is supposed to be in the Alexandrian tradition which would make sense because it contains Luke. But this still places the text at the end of the 2nd century earliest. In my simplistic take on things that gap in the time line turns everything into a bit of a guess, and a lot of the certainty of tone I have come across when making assertions about the orginal authors is not justified.

Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the surviving manuscripts are an accurate copy of the original then they would, by definition, reflect the words of the original author. Only if they were not accurately copied would they reflect the words or phrasing of the scribe copying the text.

Yes. So what are the chances they are not accurate copies? There would be the tendency you mention to move to a more polished Greek, and then there are potential interpolations and additions and so on. We know what the direction the scribes and scholars took in later periods, and maybe might even trace the error rates etc, but by 325 the core of the story is largely put together, and was probably being put together for a considerable time before that, and I concede to the experts, but it seems to me once we project back much beyond 150 C.E. quite a lot is being built on very little.

And I think we can more than "assume" this. This is a complex topic, but we have good reason to believe that there was at least one stream of accurate copying in the early church -- the Alexandrian recension -- and most modern, critical editions of the Greek NT draw heavily upon those manuscripts.

Ok P75 may be an early Alexandrian documents and we do not know for sure when the first Jesus texts entered into that tradition other than it was certainly before 150 C.E.

I think it's quite valid. Just to put this in perspective, the earliest extant manuscript we have for Plato's works are from 900 AD, a full millennium after they were written. The New Testament papyri are much closer to their autographs and more numerous than almost any other work of the ancient world.

Yes and I’d say that we cannot then really be sure of the fine detail of what Plato wrote; and so what we read today and ascribe to him is possibly an accumulation of interpolations added on the 1300 hundred years or so that lies between him and our earliest surviving copies of his work. I’ve read Plato as a philosophy student and we really did not bother with such questions as it’s the ideas that mattered. It really does not matters if the entirety of The Republic I read is wholly Plato, or Plato plus a bunch of later scribes and interpolators. We just call them all “Plato�.

I think it's also important to note one of the guiding principles of textual criticism is that the "harder" reading is preferable. We know that scribes have a tendency to smooth out or improve the writing of a text -- the very thing you're suggesting. But rather than being a hindrance, it's actually an important tool for finding the original text. When we see the harder reading in a group of manuscripts, that's likely the more original reading.

OK. I can see why the scholars think that makes sense though I think the logic is questionable. If say a good quality copy of Matthew has been brought to a community and then copied locally by less able scribes or just the most educated folk in the community it is easy to imagine one polished copy spawning five rougher versions with a tendency for more vulgar Greek and clumsy grammar. Especially if someone is copying someone else reading aloud. So I can see how a harder reading seems more plausible but it is just another assumption and educated guess.

Anyhow the road still stops at 150 C.E and then P104 only has 110 eligible letters. So it is really p75 that we get the first reasonable size chunk of text and then p45. The rest of the early stuff is fragmentary. This seems very little to project back from.

Take the genealogy provided in Luke 3:23-38 that appears on no papyrus as far as I can see and so the first we see of Luke 3:23-38 is going to be 4th century. The first we see of Matthew genealogy is on P1 dated 250 C.E. Now we could decide to project these genealogies all the way back to the 1st century and suppose they appeared on the autograph, but that seems like a big over stretch.

I don't think so. If there was this level of free copying and changing of the text, we'd see far more variability in the surviving manuscripts. The differences between even the most different NT manuscripts is not great at all.

The surviving documents larger than a fragment don’t get going until 175 earliest. It is not the variability or uniformity after 175 that is up for question. The question is how much "free copying" is there in the period 50 C.E to 200 C.E.

And that is the consensus of most text critics, including people like Bart Ehrman who is often quoted to the opposite effect. And to a large extent, I think we are somewhat reliant on their professional opinion in forming our own on this topic. I certainly am.

Me too. What is quite clear is that I do not think like a Textual critic and would probably have flunked Textual Criticism 101.

[Mithrae]

It is important to note that modern, critical editions of the Greek New Testament follow an approach called "reasoned eclecticism," which draws upon a wide range of Greek manuscripts, early Latin and Syriac translations, and other texts.

So it's not as simple as looking at the oldest manuscripts. Just because a manuscript like P45 is older does not necessary make it more accurate. That seems somewhat counter intuitive at first, until you realize that a later copy from a stream of carefully copied manuscripts would more closely reflect the original text than an earlier manuscript that was itself poorly copied or taken from an exemplar that was poorly copied. So age alone is not sufficient.

Ok so say there are later Alexandrian documents and that for good scholarly reasons the expert trust the fidelity of the copying. But we still have a major disconnect in the time line. P75 I think is supposed to be in the Alexandrian tradition which would make sense because it contains Luke. But this still places the text at the end of the 2nd century earliest. In my simplistic take on things that gap in the time line turns everything into a bit of a guess, and a lot of the certainty of tone I have come across when making assertions about the orginal authors is not justified.

Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the surviving manuscripts are an accurate copy of the original then they would, by definition, reflect the words of the original author. Only if they were not accurately copied would they reflect the words or phrasing of the scribe copying the text.

Yes. So what are the chances they are not accurate copies? There would be the tendency you mention to move to a more polished Greek, and then there are potential interpolations and additions and so on. We know what the direction the scribes and scholars took in later periods, and maybe might even trace the error rates etc, but by 325 the core of the story is largely put together, and was probably being put together for a considerable time before that, and I concede to the experts, but it seems to me once we project back much beyond 150 C.E. quite a lot is being built on very little.

I think what historia is getting at, and what I was trying to get at in my earlier post, is that drawing on a wide range of sources lessens the chance for such error. For example the writings of church fathers from before the council of Nicaea include over 30,000 quotations from the New Testament.

• In addition, there are ancient extra-biblical sources--characteristically catechisms, lectionaries, and quotes from the church fathers--that record the Scriptures. Paul Barnett says that the "Scriptures...gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature which quoted them at length and, in effect, preserved them."[16] Metzger notes the amazing fact that "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament."[17] (Source)
  
  J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts. Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! (Source)

The four gospels were known and used by Tertullian in Carthage (c190-210CE), Clement in Alexandria (c180-200CE), Irenaeus in Lyons (c180CE) and Justin Martyr in Ephesus and Rome (c150CE) (source). If there were copies of the gospels floating around in those four diverse parts of the empire by 190CE - and it's absurd to imagine that they were the only ones - then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE. Around 110CE on his way to martyrdom in Rome Ignatius of Antioch's letters quote from Matthew and Luke, and shortly afterwards his friend Polycarp made use of all four gospels; again, if there were at least two copies of these gospels around in 110CE, and probably more than that, then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE.

If there were half a dozen copies of the gospels circulating through the empire in the early second century, and perhaps several dozen by the early third, changes in any one manuscript would be reflected in its descendant texts but not in all the other copies around. As you've shown in your earlier Wiki link, even excluding the most numerous gospel (John), there are 13 extant synoptic gospel papyri from the mid-third century or earlier, so my guess is probably a rather conservative estimate. Once we add up all the patristic quotations, the Latin and Syriac versions Historia mentions and all other extant Greek copies from the 4th century or earlier, we've got a considerable body of evidence to work with regarding the NT text - overwhelmingly better than any other ancient work. It's virtually inconceivable that major changes to any one or two lines of manuscripts in the 2nd century would go unnoticed.

Indeed, that's precisely why scholars have noticed changes like the ending of Mark's gospel and John 8:1-11 - the only major alterations in transmission known throughout the whole NT. In fact I believe 1 John 5:7 and Luke 22:43-44 are the only other known or suspected changes longer than a few words. Changes consisting of a word or two, of course, are as likely to come from scribal glosses, marginal notes and errors as any intentional effort to change the text's meaning or content.

The facts are that it was the job of scribes to make copies as accurately as they could, and there were many people around who felt they had a vested interest in accurate knowledge about doctrine or Jesus' life. Some folk seize on a scant few examples like the above four to suppose that "Modifying, editing, subtracting from, and adding to the Bible was a systemic methodology of the church for centuries" (Notachance). But that demonstrates both ignorance of the facts and poor reasoning in extrapolating so much from so few examples, and I've yet to encounter a persuasive response from anyone I've asked to substantiate such claims.

As I asked Notachance in that thread, if there truly were any concerted effort to change the gospels, why do we still find different numbers of angels at Jesus' tomb, or any other amongst dozens of discrepancies between the gospels and Acts?

[Furrowed Brow]

I think what historia is getting at, and what I was trying to get at in my earlier post, is that drawing on a wide range of sources lessens the chance for such error. For example the writings of church fathers from before the council of Nicaea include over 30,000 quotations from the New Testament.

But the council of Nicae was in 325 CE some 230 years after the time period we are projecting back to. Granted there is a rich heritage by 325 and what we have then issues from earlier periods, but maybe my concern bubbles up in the question about the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke. The question is where and when the two genealogies first appear. A rich heritage providing plenty of a material to cross reference by 325 does not tell us if either genealogy appears on their respective autographs. This to my mind looks like a weak inference, and especially weak for Luke.

The four gospels were known and used by Tertullian in Carthage (c190-210CE), Clement in Alexandria (c180-200CE), Irenaeus in Lyons (c180CE) and Justin Martyr in Ephesus and Rome (c150CE) (source). If there were copies of the gospels floating around in those four diverse parts of the empire by 190CE - and it's absurd to imagine that they were the only ones - then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE. Around 110CE on his way to martyrdom in Rome Ignatius of Antioch's letters quote from Matthew and Luke, and shortly afterwards his friend Polycarp made use of all four gospels; again, if there were at least two copies of these gospels around in 110CE, and probably more than that, then it's obvious that there wasn't a single, easily-modified line of manuscripts leading up to our first extant fragment of 150CE.

If we take Ignatius he uses passages we would recognise now as coming from Matthew and Luke but he does not refer to them. Ref

It seems we have documents dated 150 and 160 for Justin Martyr but he does not name the gospels though his writing “harmonises� with just one synoptic gospels apparently, but what that means and which gospel I’m not sure. Ref

Irenaeus looks like a much better source. It seems we actually have a Latin text date approximately 180 CE, and Irenaus identifies the four Gospels and makes a big play of there being four gospels and references and alludes to them extensively. He mentions Matthew proclaiming Jesus’s birth and Abraham. But Iranaeus seems to think Matthew Jesus is very human, humble and gentle.

I take Irenaeus as good evidence that there were four distinct gospels established by 180 at least in Iraneus’ mind. And we get hints and directions as to what are in those gospels, but the date of 180 CE is not so different from P75, and it leaves us still having to bridge the gap of at least 90 years if we want to project back to the 1st century Ref. And we might see how this more structured view of four gospels emerges from Justin which mentions the gospels but does not name them . It seems Justin does not marshal his material in anything like the systematic way Iranaeus thinks of them as four.

Clement is interesting because he seems to have been a scholar in the Alexandrian tradition and though he writes extensively he does not seem to write much on the four gospels and I don’t think he names them or treats them as four works.

Tertullian seems to make one reference to there being four gospels. But Tertullian writes a couple of decades later than Iranaeus. Time for Iranaeus’ systemisation of the gospels to take hold.

It's virtually inconceivable that major changes to any one or two lines of manuscripts in the 2nd century would go unnoticed.

Tale Ignatius, Justin, Iranaeus, Clement and Tertullian. I do not see four gospels in Ignatius or Justin. P47 and P45 as far as I am aware do not name the gospels, they just include material we would now recognise as coming from the respective gospels. What I am seeing in this evidence is the idea of four distinct gospels arriving around 180 CE with Iranaeus. Iranaus was a follower of Polycarp but we don’t get the same four gospel systemisation in his writings. ref. Something happened in the transmission of ideas between Polycarp and Iranaeus.

As I asked Notachance in that thread, if there truly were any concerted effort to change the gospels, why do we still find different numbers of angels at Jesus' tomb, or any other amongst dozens of discrepancies between the gospels and Acts?

Because it does not have to be a widespread concerted effort, it just takes a systemiser like Iranaeus and material to begin to be divided into four distinct gospels around the middle end of the 2nd century and that tradition followed thereafter. Let me put this the other way around. What evidence is there that there were four distinct gospels prior to 180CE? There does not seem to be very much if any at all.

I also ask again if there is any evidence for Luke's genealogy before the 4th century?

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok I might have answered my own question regarding the genealogy in Luke. P75. does not contain chapter 1 or 2, and misses some of chapter 3. The verses that concern the genealogy i.e Luke 3:18-37 appear on a fragment in pretty poor shape. Verses 23-32 are absent, and this it is the section that begins Luke’s genealogy. Of verses 33-37 there is just the odd word and partial word that can be seen.

• 33 του ιουδα̣
  34 τ̣ου θα�[... του ν̣α̣χ̣ω̣
  35 τ̣ου̣ ...υ̣ το̣υ φ̣αλε̣...] του ....ο̣υ
  36 ....�̣φα..αδ̣· τ... σ̣... λ̣αμεχ
  37 τ̣ου μ̣α̣....τ̣ου ια�ε̣τ̣ του μ̣... .....αμ̣
  38 του ενως̣ τ... ....α̣μ̣ του θυ̣̅. Source

I know zero Greek but can work out (I think) “son of� and the names ιουδα̣ Judah and part of the name ν̣α̣χ̣ω̣ Norah, and the name λ̣αμεχ Lamech. Adam in Greek is αδάμ and I can make our άμ on verse 38, and I think θυ̣̅ is possessive form of God.

OK so it seems Luke’s genealogy is pretty much on P75. But that still leaves us short of 90 years or so and we are also missing the first two chapters.

And I am going to spend some more time looking at p75 to see if John and Luke are two distinct gospels.

ADDED: OK it seems Luke's Gospel is signed off as Luke at the end and John is identifed at the start of his gospel. So we clearly have two distinct gospels on P75 with Luke appearing first then John. John is missing the last six chapters or so. Source

I'd say this is sufficient to say there are 4 distinct gospels around 175-225 CE and we have Iranaeus making the point in 180 CE. How much of a stretch is it to say there are four distinct gospels in the 1st century?

[mich]

I have recently been involved in a discussion on Mark Priority, and have read several discussion over the years regarding gospel authorship. There are some basic assumptions taken as true. For example it is generally accepted as fact that the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote with polished Greek and the author of Mark’s Greek was more vulgar and prone to grammatical mistakes. The range of dates for a when a gospels was originally written seem to lie in the period 40 C.E.-95 C.E, though the actual dates for each gospel can be debated. But there is a disconnect I have been glossing over in my own thinking and I’d like an explanation.

Here is the list of earliest papyrus

The earliest Matthew papyrus are 150 C.E. and P104. Luke appears on P75 and dates to 175-225. There is much less Mark though there are sections on P45 dated 250 C.E. So when we talk about the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and say things like Luke’s Greek is polished or Mark’s Greek is not so good we are really talking about P104, p75 or P45 or documents that date even later, or am I missing something?

Whilst we might talk confidently about the grammar and scholarship seen on documents dated 150-250 how do we connect the quality of writing seen there with the presumed dates of original authorship around 50-95 some 55 to 100 years or so earlier. Even if we assume the surviving documents we have are a straight copy from an original on what grounds do we assume the polished Greek seen on a Matthew document belongs to the original author and is not down to the copyist.

How valid is it to talk about the grammar, agenda, and content of the writings of the original authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke circa 50-90 C.E. based on documents dated no earlier than 150 C.E? Should we really talk about the grammar, agenda and content of 2nd and 3rd century copyists? On what grounds do we assume vulgar or polished phrasing seen on a 2nd/3rd century document traces back to the 1st. How for example, can we be reasonable sure that Luke’s genealogy that starts with Adam really is a 1st century feature of Luke?

That's a very interesting path to follow, which I, like most others don't have enough information for now to reply except to say that I will follow the thread with great interest.

Andre