NT Manuscripts

[Iasion]

Greetings all,

I thought readers may be interested in my investigation of te NT MSS.

I especially draw 1John2_26's attention to the 2nd section, and look forward to his reply.


NT manuscript attestation

Claims about the NT being the "best-attested" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events :
* NO copies from 1st century,
* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
List by century :
http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Robinson-list.html
Detailed contents of all NT MSS :
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/st ... /EGBMP.htm

And, there is considerable variation in Gospel manuscripts, and it often DOES reach to core beliefs and events :

The words of God at the baptism in early MSS and quotes have "...this day have I begotten thee" (echoing Psalm 2) - later, as dogma about when Jesus become god had crystallized, thus phrase became "..in thee I am well pleased". If scribes can change the alleged words of God, they can change anything.
Another important variation is the ending of G.Mark - there are four different endings to this Gospels in various MSS, the original ending being 16:8
Other MSS variations include :
* the issue of salvation through the Christ's Blood,
* the Trinity - found in no MSS before the 16th century!
* the Lord's prayer - much variations in manuscripts,
* the names of the 12 apostles are highly variable in MSS and indeed the Gospels.
http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html

These are just some issues of manuscripts variations - contradictions between different Gospel's versions of the Jesus stories is another very smelly kettle of fish :
* the widely variant birth stories,
* the names of the 12 apostles vary among Gospels.
* the completely irreconcilable Easter morning stories :
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php



Quantity of manuscripts irrelevant to truth

But more importantly, 1John2_26, like many apologists, has confused two fundamentally different issues - he is arguing that because we have so many copies this proves the contents true. Well, this is obviously not true - the number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

* the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about 1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the Iliad?

* the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies exist, about 4000 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does this make the work over 4000 times MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?

* the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like 1John2_26 repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.


Iasion

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
Ehrman also makes the point that when their are textual variations, it is the more difficult, unusual, or 'controversial' version that is probably authentic. The logic is that if textual variations exist, a more harmonious one A, and a more controversial one B, and we assume that either A was changed into B or B changed into A by some process (intentional or not) resulting in the variation, that it is more likely that someone (especially if they did it intentionally) changed the more problematic text into the more harmonious than vice versa.

Speculation.

I would say 'reasonable inference' rather than 'speculation.' After all, we know the textual variants exist. So the question is how did the variations come about? It seems to me if you have two variations A and B and you know that the general practice was to make copies by hand from a previously existing copy you have 3 basic options.
1. A was copied from B with a change being made.
2. B was copied form A with a change being made.
3. Both were copied from C with at least one of them being changed, or maybe both.

micatala wrote:
Early church leaders and scribes, especially those who Ehrman calls 'proto-orthodox' and whose ideas eventually won out, would obviously be interested in trying to combat ideas they considered heretical, and also would likely have been interested in 'harmonizing' the text to avoid confusion and other theological problems. There is certainly ample evidence that alterations that appear designed to achieve these ends have occurred.

Ditto from the first comment.

Again, this is not speculation. THe variants exist. Oftentimes the later variants are the ones that are more in harmony with the views predominant at that time.

I must confess I don't have Ehrman's book in hand at this point (it was a long distance library loan). I will see if I can find some 'online' references we can use, either of Ehrman or someone else.

If you have a better explanation for how these textual variations came about, then please provide. I am certainly open to the idea that Ehrman could be wrong and there are other explanations. However, I don't see how we can get around the fact that we have examples of variant texts in hand.

[Tim the Skeptic]

tselem wrote

And since we know they are authentic, we can also trust they are historic -- at least in many aspects.

This is a stretch. Iasion has already addressed this. By this standard the Book of Mormon would have to be considered historic.

Also, the phrase "at least in many aspects" is pretty vague. Is the Resurrection one of those aspects? Why does it have to be a bodily resurrection? Didn't Paul say that he "saw" Jesus just like the apostles? But his account was clearly a vision.

[theleftone]

You assumed and accepted the claim was made by Marcion in your initial post.

All I initially said was that Marcion created the first christian canon.

You said:

If I remember right (I'll have to dig out my copy of Metzger's Canon of the New Testement) the earliest christian canon (a list or collection of authentic books) rejected 3 of the 4 Gospels and included only a heavily redacted version of the fourth. The Gospels were then considered a judaic intrusion into genuine christian teachings.

It seems pretty clear to me that the claim is there.

I believe that this is a universally accepted fact.

Yes, Marcion was the first known to have formulate a canon. This fact was never disputed by me.

The fact that the Marcionites were apparently the first to seriously consider the question of authenticity lends weight to their claim to be the original, since they were obviously seeking to protect their doctrine from alteration. This means that at the time of Marcion's writings they were working against what they saw as a threat to the original texts.

Or, the more likely view in light of historical evidence, being that Marcion was modifying the original texts to fit his doctrinal stance.

1. He was a member of the established church until he was excommunicated in 144 CE. He then established his own sect.

2. Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement, and Polycarp all wrote to counter his claims.

3. Even a Gnostic theologian had a few words against Marcion's claim (Ptolemy).

Then I pointed out that he was considered a heretic by the early church.

And he considered the early church to be heretics against what he considered to be the original documents.

A heretic is one who adheres to heresy. Heresy is the taking of a position which is contrary to the established church's position. The Church of Rome, which is the church that excommunicated Marcion, was part of the established church. The church excommunicated Marcion for views which were contrary to its own. Therefore, it is accurate to describe Marcion as a heretic.

Further, it is not accurate to describe the established church as heretical because Marcion, not his followers, were the established church. To claim otherwise is to redefine the term heretic. Thus, Marcion cannot have possibly considered the early church to be heretics. He could have considered them to be wrong, but not heretical.

What I am saying is that we don't know what the "original" bibles contained. The contents of our modern bibles are the product of the winners in the dispute with Marcion (and others). Any early texts that supported Marcion and not the Catholic church would have been destroyed (or, at least, not copied).

Can you show any historical evidence of Marcion's works being intentionally destroyed? If not, this is speculative at best. As for copies, there was a community of Marcionites established for at least 300 years. They could have easily made copies. Simply because we do not possess these works, does not mean they were destroyed or not copied.

We know that Marcion claimed the bible was infiltrated with cultic additions.

How do we know this?

In support of his view he produced the first list of authentic christian books. That list lacked the Gospels.

Is this the supporting evidence of the above claim? Or is it just a side statement?

We also know that Marcion's claims were rejected by those who accepted those books. What we don't know is whether Marcion's claims were true. And since the writings of Marcion, his predecessors and his followers, are all lost to us, I don't know how we could decide this issue.

We can know this though. We can review the New Testament itself. We can review the New Testament variations which Marcion produced as presented by his critics.

assuming Tertullian didn't misunderstand or misrepresent them.

That would be an unjustified assumption, considering that intra-religious strife is always the most nasty.

Okay, so let's compare Tertullian's work in light of the other's who countered Marcion. Is it reasonable to conclude that if they all pretty much present the same claims, then the assumption is justified?

I'm not sure how this relates to my point. I was pointing out that Marcion was considered a heretic.

Just as a Catholic would be considered a heretic in a Mormon community.

The point is that Marcion is called a heretic only because he was on the loosing side of a debate. If he had won, the Gospels would be heretical (as is the book of Mormon).

No, Marcion is called a heretic because he held views which contradicted with the established church.

A "universal church" would be the established church, else it could not be called the universal church or the catholic church.

Bzzzt! The church was called universal (I believe) because it held that christianity was for everyone, jews included.

The following is an entry from the Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (pp. 85).

Catholic. (from Gk. katholikos, "throughout the whole," "general")
1. Universal, in distinction from the local congregation. This is its meaning in the first occurrence in a Christian setting: "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church" (Ignatius Smyr. 8:2). The Nicene Creed defines the church as "one holy catholic and apostolic" affirming a sense of universality and unity in spite of wide diffusion. This idea was continued in the 7th-century Apostles' Creed. The catholic epistles of the NT were so designated by Origen, Eusebius, and others to indicate that they were intended for the whole church, rather than a local congregation.

I will post the remaining four definitions if you'd like, but none of them indicate your definition.

Note that this controversy was never resolved. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews is still in the bible even though it has pretty much been shown to be a fake.

Fake? What evidence do you have that it is a fake?

Hebrews was controversial in ancient days, and it's still controversial now. Is Hebrews an example of a judaic intrusion? Who can say?

We can. We can review what we have and make a determination.

All we know is that some versions were suppressed, destroyed and not copied.

How do we know this?

Because there are references to writing that no longer exist. Marcion must have written quite a bit. And there must have been other supporters of his view. Essentially none of their work survives. Yet we know it existed and we know it was important because polemics against them also survive.

This is not evidence that they were suppressed, destroyed, or not copied. A does not follow B here. This is non sequitur.

The original would be the New Testament and other related texts. Thus, we can make a determination as to who was closer. We can make the determination who held a more authentic view of doctrine, be it Marcion of the catholic church.

So you would base your judgement of authenticity on the text produced by the winners? I think I can guess what your conclusion will be.

I believe such a judgment is reasonable, given the evidence at hand. I believe the arguments presented are (a) ofter speculative in nature, and (b) overstate the evidence.

[theleftone]

that it is more likely that someone (especially if they did it intentionally) changed the more problematic text into the more harmonious than vice versa.

This is what I was calling speculation, not that changes were introduced (intentionally or not).

Again, this is not speculation. THe variants exist. Oftentimes the later variants are the ones that are more in harmony with the views predominant at that time.

My apologies. I was unclear. By "ditto from the first comment" was my first portion of my response, in that I wanted you to present Ehrman's case.

[theleftone]

And since we know they are authentic, we can also trust they are historic -- at least in many aspects.

This is a stretch. Iasion has already addressed this. By this standard the Book of Mormon would have to be considered historic.

Iasion did address this. My response was a counter to his address.

I don't believe my claim to be a stretch. The Gospels take the literary form of historical narrative. This makes them little different from the works of other ancient historians. The fact that they are well attested to through so many manuscripts, gives us confidence that what we have is authentic, or stated in another, is close to the original autographs. This being the case, about the only reasons I can come up with to question their actual historicity is the supernatural elements, dating (i.e., a decade or two by the most conservative estimates, with the exception of John), and personal bias. All three of these reasons, I consider to be weak counters.

[McCulloch]

[T]he only reasons I can come up with to question their actual historicity is the supernatural elements, dating (i.e., a decade or two by the most conservative estimates, with the exception of John), and personal bias. All three of these reasons, I consider to be weak counters.

Would you please eleborate as to why you consider these to be weak counters?

[Bart007]

Greetings Iasion, and all.

What a mess. Let's see if we can bring some sense into the reliability of the New testament text of modern Bibles such as the NASU.

Greetings all,

I thought readers may be interested in my investigation of te NT MSS.

I especially draw 1John2_26's attention to the 2nd section, and look forward to his reply.


NT manuscript attestation

Claims about the NT being the "best-attested" confuse two UN-related issues -
* reliability of the text,
* truthfulness of the contents.

Firstly, it is not true that the NT is "the best-attested document in all of antiquity" because there are some documents even older than the NT for which we have the ORIGINAL literally carved in stone (e.g. Behistun inscription, Egyptian tomb inscriptions, the Rosetta Stone, the Moabite Stone) - making them absolutely 100% accurately attested from the original because they ARE the original, and thus much better attested than the NT.
http://visopsys.org/andy/essays/darius-bisitun.html

Every scholar is well aware that there are many writings on ancient pottery, tablets of stone or clay, building walls, tombs, and the like, and that these are all originals. When scholars use a term like 'best attested' in reference to ancient or medieval manuscripts (i.e. hand written books), they are obviously not referring to originals, but to copies of originals where the originals are missing.

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are the best attested literary works of the ancient world. If any here know of an ancient manuscript or collection of manuscripts better attested to, please share it.

[Bart007]

It's true the NT is fairly well-attested (in terms of quantity) compared to SOME ancient writings - in the sense that we have many old copies (24,000 or more in total). However the vast majority of these copies are from the middle-ages. The number of NT manuscripts from before the dark ages is about a hundred.

Actually there are about 140 sets of separate portions of the New Testament prior to the dark ages, plus the almost complete NT in the Codex Vaticanus dated 325 AD, the Codex Sinaiticus dated 340 AD with a complete NT mostly in the order we have them today, and the Codex Alexandrinus (400 AD) with the entire NT with some portions missing.

Most of the 140 or finds are fragments like P52. P52 contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is dated as early as 100 AD.

In addition to the above, there are numerous writings by early Christians quoting from the NT. One such discovery is the Papyrus Egerton written near the very end of the 1st century, and draws on both the Gospel of John and the three synoptic gospels for its material.

But there are NO originals for ANY of the NT writings - all we have is copies of copies, all varying from each other (that's right - every single manuscript we have is slightly different from every other - not counting very tiny scraps) from long after the alleged events : .

It is most disingenuous to put it this way, and I believe you misconstrue what a variant actually is. Here is a very accurate appraisal from world renowned NT expert Dr. Norman Geisler

With all those manuscripts, there are a lot of little differences. It is easy for someone to leave the wrong impression by saying that there are 200,000 “errors” that have crept into the Bible when the word should be “variants.” A variant is counted any time one copy is different from any other copy and it is counted again in every copy where it appears. So when a single word is spelled differently in 3,000 copies, that is counted as 3,000 variants. In fact, there are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of those are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith. Note: the problem is not that we don’t know what the text is, but that we are not certain which text has the right reading. We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it.

On your four points


* NO copies from 1st century,

http://members.aol.com/egweimi/7q5.htm 7q5 is almost certainly the gospel of Mark 6:52-53 and was found in Qumran, which dates it at about 68 AD. Also, keep in mind the NT original documents were written between 50 AD and 95 AD.

* a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),

The complete list: P4, P32, P52, P64, P66, P 67, P90, P98, P104.

P4, P64, P67 appear to be from the same document and contain portions from the gospels of Matthew and Luke. One scholar dated this document to

* a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),

The list for late 2nd century should also include (P23, P38, P45, P46, P77, P103, and 0189) Note that each are small fragments from various NT books.

* several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.

Much more accurately, the almost complete NT is found in the Codex Vaticanus dated 325 AD; the Codex Sinaiticus dated 340 AD has a complete NT mostly in the order we have them today, and in the Codex Alexandrinus (400 AD) with the entire NT present but some portions of books missing. These are all from the 3rd century. This signifies that the NT writings were widely copied and in common use ever since they were originally written. It is simply that old copies were worn out and constantly replaced by very faithful new copies that were easy to read. At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, they certainly had no difficulty finding what they deemed to be very accurate copies of all the books they esteemed to be included in the NT.

Let’s compare the above NT MSS (i.e. Manuscripts) with that of other Greco-Roman authors.

The earliest copy of Homer’s Iliad was written 500 years after he wrote the original, 643 MSS total.

The earliest copy of Herodotus history was written 1,350 years after Herodotus died, 8 MSS total

The earliest copy of Thucydides history was written 1,300 years after original was written, 8 MSS total.

The earliest copy of Plato’s writings was written 1,300 years after Plato died 7 MSS total.

The earliest copy of Demosthenes writings was written 1,400 years he wrote them, 200 MSS total

The earliest copy of Julius Caesar’s ‘Gallic wars’ was written 1,000 years after he wrote it, 10 MSS total.

Of Livy’s writings there is one partial book 400 years, 1,000 years for complete books, 19 MSS total.

Of the Annals of Tacitus, earliest copy is written 1,000 after the original with 20 MSS total.

Of the Natural History of Pliny Secundus, the earliest copy was written 750 years after the original, 7 MSS.

Yet no scholars deny the accuracy or authenticity of these books. In comparison, we can appreciate how wealthy the NT in MSS attestation. The accuracy and the authenticity of the NT is so much better ‘attested to’ than any of these works. If anyone says otherwise, it can only be on the basis of a hostile worldview and not the clear verdict of the facts.

And this attestation, so far from the MSS only of the NT, gets even better. Let’s eliminate all of the NT MSS that existed prior to 401 AD. It is possible to reconstruct the entire NT, except for 11 versus from the letters of John: 2 & 3, from the pre-Nicene (325 AD) quotations of the early church Fathers. E.g. Justin Martyr 330 quotes, Irenaeus 1,819 quotes, Clement of Alexander 2,406 quotes, Origen 17,992 quotes, Tertullian 7,258 Quotes, etc. This aids and abets scholars’ ability to corroborate script in MSS with the early church quotations and usage of the NT passages, providing a textual background for a solid reconstruction, and balance and checks, of the original texts.

[Iasion]

Greetings,

Every scholar is well aware that there are many writings on ancient pottery, tablets of stone or clay, building walls, tombs, and the like, and that these are all originals. When scholars use a term like 'best attested' in reference to ancient or medieval manuscripts (i.e. hand written books), they are obviously not referring to originals, but to copies of originals where the originals are missing.

Pardon?
You mean if you EXCLUDE all the writings which ARE attested by originals,
then the NT is the best attested,
after you exclude all those writings which are better attested?

Who are you trying to kid?

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are the best attested literary works of the ancient world.If any here know of an ancient manuscript or collection of manuscripts better attested to, please share it.

Sure.
The works of Yen-shou.
We have 400,000 copies -
FAR better than the NT.

Or the 20,000 tablets found at Chuyen, containing complete original texts of 75 works -
Far better attestation than the NT.

Or like I said up front - the various ancients texts for which we HAVE the ORIGINAL, such as the Behistun inscription, or the Egyptian funerary texts. Your attempt to exclude these better attested documents fools no-one.

The eqyptians are an interesting case, because they used a durable medium, stone (compared to papyrus and parchment, or even worse, palm leaves, wood strips, shoulder blades.)

For instance, we have a vast amount of Egyptian writings from the Amarna period, in the form of tablets, from over a millenium BCE. We also have a large body of writings called (very unimaginatively) "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" from about TWO millenia BCE.

These are 100% perfectly attested ancient religious writings - we have the ORIGINALS (because they chose STONE to write in.)

These documents are FAR better attested than the NT, but you want to exclude them, and any other works that ARE better attested than the NT (such as the examples I mentioned in the OP like the Rosetta stone) for no clear reason (apart from then being able to pretend the NT is the best attested.)


You are simply incorrect, you are repeating Christian apologetics without checking the facts.

The NT is not the best attested ancient work.

And,
even if it WAS - so what?

As I show below,
the accuracy of the MSS means nothing about the truth of the contents.

How about Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard?
The founder of Scientology.
I think we have the original MSS, or close to it -
does that make it TRUE?

Obviously not.

Nor does any level of accuracy in NT MSS tells us anything about the truth of the contents.


Iasion

[Iasion]

Greetings,

P52 contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is dated as early as 100 AD.

As early as 100 ?
Misleading and inaccurate.

P52 is variously dated:
* 2nd century (100-199)
* early 2nd century (100-149)
* late 2nd century (150-199)

The most recent dating of P52 (by Schmidt IIRC) is late 2nd C. - i.e. 150-199 or so.

One such discovery is the Papyrus Egerton written near the very end of the 1st century, and draws on both the Gospel of John and the three synoptic gospels for its material.

Incorrect.
P. Egerton2 is dated to 1st half 2nd C (e.g. by Ron Cameron) although some argue for earlier.

Scholars do NOT agree that it draws on the other Gospels, you are mistaken.

Jon B Daniels : "The Egerton Gospel's parallels to the synoptic gospels lack editorial language peculiar to the synoptic authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They also lack features that are common to the synoptic gospels, a difficult fact to explain if those gospels were Egerton's source."
From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/egerton.html

In fact, there are only 10,000 places where variants occur and most of those are matters of spelling and word order. There are less than 40 places in the New Testament where we are really not certain which reading is original, but not one of these has any effect on a central doctrine of the faith.

Rubbish,
I listed above some examples where these variations included many common beliefs of Christians :
* the resurrection ending of Mark !
* the words of God at the baptism
* the redemption by blood
* the Lord's Prayer
* the Trinity (Comma J.)
* the names of the apostles

I see you ignored all those, and instead repeat the standard apologist mantra : "its just a matter of spelling and word order."

Well,
is CHANGING the words of GOD himself at the baptism just a matter of spelling and word order?

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"


What about the resurrection ending being MISSING from the original G.Mark?
Is that a matter of spelling and word order?

We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it.

Rubbish.
Look at the ending of G.Mark in a modern Bible -
they admit to TWO or THREE endings (and a fouth is known too.)

The ending of Mark contains the original resurrection scene -
and its MISSING from the earliest MSS.

This is not a minor issue of spelling and word order -
its the RESURRECTION itself being MISSING from the original core story.

7q5 is almost certainly the gospel of Mark 6:52-53 and was found in Qumran, which dates it at about 68 AD.

Nonsense.
Note well : its called 7Q5, NOT "P-something"
That means that NT scholars have NOT issued this MSS with a P number,
because it is NOT considered a NT MSS.

The only person who thinks so, is Kirsten Thiede - a crackpot whose theory has been soundly demolished (the MSS does NOT match the NT, it has letters that do NOT fit.)

Also, keep in mind the NT original documents were written between 50 AD and 95 AD.

False.
Some NT works are dated as late as 150.

According to modern NT scholars :
Not one single NT book was written by anyone who met Jesus.
Yes, thats right.
Paul never met Jesus,
the writers of the forged letters Peter, John, James, Jude - never met Jesus.
Mark never met Jesus, the other 2 copied from him, John is far too late.

The entire NT story is legendary, not supported by any evidence or witnesses.

Yet no scholars deny the accuracy or authenticity of these books. In comparison, we can appreciate how wealthy the NT in MSS attestation. The accuracy and the authenticity of the NT is so much better ‘attested to’ than any of these works. If anyone says otherwise, it can only be on the basis of a hostile worldview and not the clear verdict of the facts.

Sadly,
you share a fundamental misunderstanding of many apologists -
that the attestion of MSS somehow validates the CONTENT.

How can you believes this is true?

Consider the Book of Mormon -
we have the ORIGINAL MSS - that means its attestion is 100% PERFECT.
Therefore, according to your view, this makes it TRUE !
Do YOU agree that the BOM is TRUE?

Consider Gone With the Wind -
we have the ORIGINAL MSS - that means its attestion is 100% PERFECT.
Therefore, according to your view, this makes it TRUE !
Do YOU agree that Gone With the Wind is TRUE?

Please Bart007, THINK about this for a moment.
What does the ACCURACY of the MSS have to do with the TRUTH of the CONTENTS?

Suppose we found the ORIGINAL copy of Homer's Odyssey -
would you say that made it all TRUE?

No,
of course not.

So,
why on earth to you think having accurate MSS of the NT has ANYTHING to do with the truth of its contents?

Have you even THOUGHT about that at ALL?
It appears not.

It is possible to reconstruct the entire NT, except for 11 versus from the letters of John: 2 & 3, from the pre-Nicene (325 AD) quotations of the early church Fathers.

I do NOT believe you.
If YOU believe this is true, then PRODUCE the evidence -
SHOW ME where some scholar has reconstructed the entire NT (less 11 verses) from pre-Nicean quotes.
Christians frequently repeat this claim, but never support it with evidence.

Can you show us all this re-contruction you mentioned?


Iasion