200); p77 (2d/3d); p1, p4, p5, p9, p12, p15, p20, p22, p23, p27, p28.p29, p30, p39, p40, p45, p47, p48, p49, p53, p65, p69, p70, p75, p80, p87, p91, p95 (3d); and p13, p16, p18, p72, p78, p92 (3d/4th). 6)In all, something over five thousand witnesses to the Greek New Testament are extant today.Ehrman, The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity, in The Text of the New Testament In Contemporary Research: Essays On The Status Quaestionis, Bart D Ehrman & Michael W. Instead, the Diatessaron was a gospel harmony composed by Tatian (around 170 AD): the distinctive phrases of the gospels were combined by Tatian to produce a single narrative.Where Tatian could not harmonise the accounts, he ignored them (for example, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke).These sources, called "witnesses" to the Diatessaron, range in genre from poems to commentaries, in language from Middle Dutch to Middle Persian, in extent from fragments to codices, A challenge for scholars is to reconstruct the text of the Diatessaron as best they can.Doing so would enable them to gain an idea about the state of the gospel texts during the time of Tatian and may even make it possible to access the text form contained in manuscripts of around the mid-second century.We reproduce the table below but with slight changes so readers can easily understand the data therein: There is no manuscript/fragment of Matthew from the first century. "There is no "portion" of the "original" Matthew in existence nor is there an "immediate copy" of it in existence.This marvellous re-dating of p64 was first proposed by Carsten Thiede, an evangelical freelance academic researcher, who attempted to show that papyrus 64 (known as p64), consisting of containing parts of Matthew 26: 7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31-33 (these tiny scraps do not constitute a "copy" of Matthew! Thiede's arguments are universally rejected by the scholarly community. Holmes, Textual Criticism, in, David Alan Black & David S.
also includes Barnabas and Hermas, while Codex Alexandrinus (A, 02) adds 1-2 Clement.The time gap for the Pauline writings is considerable.Paul wrote sometime in the 40's and 50's and the earliest fragments of his letters are from the late-second to early-third century period (, the earliest witness for 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude, also contains the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the eleventh ode of Solomon, Melito's Homily on the Passover, a fragment of a hymn, the Apology of Phileas and Psalms 33 and 34.Therefore the greenhorn's claim that this fragment dates from "50-60 AD", as if this were an accepted indisputable fact, is nothing short of gross disinformation. Dockery (Editors) Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues, 2001, Broadman & Holman Publishers, p. 11.) John Rylands, also known as p52 - which is the earliest fragment of the New Testament - may be placed anywhere up to around 150 AD.A simple search on the internet would have made it quite clear that Carsten Thiede does not have much of a reputation in the scholarly arena and that his dating of p64 is universally rejected by scholars. The amount of text found on this fragment is hardly of any value in determining how much of the Gospel according to John at this stage agreed with the present canonical version or with any earlier phase. Ehrman says: (it could as easily have been transcribed in 160 as 110).