Above you see the John Rylands P52 Papyrus which dates to about A.D. 125 which is within 40 years of the time of John's writing! Now of course this alone refuted the assertion that we have no mss evidence prior to the 4th century but I was inclined to list even more.
So I also mentioned the Bodmer Papyri P64 and P66 which date to about A.D. 200 and P75 which dates in the early 3rd century as well. Did he change his tune after this? Of course not.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/900c3/900c33837bed8637644ffec2e1712f7cf04c5b22" alt=""
Then I continued along in my quest and mentioned the Chester Beatty Papyrus P45 which dates to the early to mid 3rd century.
Other mss worth noting are P1; P5; P15; P22; P27; P30; P39; P40; P47; P48; P49; P65; P67; P70; P76 (all of which date to the 3rd century). But none of this matters to the Roman Catholic because again, they have a decidedly low view of Scripture.
I have to ask myself why this man would enter into a conversation in which I was defending the doctrines of the Trinity and full deity of Christ and attempt to undercut me by claiming that the mss we possess are of late dates and not original. The only answer I can come up with is so that he could eventually assert the authority of the RCC in these matters. It's not enough to simply deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but the Scriptures themselves must be attacked in order to garner support for the RC position. But what is really frustrating is that even after I listed these various papyri and their dates, this man stuck his fingers in his ears, his head in the sand, and started shouting at the top of his lungs, 'I can't hear you!'
He wouldn't even acknowledge the evidence I presented or attempt to check into it. His next argument was that no gospel was accepted before A.D. 140! Well of course this was false as well (and also quite beside the point, especially for the RC who had no canon until Trent in the 16th century!) Paul's conflates two quotes, 1 from the LXX (Ou phimōseis boun aloōnta, Deut. 25:4) and one from Luke's Gospel (ho ergatēs tou misthou autou, Lu. 10:7) in his first epistle to Timothy (1Tim. 5:18) which dates between A.D. 55-63. So we have a New Testament example from the early first century that the gospels were accepted before A.D. 140!
But I also asked him if he was familiar with Papias and when he wrote. He refused to answer the question which of course means no. Scholars date the fragments of Papias which are preserved in Eusebius' Church History to around A.D. 100. Papias acknowledged Mark as "the interpreter of Peter, [who] wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered" (Papias, "Fragments VI" in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (Christian Literature, 1885; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, rpt. 2004), 154-55.) So his argument fails on Patristic evidence as well.
It can also be added that Ignatius and Polycarp accepted the gospels prior to A.D. 140 but that woudn't matter either because when one is stuck in their tradition they seem to want to stay stuck no matter what. I can only hold Scripture in the highest esteem and praise God for the Word that he has given me! These words seem fitting, “O God, I praise your word. Yes, LORD, I praise your word.” (Ps. 56:10, NLT)