Why We Use The KJV

[RAdam]

Well,I can sit over here and say that. When you say NT churches -- what time period are you referencing? Are you saying from 70-100 AD for instance? Revelation may not even have been written or at least perhaps copies were not even made and distributed at that point.

Maybe you can you the more general term of Early Church Period. That will give you more latitude and you can move into the following century.

I'm talking about the first century. You, sir, have no idea whether they did or did not have a complete NT. If you wish to act as if you do then go ahead, but you haven't even a shred of proof in your support.

 

[RAdam]

By the way, we aren't talking about personal copies, we are talking about NT churches in the first century having a complete NT. Some of you have chosen to insist they didn't. I would like to see some proof of this. My position is I have no idea if they did or not. I hold that position because I've yet to see proof one way or the other.

 

[preachinjesus]

So, England was flooded with English bibles starting in 1536 and extending through 1575.

Yeah I get that England and Western Europe had a lot of Bibles available in the 1500s, but I contend that the majority of Christians didn't live in England and Western Europe during this or any other time.

Lest we forget Christianity has spread through the world (and is beginning to really impact the far West...or the Americas) at this point.

 

[dwmoeller1]

My position is certainly not completely based upon the use of parchment or vellum. But even a complete papyrus NT would have been quite large; notice I previously mentioned that they were hand written (generally much larger lettering than modern 'large print') in only capital letters. In addition, papyrus was usually only written on one side (the side with the vertical strands being more difficult to write upon, and used primarily for scrolls); parchment was virtually always written on both sides.

If all you are saying is that the NT writings were not all collected in one volume, then I won't bother disputing that. Mostly because its an insignificant detail, IMO - a rabbit trail and red herring. Its the argument that churches did not have access to all the NT writings that I dispute. If you mean the former only, then withdraw from the dispute.

Although I will point out that parchment was not virtually always written on both side. Writing on both sides wasn't used until the codex form started being used. As long as the scroll form was used, writing was only on one side regardless of papyrus or parchment. More significantly, it is certainly not true that at the time of the early church papyrus was usually written only on one side. In fact, as early as the 2nd century there is evidence that the papyrus codex form was the preferred format for Christian writings. Thus the oldest papyrus fragments we have all include examples of the codex form - ie. writing on both sides.

 

[Winman]

I also believe that the "King James Version is the inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God."

It, like all other translations, is vested with derivative inspiration due to the fact that the Hebrew and Greek textforms from which it was translated were the preserved word of God, preserving the inspired nature of the autographs all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.

It is not heresy to believe that translated versions are inspired in the derivative sense. It is only heresy if you append the word "only" to the statement.

The debate here is over the word "inspired". I would rather say that the translated word of God is quick and powerful as the original inspired words were in the original languages. Otherwise we would not see people being converted by these translated scriptures. We do, and so I believe it is evident the translated scriptures carry the power of God and are quick or alive. But I don't know if I would say they are inspired. So, it all depends on exactly how you define the word "inspired".

Now, I personally believe the CT is corrupt, but it does contain the word of God, and this word of God is quick and powerful. It is evident that people are converted through the MVs.

I just believe the RT and the KJB based on the RT is the pure and preserved word of God. I believe you could translate the RT into any language, and if it is done accurately would be the pure and preserved word of God in that language.

 

[dwmoeller1]

It would have been quite costly I would imagine as well as unwieldy.

If some few local gatherings of believers had the resources to have the whole New Testament -- certainly even less individuals had that capability.

I think that most Christians in the first 1300 hundred years did not have an entire New Testament.

I wouldn't dispute that individuals did not possess their own personal copies of the NT. However, its a insignificant point in the debate. The more important question is whether they had access to the complete NT.

 

[preachinjesus]

By the way, we aren't talking about personal copies, we are talking about NT churches in the first century having a complete NT. Some of you have chosen to insist they didn't. I would like to see some proof of this. My position is I have no idea if they did or not. I hold that position because I've yet to see proof one way or the other.

I'll suggest that most NT churches didn't begin to have an idea what the NT canon was going to look like until the mid to late second century.

As a note: Please read E Earle Ellis Making of the New Testament Docments, Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmision, Corruption, and Restoriation and The New Testament Canon, ed. Philip Comfort How We Got the Bible to catch up with where I'm heading here.

My position is that most of the NT documents weren't completed or in circulation until the mid to late first century. Now I do believe they were are complete by the end of the first century.

Given the diaspora of NT churches throughout the Mediterranean region (not to mention in Africa and Asia) and the very autonomous nature of all of these churches it took time to begin circulating the books. To make a long, long story short: I'd suggest that while the Appian Way was a great transit tool that given the circumstances of transmitting (or carrying) the various books of the NT from town to town, from church to church with the accompanying discussion (they didn't have BBoard.com back then) the process to talk about the most basic epistles or Gospels would have been nearly a decade from first arrival to subscription for apostolic and inspired intent.

Now we can see there was a clear canonization process in place, but it really didn't start taking place until the mid to late second century. While the early church was being persecuted they lost many of the manuscripts (including extant documents) to the fires of persecution. This added to the difficulty in bringing together a canon. Additionally, the documents of the NT weren't just written and an angel delivered them to the church...they were amongst a lot of writings going on at the time. Some heretical, some helpful, only a few inspired.

In this process lots of canon lists were appearing, being discussed and considered. Given the primitive nature of communication and transportation of this age it is impossible to suggest that every (or a majority...or any) early NT church had a complete copy of the NT and OT together.

The Muratorian Canon, c. AD 200, is the first official canon list, but it leaves out of some books of the NT we accept. It isn't around until late second century.

Its just not feasible to suggest early church had physical copies of the canon by the end of the first century. This stuff took time to write, copy, transmit, consider, and agree on.

 

[dwmoeller1]

I'll suggest that most NT churches didn't begin to have an idea what the NT canon was going to look like until the mid to late second century.

As a note: Please read E Earle Ellis Making of the New Testament Docments, Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmision, Corruption, and Restoriation and The New Testament Canon, ed. Philip Comfort How We Got the Bible to catch up with where I'm heading here.

My position is that most of the NT documents weren't completed or in circulation until the mid to late first century. Now I do believe they were are complete by the end of the first century.

Given the diaspora of NT churches throughout the Mediterranean region (not to mention in Africa and Asia) and the very autonomous nature of all of these churches it took time to begin circulating the books. To make a long, long story short: I'd suggest that while the Appian Way was a great transit tool that given the circumstances of transmitting (or carrying) the various books of the NT from town to town, from church to church with the accompanying discussion (they didn't have BBoard.com back then) the process to talk about the most basic epistles or Gospels would have been nearly a decade from first arrival to subscription for apostolic and inspired intent.

Now we can see there was a clear canonization process in place, but it really didn't start taking place until the mid to late second century. While the early church was being persecuted they lost many of the manuscripts (including extant documents) to the fires of persecution. This added to the difficulty in bringing together a canon. Additionally, the documents of the NT weren't just written and an angel delivered them to the church...they were amongst a lot of writings going on at the time. Some heretical, some helpful, only a few inspired.

These are valid points.

In this process lots of canon lists were appearing, being discussed and considered. Given the primitive nature of communication and transportation of this age it is impossible to suggest that every (or a majority...or any) early NT church had a complete copy of the NT and OT together.

The Muratorian Canon, c. AD 200, is the first official canon list, but it leaves out of some books of the NT we accept. It isn't around until late second century.

Its just not feasible to suggest early church had physical copies of the canon by the end of the first century. This stuff took time to write, copy, transmit, consider, and agree on.

These, not so much. The feasibility argument is problematic, at best. If an organizing principle were at work and the motivation in place, then there is no reason to believe that the difficulties you mention couldn't be over or weren't overcome.

 

[TCassidy]

Yeah I get that England and Western Europe had a lot of Bibles available in the 1500s, but I contend that the majority of Christians didn't live in England and Western Europe during this or any other time.

Lest we forget Christianity has spread through the world (and is beginning to really impact the far West...or the Americas) at this point.

What history books have you been reading? Europe was almost exclusively Christian during this time period. Most of the mid-east was firmly in the control of the Muslims under Suliman during most of the 16th century.

 

[preachinjesus]

These are valid points.

Thanks...they aren't mine so much as the conglomeration of the works I cited.

These, not so much. The feasibility argument is problematic, at best. If an organizing principle were at work and the motivation in place, then there is no reason to believe that the difficulties you mention couldn't be over or weren't overcome.

But there isn't any evidence that the process was expedited until Marcion showed up and started bugging people until the mid-second century. In examining the various documents of the era we just don't have anything to lead us to believe that the early church was able to increase the process since this stuff had to be handwritten and transmitted slowly.

Frankly amongst scholars who talk about this stuff I'm the generous one in my dating. The Muratorian Fragment is helpful but doesn't satisfy the larger issues. In fact in the canonization process it is a rare piece of that era that identifies most of the NT books. Other canon lists contemporary to it and leading up into the Synod of Carthage in 397 (the formal canonization council) including and excluded all kinds of books. While the early church, specifically isolated to the immediate Mediterranean region, and even more particularly those communities located on the Med-rim, could have had agreement about the books the evidence available seems to suggest they were still discussing well into the third and fourth centuries.

This is a good conversation and I appreciate your points. I hope I'm not sounding overly dismissive of them. :saint:

 

[preachinjesus]

What history books have you been reading? Europe was almost exclusively Christian during this time period. Most of the mid-east was firmly in the control of the Muslims under Suliman during most of the 16th century.

Look at the historical world population and dig deeper into Christian history. How often do we forget that much of Russia was Christianized by the Eastern Orthodox Church with significant penetration into Asia (though that encounter with Genghis Kahn was not helpful.) There was a strong church in eastern Africa and proliferating into the western part of Africa. The Christian church in Ethiopian specifically was very strong and impacted the region significantly. Western Europe did have a significant amount of people living there, but it was on par with population growth in Asia, Africa, and other, accessible, regions.

While the Eastern Church had its encounters with the Turks and Mohammedans which reduced its influence in the Middle East there was still a significant presence elsewhere.

Western Europe wasn't the only place Christians lived. Now if Christianity is only Protestants than you've got a really big problem from AD 333 until 1517. The Church grew in all of these eras and in many regions.

Let's say in the 1500s, Western Europe was almost exclusively Christian than that population was 60 million. This is after the affects of the plague had ravaged the countryside. The population of Asia and Africa at this stage is about 200 million. These are populated areas with access to other parts of the world.

As the Christian Church existed in these regions it did so in the midst of turmoil but it also had some significant expansions. A really good study is the growth of the Church in Asia in spite of the persecutions and torments from pagans.

It is reasonable to suggest that the majority of Christians in this era didn't live in Europe.

as an aside: I'm pretty confident saying, given present population trends and education rates, that the majority of Christians have never owned their own copy of the Bible. Given than most Christians have lived (or do live) in 2nd and 3rd world regions where illiteracy and poverty are rampant this isn't so far fetched.

 

[RAdam]

I'll suggest that most NT churches didn't begin to have an idea what the NT canon was going to look like until the mid to late second century.

As a note: Please read E Earle Ellis Making of the New Testament Docments, Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmision, Corruption, and Restoriation and The New Testament Canon, ed. Philip Comfort How We Got the Bible to catch up with where I'm heading here.

My position is that most of the NT documents weren't completed or in circulation until the mid to late first century. Now I do believe they were are complete by the end of the first century.

Given the diaspora of NT churches throughout the Mediterranean region (not to mention in Africa and Asia) and the very autonomous nature of all of these churches it took time to begin circulating the books. To make a long, long story short: I'd suggest that while the Appian Way was a great transit tool that given the circumstances of transmitting (or carrying) the various books of the NT from town to town, from church to church with the accompanying discussion (they didn't have BBoard.com back then) the process to talk about the most basic epistles or Gospels would have been nearly a decade from first arrival to subscription for apostolic and inspired intent.

Now we can see there was a clear canonization process in place, but it really didn't start taking place until the mid to late second century. While the early church was being persecuted they lost many of the manuscripts (including extant documents) to the fires of persecution. This added to the difficulty in bringing together a canon. Additionally, the documents of the NT weren't just written and an angel delivered them to the church...they were amongst a lot of writings going on at the time. Some heretical, some helpful, only a few inspired.

In this process lots of canon lists were appearing, being discussed and considered. Given the primitive nature of communication and transportation of this age it is impossible to suggest that every (or a majority...or any) early NT church had a complete copy of the NT and OT together.

The Muratorian Canon, c. AD 200, is the first official canon list, but it leaves out of some books of the NT we accept. It isn't around until late second century.

Its just not feasible to suggest early church had physical copies of the canon by the end of the first century. This stuff took time to write, copy, transmit, consider, and agree on.

All I see there is a bunch of theorizing. You assume one thing, then based on that assumption you assume something else, and so forth. Finally you reach the conclusiong that it isn't feasible to suggest the earth church had physical copies of the canon by the end of the first century. In all of that post you didn't provide one shred of evidence, just a bunch of baseball conjecture. Again, you nor I know if the early churches had the complete NT in hand. All you and I can possibly do is come up with conjecture that is based on nothing more that mere supposition. To make an argument against the early churches having a complete copy in the first century, then, is totally and completely a waste of time and is without any basis.

 

[dwmoeller1]

But there isn't any evidence that the process was expedited until Marcion showed up and started bugging people until the mid-second century. In examining the various documents of the era we just don't have anything to lead us to believe that the early church was able to increase the process since this stuff had to be handwritten and transmitted slowly.

Give me a mathematical analysis and I might be more receptive to such reasoning. As it stands though, it appears to rely on an argument from silence. Plus, I can't really tell what assumptions are at work.

Furthermore, I am trying to make a distinction between what is probable and what is possible. You give good points for the improbability, but seem to conclude the probability approaches so close to zero as to effectively be impossible. I am willing to accept that it is unlikely, difficult or improbable, but avoid the conclusion that it was impossible (or nearly so). Of course, the same holds true for any arguing that the churches almost certainly did have access to complete copies. In short, neither side can use this as support or negation.

This is a good conversation and I appreciate your points. I hope I'm not sounding overly dismissive of them. :saint:

Agreed.

Not at all.

 

[preachinjesus]

All I see there is a bunch of theorizing... To make an argument against the early churches having a complete copy in the first century, then, is totally and completely a waste of time and is without any basis.

Well no its not.

You just don't get to stand up and say "Oh I think all of the churches in the whole wide world had physical copies by the end of the first century" and when anyone offers reasonable argumentation against that say "You've got no evidence."

In this era, evidence is hard to come by in any direction. What you do is utilize analysis of the processes and systems available to draw conclusions. This is what historians do.

Show me one shred of evidence that these churches were using completed copies by AD 100 and I'll bite. But you can't, and I know you can't because I've done a tremendous amount of work on this topic.

The earliest recorded documents of the NT date back to not AD 34 or even the end of that decade but later. Here's a list of the dates (very charitable ones at that) that I've constructed utilizing various resources (note my reference list in the above post):

Four Gospels
Matthew...55-75
Mark...50-70
Luke...59-75
John...53-85

Acts (of the Apostles)...63-70

Pauline Letters
Romans...57
1 Corinthians...55
2 Corinthians...57
Galatians...53
Ephesians...60
Philippians...61
Colossians...60
1 Thessalonians...51
2 Thessalonians...52
1 Timothy...63
2 Timothy...66
Titus...63
Philemon...60

Hebrews...65-70

Catholic Epistles
James...63
1 Peter...65-68
2 Peter...65-68
1 John...85-95
2 John...85-95
3 John...85-95
Jude...65-80

Revelation (of John)...95 (footnote on all these: check Metzger's texts and a number of others about this and you'll see a growing consensus about these dates. These are accepted dating. Show me legitimate info otherwise and I'll consider it. )

Now these texts were written all over the place. The authors didn't just sit in Jerusalem and write them in a big ole room. They were in Rome, Turkey, Africa, Palestine, etc. All over the place. So they had to get them out there. It took time.

The earliest recorded non-canonical reference to a book of the NT comes out of Matthew and is recorded by Ignatius' work Epistle to the Smyrnaeans c. AD 120. Authorship isn't mentioned until Papias c. AD 140. These guys aren't writing while holding a big ole copy of the NT next to them. They've got documents and texts that are in conversation and discussion. It isn't an easy process. (BTW, this is all fact and evidence)

Then take the documents from the first three ecumenical councils starting with Nicaea in AD 325. You'll see these guys are still wrestling with what's in and what's out for the NT canon. Its not set and wasn't set. There is a lot of consternation about Marcion's canon and then Arius. You've got a dynamic process here.

If you want more evidence go over to CCEL.org, get a subscription, and start reading the documents from this era. They throw in stuff from Hermas and the Didache and treat it as Scripture. Its a big ole mess but it got resolved.

Your contention is just silly. Its not possible. Read the stuff I've supplied above and check these books out, don't just sit in your room and fire off statements like that above. I'm not going to sit down and rehash my dissertation for you because its not a good use of my time.

 

[preachinjesus]

Give me a mathematical analysis and I might be more receptive to such reasoning. As it stands though, it appears to rely on an argument from silence. Plus, I can't really tell what assumptions are at work.

I don't know how to do mathematical analysis of this but here's a list of the earliest, most useful, copies of canons. All of this stuff is checkable in either Ellis or Metzger's works above or you can hop over to CCEL.org for it.

Now the early versions of the NT are as follows (all of these can be checked by Metzger's NT Canon):

Muratorian canon, date late-200,
accepted
four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: 1 Cor, Eph, Phil, Col, Gal, 1 Thess, Rom, 2 Cor, 2 Thess, 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus, Philemon
Catholic Epistles: 1-3 John, Jude
Revelation of John
Revelation of Peter (some accept)
Wisdom of Solomon
rejected:
Shepherd of Hermas (though worthy of reading)
Revelation of Peter (some say private reading only)
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans (forgery)
Paul's Epistle to the Alexandrians (forgery)
Nothing from Arsinous, Valentinus or Miltiades (all Marcionites)

Canon of Origen, date early 200
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Revelation of John
Catholic Epistles: 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter, Hebrews
Pauline: 2 Cor, Romans

Canon of Eusebius of Caesarea, date early 300
accepted
4 Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: all 13 above listed
Catholic: 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, James, Jude, Hebrews
Revelation of John
rejected/spurious
Apocolypse of Peter
Epistle of Barnabus
Teachings of the Apostles
worthy of reading, not canonical
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Matthias
Acts of Andrews
Acts of John

Canon insert in Codex Claromontanus, date uncertain
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: Rom, 1-2 Cor, Gal, Eph, 1-2 Tim, Titus, Col, Phile
Catholic: 1-2 Peter, James, 1-3 John, Jude
Epistle of Barnabus
Revelation of John
Revelation of Peter
The Shepherd of Hermas
Acts of Paul

Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, date c. 350
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Catholic Epitsles: all of James, Peter, John, and Jude
Pauline: All, includes Hebrews in Pauline
rejected
Gospel of Thomas (Manichean gospel)

Cheltenham Canon, date c 360
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts
Pauline: all 13
Revelation of John
Catholic: 1-3 John, 1-2 Peter

Canon approved by Snyod of Laodicea, date c. 363
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts
Catholic Epistles: all of John, James, Jude, and Peter
Pauline: all 13 plus Hebrews

Canon of Athanasius date c. 367
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Catholic: all listed
Pauline: all listed (includes Hebrews with Paul)
Revelation of John

Canon approved by 'Apostolic Canons' date c 380
accepted
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: all 13 plus Hebrews
Catholic: all seven
two Epistles of Clement
for private reading
Constitutions of Clement (all 8 books)

Canon of Gregory of Naziazus date: mid-300
accepted:
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: all 13 plus Hebrews
Catholic: all 7

Canon of Amphilochius of Iconium date post-394
accepted:
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: all 13 plus Hebrews
Catholic: all 7
Revelation of John

Canon approved by Synod of Carthage date c. 397
Four Gospels + Acts (of Apostles)
Pauline: all 13
Catholic: all 7 plus Hebrews
Revelation of John

This is the forma canonization process. I contend that the early churches had the NT at various levels by the end of the second century but they also had other documents. Some of them would have been missing documents and others would have been using documents.

The "Bible" of the early church was the Old Testament. These new documents began being accepted but their proliferation and acceptance took time.

Furthermore, I am trying to make a distinction between what is probable and what is possible. You give good points for the improbability, but seem to conclude the probability approaches so close to zero as to effectively be impossible. I am willing to accept that it is unlikely, difficult or improbable, but avoid the conclusion that it was impossible (or nearly so). Of course, the same holds true for any arguing that the churches almost certainly did have access to complete copies. In short, neither side can use this as support or negation.

The probability of a completed NT canon and in the hands of the various churches by the end of the 1st century is nearly zero. They had to handle claims of authorship (remember these guys didn't sign it and notarize it), apostolic authority, accuracy, coherency, dealing with false Gospels, etc. Its so hard to bring these documents together, much less the people, in a situation like this.

I'm willing to accept mid to late second century, but not the end of the first. Most scholars in this area don't accept either and push towards mid to late fourth century. It was a really difficult thing to do, pulling together to NT documents that is.

Really read Ellis its good, good stuff.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The probability of a completed NT canon and in the hands of the various churches by the end of the 1st century is nearly zero. They had to handle claims of authorship (remember these guys didn't sign it and notarize it), apostolic authority, accuracy, coherency, dealing with false Gospels, etc. Its so hard to bring these documents together, much less the people, in a situation like this.

I'm willing to accept mid to late second century, but not the end of the first. Most scholars in this area don't accept either and push towards mid to late fourth century. It was a really difficult thing to do, pulling together to NT documents that is.

Really read Ellis its good, good stuff.

I didn't get that we were limiting it to the 1st century. Clearly, if the dating of Rev is in the mid 90s, then it does becomes a practical impossibility. Not to mention that all the churches before the writing of the last book could absolutely not have had the complete NT (being that it didn't exist yet).

 

[RAdam]

What you fail to grasp is I'm not making an argument for the NT churches having a complete copy of the NT in the first century. I'm not making that argument. The truth is, nobody knows whether they did or didn't, and that is my argument. My argument is against your supposition that they didn't have it. You have no proof, none whatsoever. In absence of such proof, you need to quit making this argument.

You say that without proof you can still draw conclusions, and then you say that is what historians do. I say only the really shabby ones use this practice. Good historians will not take a definitive stand unless they have support.

The other day I was watching a program in which a so-called historian was arguing that Nero didn't set fire to Rome. His argument wasn't based on any proof whatsoever, only on his own suppositions. He just couldn't, in his own mind, see why Nero would set fire to the city. That isn't sound practice for a historian. He was doing exactly what you are currently doing, and that is making assumptions based on nothing and then proceeding to draw conclusions from those assumptions. Then you act as if you've come to a reasonable conclusion. You, however, cannot prove anything.

Without proof, we cannot say much. Did the NT churches have a complete copy of the NT in the first century? I've yet to see any evidence one way or the other. In light of this I must conclude that we don't know if they did or did not. We must remain silent on the issue.

 

[TCassidy]

Look at the historical world population and dig deeper into Christian history.

Been there. Done that. Wrote a book.

How often do we forget that much of

Russia was Christianized by the Eastern Orthodox Church with significant penetration into Asia (though that encounter with Genghis Kahn was not helpful.)

Actually, not. The populated areas of Russia are European and Christian. The Asian areas are sparsely populated and non-Christian (even today).

There was a strong church in eastern

Africa and proliferating into the western part of Africa. The Christian church in Ethiopian specifically was very strong and impacted the region significantly.

Alexandria fell to the Muslims in 640. The Coptic church survived, but only a tiny remnant, and that completely hidden away in fear of Jihad. The Muslims captured Carthage in 698 and Ceuta in 709. All evidence of Christendom disappeared by the 13th century. In fact, in the 15th and 16th centuries the only evidence of Christendom was in Sub-Saharan Africa, mostly in Guinea and other places visited by Portuguese merchant ships.

Western Europe did have a significant amount of people living there, but it was on par with population growth in Asia, Africa, and other, accessible, regions.

Yes, but the Asiatic and African populations were predominately Muslim.

Let's say in the 1500s,

Western Europe was almost exclusively Christian than that population was 60 million. This is after the affects of the plague had ravaged the countryside. The population of Asia and Africa at this stage is about 200 million. These are populated areas with access to other parts of the world.

Yes, and all predominately Muslim until you reach the Indian Sub-continent where you may have found vestiges of the church started by Thomas, but they were in the vast minority. (The same can be said about Chaldean churches in what is now Iraq and Iran. A few but terribly outnumbered.)

It is reasonable to suggest that the majority of Christians in this era didn't live in Europe.

Actually, it is not. History tells an entirely different story.

<Don't ask me why the stupid software is adding extra quotes at initial lines breaks. I have edited them out 3 times and the stupid software keeps putting them back in.>

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Without proof, we cannot say much. Did the NT churches have a complete copy of the NT in the first century? I've yet to see any evidence one way or the other. In light of this I must conclude that we don't know if they did or did not. We must remain silent on the issue.

It is not clear what you would accept as "proof". You have mentioned eyewitnesses before as "proof", but there are certainly no surviving eyewitnesses of many historic things which today we would accept as fact (even though eyewitnesses can also be untrustworthy). Nonetheless, I will place some quotes from my personal library below that lend support to some of my postings (my bold) --

The completed parchment was lighter in color than papyrus and far more flexible. After use, it could be scraped down and used again. Because it was less brittle, parchment was more easily folded. This made it ideal for use in a new form of manuscript which was made up of smaller pages that were bound together - in place of single rolled scrolls. This new form was the codex, or the book as we now it. (The Bible: A History, Miller & Huber 2004, p.87)​

Papyrus is also quite thick and dense, compared with the some of the earliest examples of parchment, and a codex of papyrus is unexpectedly heavy to hold in one's hand. A papyrus book of very large dimensions would have been extremely weighty. (The Book: A History of the Bible, DeHamel 2001, p.49)​

Even had the idea been entertained of making a collection of all the books which now form our New Testament, it would have been quite impossible to have combined them in a single volume, so long as papyrus was the material employed. But in fact the formation of a "New Testament" was impossible, so long as no decision had been reached by the Church to distinguish between the inspired and the uninspired books. (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon 1895, my reprint pgs.94-95)​

Literary works, on the other hand, were written in a more formal style of handwriting, called uncials. This 'book-hand' was characterized by more deliberate and carefully executed letters, each one separated from the others, somewhat like our capital letters. (The Text of the New Testament, Metzger 1964, p.9)​

The number of our New Testament manuscripts is vast, above 5000 in all. All of these, however, are not complete New Testaments. In fact, only a few contain anything like what could be termed a complete New Testament. (p.38). ... The uncial hand, as mentioned above, is represented today in about 375 manuscripts. This number includes about ninety papyri documnets, of which about fifty date to the second to the fourth century. (How We Got the Bible, Lightfoot 1988, p.39)​

I could go on and on. I am not speculating, but reporting what I have read by what appear to me to be the persuasive independent findings of intelligent and diligent investigators.

 

[RAdam]

It is not clear what you would accept as "proof". You have mentioned eyewitnesses before as "proof", but there are certainly no surviving eyewitnesses of many historic things which today we would accept as fact (even though eyewitnesses can also be untrustworthy). Nonetheless, I will place some quotes from my personal library below that lend support to some of my postings (my bold) --

The completed parchment was lighter in color than papyrus and far more flexible. After use, it could be scraped down and used again. Because it was less brittle, parchment was more easily folded. This made it ideal for use in a new form of manuscript which was made up of smaller pages that were bound together - in place of single rolled scrolls. This new form was the codex, or the book as we now it. (The Bible: A History, Miller & Huber 2004, p.87)​

Papyrus is also quite thick and dense, compared with the some of the earliest examples of parchment, and a codex of papyrus is unexpectedly heavy to hold in one's hand. A papyrus book of very large dimensions would have been extremely weighty. (The Book: A History of the Bible, DeHamel 2001, p.49)​

Even had the idea been entertained of making a collection of all the books which now form our New Testament, it would have been quite impossible to have combined them in a single volume, so long as papyrus was the material employed. But in fact the formation of a "New Testament" was impossible, so long as no decision had been reached by the Church to distinguish between the inspired and the uninspired books. (Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Kenyon 1895, my reprint pgs.94-95)​

Literary works, on the other hand, were written in a more formal style of handwriting, called uncials. This 'book-hand' was characterized by more deliberate and carefully executed letters, each one separated from the others, somewhat like our capital letters. (The Text of the New Testament, Metzger 1964, p.9)​

The number of our New Testament manuscripts is vast, above 5000 in all. All of these, however, are not complete New Testaments. In fact, only a few contain anything like what could be termed a complete New Testament. (p.38). ... The uncial hand, as mentioned above, is represented today in about 375 manuscripts. This number includes about ninety papyri documnets, of which about fifty date to the second to the fourth century. (How We Got the Bible, Lightfoot 1988, p.39)​

I could go on and on. I am not speculating, but reporting what I have read by what appear to me to be the persuasive independent findings of intelligent and diligent investigators.

No matter how intelligent and dilligent these investigators may be, they still lack proof and are merely speculating.