Perhaps the earliest piece of (NT) Scripture surviving is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33 and 37. It is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52) and dates from 130 A.D., having been found in Egypt. The Rylands Papyrus has forced the critics to place the fourth gospel back into the first century, abandoning their earlier assertion that it could not have been written then by the Apostle John.(Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Handbook (Chicago: Moody Press, 1967), 892.)<quoted text>
That is because many of my statements are common knowledge among thre learned.
There are not even fragments of a single Bible document earlier than 150 AD and even that is questionable.
The majority view is that at least seven of Paul's leters are genuine. The opinion on Thomas is divided although paleopghraphy indicates that it is much earlier than Biblicl gospel.
The majority view also holds that Mark is earlier than Matthew, Matthew is earlier than Luke/Acts and that Luke/acts were written after Paul's death as well as being earlier works than John.
BTW, the destruction of the Temple is NOT an indicator of the age of a christian document. It is like saying Abraham Lincoln lived before 1812 because he doesn't mention the burning of Washington in the Gettysburg address.
(NT) added by me for clarification.
Source, author, publisher, year and page of evidence which contradicts your claim of 150 A.D. which is not substantiated.
So what about the many of your statements which are not common knowledge among the learned? Still, you and others here post things that I'm sure are copy and paste and are rarely properly annotated.
I'm just saying that you seem to post as if you are the authority and no one else has any credibility. From what I gather, there are many here who are as credible, and even more credible than you and your unnamed sources of the learned.
BTW, Happy New Year.