Nadir Ahmed

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

Debate Update: Why the Steve Gregg Event Was Called Off

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line Thursday afternoon the last day of January. I can't believe the first month of the year is already over and Time goes by ever faster the older you get but anyway, that's not meant depressingly.

That's just the way it is just a few moments ago I Posted a blog article on the blog if you all want to go see it and the blog article is About the Steve Gregg debate and the fact that As far as a person-to-person debate at Twin Lakes Church on March 30th that has been called off I called it off this morning.

I won't go back over the nine minutes worth of video I just posted but I'll just summarize it became very clear that There was going to be some. That's interesting. There's going to be some issues as far as the church is concerned.

And that's I Do not want to put a church in a situation with a debate on this subject. That would be a problem for them. Since there was offense even over the blog article that I put up. I think it was less than a week ago I know that much Where I noted some statements that Steve Gregg had made about me and Steve has apologized for those.

He indicates they were meant to be taken in a more light-hearted way and but I had posted them on the blog some of the church had seen it and it had caused Quite a stir and I figured if two months out something that Non-offensive and a very tepid in comparison to what would take place during a debate Had caused that kind of a problem that clearly this is not the appropriate context For a debate on this particular subject.

I do not want to cause issues Within the church there and besides that Steve Gregg and I both have well, you're listening to the dividing line he has it's called the narrow path and So we can obviously work out to where We can simulcast, you know, I can call into his his program through our phone lines we can have his program going out through our webcast and both record at the same time and so we are going to find like a week where we can do that and so I don't see anything lost there other than videotaping and I Don't think that's you know necessarily relevant to the issue and we avoid all of the problems of offense for People and so on so forth.

So I put that up on the blog just before the program started would have gotten it up earlier. But it takes a while to upload videos. And even even though my desk units got a fairly decent processor in it You know you the higher quality video you try to go with I even knocked this down a couple So it'd be a little bit faster So it would get done in time to get uploaded to them to the to the program so before the program started, so that's there and I Hope I do not see Anybody saying oh, it's a you just you can't take on Steve Gregg blah blah blah blah.

I Really hope I don't see that. The facts are just so obvious and and I would like to think That that even Steve would try to Nip that in the bud because we are going to do That encounter, and we're just gonna have to do it in a different context that does not quite require as much As many other people involved shall we say so hopefully that will that will work out so I've already got some people Griping and channel because they live up in California, and they're like hey finally and then you know, but I will be up there in May I'll be in In that same neighborhood, I guess for the fire conference, so I'll be speaking up there in in May as I recall.

So you know we'll still get a chance to talk with folks all right with that I Will have to admit this is certainly the most unusual Beginning to a dividing line I've ever seen because I just sat down and Was getting stuff put together here on the laptop that I use for the program here in the studio and the first call Appearing on my on my screen here Is an announcement of something that I had no knowledge of so I'm just going to go ahead and see what happens here and talk with.

Nadir Ahmed on the Debate Rules and the Textual Integrity of the New Testament

Now there Ahmed in Illinois another what's going on? You and James doing all right I See here on my screen Something about the debate what's going on? Yeah?

I wanted to talk to you about the debate challenge which you posed to me on the reliability accepted. And I think we are scheduled for March 21st. Well, I wanted to talk to you because well of course I also want to debate the Quran which is something because of course our website Examine the truth comm is a Islamic debate website.

But I was under the impression that we were just going to debate on the 21st so but if you want to debate both. That's fine with me, but I think I'm going to have to push the date after the March 21st both debate.

Mr.. Ahmed, I've made it very clear in the emails that I am more than happy to defend the Integrity of the text of the New Testament. This week you began attempting to establish rules for the debate that in essence presuppose My inability to stay on a topic and in essence you are asking that Any discussion of the textual history of the Quran?

Be precluded and I said first of all I have done many debates. And I have a documented history that demonstrates that I know what the topic is and I know how to stay on the topic. That's a be. What I said was that any ancient text any written ancient text whether it's the Quran Tacitus the Mishnah doesn't matter what it is if the issue is the consistency of Argumentation being used against the New Testament.

Then I can obviously point to any ancient text whether it's the Quran or any other. As an example of the methodologies that are used in the transmission of a printed text I have not asked you to debate the issue of the Quran.

I have simply said that inserting Unnecessary rules which no other person I've ever debated on any subject in any context has ever demanded or asked for other than you is simply Without any basis since you cannot point to any situation Where I have violated the debate rules and debates I have done.

Then you have no grounds for doing this and so I simply said in my last email Look if you want to debate your assertion that the New Testament is corrupted and as you recall when you came to my church on a Sunday evening You said that you could easily Demonstrate the corruption of the New Testament in about six minutes.

You'll be given at least 20 here, which would be about three times more time than you said that you would need so. What you why you have a problem with that? I do not know. I don't know.

Understanding me. I mean, of course, you know, I'd love to bait to debate both topics. But what I'm saying is it's going to be kind of tough for me to do it all in one topic in one debate. See, the problem is if you're going to challenge the Quran's authenticity and say that there are quote textual variations.

Which is a big lie, of course, then, you know, I'm gonna drop the topic on the Bible I'm gonna challenge you on the Quran and I can't do both in one debate. If you want to debate the Quran or you want to challenge the authenticity of the Quran, let's do it.

Mr Mr. Mr. Ahmed.

All I have said and any Logical and rational person understands what I'm saying and you're not acting logically or rationally here and we are recording this. So I would be very measured in my terminology.

What I have said is that I will defend the integrity of the New Testament and if you use any argument that is inconsistent with any Ancient text that is that would require us to reject the textual integrity of any ancient text including the Quran and if you want to go and if you want to go on record like you just did and Saying that there are no textual variations in the Quran.

I think you just said that I will be glad to provide the photographic evidence that demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. But I'll be that as it be that as it may if you want to use arguments against the New Testament that would demonstrate that the Quran is corrupted then Logically any rational person would want to know that you are using double Standards because the use of double standards is irrational and demonstrates that the person using them has lost the argument.

I have not asked you to defend the Quran against any form of in any debate I have not asked you to do two debates on the subject to say that I have is untrue and of course not only you but I both have all of and mr. Wood all have the emails that have been exchanged and If I have to waste my time posting them I will but I am NOT going to be limited in a debate to Saying well, okay my opponent Just made an argument that would actually contradict his own scriptures, but I can't say anything about it because he made me promise.

I wouldn't. I mean that is absolutely ridiculous sir. No, you're not understanding me. What I'm saying is for this situation. Can we do two debates one on the Quran? One on the Bible so we can see if I'm using a double standard or not, which I believe I will not be doing sir.

We have a situation here where David would and others have arranged our arranging locations. As I understand they already have five debates scheduled. They have room for one other and that would be ours.

Obviously if trying to arrange another debate in another location means more travel means trying to come up with the Shipping of video equipment and everything else and in this period of time That's not a possibility if you want to do other debates.

I've already mentioned to you at the very beginning that there is a debate that I want to do on surah 4 157 and I Already have a context for that and they are willing to do that in September of this year.

So if you will be just but somewhat patient That there will be plenty of time to do as many as we can but the idea of bailing out of March Because of some idea of doing two debates or something like that.

I haven't challenged you to do two debates. I've only challenged you to do one and all I've said is I'm not going to be have Artificial rules placed upon me that says I can't point out double standards.

If you use double standards I'm gonna point it out. If you don't I won't have to. It's just that simple.

Okay, I don't think we're getting anywhere so for this debate. Well, all I'm what I'm trying to say here that if you're gonna raise something about the Quran. Then I got a drop the topic of the car of the Bible and I got to start defending the Quran.

If that's what I have to do on March 21st, then fine. I will do that. I will not be using a double standard. The problem is in your mind. You have been fooled into thinking that there's textual variations of the Quran.

When there is not and I'm saying no there's not so now we're gonna be debating.

Okay, let me let me ask you. Okay, Nadia. Let me ask you something. How can I be fooled in my mind by the photographs of the palimpsest manuscript manuscripts like e 2020 that clearly show the standard forms of textual Emendation that exist in the handwritten copies of the earliest Quran's.

How how what what how does someone? fool me Into seeing that kind of material. Could you could you tell me?

Okay, so you want to debate me on the on this issue right now. Is that what you want?

Okay, you want no sir. You just you said it's a lie and you just made an assertion that I've been fooled into it. So I'm just I'm just asking you what kind of mechanism can fool me Into seeing that kind of textual variation.

I'm just wondering how that works.

All right. Let me go ahead and squash this nonsense, which by the way You've been you know using against Shabir Ali who is a dummy and doesn't defend Islam. And that's why I came to your church to tell you.

Well. Another.

Do yourself a favor Shabir Ali is a well-spoken and intelligent man. And you really standard make yourself look very foolish when you call a man like Shabir Ali a Dummy. Sir that sir. And besides that despite the fact that I obviously have tremendous disagreements with Shabir Ali and I Disagree very strongly with the forms of argumentation that he has used Shabir Ali has never mistreated me during a debate.

He has always been a gentleman and His followers have never written to me calling me a coward and saying I was running away from him either. And so if we're talking about who is a attractive to Islam I just simply point out to you that the person who behaves in a way as Shabir Ali behaves is Significantly more attractive to someone than someone who uses bullying tactics and calls people's names.

Okay?

Well, let me just respond to that very quickly here. Who is going to represent Islam and who Muslims think should represent Islam is not going to be you James white. It's going to be us. Okay, and I can show you several people tons of people.

In fact I talked to Shabir Ali about this who say he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

I mean, excuse me. Keep your language clean, sir. You'll be dropped immediately. Do you understand?

Heck he doesn't know what the heck he's doing. All right. So we're the ones who are going to choose who's going to represent Islam. I talked to him about this. I said dude, what are you doing? You just sit up there and you just let people use you as a punching bag.

Where you won't defend the Quran and you've seen that now in two debate and you're telling me he's such a.

Intelligent guy, yes, sir. Yes, sir. I know sir. Another you are really making yourself look ridiculous here because not a people Jane people Listening to this who have listened to Shabir Ali Are are really wondering right now.

What what color is the sky in your world? Okay. Let me tell you what color it is. Okay. For example inside the New Testament debate you attacked the Quran and said that basically that that Usman Burned the codices.

We don't even know what the original Quran looks like. He doesn't even refute that. He did that in both debates inside and the one which he just recently had with him on the cross. It took someone from the audience to defend the Quran and then he's like, oh, yeah.

Well, you know actually the person in the audience.

Recognized the citation of sahih al-bukhari and recognized that the specific Terminology that I used was taken directly from a citation of sahih al-bukhari and you are certainly aware of that.

Shall I refute the issue about what you're saying that the all the codices of the Quran was burnt by Usman?

Therefore we know what the Quran excuse me I never actually said that. What I said to those who have listened to the debate and who have read sahih al-bukhari Is exactly what the text says and that is that there was a group of people chosen by Usman To gather from a number of different sources from palm leaves from the memories of the qurra from the the shoulder blades of camels And various smooth stones and things like that.

These were the sources that sahih al-bukhari itself lists that were used by these group of men in.

Collating the Quran is that a is that yes, is that true? Okay. Well, let me now address this issue. But is that true? Well, can I explain? It's a simple question. Is that true? Well, is that what sahih al-bukhari says?

Well, yes, I know there's more to it than what you just stated. But it did state that. Well, can I please respond James? Thank you. Okay. First of all, the Quran was preserved by actually a very special miracle.

And this is the miracle of hafiz in a sense that it is possible for a person to memorize the entire Quran from A to Z and Basically lodge the entire book on their head. So that was also another medium which or not just on palm leaves or far, you know.

The other issues which you are mentioning now the thing which you have missed here. Excuse me. Excuse me. Wait a minute.

Another yes, I did. You're calling my program and you you just wandered off from what I just said. Yes, I did mention the qurra. Did I not. Are those not the reciters of the Quran?

Can I please say something here? Now let me show you why the whole issue about when you're bringing up what's mine. Why. That's a nonsensical argument. Okay, because at the time of whatever when what's mine did what he did the entire society had the Quran in their possession.

Really? Yes, and is that what al-bukhari says? Yes, absolutely. So when al-bukhari says that certain certain ayah were found in the memory of only one person he was lying.

Okay. Can I first let me respond to the issue about what's mine burning the text and then I will address the hadith which you just Stated so just let me do one at a time over here. Okay. Okay, so going back to the hadith about about what's mine It is impossible for what's mine to change a Quran when the entire society had it because if you read in Bukhari You you will see that as soon as the Quran ayat was revealed It was given to the vast majority of the people the good the bad the ugly.

So when it's in the hands of the people one person can't change that book. So when you come in your debate and you say oh some or insinuate whether you Articulated it or in exactly this way or not Probably now but this is what you insinuated that the Quran was changed by utman and therefore we don't know what the Quran looked like before it's mine is a Bogus argument.

Okay, so that's what I wanted to correct you on. Okay.

Well, first of all, you obviously do not even understand the presentation.

I've made. Have you read my CRI articles on this subject. Studied so much on this issue. Have you read. Have you read my articles on this subject in the CRI journal? No, I heard your debate.

Okay, actually, I've not debated this subject.

What you mentioned with with Shabir Ali who wouldn't defend it. So so a question in passing.

Okay, so you haven't read the articles. You don't know what I said. All right. Let me see if I can explain here. First of all what I said was that when you have a Revision such as you have in this context that involves the destruction of the preceding material then from a textual critical perspective if that destruction was Completely successful and there is question as to whether it was or even if it took place that particular point in time.

But even if it was successful at that particular point in time what that does it freezes the text at that point? But it precludes the ability to go beyond that point to be able to examine the reality and the perfection of that particular Collation.

I was speaking from textual critical grounds there at that point and I think many people especially Islamic scholars would recognize that that is the case. Secondly you have asserted but have not demonstrated The idea that everyone in the society had memorized the entirety of the Quran.

There is absolutely no basis for this whatsoever. And in fact Sahih al-Bukhari contradicts this because the reason for the collation is the differences in the recitations. Taking place amongst the Muslims they do not want to be like the Christians and Jews and have differences over their text and this leads then to the collation and They were concerned because the death of the Qura in the battle that had just taken place many of them had passed away.

And so they recognized man if we lose any more of these folks we might lose portions of the Quran. So obviously it was not the concept found in Sahih al-Bukhari that everyone in the society possessed the entirety of the Quran.

Well, I think you've thrown a lot of points at me, so let me just tackle one at a time over here. Okay first of all what I said that they had Possession of the Quran there are some people who memorize the entire Quran from A to Z.

There are some people who had maybe 50 lodged in their head or at least to a certain amount. So I didn't say that everybody had memorized the Quran. So I think you're attacking a straw man over there.

But the situation is this which you cannot refute and no one's gonna. It's impossible for anybody to change a book. When the society of people have that and when you look in Bukhari you will see so many examples of even the fukara the poor people.

Memorizing learning and teaching the Quran to others so in that situation. No you can't change the Quran. Okay. Thanks first of all.

It's interesting to me that as I sit here looking at Sahih al-Bukhari Umar has come to me and said casualties were heavy among the Qura of the Quran on the day of the Battle of And I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qura on other battlefields Whereby a large part of the Quran May be lost.

Was Abu Bakr just not as smart as you. Neither.

Well, first of all Abu Bakr is not contradicting anything what I'm saying. He's actually confirming exactly what I'm saying. That this is that this is a time when the Quran was in the hands of the people.

It was never restricted to just a small group of people. Now the thing about Abu Bakr and people like that when they took this action, they were being proactive. They didn't take this action when the problem is, you know spiraled out of control and all of a sudden they're having a shortage.

That's your interpretation that you're imposing on the text. Okay, they never reach to that level. They are not incompetent people. So let me ask you well, let me finish my point here James. So what they're saying is before this becomes a problem.

We don't have enough hafiz or hufaz inside this inside the Muslim world. Let's just take these preventive measures because of course, they're the leaders of society. So no, we've never had a.

The Uthmanic Collection of the Qur'an and the Limits of Textual Criticism

So surah 9 128 through 129 which was found in the memory of only one person. Can you explain how that fits with your theory that.

The Quran was the possession of all people. Sure. I'll go to that Hadith in just a second. But just to summarize what what what my contention was here. What I've shown you is that it is impossible for Uthman to quote change a Quran or tamper with it.

Now whether you were intentionally trying to hint at that. I don't know.

Where have I ever even suggested okay that Uthman edited the material that was there. My question has always been on the viability of the Collection methodology the fact that you have certain surah Certain ayah that are found in the memory of only one person even after the initial collation.

They later they later find another that was in the memory of only one person that had been forgotten. That's exactly. I'll read it if you need me to. And then I have another question if so I think I heard you say that a book could never be changed When it's in the possession of all the people or something like that.

Yeah, so why would you say the New Testament's been changed when it clearly was in the possession of all the New Testament people?

Let me go to the Hadith what you're quoting about, you know, where was in the possession of one person. Then I'll get to the New Testament. Okay, because that's actually we're supposed to be debating New Testament, which is on the 21st.

Okay, but now the Hadith what you're referring to it again. You are imposing your understanding and on this text. First of all the people who I think was they'd who he sent to go and you know. Verify this with each and every verse with other with another person, but he didn't go to the common people.

That was not the min-hedge the methodology of the people of that of that time. They would only go to the scholars and the people of knowledge and that was only in his locality. He never left his locality.

Okay, so what you're imposing on a text is that nobody inside the Islamic world knew of this verse which is not true. It didn't state that if it if this was a situation. They shouldn't you're imposing on the test.

So I started looking for the Quran and collecting it from what was written on palm stalks thin white stones and also from the men Who knew it by heart till I found the last verse of Surat Ataba repentance with I because I'm a Al-Ansari.

And I did not find it with anybody other than him and that verse is and then it is quoted verily. That's common to you a pause an apostle Muhammad from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty till the end of Surat Baraa 9 128 through 129.

Then the complete manuscripts copy of the Quran remained with Abu Bakr till he died then with Umar till the end of his life and then with Hafsa the daughter of Umar. And then it goes on and Talks about what happens when there is a difference amongst people who were quoting the Quran differently.

Hudaifah was afraid of there the people of Shaman Iraq. Differences in the recitation of the Quran. So he said to Uthman Oh chief of the believers save this nation. Before they differ about the book the Quran as Jews and Christians did before so there was a concern.

Why would there be a concern if there was not differences already? Existence. And so Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying send us the manuscripts of the Quran. So we may compile the chronic materials and perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.

Hafsa sent it to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zayed bin Thabit Abdullah bin Aziz Iber Sayyid bin Alas and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraish you men in case you disagree with Zayed bin Thabit on any point in the Quran then write it.

In the dialect of Quraish the Quran was revealed in their tongue. They did so and when they had written many copies Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one Copy of what they had copied and or that all the other Quranic materials whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies be burnt.

Sayyid bin Thabit added a verse From Surat Azab was missed by me when we copied the Quran and I used to hear Allah's Apostle Reciting it. So we searched for it. We searched for it and found it with Kazemi bin Thabit Al Ansari.

The verse was among the believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah. That would be Surah 33 ayah 23 is that one so that one had been missed. Even in the preceding collation of the Quranic Materials and the assertion that I have made from the beginning is not that Uthman was sitting around going.

Let's see. What can we change here? Or what can I take out or put in or anything else? My assertion has been that from a textual critical perspective. The destruction of the preceding materials used to create the collation itself is the exact opposite Concept that we have in the New Testament where Christians are always looking for earlier and earlier Manuscripts and that therefore if he was successful and I think there's reason to believe that he was not but if he was successful.

If there was an Uthmanic revision that took place around 653 AD that that would preclude the kind of textual critical Research that New Testament scholars are so excited about in finding earlier and earlier papyri Manuscripts it would freeze the text at that point and in essence All you could do would be to trace it back to Uthman and not to a period before Uthman and if my understanding is correct, the last of the Apostles was Muhammad not Uthman.

Yes. That's okay, I think everybody else heard it. So what about the New Testament since you had said that. That's a a book that is in the possession of the people cannot possibly be changed. Books such as the Gospel of John the earliest papyri manuscript we have is from around 125 AD.

It's called p52. Which interesting enough from John chapter 18, which is just a little bit after John 14 and 16 where many people try to say The original reading was not parakletos. Parakletos and was a prophecy of Muhammad.

How then could that kind of Change be made in the New Testament if you are being consistent in the assertions you made about the Quran.

Okay. Well, you know you bombarded me with a lot of stuff on on the Quran and I think there's something I got to respond to. At least some of that. I just read. I just read al-bukhari didn't I know. Well, can I please respond to that?

Well, if you want to respond al-bukhari, but don't blame me for bombarding you I'm just letting the listening audience is not read al-bukhari nather.

Well, let me just respond to that so that you know, we're all as clear as mud on what is being stated over there. Okay, this thing that there was that there was was limited to only one person inside the entire Islamic world.

We don't have any evidence for that. Okay, when the scribe was searching He didn't he didn't even leave his locality and he never said that this is only with one person inside the entire Islamic world.

Once again You are imposing that upon a text and that contradicts other hadith Which states very clearly that there were many who fought there are many hafiz meaning People who has memorized the Quran from the beginning to the end.

Okay, and where did the hadith ever say that those individuals were involved in the actual production of Uthman's text?

Oh, yeah, let me just go back to the thing about the scribe. Okay and. So I'm trying to tell you that to sit and say that there was one verse of Quran that was limited to all actually two. People they'd and the other person.

That's not true. Okay, there's no evidence for that.

No, sir, sir. What I said was no, I'm not going to let you misrepresent me, sir. What I said was that the hadith said that for the production of Uthman's copy of the Quran which became the standard There was only one person if you want to say other people knew that verse.

Fine say that but that's irrelevant.

To the production of Uthman's revision. Okay, so you see but here is a problem now then talking about Uthman's revision. Talking about you know, they just finding that one verse none of this Challenges the integrity of the Quran.

Okay, this is all irrelevant. What's we're seeing here is that this is all irrelevant information you're giving me now. I thought you were going to actually challenge the authenticity of the Quran. It's all irrelevant.

Let me let me just make sure everybody in the listening audience knows the key hadith section in the most Respected hadith collection Sahih al-Bukhari. The primary one that deals with the actual collation of the text of the Quran was just said to be irrelevant.

I just want to make sure they caught that because sometimes you might not Hear those things as well. Make sure everyone catches that.

I explained what I was trying to say very clearly. It the issue of trying to say or trying to prove that the Quran is corrupt. This material that you're quoting doesn't prove a squat if someone wants to challenge the integrity of the Quran.

That's what I was trying to refer to. Of course, we respect these hadiths and of course Bukhari is a very reliable source. So anyways having said that you know It's very like I said once the book is in the hands of the vast majority of people and this is and the society has It then one person can change it.

It's impossible to change now when it comes to the New Testament. Which I think is now what you are your second question was. Well, when did we ever have the situation when that when this New Testament was in the hands of the society of people.

And they had it. It was maybe three to four hundred years after Jesus. Really? Yeah. Wow.

So all of those eyewitnesses and the Apostles they just sat around on their hands. They never preached about Jesus. They never traveled all over the world you Paul never actually made it to Ephesus and and Luke never went to Rome and All these far-flung places where eyewitnesses as late as the time of John were preaching and teaching the message of Christ.

They didn't have anything until three or four hundred years later. Is that the idea?

Okay, we'll see everything which you quoted you were restricting the New Testament in the minority of just one or two people but the question which you raised to me is when the society meaning Thousands upon thousands of people have the New Testament the 27 books of the New Testament under why does it have to be the 27?

Books in Utah. Okay. Well, let me now let me just you know finish my point here. That's when I say no, you cannot corrupt the New Testament once it has reached the stage. Okay. Now if you're saying okay.

Well, what about 26 books or what about okay?

No, not neither. What what is what is contained in in manuscript?

P46. P46. I don't know. I'd have to look it up. Okay and manuscript p46 when you look.

Through for example Paul's epistles you find that p46 is a collection of Paul's epistles. Do you have any idea when when that existed when it was written? It's around around the year 200 and already Paul's epistles have been collected into a a single collection of separate books put together in one book of The writings of Paul the Apostle.

This is around 200 and so these books exist first of all in each of the places where his epistles were sent to. So you'd have Ephesus and you have Thessalonica and Philippi and in places like that. And so they're they're far-flung and then they are brought together into one collection.