My criticism of the lack of historicity even holds for something as common the bible. Looking specifically at the new testament, we can see these lists of documents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings

List of New Testament papyri

List of New Testament uncials

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

List of New Testament Latin manuscripts

Of the papyri, we read:

> Before 1900, only 9 papyri manuscripts were known, and only one had been cited in a critical apparatus (𝔓11 by Constantin von Tischendorf). These 9 papyri were just single fragments, except for 𝔓15, which consisted of a single whole leaf.[3]

So we only have 9 fragments from before 1900 - and we are talking about fragments - not even whole pages! Is that not amazing?

> Among the most important are the Chester Beatty Papyri

When I look at that page I read:

> The papyri were most likely first obtained by dealers in illegal antiquities. Because of this, the exact circumstances of the find are not clear. One account states that the manuscripts were in jars in a Coptic graveyard near the ruins of the ancient city of Aphroditopolis. Other theories have proposed that the collection was found near the Fayum instead of Aphroditopolis, or that the location was a Christian church or monastery instead of a graveyard.[4] Most of the papyri were bought from a dealer by Alfred Chester Beatty, after whom the manuscripts are named, although some leaves and fragments were acquired by the University of Michigan and a few other collectors and institutions.[3]: 118

That's hardly a solid provenance. And then:

> The papyri were first announced on November 19, 1931,

1931 is when we actually hear about these papyri.

If work down the lists of sources, perhaps the uncials ("written on parchment or vellum") will be better...

> New Testament uncials are distinct from other ancient texts based on the following differences:

> New Testament papyri – written on papyrus and generally more ancient

"More ancient"?? Good god! We have just read that there were only 9 fragments before 1900!

> In 1751, New Testament theologian Johann Jakob Wettstein knew of only 23 uncial codices of the New Testament.[1] By 1859, Constantin von Tischendorf had increased that number to 64 uncials, and in 1909 Caspar René Gregory enumerated 161 uncial codices. By 1963, Kurt Aland, in his Kurzgefasste Liste, had enumerated 250, then in 1989, finally, 299 uncials.

The uncials page references the Codex Sinaiticus. Ok, what of its provenance?

> The Codex may have been seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in Egypt. His diary was published in 1879

"may have been seen". Then we read:

> German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[15]: 313 although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves.

So, in 1846 he does NOT mention this document. Then in 1860 he "wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript" and his 1844 discovery! So in 1860 we get some story about finding the document in a waste basket in 1844.

BTW, papyrus oxyrunchus - another foundational biblical document - is also found in a rubbish dump - in 1897 - by Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Hunt

> Since 1898, academics have collated and transcribed over 5,000 documents from what were originally hundreds of boxes of papyrus fragments the size of large cornflakes.

"cornflakes".

On Grenfell's wiki page, we can read:

> His mother, Alice Grenfell, was living with him after his father died in 1897. She took a great interest in Egyptian Scarab shaped artifacts. She taught herself to read hieroglyphics. She published her own papers and a catalogue of the scarab collection belonging to Queen's College.[1]

> In 1908, he became professor of papyrology at Oxford and was part of the editing team of The Oxyrynchus Papyri and other similar works. However he was ill for four years and during that time the professorship lapsed. Grenfell was cared for by his mother and he had recovered by 1913.[1] In 1920 he travelled to Egypt for the last time in his life and bought P.Ryl. III 457 (𝔓52), the earliest surviving witness of the Greek New Testament.

His mother was self-taught, he then "finds" the papyri. Is it possible he himself placed them there? Or even created them with his mother while at Oxford? On Hunt's page we read:

> In 1913 he became Professor of Papyrology at Oxford succeeding to his lifelong friend and colleague Grenfell, whose professorship lapsed due to the latter’s breakdowns and depression.

So, Grenfell was depressed.... perhaps he had a guilty conscience?

Anyway - ignoring my impossible to verify suppositions, my main point is that you can go on and on, and round and round attempting to find a real source. Its like a game of Chinese whispers, but you can never break out of the chain. Eg uncials are useful, but papyri are more ancient. Except that the papyri were found in the last 150 years. And are foundational. Except that uncials are older.

I'll leave it there - but I have done this before. Yes, I can imagine that some document materials were re-used. But it surely can't be that there are no ancient sources of the bible at all!! That the oldest we can go to is to late 19th century and cornflake sized fragments. But that is the provenance!

If you read this differently, feel free to correct me!