“I am familiar with the work of the INTF. While it is true that the INTF have discovered nearly 5800 New Testament manuscripts that does not mean that they have 5800 complete New Testaments dating to the late first century.”
I did not call them complete, or claim that they date as far back as the first century. I called it a strong record for the New Testament, due to the sheer number that have been discovered.
“There are only partial remnants of writings dating to the late second and early third centuries which not surprisingly contain texts not in the canon of Scripture.”
So, which of those non-canonical texts were Ignatius and Polycarp quoting as scripture, in the late 1st and into the second century, since everyone back then, apparently, couldn’t tell the difference between Matthew and the Gospel of Thomas?
By the way, have you actually READ the Gospel of Thomas or any of the Gnostic works? Thomas, as an example, literally copies straight from Matthew (out of context) and changes the wording and the sense slightly to make gibberish statements, which conclude that women cannot go to heaven until God turns them into men (because they’re cursed). Others retell Genesis, having 365 angels piecing together Adam one organ at a time, with Cain and Abel making an appearance as animal-faced children of the Demiurge. In still others, they imagine a whole pantheon of various other gods, and a Jesus who didn’t die on the cross.
But, apparently, since no one knows anything outside of the Roman Catholic Church (which still didn’t exist yet), the strong difference between the New Testament scripture and the Gnostic works was just too difficult for anyone who read the two.
There is only one letter of St. Polycarp surviving (Letter to Philippians) in which he states that he does not know what the Scripture is and certainly gives no Table of Contents of the New Testament: "For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted."
St. Polycarp does use the same phrases as are used in Scripture, but since they both proceeded from the same oral Tradition it is to be expected.
Similarly, Iraneaus uses phrases found in 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Does that mean that the other six books were invalidly included in canon and everything else he wrote is indicative of some other source? After all, Jesus quoted the Deuterocanonicals more than any other Old Testament books.
Peace be with you