As for 𝔓52, the J. Rylands Library states: «Recent research points to a date nearer to 200 CE, but there is as yet no convincing evidence that any earlier fragments from the New Testament survive» (the other fragment of Jn is dated to 175 CE though, too late anyway). The Oxyrhynchus fragments have been identified as excerpts from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and Matthew's Hebrew Gospel does not underlie canonical Matthew. I am not interested in what "is now regarded as practically established" or in some "traditional dating" - I am interested in evidence (of which you present none).

@JakeWilson If you are purely looking for evidence, I've already admitted there is nothing of a possible "Original" that we have. Are you seriously just asking the stack exchange? As if archaeology wouldn't blast it into the news if they discovered it.

My question says that I am purely looking for evidence, doesn't it? I am not looking for autographs ("originals"), but something a bit more tangible would be nice.

@JakeWilson All I can find, is that the originals have 15ish times as much supporting evidence as other accepted works from a similar period of time.

These numbers don’t mean anything. Has it never occurred to you that the interest to corrupt the gospel text could be a bit greater than to corrupt Homer’s Iliad?

I did not quite get what allows you to suggest that the original Gospel [of John, I suppose] was written in the AD 50-63 period, but it's likely not that crucial anymore.

@JakeWilson At this point it sounds like you are trying to fish for the answer you want to hear.

@Jake Wilson. Well, had you read my question and how I define "evidence", the correct reply would have been: "No, we do not have any evidence for the existence of four first-century Greek gospels (apart from guesswork & wishful thinking).

Your answer was redundant, all the irrelevant stuff about 4th and 5the century MS, etc. - what does it have to do with the 1st century? Nothing.

You seem upset that the majority of the evidence for the Gospels, is the most reliable we have (other than having an original copy)

So... if I edit the question, and just quote church fathers on the subject of the authorship, would that count?

I can remove all the "this is the most supported historical document in history stuff" if that is truly off topic for you

It is generally not that bad to include additional reasoning for evidence.

Cause I mean... I can quote them. I wish I could submit a 2nd answer xD Oh wait... I can, oooo I'll try that