Robert said
Coimbra, who are you quoting here? Please cite your sources. I would not trust that dating of P66 to 110-150 CE. I’ve seen recent discussions of expert paleographers discussing whether or not P66 should be dated to the third or fourth century.

Nongbri has articles on the dating of both P66 as well as P75:

Brent Nongbri, “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P. Bodmer II (P66),” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014): 1-35.

Brent Nongbri, “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” JBL 135.2 (2016): 405-37.

You really should check out his blog. He’s a very friendly and helpful scholar.   

Hello Robert, 

This is not my publication, thus, it is not me who should be providing the source or some sort of quotations.  I have read this posting in another Forum Discussion at Facebook. 

Robert said
If you’re the one quoting someone here, why wouldn’t you want to tell us whom you are quoting? But, no worrys, perhaps we can begin a source-critical study.

Well, let’s see. This paragraph of yours, based upon your Facebook source:

Michael Kruger talks about the widespread nature of this evidence, “What we find is incredible uniformity across the board for the titles of these gospels, Matthew’s Gospel is called ‘Matthew’; Mark’s is called ‘Mark’. It is amazingly consistent, something we would not expect if the titles were added later.”[5]

is very similar to this paragraph from ** you do not have permission to see this link **:

Michael Kruger speaks about the universal nature of this evidence, “What we find is incredible uniformity across the board for the titles of these gospels, Matthew’s Gospel is called ‘Matthew’; Mark’s is called ‘Mark’. It is amazingly consistent, something we would not expect if the titles were added later.”5

Likewise, this same putative source has this paragraph:

In the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, two of our earliest codices from the fourth century,
the name Matthew, Mark, Luke or John appears at the beginning and end of their respective gospels
exactly as we would expect according to the custom of that time. It is the same for the two earliest fragments of the gospels that have a section of the manuscript with a name, p75 and p66.

which is somewhat expanded by your Facebook source:

In the Codex Sinaiticus (330-360 C.E.), the Codex Vaticanus (300-330 C.E.), two of our earliest and most trusted codices, and the Codex Alexandrinus (400-440 C.E.),
the name Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are found at the beginning and at the end of their particular gospels
precisely as one would expect them to be according to the custom of the time. Moreover, we find exactly the same with two of our earliest Greek New Testament papyri manuscripts, P75 (175-225 C.E.) and P66 (110-150 C.E.).

The format of the expansion is already found in this sentence of the potential source:

The earliest actual manuscripts with the author’s name on it are Luke on p75 (c.175-225 C.E.)
and John on p66 (c.200 C.E.).4

and is further expanded and again exaggerated in the Facebook source:

the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts with the Gospel author’s name on it are Luke on P75 (175-225 C.E.)
and John on P66 (110-150 C.E.).[4]

Thus we have not yet found the source of the P66 exaggeration. Is this exaggeration about the date of P66 from the mysterious unnamed Facebook poster? Isn’t source-criticism fun!  

Well, I thought I have quoted the person responsible for this claims. It is a scholar by the name of Edward Andrews (not the actor, though). I Follow him at facebook and here are his degrees (Christian author of 140+ books, Chief Translator of the UASV, has an MDiv., MA, BS, and AA).