Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Ichneumonwasp]

If there are reasons why you know the (alleged) current ending was a medieval addition (you again gave no source) why did Irenaeus quote the possible addition in 180 ad.

From the article "Alleged forgery in the Gospel of Mark" by B.A. Robinson.

"One addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus circa 180 CE, 9 and of Hippolytus in the second or third century CE."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mark_16.htm

And even if there was an addition, the gospel "without" the alleged addition "still" reports that the women went to the tomb, found the stone rolled back, found the tomb empty and a man with a long white garment there who frightened them. The man then told them that Jesus has risen and that Jesus would meet the apostles in Galilee.

First, yes, of course Mark's gospel has the women seeing the empty tomb and seeing the angel, and then running away. I don't know anyone who doubts that. That wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not the current ending was original to Mark.

Irenaeus quotes a single line: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God" in Book 3, chapter 10 of Against Heresies.

There is no way to know that this included the entire ending or if it was one of the shorter versions that we don't have in full. We have a few other shorter versions and several of the earliest texts do not include this ending.

That some or part of that longer ending was a second century tradition is doubted by few. We just don't have any copies that have the longer version in them, as far as I know, until the late fourth or early fifth century.

You stated that a scribe would have added this knowing what was true because he was writing soon after the events. Irenaeus wrote 150 years after these events and at least 80 years after the gospel was orignially written. If he is your only evidence, then conjecture that a scribe would have known the events is merely that -- bare conjecture -- and not supported by the facts in evidence.

It would make more sense to conjecture that the original did not contain those lines but that variants arose because scribes did not like the ending. Irenaeus may have come into contact with one of these variants. There is no way to be sure if what he saw included the entire long ending.


ETA:

I notice that you left out the fact that I stated that many think the longer ending was a second century compilation.

 

[six7s]

@Hokulele

So? I can point to Christians who do not/did not believe Jesus was divine.

Please do! Especially if they're True McSaved christians

Thomas Jefferson.

I'm confuzzled...

latimes.com Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Making good on a promise to a friend to summarize his views on Christianity, Thomas Jefferson set to work with scissors, snipping out every miracle and inconsistency he could find in the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

<snippetyScissorySnip/>

The big question now, said Lori Anne Ferrell, a professor of early modern history and literature at Claremont Graduate University, is this:

"Can you imagine the reaction if word got out that a president of the United States cut out Bible passages with scissors, glued them onto paper and said, 'I only believe these parts?' "

"He was a product of his age," said Ferrell, whose upcoming book, "The Bible and the People," includes a chapter on the Jefferson Bible. "Yet, he is the least likely person I'd want to pray with. He was more skeptical about religion than the other Founding Fathers."

In Jefferson's version of the Gospels, for example, Jesus is still wrapped in swaddling clothes after his birth in Bethlehem. But there's no angel telling shepherds watching their flocks by night that a savior has been born. Jefferson retains Jesus' crucifixion but ends the text with his burial, not with the resurrection.

My Google-Fu is weak today... so I'm still wondering....

If Christ wasn't Jefferson's saviour, how was he a True McSaved Christian?

 

[joobz]

Action speaks louder than words.

Attending church is easy and get's one elected to office.
Rewriting the bible to remove "The Crap" is another matter. One that even you noted as being rather significant.

So, do you really wish to continue this line of reasoning?

DOC, I think you've done a great job of proving the bible is in fact a horribly unreliable text.

 

[DOC]

Yes, it was in the link I previously provided.

What was the evidence that it was different?

 

[DOC]

I think because DOC isn't aware of how much diversity there actually is in Greek NT manuscripts.

From the article "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"
By: Patrick Zukeran - probe.org

"However, those who accuse the New Testament of being corrupted have not produced such evidence. This is significant because it should be easy to do with so many manuscripts available. The truth is, the large number of manuscripts confirm the accurate preservation and transmission of the New Testament writings. Although we can be confident in an accurate copy, we do have textual discrepancies. There are some passages with variant readings that we are not sure of. However, the differences are minor and do not affect any major theological doctrine. Most have to do with sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. These in no way affect any major doctrine. Here is one example. In our Bibles, Mark 16:9-20 is debated as to whether it was part of the original writings. Although I personally do not believe this passage was part of the original text, its inclusion does not affect any major teaching of Christianity. It states that Christ was resurrected, appeared to the disciples, and commissioned them to preach the gospel. This is taught elsewhere.

The other discrepancies are similar in nature. Greek scholars agree we have a copy very accurate to the original. Westcott and Hort state that we have a copy 98.33% accurate to the original.{7} A.T. Robertson gave a figure of 99% accuracy to the original.{8} As historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{9}

http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8869

 

[joobz]

As historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{9}

http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8869

The source for that quote is:
9. Quoted by Norman Geisler, General Introduction to the Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 405.
Whom is highly unreliable as a source.

The original quote came from 1940. The full quote is:
"The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”"The Bible and Archaeology, 1940, pp. 288, 289

When taken as a full quote, you can see what keyon was saying. I disagree with him as I do not believe 30-50years difference is "insignificant".

 

[joobz]

My mom didn't go to college until she was in her forties and had a stroke before she finished her last semester. Let's not judge other people's moms for their achievements. Not everyone has the same opportunities and not everyone is cut out for college, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. My mother was born in a shack and it was a bigger accomplishment for her to get in three years of college in middle age than it is for some people to get a Ph D. I know KK seems to provoke the worst in some of us, but let's observe some limits, okay?

Perhaps my agressive tone was not explained well.
I agree. everyone's situation is different and there is NOTHING about getting an education that makes a person better than someone else. Just like there is NOTHING about motherhood that makes one woman better than another.

But you need to reread KK's original post that brought this up. KK originally made a claim to grasp science. I asked her for examples of this. (because I had strong reasons to doubt the claim).
This was her response: (bolding mine)

Oh you would try to put me on the spot now wouldn't you. Hey joobz I finsihed High School and became a young mother by 19 so when I did try to go back to College as a single mom I just couldn't keep up that kind of a schedule. My little girl was more important. So obviously I did not even get to sign up for these science college classes so explaining them isn't an option. I did do pretty well in algebra at the time but I do not remember any of it now since I haven't used it.

[snip]

P.S.Why don't you ask me something pertaining to motherhood or the struggles working/ single moms have that is important? I can tell you alot about this one being a mother of 4. I just wish people would realize moms are important too even if we haven't had a college education. Does your wife work joobz?

Notice the line "my little girl was more important" and the end question. KK was using motherhood as an excuse to avoid my question and an attempt to question the motivations of my wife. Truly, I was greatly offended by the implications of the question.

1. )Mother's who stay home don't do it because they love their kids more or are better mothers than those who work.
2.) Mother's who work are not more serious and/or intelligent and/or liberated than those who stay home.

What my wife does is her choice and her's alone and one that I support regardless of what it is, because I know that it was made with the fullest of love and consideration for our children and our lives.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

From the article "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"
By: Patrick Zukeran - probe.org

"However, those who accuse the New Testament of being corrupted have not produced such evidence. This is significant because it should be easy to do with so many manuscripts available. The truth is, the large number of manuscripts confirm the accurate preservation and transmission of the New Testament writings. Although we can be confident in an accurate copy, we do have textual discrepancies. There are some passages with variant readings that we are not sure of. However, the differences are minor and do not affect any major theological doctrine. Most have to do with sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar. These in no way affect any major doctrine. Here is one example. In our Bibles, Mark 16:9-20 is debated as to whether it was part of the original writings. Although I personally do not believe this passage was part of the original text, its inclusion does not affect any major teaching of Christianity. It states that Christ was resurrected, appeared to the disciples, and commissioned them to preach the gospel. This is taught elsewhere.

The other discrepancies are similar in nature. Greek scholars agree we have a copy very accurate to the original. Westcott and Hort state that we have a copy 98.33% accurate to the original.{7} A.T. Robertson gave a figure of 99% accuracy to the original.{8} As historian Sir Fredric Kenyon assures us, "...the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."{9}

http://www.pointofview.net/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8869

Bart Ehrman would beg to differ with you.

 

[temporalillusion]

And Ehrman doesn't represent some radical, in his books anyway what he writes is common scholarly fodder.

I'd be surprised if even a Christian textual critic would say they have a 98% or 99% accurate to the original copy.

 

[zooterkin]

Action speaks louder than words.

You don't regard the construction of the Jefferson Bible as an action?

 

[Mojo]

I think I already said enough about Jefferson in my 500 posts in the "Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity" thread.

Er, yes. Perhaps you should consider the question "enough for what?"

 

[joobz]

You don't regard the construction of the Jefferson Bible as an action?

No DOC does.

ETA: And it also didn't keep him from spending the time and energy to cut out 990 verses of the bible and put them in a booklet with 83 pages.

It's just now that he realizes that the action represents a keen dislike for the magic in the church, he us hoping to downplay the argument.

As anyone here would know, attending church services is an easy thing to do and one that has certain political benefits.

Editing a book into a coherent document takes time and is hard.

 

[kmortis]

As anyone here would know, attending church services is an easy thing to do and one that has certain political benefits.

This is doubly true for a time period where church was a focal point for social activity.

 

[paximperium]

As anyone here would know, attending church services is an easy thing to do and one that has certain political benefits.

What else is there to do on a Sunday in an 18th century slave holding plantation?

 

[joobz]

What else is there to do on a Sunday in an 18th century slave holding plantation?

Sally Hemings^WP?

 

[Lothian]

Sally Hemings^WP?

Didn’t Doc say something about Jefferson; the bible and morality. I don’t think there is anything in the bible suggesting there is anything morally wrong with having sex with your slave. Even if bible following Christians did think it wrong it would only be a minor offence certainly not as bad as making graven images or collecting sticks on a Sunday.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps my agressive tone was not explained well.
I agree. everyone's situation is different and there is NOTHING about getting an education that makes a person better than someone else. Just like there is NOTHING about motherhood that makes one woman better than another.

But you need to reread KK's original post that brought this up. KK originally made a claim to grasp science. I asked her for examples of this. (because I had strong reasons to doubt the claim).
This was her response: (bolding mine)

Notice the line "my little girl was more important" and the end question. KK was using motherhood as an excuse to avoid my question and an attempt to question the motivations of my wife. Truly, I was greatly offended by the implications of the question.

1. )Mother's who stay home don't do it because they love their kids more or are better mothers than those who work.
2.) Mother's who work are not more serious and/or intelligent and/or liberated than those who stay home.

What my wife does is her choice and her's alone and one that I support regardless of what it is, because I know that it was made with the fullest of love and consideration for our children and our lives.

I don't mean to be over-sensitive and I was aware of the context, it just seemed to be getting out of hand and inadvertently going in a direction that made me uncomfortable. I appreciate you clarifying your position and I agree with your points. Please pass my best Mother's Day wishes on to your wife, she has a lot to be proud of. Happy Mother's Day to you, too, Kathy!

 

[kurious_kathy]

I don't mean to be over-sensitive and I was aware of the context, it just seemed to be getting out of hand and inadvertently going in a direction that made me uncomfortable. I appreciate you clarifying your position and I agree with your points. Please pass my best Mother's Day wishes on to your wife, she has a lot to be proud of. Happy Mother's Day to you, too, Kathy!

Thank You MA, it is a great privlage to celebrate Mothers Day!

But back to the main topic beofre everyone gets in trouble. The New Testament writers did tell the truth. People can argue about it all they want but if you were filled with the Holy Spirit you would know it for yourself.

Can a person know the New Testament is true without being filled with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Hokulele]

But back to the main topic beofre everyone gets in trouble. The New Testament writers did tell the truth. People can argue about it all they want but if you were filled with the Holy Spirit you would know it for yourself.

Can a person know the New Testament is true without being filled with the Holy Spirit?

So, no evidence. There's a surprise.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Thank You MA, it is a great privlage to celebrate Mothers Day!

But back to the main topic beofre everyone gets in trouble. The New Testament writers did tell the truth. People can argue about it all they want but if you were filled with the Holy Spirit you would know it for yourself.

Can a person know the New Testament is true without being filled with the Holy Spirit?

A better question might be, "Can a person know the New Testament is true without being filled with the Holy Spirit?"