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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.

I got the above figures from Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" Pg. 199.

Here is a quote from him on page 199:

"It is apparent the New Testament stands head and shoulders above all other major books of antiquity in 1) the number of corroboratory copies and 2) the proximity of the copies to the original writing. This is of great significance. We readily accept other books of history written by such authors listed above even though documentary confirmation is less substantial and copies are much further removed from the original autographs. We should have significantly greater confidence in accuracy of the transmission over time of the New Testament."
Click to expand...

YEAH, YEAH, Yet another Christian Apologist, was Atheist then went whacko.



Robert
 
DOC said:
This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.

I got the above figures from Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" Pg. 199.

Here is a quote from him on page 199:

"It is apparent the New Testament stands head and shoulders above all other major books of antiquity in 1) the number of corroboratory copies and 2) the proximity of the copies to the original writing. This is of great significance. We readily accept other books of history written by such authors listed above even though documentary confirmation is less substantial and copies are much further removed from the original autographs. We should have significantly greater confidence in accuracy of the transmission over time of the New Testament."
Click to expand...
So much was lost......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

But it is all too easy for some to forget this.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
DOC said:
This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.

I got the above figures from Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" Pg. 199.

Here is a quote from him on page 199:

"It is apparent the New Testament stands head and shoulders above all other major books of antiquity in 1) the number of corroboratory copies and 2) the proximity of the copies to the original writing. This is of great significance. We readily accept other books of history written by such authors listed above even though documentary confirmation is less substantial and copies are much further removed from the original autographs. We should have significantly greater confidence in accuracy of the transmission over time of the New Testament."
Click to expand...
Let me explain my, Nope, answer.

1.) No one claims that ANY of the fanciful accounts in those other texts are real.
2.) There are multiple gospels that exist which contradict the biblical cannon(especially regarding the divinity of jesus). These conflicting stories completely undermine attempts at claiming the accuracies of the stories represented by the gospels.
3.) There are already known examples of forgeries and added text to the gospels. (e.g., ending of Mark.)
4.) It doesn't take much thought to realize that the number of years only matter if we have no other means of detemining the accuracy of copies. Given the fact that there are countless examples of errors in transcription and blantant forgeries, arguments regarding the age of texts is meaningless.
 
DOC said:
And it has already been pointed out that because of the large number of manuscripts (over 5000 in Greek) which can be crossed checked, the text of the Bible is very accurate to the original and none of any possible errors deal with major dogma.
Click to expand...


Well, other than the fact that the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark do not mention anything about anyone seeing a resurrected Jesus.


Oopsie.
 
DOC said:
This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.
Click to expand...

And, as has been pointed out before, no one is using the The Illiad, The Republic, nor Tacitus' historical writings as evidence for anything (other than that there were legends in Greek times, Plato was one of the great philosophers - and btw, his authorship isn't what matters, it's the philosophies and they don't claim to be the only truth - and Tacitus was a historian of the Roman Empire.

See, we realize that these works aren't the originals - and as such, we do not base our perception of events in their respective times as 100% accurate. And, really, The Illiad is as much a work of fiction as The Bible
 
DOC said:
This is normal for ancient writings. We don't even have any signatures of Julius Caesar. But since there are 5700 Greek manuscripts for the New Testament compared to 7 for Plato, 643 for Homer's Illiad, and 20 for Tacitus; and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.

I got the above figures from Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence" Pg. 199.

Here is a quote from him on page 199:

"It is apparent the New Testament stands head and shoulders above all other major books of antiquity in 1) the number of corroboratory copies and 2) the proximity of the copies to the original writing. This is of great significance. We readily accept other books of history written by such authors listed above even though documentary confirmation is less substantial and copies are much further removed from the original autographs. We should have significantly greater confidence in accuracy of the transmission over time of the New Testament."
Click to expand...


You seem to confuse two different uses of the word "reliable". I don't think anyone argues that the books of the New Testament were fairly reliably transmitted, especially in relation to other books of the ancient world. That sense of the term "reliable", however, differs from the way that you seem to want to use it since this is supposedly a thread about how we know that the authors of the New Testament told the truth.

Reliability of transmission does tells us nothing about the reliability of the original as it relates to reality.

There are other significant problems, as have already been mentioned. We know that certain books of the New Testament were changed over time for various reasons. The trivial copying errors are considered significant by no one, but the intentional alterations are. Bart Ehrman, in different texts such as The Text of the New Testament and Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, has documented many of the changes made inadvertantly and seemingly on purpose. There were reasons that certain groups wanted to change some of the sayings in certain gospels, add stories, etc. The same cannot be said for Livy, Tacitus or Herodotus where there is no evidence strongly to suggest that intentional alterations occurred.

In addition, no one takes everything in these other ancient texts completely seriously. Virtually all of them are subject to intense analysis. I don't know of anyone who believes all of Livy's stories. Even Tacitus' claim at the beginning of The Annals -- that he is not subject to the same prejudices as earlier authors -- is not taken seriously. Why would he need to make such a claim unless he did have an agenda? His writing makes clear that he did have an axe to grind in an attempt to denigrate the JulioClaudians at the expense of the so-called "good emperors".

Since you have gone out of your way to compare the New Testament to these earlier authors' works, why do you not also subject the New Testament to the same sort of analysis that scholars routinely do?
 
Gday,

pakeha said:
My bolding.
Thanks for a most thought provoking post, Kapyong.
Click to expand...

Welcome.

I think it's quite an instructive point - the way that knowledge OF the Gospel stories comes FROM the Gospel.

Especially the empty tomb -
NOT mentioned by Paul, James, Jude, John, or Peter.
Nor mentioned by pseudo-Paul, Clement, Revelation, the Didakhe, Barnabas, G.Thomas, Ignatius and others.

The first mention of the empty tomb in external Christian writings is in early-mid 2nd Century (Hermas?, Justin.)
http://members.iinet.net.au/~desmodeu/Christianity/Table.html


K.
 
Gday,

DOC said:
and since the closest New Testaments manuscripts we have to the originals are anywhere from 50 to 225 years since the original was written compared to 1300 years for Plato, 400 years for the Illiad, and 1000 years for Tacitus, we can say with certainty that the NT writings are superior in reliability compared to the others mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well,
what about the ancient Pyramid Texts :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts

These date back about 4000 years!
And we have MULTIPLE copies!
They are much more ancient than the NT, older than the OT.

And, incredibly, we have the ORIGINALS.
Yes, that's right - the actual original text, inscribed in stone.

Not a COPY from 50-225 years later,
but the actual original autograph as written by the scribes.

Completely, perfectly, 100% reliable.

Completely, perfectly, 100% reliable evidence showing the scribes told the truth about the history of Osiris.

Much more reliable than the NT.


K.
 
Kapyong said:
Gday,



Welcome.

I think it's quite an instructive point - the way that knowledge OF the Gospel stories comes FROM the Gospel.

Especially the empty tomb -
NOT mentioned by Paul, James, Jude, John, or Peter.
Nor mentioned by pseudo-Paul, Clement, Revelation, the Didakhe, Barnabas, G.Thomas, Ignatius and others.

The first mention of the empty tomb in external Christian writings is in early-mid 2nd Century (Hermas?, Justin.)
http://members.iinet.net.au/~desmodeu/Christianity/Table.html


K.
Click to expand...


Excellent posts. Keep in mind, though, that DOC will jump on any perceived weakness even when non-existent. While I think most of us understand what an external Christian writing (meaning non-New Testament, Christian) is, don't assume that DOC will catch the meaning; so you might want to spell it out more explicitly. The other issue is that the references from the sources you mention almost assuredly depend on the gospel accounts when they mention the tomb.

The bigger significance, though, as you suggest is that all we have for these stories are the gospel accounts and what little corroboration appears in Paul's letters (where there is mention only of Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection, though it is not entirely clear what Paul meant by his use of "awakened").

All the rest of the "evidence" is fluff, as you well know. The Gospel accounts are it. Non-Christian references tell us nothing about the stories, only repeating what was common knowledge -- that there were Christians in the Roman world along with a few minor details of worship practice. The number of surviving manuscripts shows the "care" of the surviving community (and no one doubts that Christianity was important to the late Roman and Medieval world). As you know, "care" is no more guarantee of truth than is the reliability of transmission.

Be careful not to allow an "in" for further equivocation in such discussions. This thread is fed by equivocation traps and the ignorance of at least one of the participants.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
This thread is fed by equivocation traps and the ignorance of at least one of the participants.
Click to expand...
True... However, I think its worth pointing out that only one participant stubbornly and incessantly persists with willful ignorance...

I, for one, genuinely welcome all sincere attempts to mitigate my ignorance
 
Paulhoff said:
So much was lost......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

But it is all too easy for some to forget this.
Click to expand...

And just think how many more Christian manuscripts would be around if several Roman emperors didn't confiscate them, and make it illegal to possess them -- not to mention torturing and killing Christians by the thousands like Diocletian, and to a lesser extent Nero and Hadrian.
 
DOC said:
And just think how many more Christian manuscripts would be around if several Roman emperors didn't confiscate them, and make it illegal to possess them -- not to mention torturing and killing Christians by the thousands like Diocletian, and to a lesser extent Nero and Hadrian.
Click to expand...

And not to mention the worst destruction of scriptures under the orders of the Holy Rman Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea.



Robert
 
DOC said:
And just think how many more Christian manuscripts would be around if several Roman emperors didn't confiscate them, and make it illegal to possess them -- not to mention torturing and killing Christians by the thousands like Diocletian, and to a lesser extent Nero and Hadrian.
Click to expand...
A fascinating observation...

One that - like pretty much everything else you have posted - is completely irrelevant... yet fascinating, nevertheless :)
 
DOC said:
We're not talking about mass produced, machine produced copies, we're talking about the accuracy of historical documents (as they relate to the original writings) and as I have shown biblical writings are superior to other ancient writings in that department.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5124365#post5124365
Click to expand...
Er no. You have assumed that because the copies of the bible are nearer the originals in time than some other writings they are more accurate.

Time is not the only factor. There is no motive to exaggerate Plato's works by adding in the wow factor (like he came back from the dead to give the the doctrine of recollection). The bible on the other hand. We are well familiar with people lying for Jesus aren't we?
 
Hokulele said:
Well, other than the fact that the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark do not mention anything about anyone seeing a resurrected Jesus.
Click to expand...

Here is the ending of Mark that is "not" in dispute and has "not" been claimed by some to be added:

Mark 16:1-8 (King James Version)

"And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?

And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."

___

Even this undisputed ending tells us Jesus' tomb was empty and it implies there was an angel in the tomb in a long white garment. This man/angel tells the woman that Jesus was risen and that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee.

So even this undisputed ending tells us Jesus has risen.

Regarding the possible addition there could be a lot of reasons if Mark did not write it.

The ending of the original could have simply worn away. I even have a notebook where the end sheets of the front and back have fallen off, and I am the only person who ever handled it. Certainly an important manuscript would be handled by a lot of people making it easy for the endings to fall off, be damaged, or lost. The Codex Vaticanus (a third century, almost complete bible) is missing Genesis and Revelation. It has been argued this same thing -- that the endings (front and back) of this very old codex just simply wore away, was lost, or damaged over time with much use.

Here is what Wiki says about this issue of the ending of the Gospel of Mark.

"Critics are divided over whether the original ending at 16:8 was intentional, whether it resulted from accidental loss, or even the author's death.[55] Those who believe that 16:8 was not the intended ending argue that it would be very unusual syntax for the text to end with the conjunction gar (γάρ), as does Mark 16:8, and that thematically it would be strange for a book of good news to end with a note of fear (ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ, "for they were afraid").[56]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending

And the apostle Paul, who by the way personally met with the apostle Peter for 2 weeks, tells us that Christ appeared to all the apostles, as does the gospel writer Luke, who has been called one of the world's great historians.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom