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

[pakeha]

We're not talking about mass produced, machine produced copies, we're talking about the accuracy of historical documents (as they relate to the original writings) and as I have shown biblical writings are superior to other ancient writings in that department.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

My hiliting.
Once again:
What original writings is DC talking about?
(not the first time I've asked this)

On another tack, the phrase 'the accuracy of historical documents' may probably remind more than one reader of GalaxyQuest.

 

[pakeha]

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

Thanks for the link, DOC.
Following the references given there, I found this:

The current majority view along the Aland-Metzger lines argues like this:
1. The earliest evidence for the ending with evfobou/nto ga.r are the Gospels of Mt and Lk. Both follow Mk up to that point. After it they depart in very different ways. Attempts have been made to extract an ending (e.g. Mt 28:9-10 + possibly 16-20), but these did not gain acceptance.
2. Comments from church fathers and introductory comments in the manuscripts indicate that many manuscripts ended with evfobou/nto ga.r in earlier times.
3. The origin of the shorter ending is only understandable, if the composer did not know the longer ending.
4. That the shorter ending always comes before the long one, seems to indicate a high respect (or a strong authority) for it. It is probable therefore that it is older than the long one.
5. The evidence indicates the existence of the long ending in the second half of the 2nd CE. So, probably also the short ending is as old as this.

from:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf

 

[pakeha]

I wonder if DOC could explain how 'a young man' is transformed into an implied angel?

And 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.

It's really amazing, the influence Josh McDowell's preaching has on DOC.
If Luke had been called one of the world's great travelogue writers of the Roman Empire in the second century, it would be, at least, tolerable, if debatable, but these references to outdated opinions of Luke's historical accuracy can only be taken as an insider's joke, given the facts.
The Antioch Stones, remember, DOC?

 

[six7s]

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.

<snip/>

___

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.

No, it does not

All that it does tell us is that Mark published hearsay

Seriously DOC, please try to keep up

 

[amb]

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."

DOC, all your quotes are from christian apologists. Why not try reading a nuetral source some day. John Shelby Spong's Jesus For The non-religious is a good start.

 

[amb]

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.

Very correct. The gospel ends with the death and burial of Jesus. That's it.
More was added later, much later by the early christians.

 

[Lothian]

Given Jesus penchant for young boys. I think it is far more likely that he was hiding under the long white robe of the boy, and ‘Galilee’ was a ruse to buy some private time together.

 

[AdinDraco]

Very correct. The gospel ends with the death and burial of Jesus. That's it.
More was added later, much later by the early christians.

Now, now, you're letting the facts get in the way of a good story...(flips open bible - reads a bit)..never mind, carry on.



(Yes, I own a bible and read it...when I can stomach it that is)

 

[DOC]

Once again:
What original writings is DC talking about?

The "letters of Paul" --Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Gatlations, Ephesians, Philipians, Collosians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 -- which make up much of the New Testament. These letters are very powerful and the reason I, and the Catholic Encyclopedia call Paul a spiritual genius. Anyway, these letters and the gospels, and other works such as Acts are all part of the New testament.

For example one day people such as Paul and gospel writer Luke sat down and wrote a letter.

Here is how the beginning of Luke's letter (which became the Gospel of Luke) went:

Luke 1 (1-4) (Contemporary English Version)

"Many people have tried to tell the story of what God has done among us.

They wrote what we had been told by the ones who were there in the beginning and saw what happened.

So I made a careful study of everything and then decided to write and tell you exactly what took place. Honorable Theophilus,

I have done this to let you know the truth about what you have heard."

____

Once there was only one letter of Luke and once there was only one letter of Paul's Corinthians -- these are examples of the originals we are talking about.

None of the originals of these letters and other NT writings exist, just like none of the originals of other ancient writings exist. But these letters were so powerful and so important that they were many times hand copied and passed around to others. This is how information got around pre printing press and radio and TV. Even paper hadn't been invented yet, so there was no newspapers.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

None of the originals of these letters and other NT writings exist just like none of the originals of other ancient writings exist.

Wrong.

The ORIGINALS of the Pyramid Texts still exist.
Complete reliable 100% perfect originals.
As I posted above.

Are you just going to ignore them?


K.

 

[Lothian]

None of the originals of these letters and other NT writings exist.

Excaltly so when you claim

we're talking about the accuracy of historical documents (as they relate to the original writings)

You have no idea what the original NT said, and how many amendments and redrafts were required until they took off.

 

[Lothian]

Gday,



Wrong.

The ORIGINALS of the Pyramid Texts still exist.
Complete reliable 100% perfect originals.
As I posted above.

Are you just going to ignore them?


K.

The accused has 'previous' for this offence.

 

[DOC]

Let me explain my, Nope, answer.

1.) No one claims that ANY of the fanciful accounts in those other texts are real...

This is false. I mentioned Tacitus and many historians all over the world believe his historical accounts are real.

Other ancient historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Pliny Secundus, which I did not mention, all have less that 10 manuscripts of their works in existence and their works are readily accepted.

 

[paximperium]

None of the originals of these letters and other NT writings exist,<rest snipped for complete and utter irrelevance>

Bolded by me.

One the 12 "original" Akkadian Tablets-Epic of Gilgamesh circa 2000 BCE

 

[paximperium]

Anyone notice DOC's dishonesty of cherry picking just one irrelevant minor answer from Joobz and ignoring everything else?

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.

This is false. I mentioned Tacitus and many historians all over the world believe his historical accounts are real.

This is a lie. Where does Tacitus or any historian state any support of evidence for these FANCIFUL claims?

Other ancient historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Pliny Secundus, which I did not mention, all have less that 10 manuscripts of their works in existence and their works are readily accepted.

So? They have archeological evidence supporting them. No one believes their supernatural claims.

Where's your archeological evidence or any evidence to support your magic super duper Jesus?

 

[DOC]

You have no idea what the original NT said, and how many amendments and redrafts were required until they took off.

Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.

 

[paximperium]

So that's a continued NO, when it comes to the original.

Actually Christianity didn't need any writings to take off if we are to believe one of the world's greatest historians, Luke, because he wrote in the Book of Acts that 3000 accepted Christianity after Peter's sermon on Pentecost, only 50 days after the resurrection. That must have been a powerful sermon by the former Christ denier to convert 3000 in one day.

Do you have any evidence of these 3000 converts? Any at all?
Did one of them write it down?
Did someone write of this mass conversion?

No? Why should anyone believe the writings of Luke the liar?

 

[joobz]

This is false. I mentioned Tacitus and many historians all over the world believe his historical accounts are real.

DOC, your poor reading skills is showing. I said "Fanciful" accounts. Meaning, none of the other stories of dragons, or monstes, or resurrections, are considered real.

Until, you have an example of a Tacitus account that describes anything magical as real, AND if you can show that modern scholarship accepts that account as real, Your comparison of those writings with the bible is comletely meaningless.

Other ancient historians such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Pliny Secundus, which I did not mention, all have less that 10 manuscripts of their works in existence and their works are readily accepted.

Do any of those books describe a cult leader, who advocates the beating of slaves, as rising from the dead? If not, any comparison with the bible is sort of meaningless.

 

[joobz]

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

So you admit that the ending of Mark was forged? Excellent.
Now, perhaps you can explain how a document containing obvious and known forgeries would be considered anything other than a stroy?

 

[DOC]

Anyone notice DOC's dishonesty of cherry picking just one irrelevant minor answer from Joobz and ignoring everything else?

You must not have read this and other threads, because I have responded to most of his other points especially those regarding the alleged forgeries, and also conflicting stories. I wish I had the time to repeat them, but there are other posts directed at me in case you didn't notice.

And why are you saying Joobz very first point is irrelevant, he didn't think it was irrelevant to mention it first?