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

[kmortis]

That is your opinion, my opinion (from what we all know now) it is evidence that Nero liked to torture people who believed Christ rose from the dead and also people who lived in Rome, 1400 miles or so from the place where Christ allegedly rose from the dead 31 years earlier. That's very fast growth in a time period where being a Christian could get you tortured and killed. It seems logical to conclude something very big must have happened to be driving all of this in an age with no modern transportation or communication.

Just as a correction. Nero wasn't particularly fond of anyone who did not agree that Nero's way was the correct one. Christians are a subset of that larger group. Modern scholars are of the opinion that Nero's reputation was more the result of sour grapes of his contemporaries. He was a populist Emperor who angered many of the elite.

He did blame the Christians for the burning of Rome. To a certain degree, while unforgivable, it is understandable. Christians were not the power house they are today, but rather a smallish weird cult that refused to worship the emperor and the emperor's gods. Since the gods kept Rome safe, if Rome burned it must be because the gods were pissed about something, that something is this band of weirdos who aren't worshipping them.

Source for all this is on Wikipedia. I could go can find higher quality sources, but I doubt it'll matter.

 

[amb]

The fact that each of the synoptic gospels contradict each other is ample proof they were certainly not writing the truth. They wouldn't have known the truth if it bit them in the ass.

 

[kmortis]

The fact that each of the synoptic gospels contradict each other is ample proof they were certainly not writing the truth. They wouldn't have known the truth if it bit them in the ass.

Eh, ask any cop what it's like to interview multiple eyewitnesses to an event and you find that if you ask five people you get five different, sometimes contrdicting, stories on what happened. That's just being human. I'd be more willing to chuck them as total fabrication if they all agreed in every way.

Of course, this does not imply that any of the supernatural events described have any more validity than any given fantasy tale. Just that to point out that they contradict only implies different authorship, not fallacy.

 

[Lothian]

Eh, ask any cop what it's like to interview multiple eyewitnesses to an event and you find that if you ask five people you get five different, sometimes contrdicting, stories on what happened. That's just being human. I'd be more willing to chuck them as total fabrication if they all agreed in every way.

I recall that conflicting accounts was one of Geislers reasons why the NT accounts were true. However the similarity of the NT accounts was another reason, so he had all bases covered.

 

[Simon39759]

Eh, ask any cop what it's like to interview multiple eyewitnesses to an event and you find that if you ask five people you get five different, sometimes contrdicting, stories on what happened. That's just being human. I'd be more willing to chuck them as total fabrication if they all agreed in every way.

Of course, this does not imply that any of the supernatural events described have any more validity than any given fantasy tale. Just that to point out that they contradict only implies different authorship, not fallacy.

But IT IS incompatible with the idea of them being the perfect literal inherent word of God.
What is left, therefore, is a second (at best) hand accounts written decades after the fact, after hundreds of retelling.
This, really, can not be considered reliable in any way.

I know that Doc, if he bothers answering this post at all, is going to hand-wave it away, possibly citing the idea that oral tradition was very important in these time, and, hence, these people must have had super-human memories or something... but, the bottom line is, it is not a trustworthy account.
You could settle for it, of course, if you don't have anything else to go by, as the closest approximation of the truth you can get. But this certainly does not wait much if you have any reason to doubt these accounts (absence of corroborative evidence, such as for the earthquake of zombie walk; contradiction with known information, such as for the date of the census; or simply contradiction with the known reality, dead people stay dead).

 

[cj.23]

But IT IS incompatible with the idea of them being the perfect literal inherent word of God.

Yes, but that is an extremely small sub-set of Christian belief, if it exists at all. Even supposed "literalists" reconcile disagrements, and do not believe (AFAIK) that there was a Sermon on the plain and a Sermon on the mount, or that the Bible is devoid of metaphor, analogy or poetic langauge?? Certainly it is not the norm???

What is left, therefore, is a second (at best) hand accounts written decades after the fact, after hundreds of retelling.
This, really, can not be considered reliable in any way.

That is a much more interesting issue -- and one where we can actually investigate. For some time now I have thought about looking at veterans of the First World Wars accounts, plenty of which exist, and comparing them with the official war historries, regimental histories,and then seeing how they have changed in line with wider societal readings of the War over the decades.

cj x

 

[Akhenaten]

But IT IS incompatible with the idea of them being the perfect literal inherent word of God.

Yes, but that is an extremely small sub-set of Christian belief, if it exists at all. Even supposed "literalists" reconcile disagrements, and do not believe (AFAIK) that there was a Sermon on the plain and a Sermon on the mount, or that the Bible is devoid of metaphor, analogy or poetic langauge??

Certainly it is not the norm???

And yet, here we are.

 

[Simon39759]

Yes, but that is an extremely small sub-set of Christian belief, if it exists at all. Even supposed "literalists" reconcile disagrements, and do not believe (AFAIK) that there was a Sermon on the plain and a Sermon on the mount, or that the Bible is devoid of metaphor, analogy or poetic langauge?? Certainly it is not the norm???

That the Bible contains metaphors and analogies? Sure, it is accepted.
But still, I disagree, a lot of people consider, baring a few clearly identifiable metaphors and poetic device, it to be pretty much through word for word.
That's where the whole creationist sickness comes from in the first place, after all...

It might have to do with location... I believe you are in the UK, right? The fundamentalists are probably less prevalent there than they are here in Mississippi.
But, yes, just on these fora, Doc on 154 would probably say that the Bible is entirely free of errors...

That is a much more interesting issue -- and one where we can actually investigate. For some time now I have thought about looking at veterans of the First World Wars accounts, plenty of which exist, and comparing them with the official war historries, regimental histories,and then seeing how they have changed in line with wider societal readings of the War over the decades.
cj x

Sociologists and psychologists have already looked into the subject of oral history, in fact.
This site, by the way, may be of interest to you... wrong war, but still...

Anyway, the distortion is plainly illustrated through the variety of Gospels, not only the four official but also all the apocryphas, that sprang from the alleged events...

 

[cj.23]

That the Bible contains metaphors and analogies? Sure, it is accepted.
But still, I disagree, a lot of people consider, baring a few clearly identifiable metaphors and poetic device, it to be pretty much through word for word.
That's where the whole creationist sickness comes from in the first place, after all...

It might have to do with location... I believe you are in the UK, right? The fundamentalists are probably less prevalent there than they are here in Mississippi.
But, yes, just on these fora, Doc on 154 would probably say that the Bible is entirely free of errors...




Sociologists and psychologists have already looked into the subject of oral history, in fact.
This site, by the way, may be of interest to you... wrong war, but still...

Anyway, the distortion is plainly illustrated through the variety of Gospels, not only the four official but also all the apocryphas, that sprang from the alleged events...

Yeah, I have worked in oral histories, hence my interest You have made me think of something interesting to try though!

 

[Simon39759]

Cool!

About the WWI veteran? Interesting stuff...

 

[joobz]

That is a much more interesting issue -- and one where we can actually investigate. For some time now I have thought about looking at veterans of the First World Wars accounts, plenty of which exist, and comparing them with the official war historries, regimental histories,and then seeing how they have changed in line with wider societal readings of the War over the decades.

cj x

This is an interesting parallel and one definitely worth bringing up.

It isn't hard to imagine that there would be discrepancies between the "official" accounts of a war and the human experience on the field. People often romanticize the story to make their side look less horrible. The reality always is there are elements of uncertainty involved. There are always parts where the "good guys" were less then good.

The trouble is the push back one receives when they speculate upon what these discrepancies might be. For wars, immediate analysis often rankles emotions. People do not want to hear that their loved ones may have died for bad (or not fully pure) reasons. But given time, these emotions soften allowing more critical analysis.

Religion doesn't seem to soften with age. People will (and do) push back when you suggest that maybe, just maybe, some of the biblical accounts are not accurate. You get even more push back if you suggest that the more magical elements are the least likely to be accurate.

So we are left with the simple answer given on the first page:
We can be fairly certain that the biblical authors THOUGHT they wrote the truth. We have no evidence to suggest that what they wrote WAS the truth.

 

[kmortis]

So we are left with the simple answer given on the first page:
We can be fairly certain that the biblical authors THOUGHT they wrote the truth. We have no evidence to suggest that what they wrote WAS the truth.

DING DING DING! Give the man a prize, tell him what's he's won, Don Pardo!

Add in that they most likely wrote down what they learned from hearing it told time and time again ("Wow, that's some good ****, we should write it down..."), and you have the state of the bible as we know it today.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Honestly, there is little difference between an Oral Account or a Written Account, except that since writing began people have had a tendency to believe something just because "it is written." But in either case, veracity can only truly be determined if there is other supporting physical evidence, or multiple sources who aren't simply parroting each other.

As there is no evidence outside the NT for the resurrection, other miraculous events, or even Jesus's life-story, there is no basis for assuming the veracity of the Gospels.

And given that there were divisions within Christianity from the beginning over contradicting interpretations and texts, there is no possible way one can claim there is evidence for the Truth of the NT. Who's Truth are we talking about? The Valentinians? The Arians? The Catholics? Or--much, much later--the "Reformed" churches?

Unless one can definitively establish that one of these interpretations is the Truth, there is no basis to even begin to claim that there is evidence for the Truth of the NT.

GB

 

[kmortis]

Honestly, there is little difference between an Oral Account or a Written Account, except that since writing began people have had a tendency to believe something just because "it is written." But in either case, veracity can only truly be determined if there is other supporting physical evidence, or multiple sources who aren't simply parroting each other.

I disagree. The biggest difference between an Oral Tradition and a Written one is that with a Written Record you can go back to what was written then and compare it to what is written now and see how it's changed. Oral you cannot do that. once it's spoken it's gone.

I do agree that just because it's written that in and of itself is not a measure of veracity, just that the record can be de-errored over time.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I disagree. The biggest difference between an Oral Tradition and a Written one is that with a Written Record you can go back to what was written then and compare it to what is written now and see how it's changed. Oral you cannot do that. once it's spoken it's gone.

I do agree that just because it's written that in and of itself is not a measure of veracity, just that the record can be de-errored over time.

Point taken.

GB

 

[Aepervius]

I disagree. The biggest difference between an Oral Tradition and a Written one is that with a Written Record you can go back to what was written then and compare it to what is written now and see how it's changed. Oral you cannot do that. once it's spoken it's gone.

I do agree that just because it's written that in and of itself is not a measure of veracity, just that the record can be de-errored over time.

That is rue only if the writing document remains. being that writing was difficult and expansive until recent time, and copying an error prone work, de facto for such early period you are about as good with oral tradition as with written one... OK I exagerate a bit, but nonetheless it isn't as cut and dried.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That is true only if the writing document remains. being that writing was difficult and expansive until recent time, and copying an error prone work, de facto for such early period you are about as good with oral tradition as with written one... OK I exagerate a bit, but nonetheless it isn't as cut and dried.

Hmmm,...good point too.

GB

 

[WanderingSkeptic]

Prompted by another JREF thread I got caught up in yesterday, I was blogging today about the accuracy of the gospels ...if curious, blog entry here ... How accurate are the gospels? ... its very easy to have an opinion, so I attempted to stick to raw facts and focused on just two questions ...(as a quick summary to save you the bother of reading my blog entry)
- date of gospels (the only evidence we have for Jesus and the events described) ... they are not contemporary to the events described (see my blog entry for details) ... earliest is Mark and earliest at best is 60 CE ... long afterwards ... writer was not a local, he gets local customs and geography wrong
- how reliable are the gospels (nobody contemporary outside of gospels mentions anything ... I use example of earthquake and a lot of dead rising back to life from Matthew 27 v51-53 as an example .. thats a huge event ... you nobody anywhere else bothers to mention it, I can only conclude its fiction.

I'm not suggesting no Jesus ... I suspect he was a historical normal human, just some bloke who had a following ... then after death, it all went viral ... miracles, godhood and lots of other stuff and sayings added later to make it all fit into local Messianic expectations.

 

[Lucian]

That is rue only if the writing document remains. being that writing was difficult and expansive until recent time, and copying an error prone work, de facto for such early period you are about as good with oral tradition as with written one... OK I exagerate a bit, but nonetheless it isn't as cut and dried.

Even in the era of printed texts it can be difficult to discover the "true" text. Look at Shakespeare's works, for instance. For some plays, there are multiple texts which vary significantly (Hamlet, Lear). In other cases, there is only one text, but there seems to be something wonky about it (interpolated scenes in Macbeth). And scholarly consensus over the preferred text changes periodically.

The situation is worse if you go back further in time. There are over 80 manuscripts of all or part of The Canterbury Tales. They vary dramatically. The two MSS on which most editions are primarily based, Ellesmere and Hengwrt, were probably written by the same scribe, but the tales are in a different order in the two MSS. Then there's Piers Plowman. Langland spent years writing and rewriting the wretched thing. So which is the "correct" version?

Going back even further, most Old English poems only survive in one manuscript. The ones that exist in more than one manuscript show significant variation. There is an Old English poem called Soul and Body or The Soul's Address to the Body. In it, a damned soul berates its long dead body for its bad behavior in life. One version (Soul and Body 1 from the Vercelli Book), also includes an address by a good soul praising its body. The other (Soul and Body 2 from the Exeter Book) does not. Which is the correct text?

I know this doesn't relate directly to biblical scholarship, but I know a lot less about biblical textual scholarship. My point is that you can't always trace errors or discover a definitive text by looking at the written record, and sometimes oral tradition can preserve elements that have been lost during the process of written transmission. That doesn't make those elements The Truth, of course.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

It's OK to posit no Jesus you know . There really isn't any contemporaneous evidence for his existence outside of the Bible.

Still, I think many of us here are perfectly comfortable accepting that there might have been an historical "bloke" on which the NT myths are based.

GB