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

[amb]

It hurts the ol' Bart Ehrman copies of copies of copies argument.

http://www.remnantreport.com/cgi-bin/imcart/read.cgi?article_id=483&sub=22

I don't agree with all Ehrman writes, but he is spot on about the copies of copies of copies of the N/T. Even the very earliest fragments of various gospels are mid third century at the earliest.
Using apologist sites does your credibility no good at all DOC.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I don't agree with all Ehrman writes, but he is spot on about the copies of copies of copies of the N/T. Even the very earliest fragments of various gospels are mid third century at the earliest.
Using apologist sites does your credibility no good at all DOC.

Erm, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 which is dated to the first half of the 2nd Century?

 

[roger_pearse]

I don't agree with all Ehrman writes, but he is spot on about the copies of copies of copies of the N/T. Even the very earliest fragments of various gospels are mid third century at the earliest.

I'm not sure what argument is being made here, but I hope it is not the "we don't have any certainty that we have an ancient text unless we have either the autograph or a copy made within the first century of transmission"? Because no ancient literary text would pass that test.

Most classical texts are preserved in a single medieval copy, or a handful of such copies. (I compiled a list of the manuscripts used for quite a few of the Greek classics here - have a look at it to get an idea of what a 'normal' transmission looks like.

The NT may not be true in what it says, but we can't seriously argue that we don't know what it says; not unless we take the view that ancient history is an illusion (which would be obscurantism).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[amb]

Erm, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52 which is dated to the first half of the 2nd Century?

With apologies. I forgot about that one. But it's still not proof that DOC's hypothesis is correct by a long shot. And it's still a copy of a copy. If most babblical scholars are correct, the gospel of John was written no earlier than 95- 120 CE.

 

[joobz]

Not sure what this idea is produced as evidence of -- that the NT is transmitted OK? if so, it's unnecessary now the papyri are known -- but just showing that we do have a text does not show that its contents are accurate. The two issues are not connected.

Very true. However, I believe the point that DOC is trying to make is between the two options
A: The gospels are reliably traced back to the moments of the event in a form very similar to what we know as the gospels
B: The gospels were written centuries after the events and bear little semblance to the texts of the first century.

Scenario A is more in accord with a bible based upon fact than Scenario B.

The problem here is
1.) as you said, reliable transcription is not evidence for truth.
2.) These quotes do not address the issue of Matthew Luke and Q.
3.) These quotes do not address the issue with the added ending of Mark
4.) What quotes were made that are not found in the modern bible? Are there textual teachings from the early church that fell out of favor and hence never made it into the current bible?

 

[roger_pearse]

Very true. However, I believe the point that DOC is trying to make is between the two options

I appreciate the clarification -- it has been quite difficult as a newcomer to work out what the point at issue is.

A: The gospels are reliably traced back to the moments of the event in a form very similar to what we know as the gospels
B: The gospels were written centuries after the events and bear little semblance to the texts of the first century.

We should go with A every time for every ancient text, unless I had evidence to the contrary. I.e. the *words* and *ideas* in the text have come down to us.

Scenario A is more in accord with a bible based upon fact than Scenario B.

Ah, here I would have to disagree; transmission tells us nothing about content. Thus I would be perfectly happy that we have the *text* of (e.g.) Achilles Tatius' novel, although the first copies are 10 centuries later. But that the *content* is a statement of facts, that the hero and heroine existed and did what is recorded ... that's a separate issue altogether.

This is a really important point -- we need to separate the "we have the text" and "the text is true" arguments. They have no connection, and the confusion does no-one any good.

The problem here is
1.) as you said, reliable transcription is not evidence for truth.

Yes, the two are not even connected. Think of the Lord of the Rings! -- perfect copies, but fiction.

2.) These quotes do not address the issue of Matthew Luke and Q.
3.) These quotes do not address the issue with the added ending of Mark
4.) What quotes were made that are not found in the modern bible? Are there textual teachings from the early church that fell out of favor and hence never made it into the current bible?

I can't find the argument being made by DOC here, so I don't follow the argument made here - sorry.

#2 is to do with composition, surely, not transmission?

#3 -- not sure what the point made here is?

#4 -- not that I know of. But the early church didn't take its teaching from the New Testament anyway, not least because it didn't have it before the mid second century. It took its teaching from the apostles, and those appointed by them, and so the teaching handed down in the churches. (Tertullian devotes a good chapter of De praescription haereticorum to explaining why arguing with heretics from scripture is a waste of time, and only ends up giving you a headache).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[carlitos]

I too have heard this story, as originating with Dr Johnson's friend Lord Hailes, and I have seen the quote too. The Islamic Awareness site has clearly spent an enormous amount of time on this -- good to see all that Saudi money being used productively, if that's who fund that site.

That's quite a sort of non-claim you have there. You might want to research it and provide evidence for it. In the spirit of meeting you half way, you might want to ask Dr. Saifullah at Cambridge the origin of most of his donations.

 

[roger_pearse]

That's <bitching snipped>

Someone else demanding "prove to me" something ...

Someone paid for all that research to be done. A sceptical person would ask who, and why.

Should you have something to contribute on that, please go ahead. The site itself discloses nothing about its funding.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[X]

So then you already knew the new information in this thread that someone who has written 60+ books devoted to religion {Norman Geisler} and another person Ralph Muncaster who has written several books devoted to religion both say writers in the second and third centuries quoted the NT so much they mentioned all the NT verses (except for 10 or 11 of them).

You don't have to believe the above if you don't want to but do you think that the above new information (assuming it is true) might be important info to know if you are trying to establish the integrity of the NT verses as being authentic to the original NT writings?

I was going to comment on this, but Roger summed it up fairly well:

But I suspect the basic premise is true -- that a very large proportion of the NT is preserved in the Fathers. The Ante-Nicene fathers alone in the Edinburgh translation run to 5,000 pages, and exclude the homilies of Origen. I suspect people need to look further, but it would not surprise me a bit if it was indeed so.

Not sure what this idea is produced as evidence of -- that the NT is transmitted OK? if so, it's unnecessary now the papyri are known -- but just showing that we do have a text does not show that its contents are accurate. The two issues are not connected.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

This is not evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth. In fact, it is even further from such evidence than your initial posts, which at best were evidence that the New Testament writers believed they were telling the truth (and it has been repeatedly shown that belief != truth). All you have shown here is that we can be reasonably certain that the original gospels were not drastically different from what we have today, excepting known additions and interpolations (such as the ending of Mark). Which isn't news to anyone here, except apparently you.


And Roger: I realize that much of this thread may come across as badgering or off-the-cuff rejection of DOC's premises, but realize that in the nearly 20,000 posts of this thread DOC has brought forth these same arguments before. Often repeatedly, as he has a well-established habit of recycling arguments after he thinks we've forgotten the last time they were ripped to shreds (if you don't believe me spend some time looking through his posting history). They have already been soundly refuted by many posters. So don't be surprised if we scoff and reject the claims without bothering to re-state in detail the reasons why DOC's argument is invalid/fallacious for the umteenth time.

 

[roger_pearse]

And Roger: I realize that much of this thread may come across as badgering or off-the-cuff rejection of DOC's premises, but realize that in the nearly 20,000 posts of this thread DOC has brought forth these same arguments before. ... So don't be surprised if we scoff and reject the claims without bothering to re-state in detail the reasons why DOC's argument is invalid/fallacious for the umteenth time.

I quite understand and don't blame you.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[carlitos]

Someone else demanding "prove to me" something ...

Someone paid for all that research to be done.

Yes. You suggested that it might be the Saudis. That sounds reasonable. Do you have any evidence for that?

A sceptical person would ask who, and why.

Yes. They might even do this before they suggest that it is "the Saudis."

Should you have something to contribute on that, please go ahead. The site itself discloses nothing about its funding.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Just so I'm understanding your concept of the burden of proof:

- You suggest that Dr. Saifullah at Cambridge is funded by the Saudis; no evidence required.
- I suggest that you provide evidence for your suggestion; the burden falls back onto me?

 

[joobz]

Ah, here I would have to disagree; transmission tells us nothing about content. Thus I would be perfectly happy that we have the *text* of (e.g.) Achilles Tatius' novel, although the first copies are 10 centuries later. But that the *content* is a statement of facts, that the hero and heroine existed and did what is recorded ... that's a separate issue altogether.

Oh, dear. I feel forced to defend DOC on a point.

First, I fully agree that transmission and truth are entirely different issues. Like you said later, a perfect copy of lord of the rings doesn't mean lord of the rings it true.

However, there is a logical argument to be made regarding the truth of a document if we know the transmission of that document wasn't accurate.
For instance, if we have a copy of a historical document which said
"Phil ate Brad" and we find a early source of that document which said, "Phil ate dinner with Brad", we can be certain that Phil didn't actually actually eat Brad. This doesn't say that the statement "Phil ate dinner with Brad" is true. It only says that the mistaken copy can't be true.

This is a really important point -- we need to separate the "we have the text" and "the text is true" arguments. They have no connection, and the confusion does no-one any good.

I agree.

I can't find the argument being made by DOC here, so I don't follow the argument made here - sorry.

#2 is to do with composition, surely, not transmission?

Well, DOC is convinced that Matthew Mark Luke and John represent personal testimonies of the authors to whom they attributed to. This is contrary to the current theory of Q and Mark as the sources for Matthew and Luke. My point here is that the ability to recreate the texts from early quotes doesn't demonstrate evidence that the original texts were all independent sources.

#3 -- not sure what the point made here is?

Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition not found in the earliest known texts of Mark. This addition describes Jesus as returning and speaking with people. As a point of central importance to Christianity, it is a strange omission and one that is fairly problematic with a divine Jesus.

#4 -- not that I know of. But the early church didn't take its teaching from the New Testament anyway, not least because it didn't have it before the mid second century. It took its teaching from the apostles, and those appointed by them, and so the teaching handed down in the churches. (Tertullian devotes a good chapter of De praescription haereticorum to explaining why arguing with heretics from scripture is a waste of time, and only ends up giving you a headache).

Of course no new testament existed. But the claim here (as it seems DOC is alluding to) is that the gospels and books of the bible existed in their present form exactly as they did then. My question here is what other elements were quoted by these early individuals. We know that there were many other additional gospels and texts that existed at that same time. Did they never quote from these other (what are now considered) non-canonical texts? (I really don't know, it's why I ask). It would seem a rather strange gambit to say that the quotes recreate the present bible when one picks and chooses what quotes to use.

Also, Isn't it is a bit strange to say an "early church" though? Could you rightfully claim a unified view?

 

[Waterman]

You post critiquing the argument style in this thread would be valid IF this were the beginning of the thread or even in the first 10 pages. However well reasoned and well argued counters to the suggested evidence were made pointing out specific logical fallacies numerous times and the vast majority of them are ignored. Perhaps if the reply was particularly convincing the topic would go ignored for 3 to 6 months then resurface as if it was never countered. After several of those cycles the thread has devolved to a lot of short hand referring back to previous unresolved arguments...

<edited to correct misspellings>

So then you already knew the new information in this thread that someone who has written 60+ books devoted to religion {Norman Geisler} and another person Ralph Muncaster who has written several books devoted to religion both say writers in the second and third centuries quoted the NT so much they mentioned all the NT verses (except for 10 or 11 of them).

You don't have to believe the above if you don't want to but do you think that the above new information (assuming it is true) might be important info to know if you are trying to establish the integrity of the NT verses as being authentic to the original NT writings?

Actually the number of books written by an author is irrelevant to the truth of the topic. Sylvia Browne has quite a number to her credit. Many people also claim that her writing also speak to the existence of a higher truth. You have in essence made an appeal to authority by claiming that because they are published authors we need to accept that their conclusion are well reasoned and valid.

What people are trying to do here is to ask you to present the arguments on how they reached those conclusions not just their conclusions. You don’t have to retype everything you could just point us to a specific summary of the argument (not an entire body of work) and lets us at it. Just like you did regarding Greenleaf’s argument regarding evidentiary validity of the ancient texts using the Ancient Documents rule. Then if it can be demonstrated that the argument was faulty (as we did regarding Greenleaf’s liberal use of Special Pleading) then we can move on to the next topic. Simon did address your 5000 reference and reconstruction argument and pointed out some significant flaws. Do you have a counter for that what did he miss?

In addition that fact that a work if referenced frequently is not a valid argument for it's validity. You have yet to address other integrity issues regading the text where there are known trascription errors which were raised by others.

 

[Simon39759]

I too have heard this story, as originating with Dr Johnson's friend Lord Hailes, and I have seen the quote too. The Islamic Awareness site has clearly spent an enormous amount of time on this -- good to see all that Saudi money being used productively, if that's who fund that site.

That's a bit of a lame and unsupported insinuation especially coming from somebody so apt at criticizing other's logical fallacy.
A lot of people like to learn and debate about religious issues and are happy to waste spend a lot of time doing so even without the benefit of 'Saudi money'.

But I suspect the basic premise is true -- that a very large proportion of the NT is preserved in the Fathers. The Ante-Nicene fathers alone in the Edinburgh translation run to 5,000 pages, and exclude the homilies of Origen. I suspect people need to look further, but it would not surprise me a bit if it was indeed so.

And I suspect it is actually false. First of all, because a lot of the Gospels are repeat of each others. There is little need to quote all three synoptic, for example, about a shared passage, when you can just mention one of the passages.

Also, a lot of the text issues contained in these Gospels were never the subject of the heresies these church fathers were debating or where irrelevant to their concerns.


Also, the answer to your statement in another post that we don't have the original of any ancient manuscript is: stone carvings; clay tablets and hieroglyphs and paintings.



Ps: Thanks for all the compliments about my modest posts; I will start autographing chests as soon as I can get my hand of that damn marker...
Also, sorry for the double posting of the quote... As it happen, I didn't proof-read the quote, it being a copy paste... My most sincerest apologies.

 

[Lucian]

<snip>

A: The gospels are reliably traced back to the moments of the event in a form very similar to what we know as the gospels
B: The gospels were written centuries after the events and bear little semblance to the texts of the first century.

We should go with A every time for every ancient text, unless I had evidence to the contrary. I.e. the *words* and *ideas* in the text have come down to us.
<snip>

I'm curious why you would assume, without evidence to the contrary, that the words of a text have come down to us in largely unchanged form every time for every ancient text (and I'm not talking specifically about the NT). Ancient literature is not my field, but I know that with medieval texts sometimes we have to say, "Well, these are the words that have come down to us, so these are the words we have to deal with," since many texts only survive in one manuscript. But when there are multiple manuscripts....

Take The Canterbury Tales, for instance. There are 83 complete or partial MSS of the CT (Caxton's printed version is included since it seems to be based on a lost MS, but Caxton tended to edit rather heavily). Two of the oldest are Hengwrt and Ellesmere (Hengwrt is the oldest of all). Both were probably completed within about a decade or so of Chaucer's death. They are by the same scribe, who has been tentatively identified by Linne Mooney as Adam Pinkhurst, whom Chaucer addressed in his short poem "To Adam, his Scrivener." Chaucer complains about his inaccuracy and negligence. Even though these two MSS are by the same scribe, there are very significant differences between them. For one thing, they present the tales in different orders.

Even when only one MS survives, we often know that it has gone through significant alteration over the course of its transmission. The Old English poem Genesis, for example, contains a fragment of a second poem (Genesis B) within the larger poem (Genesis A). The Eddic poem Hávamál is also made up of bits and pieces of several poems.

So unless the MS transmission of ancient texts is much better than that of medieval texts, I don't understand why you would assume that texts are transmitted largely unchanged.

 

[roger_pearse]

I'm curious why you would assume, without evidence to the contrary, that the words of a text have come down to us in largely unchanged form every time for every ancient text

I know that with medieval texts sometimes we have to say, "Well, these are the words that have come down to us, so these are the words we have to deal with," since many texts only survive in one manuscript. But when there are multiple manuscripts....

But consider for a moment... this idea involves the suggestion that a text attested in multiple manuscripts is less secure than one extant only in one. Yet surely the reverse is the case? With a single manuscript we are stuck with conjecture as our only tool to fix damage.

Take The Canterbury Tales, for instance. There are 83 complete or partial MSS of the CT. Two of the oldest ... probably completed within about a decade or so of Chaucer's death. They are by the same scribe ... whom Chaucer addressed in his short poem "To Adam, his Scrivener." Chaucer complains about his inaccuracy and negligence. Even though these two MSS are by the same scribe, there are very significant differences between them. For one thing, they present the tales in different orders.

Even when only one MS survives, we often know that it has gone through significant alteration over the course of its transmission. The Old English poem Genesis, for example, contains a fragment of a second poem (Genesis B) within the larger poem (Genesis A). The Eddic poem Hávamál is also made up of bits and pieces of several poems.

So unless the MS transmission of ancient texts is much better than that of medieval texts, I don't understand why you would assume that texts are transmitted largely unchanged.

I'm not sure this is addressing what I was discussing? Yes, textual damage occurs; but we are discussing whether texts can reach us from antiquity or not. I think that they do. The purpose of textual criticism is to heal what damage can be healed, and to highlight what cannot, in order to establish what we do or do not have.

Now I would push this issue back to you, and ask you to tell me: do we have the Canterbury tales or not? Does the existence of mss with different orders of the tales mean that the text did not reach us? Are people who read these, and write about them, engaged in a fantasy exercise? Or are they indeed commenting on the text?

The existence of damage, of variants in transmission, is real. Sometimes that damage is irreparable. More often it is trivial. Some of it is in between.

But to draw from that the conclusion that the text has not reached us .... are we willing to do that? Because I don't see how we can avoid obscurantism, if we do.

Now I have read attempts to evade this dichotomy, by various forms of words. But I find that these always seem to come down to "the texts I want to read are preserved, those I find inconvenient are not".

So I think that we must either think that texts are transmitted (more or less), or we must accept that all study of texts not extant in an autograph is essentially a form of self-delusion. Since many ancient texts had no autograph, presumably we then must close our eyes and refuse to look at them? That seems bonkers to me.

I think, at the renaissance, our civilisation made its decision on this. And it chose the path of sanity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[roger_pearse]

And all I did was point out that, whatever the subject, the type of argument being made was fallacious...

I sort of thought people would prefer to make valid arguments.

We sort of have, but you don't seem to want to know about it.

Argument by assertion... <contempt>

 

[roger_pearse]

I have just discovered that a number of my posts have been removed from this thread and placed, out of context, elsewhere.

I regret that I do not contribute to fora which edit my posts, or otherwise manipulate them to appear other than as they were written.

Sincerely,

Roger Pearse

 

[ddt]

But consider for a moment... this idea involves the suggestion that a text attested in multiple manuscripts is less secure than one extant only in one. Yet surely the reverse is the case? With a single manuscript we are stuck with conjecture as our only tool to fix damage.

That's certainly not the message I get from Lucian's post - but rather that whenever we have larger numbers of MSS preserved, the evidence shows variations in the texts between those MSS; so that the reasonable assumption when we only have a few or even one MSS preserved, that there also have been such variations between different MSS.

On the other hand, DOC's claim in this thread, as much as I gather, is that the NT is the inerrant word of God and that all MSS of the gospels, Acts and letters have had identical texts since the apostles and Paul first wrote them down.

 

[Lucian]

But consider for a moment... this idea involves the suggestion that a text attested in multiple manuscripts is less secure than one extant only in one. Yet surely the reverse is the case? With a single manuscript we are stuck with conjecture as our only tool to fix damage.

I'm not sure this is addressing what I was discussing? Yes, textual damage occurs; but we are discussing whether texts can reach us from antiquity or not. I think that they do. The purpose of textual criticism is to heal what damage can be healed, and to highlight what cannot, in order to establish what we do or do not have.

Now I would push this issue back to you, and ask you to tell me: do we have the Canterbury tales or not? Does the existence of mss with different orders of the tales mean that the text did not reach us? Are people who read these, and write about them, engaged in a fantasy exercise? Or are they indeed commenting on the text?

The existence of damage, of variants in transmission, is real. Sometimes that damage is irreparable. More often it is trivial. Some of it is in between.

But to draw from that the conclusion that the text has not reached us .... are we willing to do that? Because I don't see how we can avoid obscurantism, if we do.

Now I have read attempts to evade this dichotomy, by various forms of words. But I find that these always seem to come down to "the texts I want to read are preserved, those I find inconvenient are not".

So I think that we must either think that texts are transmitted (more or less), or we must accept that all study of texts not extant in an autograph is essentially a form of self-delusion. Since many ancient texts had no autograph, presumably we then must close our eyes and refuse to look at them? That seems bonkers to me.

I think, at the renaissance, our civilisation made its decision on this. And it chose the path of sanity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I don't disagree with what you say here; I was just trying to clarify your earlier remark. Joobz had said, "A: The gospels are reliably traced back to the moments of the event in a form very similar to what we know as the gospels" (emphasis added), to which you replied, "We should go with A every time for every ancient text, unless I had evidence to the contrary. I.e. the *words* and *ideas* in the text have come down to us." To me this suggested that, not only have the texts come down to us (which obviously they have), but they have come down to us in a largely unaltered form, which is not necessarily the case. I did say that when we only have one text or only texts of questionable authority we have to deal with the texts we've got.