Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 08-25-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

The problem is that true believers are stuck with arguing for the historicity of the OT as well (since they basically come as a package deal). And,there, archaeology has pretty much shown that there was no exodus, that many of the cities the Israelites supposedly conquered were uninhabited at the time, and that, in the time of David and Solomon, Judah was basically a thinly-populated backwater and not the glorious kingdom it is made out to be in the Bible.

As for the NT, since the gospels are basically the story of a single man and his adventures in a very limited locale, archaeology is understandably of far less help in determining the probable truthfulness of the history it purports to record.

In arguing historicity with a believer, I would start with the OT rather than with the New, if that's indeed what you're trying to do.

Yes, it could be argued that the Exodus and Patriarch stories are merely legal fiction created to justify the Hebrews' claim to Canaanite territory.

The great convenience for Biblical literalists is the lack of external evidence either for or against the narratives in the Torah and Samuel/Kings as well as for Galilee and Judea in the early 1st C. Examples like Esther suggest that we should be wary of the official history of the the Jews before Hellenistic times, and of the Christians before the 3rd or 4th C.

Roger Pearse · 08-25-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

I was wondering if anyone has come across this claim before? That the New Testament is "the most historically accurate writing from antiquity?

I'm not very familiar with other writtings of the time but I would be willing to wager that writings from historians at the time would be given more validity.

I think that you have come across a rather bastardised version of this claim. The genuine claim is that the NT is the *best preserved" ancient literary text. This, of course, is true; we have far more and earlier manuscripts of this text than any other, as a comparison with my little digest of manuscripts of the Greek classics will quickly show.

I suspect that you have encountered someone who didn't really understand the original claim and so restated in a form they could understand, which happens to be much more controversial. (Or more likely, someone who has read someone who did this -- can you give us a reference?)

I'm not sure how we measure how "historically accurate" a literary text is. Every ancient writer has his biases; even posters in this forum can display their own biases occasionally. So I think the claim is meaningless as stated. I think, when evaluating ancient texts in general, I wouldn't start by trying to decide in advance whether I agreed with them! That way lies bias.

This is not to attack the NT -- I am, after all, a fundamentalist Christian! -- but to point out that the whole starting point is flawed and horrible.

I hope that helps. Nothing is gained in evaluating any religious position (including atheism) by using its worst representatives as a guide rather than its best.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Civil1z@tion · 08-25-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that you have come across a rather bastardised version of this claim. The genuine claim is that the NT is the *best preserved" ancient literary text. This, of course, is true; we have far more and earlier manuscripts of this text than any other, as a comparison with my little digest of manuscripts of the Greek classics will quickly show.

Of course it is the best preserved text from antiquity...because it happens to be the religious text of the largest faith on Earth. But of course, that says nothing as to its historical accuracy, the veracity of its theological claims, or even its authenticity (which, unlike Pete

, I can buy that the NT came from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD). A work of fiction can survive through history as well as one of non-fiction if its popular. I would bet that the best preserved and most widespread documents from Renaissance England are the plays of William Shakespeare.

Roger Pearse · 08-25-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I think that you have come across a rather bastardised version of this claim. The genuine claim is that the NT is the *best preserved" ancient literary text. This, of course, is true; we have far more and earlier manuscripts of this text than any other, as a comparison with my little digest of manuscripts of the Greek classics will quickly show.

Of course it is the best preserved text from antiquity...because it happens to be the religious text of the largest faith on Earth.

Nearly right; it's the best preserved literary text since it was the text in which the people who copied texts between the end of antiquity and the invention of printing were most interested and had most use for. The next best preserved literary texts are those of the major Greek fathers, such as some of the works of John Chrysostom, and for the same reason.

Quote:

But of course, that says nothing as to its historical accuracy, the veracity of its theological claims, or even its authenticity (which, unlike Pete

, I can buy that the NT came from the 1st and 2nd centuries AD).

Agreed. The two issues are not the same, and have no connection with one another.

Quote:

I would bet that the best preserved and most widespread documents from Renaissance England are the plays of William Shakespeare.

This refers to the age of printing, tho, so isn't a good comparison; but it's an interesting point and, who knows, might be true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Clivedurdle · 08-25-2008, 11:50 AM

If Atwill is correct it may be historically accurate!

Cesc · 08-25-2008, 12:14 PM

Comparing the NT with the works of Shakespeare is not such a bad idea, imho. Nobody knows who wrote either and both the story of Jesus and that of William Shakespere from Stratford is based wholly on faith and conjecture. As far as I know.

Roger Pearse · 08-25-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Comparing the NT with the works of Shakespeare is not such a bad idea, imho. Nobody knows who wrote either

My copies of both have the author at the top. You need a better bookdealer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cesc · 08-25-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Comparing the NT with the works of Shakespeare is not such a bad idea, imho. Nobody knows who wrote either

My copies of both have the author at the top. You need a better bookdealer.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Perhaps I do. But then again, a name appearing at the top hardly constitutes historical evidence for authorship. I could write my name at the top of the NT or of the Shakespearian works. Im not exactly an expert on Shakespearian history and Im not saying necessarily that the legend surrounding William Shakespere is a fraud, only that hundreds of millions of people all over the world are taking empty historical conjecture to be historical facts, concerning both the actor from Stratford as well as the Savior from Nazareth.

aa5874 · 08-25-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The genuine claim is that the NT is the *best preserved" ancient literary text.

Your claim may not be true.

The assumed writings of Philo of Alexandria preceeded all the assumed writings in the NT.

Alias · 08-25-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

I was wondering if anyone has come across this claim before? That the New Testament is "the most historically accurate writing from antiquity?

I'm not very familiar with other writtings of the time but I would be willing to wager that writings from historians at the time would be given more validity.

I think that you have come across a rather bastardised version of this claim. The genuine claim is that the NT is the *best preserved" ancient literary text. This, of course, is true; we have far more and earlier manuscripts of this text than any other, as a comparison with my little digest of manuscripts of the Greek classics will quickly show.

I suspect that you have encountered someone who didn't really understand the original claim and so restated in a form they could understand, which happens to be much more controversial. (Or more likely, someone who has read someone who did this -- can you give us a reference?)

I'm not sure how we measure how "historically accurate" a literary text is. Every ancient writer has his biases; even posters in this forum can display their own biases occasionally. So I think the claim is meaningless as stated. I think, when evaluating ancient texts in general, I wouldn't start by trying to decide in advance whether I agreed with them! That way lies bias.

This is not to attack the NT -- I am, after all, a fundamentalist Christian! -- but to point out that the whole starting point is flawed and horrible.

I hope that helps. Nothing is gained in evaluating any religious position (including atheism) by using its worst representatives as a guide rather than its best.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thank you for your perspevtive.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-25-2008, 11:50 AM	#15
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	If Atwill is correct it may be historically accurate!

08-25-2008, 12:14 PM	#16
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	Comparing the NT with the works of Shakespeare is not such a bad idea, imho. Nobody knows who wrote either and both the story of Jesus and that of William Shakespere from Stratford is based wholly on faith and conjecture. As far as I know.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.