Haran

I think what the author of that statement was trying to say was that much of what we know about classical western history is based on ancient texts for which all that is preserved are medieval manuscripts, yet the preservation of NT texts are at least preserved in many medieval manuscripts and much further back. Therefore, I think the author is saying that if we can consider those medieval manuscripts reliable enough to base our knowledge of classical history on them, then surely the many medieval and older manuscripts of the NT are reliable enough to base our knowledge of NT biblical history on them... I believe this is probably the gist.

funinspace

Hey JD, you on a fishing expedition? You appear well read and learned, by all that I have read elsewhere here. Was there something more, a point, or is it something that you believe? I noticed you were careful not to make it your own claim.

Vivisector

It is estimated that up to 40 billion copies of Chairman Mao's writings have been printed, including up to 5 billion copies of his Little Red Book. In view of the overwhelming bibliographical attestation of Chairman Mao's work, what is the Christian's reasonable and considered response regarding their reliability?

Vinnie

So then its a textual statement but it also adds in that the gospels are close to what they narrate.....which makes the author then very silly, indeed. Anonymous works written 40-70 years after Jesus was alive with lots of contradictions, creations, miraculous events and so on are reliable? Even the best preserved Jesus material (saying on divorce, Lord's supper et al) has signifiant variations that cannot be attributed to the vaguaries of memory.

Vinnie

Toto

That is true enough, and is a good reason to maintain some skepticism about ancient history in general.

But with non-Biblical ancient history, we can often supplement the texts with archeology. There is no archeological support for the NT manuscripts.

Steven Carr

I'm sure you are correct in your interpretation of what the author is saying.

However what the author is saying is a non sequitor.

In any case, we have much more reliable documents than the NT. We have original inscriptions , or at least fragments.

What is the name of that fragment used to 'prove' that Quirinius was a governor of Syria twice, although his name is never mentioned.

I forget the name, but surely it is an original document, something the Gospel manuscripts are not.

Haran

Definitely. Of course there is the interesting problem that these sources are used both to bolster and to undermine NT history.

You must define "archaeological support for the NT manuscripts" differently than I do. One example would be the inscription mentioning Pilate (whom I believe skeptics in the past denied the existence of).

What archaeological artifacts support what texts that you know of in non-biblical ancient history that would stand up to the intense scrutiny that biblical artifacts undergo?

Toto

You must have been away when Stephen Carr issued a general challenge to find any example of a skeptic who denied the existence of Pilate. None were found.

Haran

In what way are inscriptions necessarily more reliable? I suppose I may be finding out the hard way that this is not necessarily so.

Haran

Hmm, I thought I had read it somewhere at least half-reputable. Perhaps it is incorrect.