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.

:huh:

mountainman

Historians at the time???????

We need to know when the new testament was written in order to start answering this question. Do you have any conjectures?

BTW the first century has been swept clean and there appears to be no historians mentioning the new testament or its cast of characters.

Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

I've seen people make such absurd claims before, but that's all it is - an absurd claim. There's hardly anything in the NT that can even be corroborated, and it's filled with obvious nonsense from start to finish.

cogitans

I've heard believers make a big deal about how well-preserved it is in comparison with other works at the time. That much is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the actual content of the NT is simply not the slightest bit credible. I'm not saying it doesn't contain considerable historical information, but it also contains a vast quantity of blatant fiction.

Alias

Wouldn't Pontius Pilate be one? :huh:

Alias

I agree.

However, I find it hard to believe that there aren't any other works from that period that would be considered to be more historically accurate.

spamandham

...and you would be right. Here is a short list of more reliable sources:

Josephus
Tacitus
Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Younger
Seutonius
Seneca (the younger)

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.

mountainman

Are you aware of any of the known forgeries related to name of Pontius Pilot and how this material is viewed by ancient historians? Try again.

Best wishes,


Pete

Doug Shaver

I have not heard it in so many words. However, if you're an inerrantist, what else can you believe? No writing can be more accurate than inerrant writing.