Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HallaK9 · 06-28-2002, 05:47 AM

Hello,

I've been following an interesting debate on a Christian message board for some time now, where the theist claims that NT is the most reliable historical document there is.

Specifically, he's saying that:

Quote:

Historians rate the reliability of historical documents based on a couple general criteria: 1) the proximity in time between the historical writings and the date the events actually occurred and 2) the number of copies, and the similarity in content among the copies, currently in existence of the historical writing. By these standards, the New Testament is unrivaled as a historical document.

I'd appreciate examples of old historical documents or events better documented than the NT. It seems to me that his understanding of evaluating historical evidence is non-accurate (to put it friendly), so any resources regarding how historians evaluate the reliability of historical evidence wouldn't go amiss either. It's not the amount of copies of a given source that counts, but the amount of different, verifiable, sources that matters, right?

Any other ammo for debating the historical accuracy of the NT would be appreciated as well

Btw, this guy thinks that since a couple of Roman historians mention Jesus and Christianity, but fail to deny his divinity or resurrection, it means that he must have been resurrected and the historians are omitting that on purpose... Go figure.

Thanks,

Antti

Chrestomathy · 06-28-2002, 06:40 AM

Sounds like your theist is a MacDowell aficionado. Try this for good info: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml" target="_blank">verdict</a>

Dan

Chrestomathy · 06-28-2002, 06:45 AM

Wow---

I almost forget Peter Kirby! He's a wonderful resource: <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">Peter Kirby</a>

CX · 06-28-2002, 07:15 AM

The problem is A)Determining when the NT texts were written B)Who they were written by and C)Determining what the autographs said.

Most scholars conclude that the Pauline Epistles were written beginning in the middle 50's. The first gospel (GMk) wasn't written until around 70 C.E.. The next two synoptics were written in the 80's or 90's and are based in large part directly on GMk and GJn was written no early than 90-95 C.E.. So the autographs of the gospels were perhaps penned between 40 and 60 years after the events described in a time when the only means of recording events was either in personal memory and recollection and hand written documents which required hand copying on expensive materials to distribute.

In addition the Gospels themselves are not written by eyewitnesses to events so what we really have is someone who wasn't there writing 40 to 60 years after the events based on someone else's recollections. Not only that but the Gospel authors are evangelists not historians. As such they have different motivations for writing than simply recording historical events.

All that notwithstanding we have barely any MSS evidence for what the gospels originally said prior to

the 4th century C.E. when the church had established it's dominance and political power and dissenters were eradicated with prejudice. Prior to 200 C.E., which is to say in the first 170 years (that's 8 and 1/2 generations in ancient Palestine), our existing MSS evidence accounts for 0.00277% of the NT (22 partial verses out of 7,955 verses in the entire anthology) representing about 15 verses of GJn and 7 verses from Revelation.

Around 200 C.E. we have the Beatty and Bodmer papyri which attest to 9 of the Pauline epistles (P46) and about 94% of GJn. We also have the Oxyrhynchus find P77 which attests to 9 verses of GMt.

In the 3rd century there are 28 or so MSS all of which are fragmentary. There is no complete text of any book of the NT prior to

.

Furthermore there are 7 epistles in the NT canon which are not attested at all until the 4th century. In total we have about 100 papyrus fragments, 270 uncials (papyri and parchments in uncial script), 2850 miniscules and 2300 lectionaries totalling 5,520 MSS attestations to the canonical NT. Of those 85-90% are from the 9th century or later and are part of the so-called Byzantine family on which the KJV is based and which most scholars consider less reliable than the Alexandrian text type.

In the end we can say almost nothing about what the texts of the NT said prior to the 4th century nor evaluate the historicity of the claims therein. Your opponent is parroting some rather poor apologetic which is emotionally appealing, but not based in fact.

Vinnie · 06-28-2002, 08:25 AM

Heres a quote from Raymond Brown's introduction to the New Testament (p. 51)

"Many differences among the textual families visible in the great uncial codices of the 4th and 5th centuries existed already ca. 200 as we see from the papri and early translations. How could so many differences arise within a hundred years after the original books were written? The answer may lie in the attitude of the copyists toward the NT books being copied. These were holy books because of their content and origins, but there was no slavish devotion to their exact wording. They were meant to be commented on and interpreted, and some of that could be included in the text. Later when more fixed ideas of the canon and inspiration shaped the mind-set, attention began to center on keeping the exact wording. The Reformation spirit of "Scripture alone" and an ultraconservative outlook on inspiration as divine dictation intensified that attention."

Polycarp · 06-28-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HallaK9:
I'd appreciate examples of old historical documents or events better documented than the NT. It seems to me that his understanding of evaluating historical evidence is non-accurate (to put it friendly), so any resources regarding how historians evaluate the reliability of historical evidence wouldn't go amiss either. It's not the amount of copies of a given source that counts, but the amount of different, verifiable, sources that matters, right?

I recently raised this very issue on this board. Here is the link <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000349" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000349</a>

Nobody gave an example of a more reliable historical document.

Kosh · 06-28-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
<strong>[b]
Nobody gave an example of a more reliable historical document.</strong>

But we did point out to you many times why the claim is irrelevant. Also, see CX's excellent post in this thread, which you seem to be ignoring.

Peter Kirby · 06-28-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
<strong>Nobody gave an example of a more reliable historical document.</strong>

You need to be careful with your words! Your request was for a document with better textual evidence for the contents of the autograph. Your request has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a document as history. We have the autograph for some works of Mark Twain, for example, but that does not make his novels into reliable history.

What about the many documents for which we have the autographs unearthed at Oxyrhynchus?

You will find one example in Crossan's _The Historical Jesus_ (p. 20):

"Hilarion to his sister Alis many greetings, likewise to my lady Berous and to Aollonarion. Know that we are even yet in Alexandria. I urge and entreat you, be concerned about the child and if I should receive my wages soon, I will send them up to you. If by chance you bear a son, if it is a boy, let it be, if it is a girl, cast it out [to die]. You have said to Aphrodisias, 'Don not forget me.' How can I forget you? Therefore I urge you not to worry. (Year) 29 of Caesar [Augustus], Payni 23. (White 111-12; see also Hunt & Edgar 1.294-95; Davis 1933:1-7)"

best,
Peter Kirby

Polycarp · 06-28-2002, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
You need to be careful with your words! Your request was for a document with better textual evidence for the contents of the autograph. Your request has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a document as history. We have the autograph for some works of Mark Twain, for example, but that does not make his novels into reliable history.

I stand corrected. I did not mean to imply that the claims to historicity were the most reliable. I misunderstood the claim being made by the person under discussion. Sorry...

Ignore my previous post in this thread.

Vorkosigan · 06-28-2002, 02:01 PM

'kin 'ell what a stupid argument. The NT documents are separated by a minimum of five decades from the events they relate, even if those events really happened.

Any document that we have from a given time, in the original, would be more reliable. That would include thousands of documents from ancient China, the Middle East and elsewhere. Really, that guy is a wacko.

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

06-28-2002, 06:40 AM	#2
Chrestomathy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA Posts: 104	Sounds like your theist is a MacDowell aficionado. Try this for good info: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml" target="_blank">verdict</a> Dan

06-28-2002, 06:45 AM	#3
Chrestomathy Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA Posts: 104	Wow--- I almost forget Peter Kirby! He's a wonderful resource: <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">Peter Kirby</a>

06-28-2002, 07:15 AM	#4
CX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Portlandish Posts: 2,829	The problem is A)Determining when the NT texts were written B)Who they were written by and C)Determining what the autographs said. Most scholars conclude that the Pauline Epistles were written beginning in the middle 50's. The first gospel (GMk) wasn't written until around 70 C.E.. The next two synoptics were written in the 80's or 90's and are based in large part directly on GMk and GJn was written no early than 90-95 C.E.. So the autographs of the gospels were perhaps penned between 40 and 60 years after the events described in a time when the only means of recording events was either in personal memory and recollection and hand written documents which required hand copying on expensive materials to distribute. In addition the Gospels themselves are not written by eyewitnesses to events so what we really have is someone who wasn't there writing 40 to 60 years after the events based on someone else's recollections. Not only that but the Gospel authors are evangelists not historians. As such they have different motivations for writing than simply recording historical events. All that notwithstanding we have barely any MSS evidence for what the gospels originally said prior to the 4th century C.E. when the church had established it's dominance and political power and dissenters were eradicated with prejudice. Prior to 200 C.E., which is to say in the first 170 years (that's 8 and 1/2 generations in ancient Palestine), our existing MSS evidence accounts for 0.00277% of the NT (22 partial verses out of 7,955 verses in the entire anthology) representing about 15 verses of GJn and 7 verses from Revelation. Around 200 C.E. we have the Beatty and Bodmer papyri which attest to 9 of the Pauline epistles (P46) and about 94% of GJn. We also have the Oxyrhynchus find P77 which attests to 9 verses of GMt. In the 3rd century there are 28 or so MSS all of which are fragmentary. There is no complete text of any book of the NT prior to . Furthermore there are 7 epistles in the NT canon which are not attested at all until the 4th century. In total we have about 100 papyrus fragments, 270 uncials (papyri and parchments in uncial script), 2850 miniscules and 2300 lectionaries totalling 5,520 MSS attestations to the canonical NT. Of those 85-90% are from the 9th century or later and are part of the so-called Byzantine family on which the KJV is based and which most scholars consider less reliable than the Alexandrian text type. In the end we can say almost nothing about what the texts of the NT said prior to the 4th century nor evaluate the historicity of the claims therein. Your opponent is parroting some rather poor apologetic which is emotionally appealing, but not based in fact.

06-28-2002, 08:25 AM	#5
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Heres a quote from Raymond Brown's introduction to the New Testament (p. 51) "Many differences among the textual families visible in the great uncial codices of the 4th and 5th centuries existed already ca. 200 as we see from the papri and early translations. How could so many differences arise within a hundred years after the original books were written? The answer may lie in the attitude of the copyists toward the NT books being copied. These were holy books because of their content and origins, but there was no slavish devotion to their exact wording. They were meant to be commented on and interpreted, and some of that could be included in the text. Later when more fixed ideas of the canon and inspiration shaped the mind-set, attention began to center on keeping the exact wording. The Reformation spirit of "Scripture alone" and an ultraconservative outlook on inspiration as divine dictation intensified that attention."

06-28-2002, 02:01 PM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	'kin 'ell what a stupid argument. The NT documents are separated by a minimum of five decades from the events they relate, even if those events really happened. Any document that we have from a given time, in the original, would be more reliable. That would include thousands of documents from ancient China, the Middle East and elsewhere. Really, that guy is a wacko.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.