Iasion

Greetings HallaK9,

I have put together some notes that may help you to answer your interlocutor regarding the historicity of the NT.


Gospels Not History

Your interlocutor said :
The initial premise is wrong -
The Gospels are NOT “historical documents”, they are religious works.
Check your library – the Gospels are found in the 200s under religion, not the history section.
Check your local university – the Gospels are not found in Ancient History 101 classes.

If the Gospels are to be claimed as “history” they have to stand up to critical study.
Yet when we do study the Gospels and their origins we find they are anything BUT reliable history, some examples of which follow.


No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in 1st century

Firstly,
we should distinguish between the Gospels and the rest of the NT – the NT epistles and Revelation and Acts show no clear knowledge of the Gospel events or Jesus of Nazareth, merely high spiritual formulae.

Because its the Gospels that are cited as the alleged “history” of Jesus, I will focus on the Gospels.


Gospels Not by Eye-witnesses

Its clear G.Mark was not by an eye-witness :[*] the writer is often ignorant about the geography of the region[*] the writer is often ignorant about the customs of the locals[*] Papias c.130 explains Mark was not an eye-witness[*] Clement and Tertullian later agree Mark was not an eye-witness.

G.Matthew and G.Luke both copied large amounts of G.Mark word-for-word – so they can hardly have been eye-witnesses either.
They also changed, deleted and added to G.Mark to suit differing purposes and audiences – showing they did not represent historical events, but religious mythology.


Manuscripts of the Gospels are a century or more late

Your interlocutor said :
Wrong,
the Gospels manuscripts are NOT CLOSE IN TIME to the alleged events, we have :[*] a few WORDS possibly of G.John from early 2nd century[*] most of G.John from c.200[*] several verses of G.Matt from c.200[*] several chapters of synoptics from 3rd century

The substantial manuscripts of the synoptic Gospels are TWO CENTURIES or more after the alleged events.


Citations of the Gospels are a century or more late

Furthermore,
even knowledge of the Gospels and their content does not occur till over a century after the alleged events :[*] the first mention of Gospels is not until MAYBE c.130 with Papias.[*] the first substantial quotes from the Gospels is not until c.150 with Justin[*] the first numbering of the Four Gospels is not until c.172 with the diaTessaron.[*] the first naming of the Four Gospels is not until c.185 with Irenaeus

The Gospels only became widely known in the mid-late 2nd century – about a century and a half after the alleged events. History is generally considered to be lost among legendary accretions once about 150 years of oral tradition has passed.


Early Doubts about the Gospels

Even in the very time when the Gospels first appear there are doubts -[*] Trypho c.130 seems to doubt Jesus[*] Celsus c.175 exposes the Gospels as “fiction” and based on “myth”

Later writers also criticised the Gospels as fiction :[*] Porphyry called the evangelists “inventors” of history[*] Julian called Jesus “spurious” and “invented”

No Contemporarys

There is no contemporary reference to Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events – see my list of contemporaries here : <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/EarlyWriters.html" target="_blank">Early Writers</a>


Number of LATER copies is irrelevant

Your interlocutor said :
The number of LATER copies says NOTHING about the accuracy of the transmission, NOR the validity of the content. If there were more copies of the Bhagavad Gita than the NT, would that mean it was more true than the NT?

Also,
the accuracy of transmission or quantity of manuscripts has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of the CONTENT :[*] we have original manuscripts of the Lord of the Rings – does that make it true?[*] large numbers of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book were printed (they even reached my Western Australian country town when I was in school) – does that make it true?


Many differences in Gospel manuscripts

Your interlocutor said :
The manuscripts do NOT show similarity – in fact they show WIDE variation – there are NO TWO substantial manuscripts of the Gospels which are identical.

It is estimated there are 300,000 variations in the NT manuscripts, 30,000 in G.Mark, even 80 or so in the Lord's Prayer.

Furthermore, these changes were often driven by arguments over dogma in the early centuries - Bert Ehrman's classic work “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” shows in detail four examples of how the scriptures were CHANGED by early Christians to argue their points.


To finish, let me quote a typical list of modifications of the scriptures. Note that such changes are not just minor things like spelling errors, they show variation of the some of the most fundamental issues of Christian dogma including - the virgin birth, the baptism, the Lord's Prayer, the trinity, even the resurrection.


Examples of Corruptions to the NT[*] Markan appendix -
not found in early manuscripts - there are now FOUR differing versions of endings to Mark (the short, plus 3 versions of how it ends)[*] Matt. 6:13 -
to this day, there are different versions in various bibles - the early manuscripts show that "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is a later addition.[*] Luke 3:22 -
early witnesses have :
" . . . and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"
later manuscripts have the KJV version :
"...Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"[*] John 9:35 -
The KJV has "...son of god", but the early manuscripts show "..son of man".[*] John's pericope of the Adulteress -
not found in the early witnesses - generally agreed to be a later addition.[*] Colossians 1:14 -
the phrase "through hs blood" is a later addition.[*] Acts 9:5-6 -
Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.[*] Acts 8:37 -
"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Absent from early manuscripts - a later addition.[*] John 8:59 -
"...going through the midst of them, and so passed by"
Absent from early manusripts - a later addition.[*] 1 John 5:7
The Trinity formula found here only originated centuries after the events -
Bruce Metzger notes :
"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate . . .
"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in 1215.


Quentin David Jones

King Arthur

Here's a website from an inerrantist which addresses many textual issues among which is the number of MSS of other ancient works. The works he lists are mainly Greek, but he does list the Hindu Mahabharata and the Koran.

<a href="http://inerrancy.org/ntmss.htm" target="_blank">http://inerrancy.org/ntmss.htm</a>

Steven Carr

'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.'

Which historians use these principles? Names please.


Historians principles are usually to distinguish between primary and secondary sources.

Steven Carr

The web site writes 'Some, such as the John Rylands fragment (117-138 A.D.), were dated by mass spectrometer radiocarbon dating'

Is this really true? Any references to these tests? I'm intrigued.

The author of the site appears to be following the gibberish of Thiede - the guy who now claims to have found the True Cross, although most of the page is very good.

But still a bit exaggareted.

For example, he says that p66 contains 'John 1:1-6:11; 6:35b-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17'. and that this is 'most of John' 'Most' appears to mean 'less than half'

CX

Five decades? Are you sure? For one thing the authentic Pauline epistles (and granted those say very little about the gospel story of the HJ beyond the barest outline) date to the 50's and early 60's roughly only 20 years after the supposed ministry of the HJ. Most scholars date GMk to around 70 CE which is less than 40 years after the events depicted. Of course none of this has any bearing on the issue since we have hardly any MSS attestation prior to the 4th century. Come to think of it I'm just being pedantic. Carry on.

CX

I don't think so. I'll have to check references, but I believe P52 is dated paleographically. C14 dating has a margin of error of +- 50 years which hardly makes it useful for precisely dating NT MSS.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

Steven Carr

And it can only measure when the paper was made.
Paper was often reused.

CX

Hmmm. The first MSS listed is:

100 A.D. Paris Lukan fragment (p6) Luke 3:23; 5:36

Now according to the Appendix in NA 27, P6 is a fragment of GJn which dates to the 4th century. Secondly I cannot find any MSS in the appendix that dates to 100 nor the fragment of GLk cited. Does anyone know to what this person could be referring?

The only MSS listed in NA27 that date prior to 200 C.E. are P52, P90, and possibly P98. The first attestation to GLk I see is P4 dated to the 3rd century and comprising about 94 verses.

CX

Another curiousity.

Does anyone know why NA27 dropped P104 (P.Oxy 4404) from the list of MSS?

Radcliffe Emerson

Matthew is ignorant about the region too. He writes about Jesus going into a synagogue in Galilee. No synagogues dating from the 1st century have been found ANYWHERE in Galilee.
Matthew assumes Jesus did this.