Jayjay

A frequently used "proof" for the authenticity of the bible is the number of copies of manuscripts by the early church. If I'm not mistaken, only Euclid's Elementa comes even close. But what about the Chinese and Indians? Didn't they both have a rather sophisticated societies as well at the time? Did they have anything comparable to the bible in terms of sheer quantity of copies?

Gooch's dad

Good question! Vorkosigan is our resident expert on ancient Chinese documents. He was nice enough to help out in this thread over at TheologyWeb forum where I'm having great fun destroying the lame arguments presented by Robert Turkel (aka JP Holding of Tektonics.org).

Vork's post has some great examples of early Chinese documents that show far better attestation than anything in Western history from the same time period.

The Christian fundies have no argument, really--so what if the NT documents are the earliest? The earliest copies we have are still from 150 years or more after the supposed events, and they show obvious signs of being written to fit supposed OT prophecies. They aren't history, they're hagiography.

-Kelly

Jayjay

Thanks! Actually, that was exactly the thread that prompted me to wonder about how "superior" the bible's track record really is compared to the eastern cultures, but that was before Vorkosigan's post, and I didn't really expect this question to be adequately answered at TheologyWeb. Keep up the good work!

:notworthy

lpetrich

Vorkosigan may have been a bit hard on those medieval monks, but it must be said that their favorite literature outside of the Bible was:

Hymnals and the like

Largely-fictional biographies of saints

Vorkosigan

LOL. 'tis true. Didn't get a rise out of anyone either, most disappointing.

Still seriously, one always hears about the pious monks' respect for learning. Only when you think about it, it becomes respect for a certain kind of learning....

Bede

I must say, Vork, that as you usually stay well clear of cultural snobbery, I am disappointed to see you engaging in it here. What documents do you think should have been preserved by these monks and why would they (rather than you) find them useful or worth spending months writing out?

Given that there were several million people in Europe and that each community needed a lectionary or bible, I fail to see why they had too many. In fact, I expect, there were not nearly enough to go around.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

I must say, Vork, that as you usually stay well clear of cultural snobbery, I am disappointed to see you engaging in it here. What documents do you think should have been preserved by these monks and why would they (rather than you) find them useful or worth spending months writing out?

Just list everything that was lost in Antiquity, from the 8 books of the 10 book cycle on the war with Troy to the writings of the heretics.....it's not cultural snobbery to wish that the monks had wasted less time on lectionaries and more on the writings of smart people regardless of their viewpoints.

Given that there were several million people in Europe and that each community needed a lectionary or bible, I fail to see why they had too many.

Nobody "needs" a lectionary, Bede. Or a Bible.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Cultural snobbery, exhibit one:

No one needed the work of heretics or a trojan cycle. No one needs the Mona Lisa or the works of Shakespere. But the people of the Dark Ages really did feel they needed a bible or lectionary. As you are not living in that time and environment you have absolutely no right to tell spout about what they do and don't need. Your doing so is cultural snobbery.

B