dimossi

A fundamentalist that I am in an e-mail debate with is touting the historic accuracy of the New Testament. Here is what he sent:

Not being especially familar with the bible I am hoping for some help here. How to I counter his claim?

Thanks.

Pugilist Atheist

I would suppose that if you did a little research, you can find evidence that will support Kurt Vonnegut's _Slaughterhouse Five_ as a factual piece of history. You might not find evidence confirming the existence of Billy Pilgrim, Kilgore Trout and the Trafalmadorians, but hey; there was a World War II and the city of Dresden was bombed.

not a theist

Insist that he argue the points himself and not just hand you links.
Then you can argue specific points with him and if you need to can come back here and get our responses to his points.

In general, just because the NT gets a lot of geographical and historical facts correct (and also gets some wrong!), that doesn't mean that its extraordinary claims are true. Many pieces of fiction have accurate historical and geographical settings.

cloudyphiz

if he's going to throw links at you, just return the favor:

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/christ.htm" target="_blank">this one should set him reeling</a>

-gary

Iasion

Greetings all,

Here is a summary I put together recently on the historicity of the Gospels.


Gospels Not Classified as History

The Gospels are NOT considered a "factual piece of history", 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.

I give a detailed chronology of the Gospel formation in my page here:

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html" target="_blank">Timeline</a>


No Gospels or Jesus of Nazareth known in 1st century

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 Irenaeus and Tertullian 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.

The many contradictions and in-consistencies between the Gospels shows they were not written as history.


Manuscripts of the Gospels are a century or more late

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

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"


Even some early Christians doubted a physical Jesus :[*] 1 John argues for a Christianity without a physical Jesus .[*] 2 John warns of those who don't believe a Jesus "of the flesh"


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">contemporaries</a>


Many differences in Gospel manuscripts

The manuscripts 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,
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

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Vinnie

""""""G.Matthew and G.Luke both copied large amounts of G.Mark word-for-word – so they can hardly have been eye-witnesses either. """""

No one claims Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses. Some might claim that Mark learned from Peter (a firsthand eyewitness). And how do we know that an eyewitness would not copy off of a non-eyewitness account? You've already stated these are NOT historical documents. Ergo, your position undercuts itself as Matthew did not seek to write a perfectly factual and historical account. Material could be added, omitted, rearranged and cast in new contexts. So he may have found Mark's somewhat concise treatment to be a nice mold to work off of with other sources such as Q, M, etc. Or maybe Matt tried to correct some things or felt it was inadequate. Maybe he thought it was okay but needed to be better. Or does GMatt have the same geography and local custom errors as GMark?

""""""Papias c.130 explains Mark was not an eye-witness
Clement and Irenaeus and Tertullian agree Mark was not an eye-witness. """""""

Why do you accept their references here? If the early church tradition (all that we have anyways) attests to the fact that Matthew was an eyewitness why do you disagree there but use their "mark was not an eyewitness" statements as evidence? I expect that you are doing more than picking and choosing out of convenience? So how does the methodology you employ when looking at what 2nd century Christians said about the Gospels work?

""""""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. """""""

A process they viewed in a totally different light than us fact-literalists of the 21st century. It should also be noted that myths can be profoundly true.

""""Even knowledge of the Gospels and their content does not occur till over a century after the alleged events"""""

You mean mention of the fourfold Gospel do you not? OBVIOUSLY Luke and Matthew had knowledge of Mark, Q etc.

"""""the first mention of Gospels is not until MAYBE c.130 with Papias. """"""

About 35 years after John's completion. John was also redacted so somebody knew about it prior to our first reference. This is also "first mention" that we know of. How much literature do we have from the year 95 to 130 AD? How exhaustively do we know the general thoughts of Christians on the Gospels from this time period?

""""the first substantial quotes from the Gospels is not until c.150 with Justin """"""


The Triple tradition doesn't count? From R. E. Brown (Intro the the NT) "Eighty percent of Mark's vv. are reproduced in Matt and 65 percent in Luke. The Marcan material found in both the other two is called the "Triple Tradition"."

Again, do you mean the first quotes from when the fourfold Gospel was complete? The Gospels were not totally completed until the end of the first century. But we have literature before. Matthew and Luke copy Mark a whole bunch!

""the first numbering of the Four Gospels is not until c.172 with the diaTessaron."""

What do you mean by numbering? You also realize that Tatian's DiaTessaron was NOT the first attempt to harmonize the Gospels correct? I have read that we have evidence of an earlier attempt. Tatian's DT is just the oldest one we have.

"""the first naming of the Four Gospels is not until c.185 with Irenaeus """

Personally, I don't accept the traditional authorship. But I won't appeal to Clement, Irenaeus, and Tertullian when they suit my needs and ignore them when they don't. I trust you don't do the same either.

One way to still use the early church references that Mark was not an eyewitness is to say they determined it from the fact that "the writer is often ignorant about the geography of the region and the writer is often ignorant about the customs of the locals." Is an argument like this plausible?

“””””No Contemporarys There is no contemporary reference to Jesus of Nazareth or the Gospel events – see my list of contemporaries here :””””””
You should say there is no reference as far as we know and if you expect contemporary primary source material on every historical individual there would be no history.
Peter Kirby argues that the shorter Josephan reference provides enough evidence of a HJ.
It should be noted that around 20 to 30 years after Jesus’ we already had lists of the sayings of Jesus and lists of the miracles of Jesus floating around.

There was a lot of material pertaining to Jesus and Christianity floating about in the first century. The Gospels et al, worked off of earlier sources. You may disagree with some of Crossan’s “1st stratum material and the dating but in appendix 1 of The Historical Jesus this is what he has for his first stratum from the years 30 to 60 CE:

1st Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians (50 CE)
Letter of Paul to Galatians (52-53 CE)
1st Letter of Paul to Corinthians (53-54 CE)
1st Letter of Paul to Romans (55-56 CE)
Gopsel of Thomas 1 (the one is important as it has at least 2 seperate layers according to Crossan the first of which may have been composed by the 50’s CE)
Egerton Gospel (Crossan argues is independent of canonical Gospels and dates originated possibly by the 50’s CE)
Papyrus Vindobonensis Greek 2325 (only 7 lines but JDC accepts is as independent and dated from 30 to 60 ce)
Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1224 (two fragments, frag 1 is small but frag two is large enough to indicate it is independent of the intracanonical Gospels.
Gospel of the Hebrews (No extant copies—known from 7 patristic citations and Crossan argues it is independent of the intracanonical Gospels.
Sayings Gospel of Q (may have 3 layers.)
Miracles collection (found embedded in the Gospels of Mark and John. Of 7 miracles found in John 2-9 the five in 5 6 and 9 that have Marcan parallels appear in the same order in Mark 2, 6 and 8. As Crossan says “Collections of Jesus’ deeds, like collections of Jesus’ words, were already being composed by the fifties CE.”
Apocalyptic scenario (now found in didache16 and Matt 24—Common apocalyptic sources behind both.)
Cross Gospel (embedded in Gospel of Peter. According to Crossan it’s the single source of the intracanonical passion accounts.)

Some of these may very well be argued against but I don’t see how the sheer volume of material does not constitute prima facie evidence of a HJ---a remarkable man who seems to have started or sparked a movement. I honestly do not understand Chist-mythicism.

And your listing of authors seems to assume a fundamentalist version of Jesus to argue with. Only an extremely small number of those texts on that site merit a discussion as to why they lack reference to JofN. I think you overstate things immensely there.
""""Examples of Corruptions to the NT"""""

Why are any of those significant? More significant is the early Christians tendency to alter texts until they became the norm.

Vinnie

King Arthur

Personally, I like how Iasion seems to make a lot of use of Bruce Metzger, a Christian. However, he quotes good 'ol Bruce quite selectively, taking all the points that go his way and none of the material which doesn't go his way (which is the majority, btw).

Christ mythicism is ultimately blind to the facts and requires a person who has done some but not enough study, and is gullible enough to believe the outrageous claims of pseudo-scholars and maverick scholars.
Frankly, Christ mythicism is stupid. Jesus, in all probability, existed whether some like it or not.

CX

I would invite this individual to discuss the topic here. I would also recommend, as someone else already has, that you insist your opponent present arguments rather than just links to large amounts of information so you can address specific points. There is simply too much information at the link cited to give a detailed rebuttal on a message board.

In general though the biggest difficulty I have with deriving historical information from the NT apart from the simplest and most trivial geographic and political information (and some of that is even wrong) is that we have a complete dearth of MSS attestation before the emergence of church hegemony in the 4th century. I'm loathe to bore everyone with the argument I've made here so many times before, but you can probably find a thread where I've detailed the MSS evidence for the NT on this forum in the past. If not feel free to email me or send me a private message.

dimossi

Thanks for the help everyone. I will keep you updated on what is response is.

rodahi

Frankly, some of the JC Bible is stupid, whether Jesus is a historical person or not. The gullible are those who believe the outrageous claims made by biblical writers.