Why Bother??

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

I have heard that alright.
I think that is only fragments of the manuscripts of the New Testament? Is it not?
Can you elaborate?
A link would be nice and or link to book would be good.
Regards

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I have heard that alright.
I think that is only fragments of the manuscripts of the New Testament? Is it not?
Can you elaborate?
A link would be nice and or link to book would be good.
Regards

Yes, the earliest portions are, not surprisingly when we consider the centuries that have passed, fragments.

The Bodmer Papyrus (c.200AD) contains 14 full chapters from John's Gospel.

The Chester Beatty Papyri, (200-250AD) contain considerable portions of many New Testament books. You can go and see them since they are in Dublin.

Here is an excellent chapter by FF Bruce: http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the New Testament describes various "miracles" including a human being rising from the dead (though no one actually saw this happen).

Its like comparing Uri Gellers website website with the Irish Times.

It always puzzled me why the "Well these people were actually there" argument is used as proof all this happened. How many fantastical things are reported every day in the tabloids, from claims by real people who "were there"? Do we believe them? Of course not.

Would you ask Tom Cruise if L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the New Testament describes various "miracles" including a human being rising from the dead (though no one actually saw this happen).

Its like comparing Uri Gellers website website with the Irish Times.

It always puzzled me why the "Well these people were actually there" argument is used as proof all this happened. How many fantastical things are reported every day in the tabloids, from claims by real people who "were there"? Do we believe them? Of course not.

Would you ask Tom Cruise if L. Ron Hubbard was the real deal?

If Tom Cruise believed it enough to suffer torture and execution then I might listen a bit more closely.

Of course if you want to object to the reliability of the New Testament on the grounds that you have a predisposition to reject the concept of miracles then that is a perfectly permissible argument. I, of course, was specifically addressing the very different point about the alleged time lag between Christ's life and the biblical accounts of that life. I don't blame you for wanting to switch the focus from that particular issue.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

...
so you lend credence to the beliefs of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 that they will go to heaven and be given 72 virgins? and all the suicide bombers who believe the same thing?

just because people are willing to die or suffer for their beliefs is not a good reason to believe they are in any way correct. all it shows is their fanatacism.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

If Tom Cruise believed it enough to suffer torture and execution then I might listen a bit more closely.

Why?

I've no doubt that Tom Cruise does believe strongly in Scientology. That doesn't mean it is true.

Plenty of people down the years have suffered terrible torture and death for beliefs they hold.

But that is only evidence that they believed them, not that their beliefs were true. In fact they could not be all true, since most religions contradict each other.

PDN wrote:

Of course if you want to object to the reliability of the New Testament on the grounds that you have a predisposition to reject the concept of miracles then that is a perfectly permissible argument.

I would hope most people have a predisposition to reject miracles.

PDN wrote:

I, of course, was specifically addressing the very different point about the alleged time lag between Christ's life and the biblical accounts of that life.

Considering that false rumors about people like refugee's can appear days after an incident, 40+ years I think is long enough for an entire mythology to grow up around one man, particularly with the people who are interested in worshiping him as a savor

PDN wrote:

I don't blame you for wanting to switch the focus from that particular issue.

I only bring it up because you seem to be saying "No no, look Paul knew people who knew Jesus"

My response to that would be "And....?"

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

pinksoir wrote:

But how do you know this? (Without using the Bible for evidence as that would be what's being contested). Roman records?

Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar. Plato wrote between 427-347 B.C., with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1200 year span), of which 7 copies have survived. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 B.C., and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1400 year span), with 49 surviving copies. Thucydides wrote around 460-400 B.C.; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1300 year span), with 8 copies in existence. Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 B.C. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1000 years) and we have 10 surviving copies.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

Without wishing to rain on the parade - no-one disputes that the New Testament was written. What is at issue is accuracy and corroboration. The facts detailed by those accepted as 'historical' writers are not accepted as facts merely because they are found in their writing. Caesar's work, for example, was definitely written as propaganda, and contains heavy elements of spin along with, probably, some outright lies. Plato and Aristotle's works could be by entirely different people without reducing their value.

The corroboration for the New Testament life of Jesus, both in terms of contemporary literature, and in archaeological terms, is extremely weak.

The reference by Josephus is disputed, and strongly looks like a later interpolation. The reference by Tacitus is very brief, and repeats only that 'Christ' was the founder of the Christian sect, and put to death by Pilate - which is almost certainly simply what Tacitus was told by Christians, since he has Pilate's title incorrect. Suetonius' reference is only a reference to a 'Chrestus', who he refers to in the present tense in Nero's reign.

Undoubtedly, we have evidence for Christians, and undoubtedly we have evidence that the New Testament was written quite early. However, it is possible today to still find first-imprint copies of L. Ron Hubbard's works, and we certainly know there are Scientologists, but that doesn't make Scientology any more accurate.

Would I really consider accurate accounts of the life of someone who lived in the early years of the 20th century, written in the 1980's using the 'eye-witness' recollections of his aging followers? Not really, unless there was a lot of independent corroboration - particularly if the claims made were extraordinary in any way.

There's no corroboration from Roman records of the life of Jesus as recorded by the New Testament. Not only that, but the NT accounts themselves are contradictory, and appear to have been written to suit different purposes at different times in the early Church.

cordially,
Scofflaw