Originally posted by twhiteheadSo before I go any farther are you speaking of religious documents or the Bible? I'm not referring to anything written or believed by any religion at this moment, even mine. This is strickly about the Bible's being right or wrong....
I didn't give any. The main test it fails is that it is in part written as a religious document which makes extraordinary claims, and in general I do not treat religious documents as reliable sources of information. That is not to say I ignore them altogether, but I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Here is a sample of the "New Testament Documents " by F.F.Bruce...very compelling stuff....
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.
There are in existence about 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the wellknown Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £100,000 on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early MSS in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae:, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.
But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.
A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, 'that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.
Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John xviii. 31-33, 37 f, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and 100, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.
A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.'
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou say, "I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history."
I didn't give any. The main test it fails is that it is in part written as a religious document which makes extraordinary claims, and in general I do not treat religious documents as reliable sources of information. That is not to say I ignore them altogether, but I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history.
See if any of the following websites help:
http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com/whatdoesthebiblesayabout/reliable.html
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/archa.htm
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html
Originally posted by checkbaiterThanks...good stuff.
Here is a sample of the "New Testament Documents " by F.F.Bruce...very compelling stuff....
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authentici ...[text shortened]... st seven chapters.'
http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce-ch2.htm
Originally posted by galveston75The Bible is a collection of books, many of which are religious documents.
So before I go any farther are you speaking of religious documents or the Bible? I'm not referring to anything written or believed by any religion at this moment, even mine. This is strickly about the Bible's being right or wrong....
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think you are quite seriously confused about what is under discussion. I do not dispute the authenticity of the New Testament documents. I do not dispute that they were written within a few hundred years of when Jesus supposedly lived. I dispute that their contents accurately describe history or the universe.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning.
Originally posted by twhiteheadA few hundred year? They were all written within that same century Jesus actually lived, numbnuts.
I think you are quite seriously confused about what is under discussion. I do not dispute the authenticity of the New Testament documents. I do not dispute that they were written within a few hundred years of when Jesus supposedly lived. I dispute that their contents accurately describe history or the universe.
Originally posted by KeplerIt is true that the writers did not date their New testament works, however, a good estimate can be determined through the known dates of other things relating to that time period.
Really? Go on, show us the frontispiece with the publication date on it. What? You can't? How do you know when they were written then?
The idea that the new testament was wriiten centuries after the events came about by the dating of copies (not the originals) of new testament manuscripts from later centuries.
Biblical scholars have been working on determining the approximate dates of the actual writing for a long time and I will just refer you to one source for a brief explanation.
http://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ