Yellow is Really Cool!

Is Goldielax a play off of Goldie locks?

What have I started?

What have I started?

I dunno but I'm pretty ready to blame you.

The earliest manuscript of Caesar's Gaelic Wars is from 1,000 years after Ceasar lived.

The earliest Demosthenes manuscript is 1,200 years after he lived.

Plato? 1,300 years

Herodotus, also 1,300

Homer's Odyssey? 2,200 years.

The earliest manuscript of the New Testament is from the book of John, the Rylands Manuscript, and it dates to 125 AD, just 30 years after the book of John is accepted to have been written (the 90s AD). So, if the problem is the amount of time that has passed between authorship and extant copies, I'm going to need you to go throw out Plato, the Greek dramatists, Caesar--well, why make a list. I just need you to throw out everything you know about the ancient world because we have no trustworthy documents.

Further to Schattenmann's point, there is also the matter of the number of surviving manuscripts. For many ancient documents, there are less than a dozen. In the case of the New Testament, however, there are quite literally thousands of manuscripts/fragments that have been discovered. The fact that these almost always agree with each other -- differences tend to be trival, such as changes in spelling, not content -- and do so over a very large geographical distance tends to lend credence to the argument that the New Testament we have now is very much the same as when it was written roughly two millennia ago.

Further to Schattenmann's point, there is also the matter of the number of surviving manuscripts. For many ancient documents, there are less than a dozen. In the case of the New Testament, however, there are quite literally thousands of manuscripts/fragments that have been discovered. The fact that these almost always agree with each other -- differences tend to be trival, such as changes in spelling, not content -- and do so over a very large geographical distance tends to lend credence to the argument that the New Testament we have now is very much the same as when it was written roughly two millennia ago.

And even the ecumenical councils were very careful to translate Hebrew into a language that would preserve the writing via translation the best they could using Greek. It wasn't like they manipulated the text, it would have been very easy for them to go with another language and to not even bother translating it the way that they did.

When one considers the historicity of the New Testament, there are three main points to consider:

a) the time gap between the original manuscripts and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, in contrast with other writings from the ancient world

b) the number of manuscripts currently in existence (again, as opposed to other writings from the ancient world)

c) quotations (in the personal correspondence of the Christian leaders of the time)

Let us start with point a). Obviously, the original manuscripts of the New Testament dissolved, due to deterioration of the physical materials on which they were written. Thus, copies were made. This is not unique to the New Testament, it's a common problem with ancient documents. In this way, a time gap developed between when the original manuscripts were written and the oldest manuscripts which currently exist. Generally, the earlier a manuscript, the more accurate it is considered to be, presumably because there is less time for errors to creep in as copies of the originals are made.

So, how do other historical texts measure up to the Bible? Thucydides, for example, who wrote 'The History of the Peloponnesian War', lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about that war comes from Thucydides. The earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, which means a time gap of 1300 years.

Then there's Caesar's 'De Bello Gallico', which Schattenmann mentioned, which was written roughly 100-44 BC. The earliest copy we have is 900 AD, which means a time gap of 1000 years, and we have ten copies of it.

Suetonius wrote 'The Twelve Caesars' 70 AD to 140 AD. The earliest copy dates around 950 AD, meaning a time gap of around 800 years.

Tacitus wrote 'The Annals' and 'The Histories' around 100 AD. The earliest copy of any of his works was around 1100 AD. Thus, there was a time gap of 1000 years, and we have 20 copies of his work.

Pliny, wrote his 'Epistulae' around 61-113 AD. The earliest copy of the 'Epistulae' was 850 AD, meaning a time gap of 750 years, and we have seven copies of it.

Heroditus' 'Histories' were written 480-425 BC, the earliest copy of which was 900 AD, meaning a time gap of 1300 years, and we have eight copies.

I could reference Aristotle or Plato or numerous other ancient writers, but I believe I've cited enough to demonstrate my point. Contrast this with the New Testament. Again, as Schattenmann mentioned, the Ryland Manuscript, currently located in Manchester, England, and the oldest known manuscript of the New Testament, is dated 130 AD, within 40 years of the original. It consists of fragments from the book of John.

Other, more extensive copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, which contains major portions of the New Testament and is dated third century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late second century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. Thus, there is simply no document from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament, in terms of the time gap between the original manuscripts and the earliest existing manuscripts.

Sir Fredric Kenyon says that "the net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity... no other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text" and rightly concludes that "... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound."

But not only is the time gap unparalleled in the ancient world, but a comparison in the number of manuscripts demonstrates the superiority of the New Testament too. Many works of the ancient world are preserved with just a few manuscripts. As has been mentioned, there are seven manuscripts of Thucydides' Peloponnesian War and eight of Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars. The number of New Testament manuscripts by comparison is overwhelming. There are in existence around 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 Latin, and 1,000 versions from other languages, making 14,000 manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament. Obviously, the more manuscripts in existence to cross reference, the more reliable your reading of the original can be. Therefore, we can conclude that the New Testament is reliable, moreso in fact than any other ancient writing.

This evidence puts the historical reliability of the New Testament beyond doubt. What we have is what they wrote. But the case for the New Testament does not stop there. The first generation of church leaders, known as "Church Fathers", have numerous quotes of the New Testament in their personal correspondence. For example, Clement of Alexandria, who lived about AD 150 - AD 212, has 2,406 quotes from all but three books of the New Testament. Tertullian, who was an elder of the church in Carthage and who lived around AD 160 - AD 220, quotes the New Testament 7,258 times. Of these quotes, around 3,800 are from the gospels. Other quotes from Church fathers include Justin Martyr, 330 quotes; Irenaeus, 1,819 quotes; Origen, 17,922 quotes, Hippolytus, 1,378 quotes; and Eusebius, 5,176 quotes, making a total of 36,289 quotes of the New Testament.

Thus, we could, in fact, destroy every Bible in existence, and yet reproduce all but eleven verses of the New Testament entirely from their letters and correspondence.

Therefore, I'll conclude with the following quote:

"I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history..."

- E. M. Blaiklock, Professor of Classics, Auckland University

(full credit to lifeafterdeath.net.nz and answeringislam.org, from which I drew most of the content above.)

Now Frans, that doesn't look like proper MLA format :v

I believe you'll find most accepted dates for the writing of the gospels have them falling between 80-150 AD depending on the book.

So we take your original statement:

stuff people wrote in a book decades after the supposed Jesus lived, by people who were not alive when he was

And we do some math

I believe you'll find most accepted dates for the writing of the gospels have them falling between 80-150 AD depending on the book.

Given that Jesus died in 30 AD we see that the gospels were written within a human lifespan of Jesus' ministry.

Some of the people defending the New Testament's validity are not people I would have pegged as men of faith.

Carry on.

I like how the time frame of production of that crap is considered a source of validation. Maybe if we pinpoint the actual dates Homer wrote the Odyssey, we can truly make harpies, nymphs and satyrs come to life!

I like how the time frame of production of that crap is considered a source of validation. Maybe if we pinpoint the actual dates Homer wrote the Odyssey, we can truly make harpies, nymphs and satyrs come to life!

You're right in that this is where the comparison of the Bible to Homer's works breaks down. The comparison can only be used to say that what we have now is legitimately what the authors wrote, it can't be used to say "What the Biblical Authors said is actually true"

Now there is a second difference that you need to consider. When many of these books were written people were around to verify what was said. For example, if today I went into the wiki and wrote that MCXA was the number one alliance, some one would quickly tell me to GTFO the wiki, and fix it. However, if I went into the wiki and wrote that MHA is currently the number one alliance, that would stand the test of credibility.

Consider what Paul wrote to the Corinthians

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

If Paul is writing about something that has 500 witnesses, and he is writing it in AD 54 or AD 55. Just around 25 years after the event. This means that many of the people who supposedly saw Christ Alive, after his death, would still be around. Now if Paul was lying, he would have quickly been shut up by the lack of witnesses he describes, and his works would have been immediately labeled as loony toons. There were plenty of people then that would have loved to shut him up and easily could have if he was lying. That's not what happened though. So the most likely scenario is that these 500 were actually around to see what happened.

I like how the time frame of production of that crap is considered a source of validation. Maybe if we pinpoint the actual dates Homer wrote the Odyssey, we can truly make harpies, nymphs and satyrs come to life!

There's a your-mom joke to be had in there.

Goldie's claim is that the gospels were written sooooooo long after Jesus died that the people that wrote them had no clue what they were talking about. How long has FDR been dead? 65 years--longer than JEsus had been dead when the gospels were written. Are there still people alive that knew FDR? Are there even more people alive who are the children of people that knew him? Are people still writing books on FDR that are accurate despite his being dead for 65 years?

The simple fact of the matter is that the gospels were written 50 years after Jesus died, and the oldest copies we have are just 30 years older than the originals. Would Goldie jump into a thread/blog about Caesar and say "this is all a bunch of horsecrap we have no idea what Caesar did because the only accounts of Caesar that we have are 1000 year older than Caesar!" No. Would Goldie say that everyone should stop reading Homer's Odyssey because the oldest copy is over 2,000 years older than Homer? No, hundreds of millions of students have studied it for centuries despite our inability to know whether or not it is anywhere close to what it's supposed to be.

The only difference is that while Goldie is accusing MVP of being too stupid to argue because he's so stupid as to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, it is in fact Goldie who has gone off the deep end with ignorant claims based in his own dogma-based deficiencies.

Now Frans, that doesn't look like proper MLA format :v

I wasn't going for the ~formal intellectual~ academic thing. I assumed if people wanted to know more, they'd visit the websites I described. But if it's references you want, answeringislam.org has a references section in the article in question:

- the dates and numbers regarding Thucydides, Caesar, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny and Herodotus come from F.W. Hall, "MS Authorities for the Text of the Chief Classical Writers," in Companion to Classical Text (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913) as cited in Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino: Campus Crusade for Christ International, 1972): 48; from Bruce, The New Testament Documents, pp. 16-17; and from Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968): 36-41.

Interestingly, I actually picked up 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict' off my parents' bookshelf last night. Josh McDowell is a really good author. o.o

- the quotes from Sir Robert Kenyon come from "The Bible and Modern Scholarship" (London: John Murray, 1948): 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49, and "The Bible", by Kenyon, as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49.

While I'm on the subject, I'll add the following to what I've already said (drawn heavily from answeringislam.org, it was mentioned in the references:)

The discovery of the Ryland manuscript proves the early composition of the fourth gospel, contrary to what liberal scholars were teaching in the nineteenth century about the New Testament. The fragment was found in Egypt and dated around 130 AD. This indicates that John's gospel had, by AD 130, circulated from the Ephesus in Asia Minor where it was written, to as far away as Egypt. This would have been impossible if the gospel had been written by someone other than John in the middle part of the second century as, for example the nineteenth century scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur of the Tubingen School, was claiming.

Goldielax's response to this was extraordinarily brief. If he isn't an expert in this subject, and doesn't wish to rebut what has been said, that's fine, but perhaps he should be more respectful towards those who have differing opinions to him on a subject he knows little about in future.

Talk about a smackdown...

I like how the time frame of production of that crap is considered a source of validation. Maybe if we pinpoint the actual dates Homer wrote the Odyssey, we can truly make harpies, nymphs and satyrs come to life!

Well for a start epic poems like the Odyssey (or the Aeneid for that matter) were not meant to be a real account of historical events, unlike the Bible. But that's not the issue here. The claim is not that the fact that Bible was written within a couple of decades of Jesus' death proves that the Bible is true, but rather we're attempting to demonstrate that it wasn't written hundreds of years after Jesus' death, and that what we have today is an accurate record of what was originally written by John and the rest of the apostles.

There's a your-mom joke to be had in there.

Goldie's claim is that the gospels were written sooooooo long after Jesus died that the people that wrote them had no clue what they were talking about. How long has FDR been dead? 65 years--longer than JEsus had been dead when the gospels were written. Are there still people alive that knew FDR? Are there even more people alive who are the children of people that knew him? Are people still writing books on FDR that are accurate despite his being dead for 65 years?

The simple fact of the matter is that the gospels were written 50 years after Jesus died, and the oldest copies we have are just 30 years older than the originals. Would Goldie jump into a thread/blog about Caesar and say "this is all a bunch of horsecrap we have no idea what Caesar did because the only accounts of Caesar that we have are 1000 year older than Caesar!" No. Would Goldie say that everyone should stop reading Homer's Odyssey because the oldest copy is over 2,000 years older than Homer? No, hundreds of millions of students have studied it for centuries despite our inability to know whether or not it is anywhere close to what it's supposed to be.

The only difference is that while Goldie is accusing MVP of being too stupid to argue because he's so stupid as to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible, it is in fact Goldie who has gone off the deep end with ignorant claims based in his own dogma-based deficiencies.

Agreed, with minor counterpoints. Yes, of course there is going to be some historical accuracy within any text written in any time period. People write about what they know, inserting locations and events that occurred to produce a story. Dean Koontz always writes about California, and Stephen King always writes about New England. Homer wrote about Troy, and they found the ruins due to his poem. That certainly doesn't validate and make true everything that was written in the poem. As for the Bible and the way it was peacemealed together by committee, the text itself was put together by men. Men are corrupt. Men have alterior motives. If all that was written about Jesus and the god associated with him were true, they wouldn't have picked and chose which books to put into the final product. What most people fail to realize (I'm not saying you, per se...I'm pretty sure you know your !@#$) is that Christianity itself is just a byproduct of Judaism. The first five books of the old testament are the Torah. For Christians to muck about and swipe old stories from another religion, just to claim that those who don't convert to Christianity are going to burn in eternal damnation...well, that's just pure arrogance on their part. Ancient religions were wiped from the Earth through force and labelled 'mythology'. It's pretty funny when people preach religious tolerance, yet have the audacity to label other religions 'myths'.

Agreed, with minor counterpoints. Yes, of course there is going to be some historical accuracy within any text written in any time period. People write about what they know, inserting locations and events that occurred to produce a story. Dean Koontz always writes about California, and Stephen King always writes about New England. Homer wrote about Troy, and they found the ruins due to his poem. That certainly doesn't validate and make true everything that was written in the poem. As for the Bible and the way it was peacemealed together by committee, the text itself was put together by men. Men are corrupt. Men have alterior motives. If all that was written about Jesus and the god associated with him were true, they wouldn't have picked and chose which books to put into the final product. What most people fail to realize (I'm not saying you, per se...I'm pretty sure you know your !@#$) is that Christianity itself is just a byproduct of Judaism. The first five books of the old testament are the Torah. For Christians to muck about and swipe old stories from another religion, just to claim that those who don't convert to Christianity are going to burn in eternal damnation...well, that's just pure arrogance on their part. Ancient religions were wiped from the Earth through force and labelled 'mythology'. It's pretty funny when people preach religious tolerance, yet have the audacity to label other religions 'myths'.

Let's not confuse issues here. This is not a debate about the accuracy of the Bible. This is an attempt to demonstrate that Goldielax's opinion on the subject of when the Bible was written is in error. And you should address my point above your post too.

Let's not confuse issues here. This is not a debate about the accuracy of the Bible. This is an attempt to demonstrate that Goldielax's opinion on the subject of when the Bible was written is in error. And you should address my point above your post too.

If I quote someone else's post, it means I'm responding to them. As I stated, the Bible was put together by men. Men are fallible. Men have alterior motives. The significance of the title of 'apostle' is what I'm questioning, as well as the significance of the committee that constructed the text. Point addressed?

If I quote someone else's post, it means I'm responding to them.

Exactly. That's why I said you should respond to what I said.

As I stated, the Bible was put together by men. Men are fallible. Men have alterior motives. The significance of the title of 'apostle' is what I'm questioning, as well as the significance of the committee that constructed the text. Point addressed?

you're missing the point... this is a debate about when various books in the Bible were written, and your arguments don't relate to that.

Goldie's claim is that the gospels were written sooooooo long after Jesus died that the people that wrote them had no clue what they were talking about. How long has FDR been dead? 65 years--longer than JEsus had been dead when the gospels were written. Are there still people alive that knew FDR? Are there even more people alive who are the children of people that knew him? Are people still writing books on FDR that are accurate despite his being dead for 65 years?

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but I'll just say you should stick to comparing ancient documents to ancient documents. The technology involved with recording and storing information during JFK's lifetime is so absurdly different than what would have been present in early AD that this comparison is pretty much meaningless.

Some of the people defending the New Testament's validity are not people I would have pegged as men of faith.

Carry on.

Historical accuracy is not a matter of faith.

You can argue about whether specific events happened in the New Testament (e.g. turning water into wine) without questioning whether it's the book that was written at the time, also.

you're missing the point... this is a debate about when various books in the Bible were written, and your arguments don't relate to that.

No, you're missing the point. I've already bypassed that line of argument because it is pointless, as I've stated before. That might be Goldielax's argument, but the conversation has swayed.

This whole argument is dumb, Jesus probably wasn't real anyway.