Reliability of the New Testament documents

[jdlongmire]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:

"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament."

What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?

[Vinnie]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:



What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

After laughing hystericlaly for a good hour or two here is the reasoned response:

First, all that statement even applies to is the textual stabilitiy of the texts. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the material on the texts. It only tries to argue they are textually reliable---meaning they are like the originals. This says NOTHING as to how "accurate" the originals may have been (they simply were not accurate at all!)

Yes its true the NT has lots more manuscripts but we have tons of evidence of alteration and forgery in these texts and in Christian writing in general during the respective time periods. Texts also are most unstable in the formative years--something biased-creedal NT scholars are hesitant to admit. Surprisingly texts from the formative years of a works life are all completely absent save possibly a VERY SMALL fragment of GJohn which we know went through redaction and probably large scale changes anyways!

But yes, overall the textual integrity of the NT works are not majorly disputed by most scholars. Historians tend to have to assume this or they would be jobless. This shows how biased this statement is.

But a less biased and less creedal formulation of htis will note the MANY MANY textual ifficulties with these texts, the many known instances of forgeries, writing in another's name, false attributions, known redactional additions and interpolations, church father's accusing one another of corrupting the scriptures and so on.

Here is a text I put together on the Gospel of John alone:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/johntext.html

Theists can blather on about having so many manuscripts all they wish. In the end all they have is copies of copies. The copies are useful historically but the naive fundy knows not how riddled with problems they are. Josh Mcdowell also conveniently forgets to tell his readers this (he uses that quote in Netdav).

I guess God let his word be lost, corrupted and altered and is now in a state of significant doubt. He also let a psunami kill 200k people. He also let....ad infinitum.

Vinnie

[ficino]

There is much debate whether the Seventh Epistle of Plato is by Plato. There is no more doubt about the text of that work than there is about the text of any undisputed Platonic dialogue; the manuscript tradition strong for Ep. VII. That tradition assures us that the words of the document are probably close to what their author wrote. We don't know whether their author was Plato. That's because there is stuff in it that is hard to harmonize with other accounts of the history of the events and with Platonic philosophy found in the dialogues. But the philosophy is not infected by Neo-Platonism. If Ep. VII is a "pious" forgery, it's fairly early.

Ditto the NT documents. We can't use textual criticism to tell us more than that the copies we have go back to an archetype in antiquity. Papyri are close enough to the text of the earliest parchment manuscripts to give confidence about the reliability of the wording of the latter. Nothing follows about the reliability of the claims made therein about historical events.

Note: some people claim the KJV is more authentic because it's based on many Byzantine manuscripts rather than a few manuscripts from the late Roman period, as are other translations. This follows from no rational assumptions, as one can see when one realizes that the KJV proponents dismiss late Roman parchment manuscripts by saying they must have been full of errors and therefore were thrown out - so why did they survive? To be consistent with their assumptions, the KJV people should really follow the Vulgate, which is older than any of the manuscripts the KJV is based on.

[Vinnie]

Ditto the NT documents. We can't use textual criticism to tell us more than that the copies we have go back to an archetype in antiquity. Papyri are close enough to the text of the earliest parchment manuscripts to give confidence about the reliability of the wording of the latter. Nothing follows about the reliability of the claims made therein about historical events.

The problem everyone overlooks is the first 100 years or so is probably when an anonymous text such as this was most fluid and prone to much alteration. Copyright laws were nil and anyone who had means could take a text and make a copy and alter it as he or she saw fit.

The best evidence for NT stability-IMO- is Marcan priority. It shows that Mark did not change that much by the time MT and Lk used it but they used it shortly after it was created and many scholars will tell you that there are several different versions of Mark in existence.

Another good evidence is probably that someone like Paul would retain a copy of his own letter for himself as well when he dispatched one to a church. These letters were probably copies and spread immediately as well.

But for many of the works large-scale alterations are very much possible. Several of Pauls letters (at least one!) is actually a few letters combined into one. If thats not "textual instability" I don't know what is.

Vinnie

[johntheapostate]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:



What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?


It is only by the authority of the early Catholic church that the books of the New Testament have any more authority than any other book that claimed to be a true record of events as witnessed by some eyewitness.

The existance of these other gospels and the admission of the church that they were fraudulant makes it possible that they were all pious frauds the only differance is the testemony of the church. A church which interestingly the Protestant tradition holds as untrustworthy in there interpretation of there own book.

The gospels have no real internal evedence of having been written by the people the Christian tradition has attached there names to. This alone shows a indication of deception. And if the gospels are shown to be accounts written long after the events, they amount to little more than hearsay.

If there was no evedence of the events it would be less difficult to believe that those events did not take place than if those claims are backed up by documents that in many ways contridict each other and at the same time have evidence of being plagerised from one another.

The gospels show evidence of deliberate inclusion of falsehood. For example,at the moment of Jesus's death Mathew 27:51-53 " At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottem. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs and after Jesus's resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

An event of such monumental significance if it had been true would have convinced every person in the country. Why did they only appear to anonomous many in the city and then conveniantly disapear from the face of the earth.

If this had been true volumes would have been written recording there testemony for Christ

If it had been true Mathew would have devoted more than two verses recording the event

If it had been true it would have been trumpeted from one end of the New Testement to the other . Yet not one other author in the New Testament considers it worthy of even the glancing mention of Mathew.

Mark considered the tearing of the curtain important enough to mention yet he did not mention the resurected holy people.

In this great earthquake and the breaking open the tombs did no one go inspect the tombs and discover all the resurrected folks milling around patiantly waiting for the resurrection of Jesus so they could enter the city.

I am sure that had such a thing happened someone would have noticed and reported it to Pilate. We have Pilate making arrangements to guard the tomb of Jesus, yet no provision was made to keep the resurected saints guarded.

If there had been many resurected bodies milling about, the gaurding of one dead one would have been of little importance.

If the testemony of a witness is found to contain a deliberate lie why should anyone be compelled to believe any of it.

[Vinnie]

To reiterate:

In context I believe the actual author is arguing solely on textual grounds. To be textually skeptical of NT texts is to be skeptical of all texts of classical antiquity.......That is what the quote means. It has little or nothing to do with the actual reliability of the putative originals themselves in the events they record.


Of course, establishing that the comparison is accurate is another matter. Every work is different. Certain works may be more prone to alteration and editing than others. For example, anonymous docs being passed around to different Christian schools.

Vinnie

[Naked Ape]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:"To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament." What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?
jd,

what follows is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response: Prove it.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

[judge]

The problem everyone overlooks is the first 100 years or so is probably when an anonymous text such as this was most fluid and prone to much alteration. Copyright laws were nil and anyone who had means could take a text and make a copy and alter it as he or she saw fit.


If this were the case we would expect there to have been widely different versions of Mark.

But contrary to this we have the exact same text preservtically by at least one geographically, theologically and ecclesiastically independent group, that being the COE.

How is this explained?

[CX]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:



What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?

"Prove it."

[Gooch's dad]

If this were the case we would expect there to have been widely different versions of Mark.

But contrary to this we have the exact same text preservtically by at least one geographically, theologically and ecclesiastically independent group, that being the COE.

How is this explained?

We do have widely different versions of gMark. One is titled the Gospel of Mark, the other is interspersed throughout what is called the Gospel of Mattew, and the other is interspersed throughout the Gospel of Luke.

[CX]

jd,

what follows is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response: Prove it.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Damn. Beat me to it.

[Mathetes]

We do have widely different versions of gMark. One is titled the Gospel of Mark, the other is interspersed throughout what is called the Gospel of Mattew, and the other is interspersed throughout the Gospel of Luke.

I would say that the gospels of Matthew and Luke ARE two competing versions of the gospel of Mark.

[judge]

We do have widely different versions of gMark. One is titled the Gospel of Mark, the other is interspersed throughout what is called the Gospel of Mattew, and the other is interspersed throughout the Gospel of Luke.

So how is it that these exact same version were retained by an independent group. Independent theologically, ecclesiatically and geographically?

The COE had nothing at all to do with the formation of the Catholic and hence protesatnt canon.

[Kosh]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:



What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?

I have no problem doubting all works of antiquity.

They simply don't get much questioning because they don't purport to be the word of the creator of the universe. ;)

[Gooch's dad]

judge, this thread isn't about Aramaic text priority. I'm not taking your bait. My point about multiple copies of gMark has nothing to do with Aramaic/Coptic priority. End of story. Drop it. I'm not saying this as a moderator, by the way.

[laestrella]

Take into account that:
When the NT was coming together is was put together by CMan. He was a pagan and was only a christian on his deathbed when he had no time to protest.
He was a roman. And the worshipped the sun god. Hence why we go to church on SUNday. He put it together the way he wanted, and with a whole bunch of roman sun beliefs

[judge]

judge, this thread isn't about Aramaic text priority. I'm not taking your bait. My point about multiple copies of gMark has nothing to do with Aramaic/Coptic priority. End of story. Drop it. I'm not saying this as a moderator, by the way.

No problem :)

[Atheos]

The 27 books of the NT canon (as has been mentioned by others) were arbitrarily chosen according to the religious predispositions of a few men several hundred years after they purport to have been written. It's been argued that the selection was "not arbitrary, but according to very specific rules". However the fact remains that these "rules" did not miraculously appear written with the hand of God. They were set forth in accordance with the predispositions of the men involved, and thus are arbitrary. There was considerable argument over the accepted books even in spite of the parameters of admission. It is no different than if I were to decide beforehand that of a large group of people I wanted to select a particular individual. I then dismiss all individuals who have blue eyes, then all who have brown hair, etc., until only the individual I intended to select in the first place remained.

In addition, it is hardly provable that any of these books are actually the work of the person or persons to whom they are ascribed. Many of them do not even so much as make a claim as to who wrote them. Many of even the Pauline epistles are of dubious authenticity.

Add to that the fact that there are literally thousands of textual variants (some minor, others quite signifigant), and in the end you can't help but laugh vociferously at the preposterous claim "no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.". :rolling:

-Atheos

[Vinnie]

We do have widely different versions of gMark. One is titled the Gospel of Mark, the other is interspersed throughout what is called the Gospel of Mattew, and the other is interspersed throughout the Gospel of Luke.

This is false in this context, IMO. Maybe I am losing my memory but that quote is solely in context of textual reliability.

If we are discussing textual issues, that Matthew and Luke redacted Mark is irrelevant. That Mark is embedded within them allows us to see test how well Mark was preserved initially in a limied way. So it offers us a we to judge the reliability here of Mark's textual integrity.

But don't tell Judge that there is evidence, under the two-source theory, that Mark was redacted on the basis of looking at Matthew and Luke. Plus possibly Secret Mark//Carpocratian (sp?) Mark and we also know that several different endings were attached to the text of Mark a few years after it was created.

Some have even suggested that the version of Mark used by MT and LK may have differed some.

We have anywhere from 1 to 4 different possible versions of Mark early on and also some fabricated endings.....

Though I agree with you in a sense in that Mt and Lk can be seen as textual corruptions of Mark. For sure the authors never quote him or say they are altering//using another source heavily. It shows how fluid such material was. Two indpendent authors culd easily take material, change it, add to it, alter it and so forth and make their own compositions.

Vinnie

[Celsus]

What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?
I'm surprised Vork has piped in with the originals of Chinese manuscripts. But the point is, even with the originals (e.g. various victory stelae all over the Near East), nobody in their right minds takes the inscriptions/texts at face value. T.L. Thompson has even speculated that the Shoshenq (Sheshonq/Shishak) victory stele was written a generation after him, even with the original ascribing itself to Shoshenq right before him.

Joel

[Haran]

I think what the author of that statement was trying to say was that much of what we know about classical western history is based on ancient texts for which all that is preserved are medieval manuscripts, yet the preservation of NT texts are at least preserved in many medieval manuscripts and much further back. Therefore, I think the author is saying that if we can consider those medieval manuscripts reliable enough to base our knowledge of classical history on them, then surely the many medieval and older manuscripts of the NT are reliable enough to base our knowledge of NT biblical history on them... I believe this is probably the gist.

[funinspace]

I have seen and heard this statement in various places:



What is the skeptic's reasonable and considered response?
Hey JD, you on a fishing expedition? You appear well read and learned, by all that I have read elsewhere here. Was there something more, a point, or is it something that you believe? I noticed you were careful not to make it your own claim.

[Vivisector]

It is estimated that up to 40 billion copies of Chairman Mao's writings have been printed, including up to 5 billion copies of his Little Red Book. In view of the overwhelming bibliographical attestation of Chairman Mao's work, what is the Christian's reasonable and considered response regarding their reliability?

[Vinnie]

I think what the author of that statement was trying to say was that much of what we know about classical western history is based on ancient texts for which all that is preserved are medieval manuscripts, yet the preservation of NT texts are at least preserved in many medieval manuscripts and much further back. Therefore, I think the author is saying that if we can consider those medieval manuscripts reliable enough to base our knowledge of classical history on them, then surely the many medieval and older manuscripts of the NT are reliable enough to base our knowledge of NT biblical history on them... I believe this is probably the gist.

So then its a textual statement but it also adds in that the gospels are close to what they narrate.....which makes the author then very silly, indeed. Anonymous works written 40-70 years after Jesus was alive with lots of contradictions, creations, miraculous events and so on are reliable? Even the best preserved Jesus material (saying on divorce, Lord's supper et al) has signifiant variations that cannot be attributed to the vaguaries of memory.

Vinnie

[Toto]

I think what the author of that statement was trying to say was that much of what we know about classical western history is based on ancient texts for which all that is preserved are medieval manuscripts, yet the preservation of NT texts are at least preserved in many medieval manuscripts and much further back. Therefore, I think the author is saying that if we can consider those medieval manuscripts reliable enough to base our knowledge of classical history on them, then surely the many medieval and older manuscripts of the NT are reliable enough to base our knowledge of NT biblical history on them... I believe this is probably the gist.

That is true enough, and is a good reason to maintain some skepticism about ancient history in general.

But with non-Biblical ancient history, we can often supplement the texts with archeology. There is no archeological support for the NT manuscripts.

[Steven Carr]

Therefore, I think the author is saying that if we can consider those medieval manuscripts reliable enough to base our knowledge of classical history on them, then surely the many medieval and older manuscripts of the NT are reliable enough to base our knowledge of NT biblical history on them... I believe this is probably the gist.

I'm sure you are correct in your interpretation of what the author is saying.

However what the author is saying is a non sequitor.

In any case, we have much more reliable documents than the NT. We have original inscriptions , or at least fragments.

What is the name of that fragment used to 'prove' that Quirinius was a governor of Syria twice, although his name is never mentioned.

I forget the name, but surely it is an original document, something the Gospel manuscripts are not.

[Haran]

That is true enough, and is a good reason to maintain some skepticism about ancient history in general.

Definitely. Of course there is the interesting problem that these sources are used both to bolster and to undermine NT history.


But with non-Biblical ancient history, we can often supplement the texts with archeology. There is no archeological support for the NT manuscripts.

You must define "archaeological support for the NT manuscripts" differently than I do. One example would be the inscription mentioning Pilate (whom I believe skeptics in the past denied the existence of).

What archaeological artifacts support what texts that you know of in non-biblical ancient history that would stand up to the intense scrutiny that biblical artifacts undergo?

[Toto]

. . . . One example would be the inscription mentioning Pilate (whom I believe skeptics in the past denied the existence of).

. . .

You must have been away when Stephen Carr issued a general challenge to find any example of a skeptic who denied the existence of Pilate. None were found.

[Haran]

In any case, we have much more reliable documents than the NT. We have original inscriptions , or at least fragments.

In what way are inscriptions necessarily more reliable? I suppose I may be finding out the hard way that this is not necessarily so. ;)

[Haran]

You must have been away when Stephen Carr issued a general challenge to find any example of a skeptic who denied the existence of Pilate. None were found.

Hmm, I thought I had read it somewhere at least half-reputable. Perhaps it is incorrect.

[Steven Carr]

In what way are inscriptions necessarily more reliable? I suppose I may be finding out the hard way that this is not necessarily so. ;)

The original piece of paper is usually a reliable guide to what was on the original piece of paper.

Of course, Haran is right. It may have been tampered with later.

But even the 'early' Biblical manuscripts had 'correctors', who rewrote what was written.

[Ion]

...
What archaeological artifacts support what texts that you know of in non-biblical ancient history that would stand up to the intense scrutiny that biblical artifacts undergo?
For example the Roman poet Ovidiu (probably spelled in English as Ovide) exiled in the territory of Dacia -present day Romania- after the Romans invaded it, wrote texts about the emperor Traian conquering Dacia.

So, is the conquest of Dacia by Traian -that Ovidiu described in his texts- historical or mythical?

It's historical.

When you go to Rome, Italy, you can find the monument called Column of Traian, dated 100 A.D., built at about the time of the alleged conquest of Dacia by Traian, and the monument has frescoes showing Traian's army battling Decebal's army.

Now, this conquest is peanuts compared to the example mentioned earlier in this thread of the Biblical Mathew, writing in the Bible that at the time of Jesus' resurrection there was an earthquake, rocks split, holy people raised from tombs and walked into the city, while Pilate -strangely- didn't take any measure.

And this miracle happened a few years earlier than the benign conquest of Dacia by Traian.

But the benign conquest of Dacia by Traian has a contemporary monument to attest it archaeologically, and a few years earlier an earthquake, the miraculous dead raising and the resurrection of Jesus went unnoticed -outisde of the Biblical cult- locally and worldwide.

Jesus went unnoticed archaeologically, because the Biblical Jesus is a religious myth.

[Haran]

Ion, I'm not sure you meant Ovid, since he died before Trajan. You may have been referring to Cassius Dio.

Info on Trajan (http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_378/Trajan.html)

The scenes on the column are one of the major (if somewhat disputed) sources for the course of Trajan's operations in Dacia.
....
The sources for Roman history in the reigns of Nerva and Trajan are particularly poor, especially in terms of chronology. The only narrative source is Dio Cassius, the third-century Greek historian whose text is preserved for this period only in an eleventh-century abridgement. This not only means that one cannot be entirely certain what Dio himself said about the events that are preserved, but perhaps more significantly it is very difficult to set what is preserved in an absolute chronological framework. The other literary sources are mostly very brief accounts of his reign from late antiquity that again give little absolute dating.
....
For the Dacian campaigns, the fullest "source" is the art on Trajan's Column in his forum, but this has no captions and it is hard to construct a narrative out of a long series of unexplained vignettes.


Seems that it's not so cut and dried.

It seems that most people believe that Jesus was most definitely a historical figure. The dispute is more to what degree the stories might have been exaggerated.

[Ion]

Ion, I'm not sure you meant Ovid, since he died before Trajan. You may have been referring to Cassius Dio.
...
Seems that it's not so cut and dried.
...
It seems that most people believe that Jesus was most definitely a historical figure. The dispute is more to what degree the stories might have been exaggerated.
Ovid died after the conquest of Dacia by Trajan.

Before Trajan died, but after Trajan's conquest.

But Cassius Dio's writings apply similarly to the conquest of Dacia:

is the conquest of Dacia -which Dio describes- a myth, or is history?

What is not "...so cut and dried..." according to your own link, is not the general conquest of Dacia by Trajan, is the datails of the chronology of geographical spots in Dacia during Trajan's expedition of conquest.

The general conquest -according to your own link, but to many other commentaries as well- is testified by the Column of Trajan.

Regarding Jesus being a historical figure, no he's not.

I read this in The San Diego Tribune of Saturday November 2 2002:

"...If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it is the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus..."

and I read in The San Diego Union Tribune of Thursday June 19, 2003:

'Jesus-era burial box inscription called fake'.

So, the miraculous Biblical Jesus is ironically invisible in history -the first archaeological artifact related to Jesus is proved to be a fake-, while the benign conquest of Dacia by Trajan is attested archaeologically by the Column of Trajan -albeit the chronology of the locations during the conquest, is not clear-.