OuttaNowhereWregget wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:16 am
If one assesses the books of the Bible with the same criteria that other ancient manuscripts are analyzed by, there is simply no reasonable scientific ground for criticism. There exists a specific criteria to analyze ancient manuscripts as to their authenticity, accuracy, reliability, etc. One of these criteria is the Bibliographical test. In layman’s terms, how many copies remain of an original manuscript and what is the time period between when the original was written and when we have our first copies. At the turn of the century, there were in existence 8 manuscripts (MSS following) from the history of Thucydides (circa 460-400 B.C.) and 900 years between when he wrote said history and the first copy which survived. Caesar’s History of the Gallic Wars was written between 58 and 50 B.C. with 9 or 10 MSS dating 1000 years after his death. Aristotle wrote his collection of poetry around 343 B.C. with 5 MSS in existence and the first copy dated 1100 A.D.
The New Testament by stark contrast has well over 20,000 MSS in existence with the first copies dating a mere 250 to 300 years later. If the New Testament can be questioned and dismissed as lacking reliable historical authority, then where is the place found for other works of antiquity?
As I noted previously, I’m slowly working my way through the responses, many of which I haven’t read yet.
So what?
None of these "histories" can be said to be "historically accurate", though certain, not all, facts can be affirmed through archeological means...but a "quote" from a person not even known??? Not remotely. In some cases, we can be fairly certain that the writer was a single person, in others it's more likely that there were more than one author. In the cases of the 4 chosen gospels, all are anonymous, all by different people, some by more than one person likely. None were first hand.
wikipedia is actually pretty darn good on this topic.
I don't think posters on here are "dismissing" the New Testament, just saying that claiming exact historical accuracy is a fool's errand, though we understand the faith impulse to do so.
The idea that there are many copies of the Bible, once formed and approved, doesn't tell us anything at all about the historical accuracy of anything but the repeated transcriptions and their ages, etc. Not the underlying facts.
Unfortunately, there's very little archeological evidence affirming the Jesus story. That's not dismissal, that's reality. And, other than stories written decades later, his teachings are certainly not confirmable as "accurate", though the more that the stories overlap the more likely...that said, what we have is quite powerful and there are definitely consistent themes, so it's pretty easy to believe that the stories are at least close...though some of it (angels, virgin birth, resurrection, etc) get to the fantastical...historians are certainly not going to claim "accuracy" of such.
