The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Pyrrho]

Dismissing the OT which is just dog shit as far as historical evidence is concerned

The OT contains a lot of important historical and geographical information, especially about conflicts the early Hebrews confronted. True, it's full of myth and embellishment, but so was practically every ancient text prior to (and still many following) the 5th century. It isn't until Thucydides that we have the first serious attempt (Herodotus notwithstanding) at reporting events free of nationalistic and religious fervor, and even then we have to take account of blatantly false information and individual bias.

The OT is terrible as history, even forgetting all of the ridiculous miracles.  For example, the Jews were never enslaved en mass in Egypt, nor did they wander the desert for 40 years.  It is so unreliable that nothing in it should be believed, unless confirmed by some independent evidence.  And then one is simply believing the independent evidence, not the OT.

[Cyberman]

I wonder, if a christian talked to a group of 100 people who all just witnessed god coming down to earth, admitting he is evil, then disappearing again... would they believe them? Come on, 100 people! And you can actually talk to them, not just read hearsay accounts of what they said years later.

How many christians would accept this without question? My guess is: none.

Taking this point further, and accepting for the moment that the biblical authors were genuine eyewitnesses as distinct from literary constructs for example, the power of false memory is very real as this NY Times article reveals.

Now scale that up a couple of millennia and throw in countless revisions, translations and interpretations. Then talk about historical reliability.

[DeistPaladin]

I will be impressed if the arguments are even something we haven't heard before, in some form.

I'll be stunned just by that. 

Think about it. The best Christian minds were hard at work over this topic for the last 2,000 years and they had a lot of resources to devote to the task. I'm struggling to think of any life or event that has received more attention in our records of human civilization and I can't think of one. You could make the argument that this is the most thoroughly combed over topic of discussion in human history. At the very least, it ranks up there with every possible philosophical nook and cranny thoroughly explored and mapped out.

If all he does is come up with a never heard before argument, I promise right now to congratulate him on inventing a brand new angle on such a ancient, worn out topic. I'll even spend a moment to admire that accomplishment before I expose every fallacy and tear it to shreds. 

[Minimalist]

The OT contains a lot of important historical and geographical information, especially about conflicts the early Hebrews confronted.

Says who?  The people who wrote it?  We don't have any idea who they were but archaeology indicates that they were largely full of shit.  Perhaps you want to credit the people who believe it?  That would be your problem.

[Randy Carson]

I.B.0. – Were the authors of the gospels actual eyewitnesses?

In order to establish the historical reliability of the New Testament, one key question to be addressed is whether the authors were actual eyewitnesses or had access to those who were. This process begins by establishing the dates that the books were written as accurately as possible.

I.B.1. - When were the gospels written?

Many people who are skeptical of the claims of Christianity argue that the books which record the life of Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written decades or even a century or more after Jesus. Because of this time gap, they argue that the gospels cannot possibly be eyewitness accounts of the events which occurred in Jesus’ lifetime because it would not be possible for the author or the author’s sources to have been alive during Jesus’ lifetime.

For the sake of this discussion, assume that Jesus was crucified in AD 30. The closer the books of the New Testament were written to that date, the easier it is to accept the possibility that they are accurate records of the events that took place during His time on earth. So, when were the Gospels written? Although estimates vary (with skeptics typically arguing for a later dating), mainstream scholars conservatively date the authorship of the four gospels as follows:

    Matthew - AD 65-85
    Mark - AD 60-75
    Luke - AD 65-95
    John - AD 95-100

Additionally, it is generally believed that the gospels (with the exception of John) were based upon oral tradition as well as written source materials known to scholars by names such as “M” and “Q”, etc. Like the autographs of the gospels, these documents are no longer in existence, but they would have pre-dated the gospels themselves by as much as decade or more.

I.B.2. – How low can we go?

In addition to this written pre-gospel material, the oral tradition and the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were still alive and able to speak about what they had seen and heard were available to the authors of the gospels. The existence of these two sources could push the dating of the gospel message back by many years – even to the days of the events themselves.

There are numerous pieces of evidence to support an early dating of the gospels.

The New Testament fails to mention the destruction of the Temple which occurred in AD 70. Since Jesus had prophesied this event (cf. Mk 13:1-2), the authors of the NT books and letters would have highlighted His prediction prominently if it had been fulfilled. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 70.

The New Testament fails to mention the seige of Jerusalem which lasted for three years and ended with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. This silence suggests that the New Testament was written prior to AD 67.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles does not mention the martyrdoms of Peter or Paul which took place in AD 65 and AD 64 respectively. Moreover, the Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul alive and under house arrest in Rome. This silence suggests that the Luke's accounts were written prior to AD 64.

Luke, a trained physician and a skillful historian, recorded the martydoms of Stephen (cf. Acts 7:54-60) and James, the brother of John (cf. Acts 12:1-2), but he does not mention the death of James, the "brother" of Jesus, who was martyred in AD 62. This silence suggests that Luke wrote Acts prior to AD 62.

Luke's Gospel was written prior to the book of Acts as Luke himself records:

Acts 1:1-2
In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.

This suggests that Luke's Gospel was written prior to AD 62.

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul quotes a phrase from Luke’s gospel:

Luke 10:6-7
6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you. 7 Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages.

1 Timothy 5:17-18New International Version (NIV)
17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”[a] and “The worker deserves his wages.”

Paul quotes the gospel written by his friend, Luke, and refers to it as scripture!  But there’s more. In his letter to the Corinthians (dated from AD 53), Paul appears to be quoting another passage written by his friend, Luke.

Luke 22:19-20
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Although all four gospels contain accounts of the Last Supper, only Luke’s gospel contains the words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” From these examples, we can conclude that Paul was quoting from Luke’s gospel repeatedly. The dating of Paul’s epistles (accepted by even skeptical scholars) and the fact that what he is writing is a reminder of that which he had taught them in person previously suggest that Luke was written prior to AD 53.

Luke quoted 250 verses from the gospel of Matthew 250 and 350 verses from the gospel of Mark. This suggests that both of these gospels were known and accepted at the time Luke wrote around AD 53.

In the book of Galatians (ca. AD 55), Paul reported that after his conversion (ca. AD 35-36), he traveled to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles. The first trip occurred within three years of his conversion (ca. AD 38-39) (cf. Gal. 1:15-19) and the second 14 years after his conversion (ca. AD 52-53) (cf. Gal. 2:1).

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains what many scholars believe to be an early creed of the Church based in part upon the apparent stylistic differences between this passage and other writings of Paul. These differences suggest that the passage contains a core statement of belief of the early Church which Paul – following standard Jewish rabbinic tradition – had memorized and passed along verbatim:

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
3 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, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 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. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Note that Paul reminds the Corinthians that he has given this basic message to them orally in the past and that he explicitly stated that what he is about to repeat in writing was received by him previously from others (presumably during one or both of his two trips to Jerusalem). This suggests that the account of the resurrection of Jesus was based upon eyewitness testimony that can be dated to within 10 years of the event itself!

The bottom line

Given that as few as ten years may have passed before Paul first heard the proto-creed of the Church proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15 and that Paul encouraged his hearers to consult with eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, death and resurrection for corroboration of the message he preached, it is possible but highly improbable that the central facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth were skewed or altered by additions and embellishments.

[Minimalist]

You believe much.  You know little.

[polar bear]

you are basing this on a "book" that was canonized years after which you are citing.  If the canonized book was all original text, including books that are "missing" then you might have a point.

However, at the point of canonization, all texts have been proven to have been changed (by men).  Texts were changed and letters were omitted based on what "men" wanted christianity to reflect.  So your silence argument is rather ridiculous because a much later editing process inserted the "silence".

You still have not answered the quotes of jesus issue.  If I quote someone I write verbatim what they said.  I hope you agree that a tax collector and a couple of fisherman were not capable of recalling verbatim what jesus actually said.  I will give you luke as a possibility as he supposedly was a physician.  You can not tell me that the quotes of jesus are actual quotes.  Why does your god allow his son/himself to be quoted when it was not actually what he said?

[Minimalist]

We have two more-or-less complete early bibles:  The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

Dismissing claims that Sinaiticus is a later forgery and considering it valid, we still find that they do not agree with each other...let alone what passes for the "bible" now.  And, of course, we have no fucking clue what the originals may have said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_..._Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two of great uncial codices, representatives of the Alexandrian text-type, are considered excellent manuscript witnesses of the text of the New Testament. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament give precedence to these two chief uncial manuscripts, and the majority of translations are based on their text. Nevertheless, there are many differences between these two manuscripts. According to Dean Burgon: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."[1]

According to Herman C. Hoskier,[2] there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022

[Longhorn]

Is this the point you're trying to make yet?

Ok, let's play pretend for a sec that the NT is 100% accurate, Jesus definitely existed and the authors of the gospels were eyewitnesses.

Even if you stretch the credibility of the bible by that much, which is a shitload, it still gets you nowhere. It doesn't support any of the supernatural claims made and doesn't put forward a good argument for the existence of god.

Keep going, but watch out. The leap you're about to take is pretty damn big.

[DeistPaladin]

[Deadpan sarcasm]
Wow, this is all totally new stuff we haven't all heard a thousand times before. And to think that I suspected you were just going to copy and paste what's already been published in apologetic books from McDowell to Habermas and posted on a million different apologetic websites. 
[/Deadpan sarcasm]

Seriously, Randy, do you actually think anyone here hasn't heard all this many times before?