The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

[Pyrrho]

An accurate copy of a work of fiction is still a work of fiction.

[Randy Carson]

An accurate copy of a work of fiction is still a work of fiction.

One step at a time.

[JesusHChrist]

You still have a story replete with demon infested pigs, virgin birth, slaughter of innocents (with zero historical support), zombie resurrection (not just Jeez, but also a whole graveyard full!), and miscellaneous magic tricks such as turning water to wine, walking on water and feeding the masses with a fish.

If a thousand people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong.

From the outsider perspective, Christianity is no less outlandish than the tales of the Greek gods, Mohamed having a confab with Gabriel and flying about on his winged horse-thingy or Joseph Smith discussing golden plates with Moroni. At least Zeus got some hot chick tail now and then, and Mohamed could diddle 20 women in a night. Busy busy! Even the lead singer in Steel Panther could only manage 17 girls in a row. The stuff of, uh, legends!

Why is Christianity any less outlandish? A cuz it is real? Not dumb like those other stupid stuffs?

[Jenny A]

That once the texts were considered sacred they were copied with care, I've not much doubt.  But we know little of how they were treated before that, so I can't follow you as far as the original author's intent being followed. It's clear the authors of the gospels used other source material that they did not necessarily treat so carefully.  It follows that what they did unto the texts of others might well have been done unto them by others. And there are certainly cases were where theological ideas were purposely inserted, rather than merely being mistakes in copying.  Paul's prohibition of women participating in the service for example:

"As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:33-35

And then there are the faked letters of Paul.  Why would anyone think a text written by someone fraudulently pretending to be someone else was sacred?

[Randy Carson]

You still have a story replete with demon infested pigs, virgin birth, slaughter of innocents (with zero historical support), zombie resurrection (not just Jeez, but also a whole graveyard full!), and miscellaneous magic tricks such as turning water to wine, walking on water and feeding the masses with a fish.

If a thousand people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong.

From the outsider perspective, Christianity is no less outlandish than the tales of the Greek gods, Mohamed having a confab with Gabriel and flying about on his winged horse-thingy or Joseph Smith discussing golden plates with Moroni. At least Zeus got some hot chick tail now and then, and Mohamed could diddle 20 women in a night. Busy busy! Even the lead singer in Steel Panther could only manage 17 girls in a row. The stuff of, uh, legends!

Why is Christianity any less outlandish? A cuz it is real? Not dumb like those other stupid stuffs?

Or if a billion people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Conversely, if only one person believes a right thing, it is still right.

I am one in this forum. Let's see how the discussion goes. 

---

That once the texts were considered sacred they were copied with care, I've not much doubt.  But we know little of how they were treated before that, so I can't follow you as far as the original author's intent being followed. It's clear the authors of the gospels used other source material that they did not necessarily treat so carefully.  It follows that what they did unto the texts of others might well have been done unto them by others. And there are certainly cases were where theological ideas were purposely inserted, rather than merely being mistakes in copying.  Paul's prohibition of women participating in the service for example:

"As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Corinthians 14:33-35

And then there are the faked letters of Paul.  Why would anyone think a text written by someone fraudulently pretending to be someone else was sacred?

Jenny-

You have some good points and questions. I will try to answer them at the appropriate time.

The purpose of these first posts is to establish one fact: we are working with an accurate text.

That eliminates the freshman-level arguments about the "telephone game" and "corrupted texts".

Just out of curiosity, which letters do you believe are "faked letters of Paul"?

[JesusHChrist]

Or if a billion people believe a wrong thing, it is still wrong. Conversely, if only one person believes a right thing, it is still right.

I am one in this forum. Let's see how the discussion goes. 

Yes, the validity of a proposition does not depend on the quantity of those believing the proposition to be true. I take this as a good omen you won't be using the argument from popularity upon our wicked souls.

Meanwhile, as always, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. So......prove away.

[Minimalist]

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sidedby the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can passthem along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain non historical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.


Bart Ehrman   Jesus Interrupted  Pages 5-6

So on the one hand we have a world-class scholar...and on the other we have you.


Guess who wins?

[Simon Moon]

Textual reports of supernatural events are not valid evidence. Especially when written by unknown authors, several decades or more after the events in question.

Not to mention, that adding supernatural events to the stories of actual historical events was normal practice of the time. The people of that time believed they lived in a world awash with supernatural events. Almost everything, including obviously natural events, were explained via the supernatural.

If an eagle circled a battlefield before a battle, that would have been taken as a supernatural omen. A historically accurate report of the battle would have included the supernatural omen. But just because the historicity of the battle can be verified, does not prove there was a supernatural event.

You can interview 1000's of alleged alien abduction victims, that are earnest and sincere in their belief. These are first hand witnesses. Some of these abductions have other witnesses. There are even some abductions with multiple victims of the same event.

Do you believe they are relaying actual events? Why, or why not?

[Aroura]

Also, even if you have an accurate translation of words, how the words are interpreted will have changed over time.

Anyone who studies ancient language and culture can tell you that. Actually, you probably know it yourself and don't even realize it. Ever read eh Canterbury Tales, or anything by Shakespeare? There is a reason why you have to take classes to truly even understand these relatively modern works. The way people behaved and thought, their slang, their attitudes towards everyday things, all of these were different just a few hundred years ago than they are today. How different are they a few thousand years ago?

Even a direct translations is NOT a direct translation. Honest lingual historians who study these things admit they cannot know what someone meant, even when they know what someone wrote.
When you read a line from your bible, you interpret it with your modern brain steeped in modern culture, you cannot help it. You are fooling yourself if you think anyone understands what the meaning of ancient texts are. Historians can only make educated guesses. Even trained historians need to work hard, and then they are still only making their BEST GUESS.

For instance, in our own culture, when we say we've gone out of the frying pan into the fire, we aren't talking about cooking or fires at all. Think that's oversimplified? Even a very similar culture speaking the same language can use terms that are untranslatable unless you understand the culture in which it originated.
Go to England and listen to people use some common terms.
I'm off to Bedfordshire...does not mean they are going to Bedfordshire, it means going to bed. Being at Her Majesties Pleasure means nothing about pleasure or serving the Queen, it means going to prison. I need to see a man about a dog.....well, you get the point? No man or dog involved there.

I think most people really don't grasp this. We know that "knowing" another person in the bible may translate to having sex...but only sometimes. Which slang or cultural thoughts are you mistranslating without even knowing it?