The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

What's the point of all this?

The only claims that matter in the bible are the supernatural ones, and they are impossible to validate. Especially so with just a textual account. The rest of it is of no consequence. Without these, it's just an inaccurate history/story book.

Apologies if you're not actually trying to prove Christianity is true.

The point is to lay some groundwork.

Some folks claim that the Bible cannot be trusted because we do not have an accurate translation. I have just demolished that argument.

After the cat-calls have died down, we can move on to the next link in the chain of evidence.

But looking at your own post, perhaps you could be more specific about what you meant when you said that it is "inaccurate". How, exactly, is it inaccurate?

In its content? We'll get to that. In that the words we read today or not the words the authors wrote? I just dealt with that.

So, inaccurate in what way?

Thanks.

---

Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.

Can you have two different english translations of the bible that are still both "accurate?"  What if they're somewhat or wholly inconsistent?

Yes to the first. No to the second, but if you have something specific in mind, that would be more helpful.

Thanks.

[FatAndFaithless]

I have just demolished that argument.

This is like a bizarre Catholic version of His_Majesty.

[Randy Carson]

Didja notice the outline numbering? I.A.0....I.A.1., etc?

We're just getting started. 

Uh-huh, lovely

I sense an unjustified leap in your reasoning in the nearest future...

I'm sure you'll let me know when we get to it, right? 

---

Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.

So, yes or no? 

Oh, and some "why" would be nice if you have anything. 

It is not so easy. There are parts that are accurate to the original, and parts that aren't.

For example, the oldest and most reliable copies of Mark end at verse 16:8. 16:9 - 20 are almost assuredly a later addition by apologists. So, we have at least one example of the current Bible that is not accurate to the original. 

But why should we care? An accurate copy or translation of the original only means that we have a accurate copy or translation of a fictional, mythological text. Textual accounts of supernatural events are not valid forms of evidence. 

There are some variants such as the one you have highlighted, and I appreciate your illustration of the work that can be done by scholars in comparing manuscripts.

There are two OLDER (fourth century) manuscripts that do not contain Mark 16:9-20, but there are MORE manuscripts which do.

As for whether the gospels are fiction, that will be covered in future posts.

[Jenny A]

---

...

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

This whole article on the Authorship of the New Testament is enlightening, but pasted below is the specific section on the Letters of Paul:


"Paul's Letters

By far the largest section of the New Testament is made of the Epistles that are attributed to Paul of Tarsus. Paul lived between 5 and 67 CE, so the dating of his authentic works is generally fairly easy. His influence on the theology, rituals, and cultural beliefs of what is to become "Christianity" in its popular form is far more significant than the (supposed) words of Jesus himself. There are fourteen letters (Epistles) attributed to Paul. Of these, seven are generally undisputed as authentic.

    Romans
    Galatians
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Corinthians
    2 Corinthians
    Philippians
    Philemon

Three of the letters are ones that are debated by scholars as to their authenticity. In several cases, it is argued he wrote part of them, but that they were later highly edited and supplemented.

    Ephesians
    Colossians and
    2 Thessalonians

It is generally accepted by scholars that 4 are not his work

    First Timothy
    Second Timothy
    Titus
    Hebrews (see below)"

---

I guess my follow-up question is this:

Do you agree that some books of the bible have multiple authors? If so, what goes into your Manuscript "M" - just the first author's work, or the additions, or just some of them, or what? And who's to say?

Thank you.  Saved me time and trouble, though this is a case where a quick internet search will answer the question easily and simply.

[Minimalist]

There are parts that are accurate to the original, and parts that aren't.

Speculation, Simon, since we have no "originals."

[Randy Carson]

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?

Well, your "world-class" scholar had his silly "Telephone Game" analogy dismantled by yours truly, so I've got that going for me. 

[Simon Moon]

There are some variants such as the one you have highlighted, and I appreciate your illustration of the work that can be done by scholars in comparing manuscripts.

There are two OLDER (fourth century) manuscripts that do not contain Mark 16:9-20, but there are MORE manuscripts which do.

As for whether the gospels are fiction, that will be covered in future posts.

So, should we consider the oldest manuscripts to be more accurate? Or go by the later ones, for which we have more?

I'm sorry, but any text that has talking animals, men living in fish for 3 days, the sun going black for 3 hours (and no one else on the planet noticing), zombies climbing out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem (without any historian of the time taking notice), dragons living in Babylon, curing leprosy with the blood of some birds, breeding stripped goats by using stripped posts, etc., should be taken as fictional by default. 


You wouldn't accept the same types of stories in any other religious text, why do you make special case for yours? Never mind, Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

[Crossless2.0]

I'm sorry, but any text that has talking animals, men living in fish for 3 days, the sun going black for 3 hours (and no one else on the planet noticing), zombies climbing out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem (without any historian of the time taking notice), dragons living in Babylon, curing leprosy with the blood of some birds, breeding stripped goats by using stripped posts, etc., should be taken as fictional by default. 


You wouldn't accept the same types of stories in any other religious text, why do you make special case for yours? Never mind, Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

No, damn it.  I want an answer.  Just once, I'd like a Christian to actually address the question. 

[abaris]

Either the text that you can read today is an accurate translation of what the original author wrote or it isn't.

And...?

Does that add anything to the credibility of the content?

And even by christian standards it's authors, not author. Who contradict each other in their accounts.

[Randy Carson]

There are parts that are accurate to the original, and parts that aren't.

Speculation, Simon, since we have no "originals."

Right, we don't.

Which is why textual criticism becomes so useful...not just with regard to the gospels but also for EVERY ancient work. If you reject the validity of TC for the New Testament, you'll have to be equally harsh on just about every written work of man prior to...what? 1900?

Oh, one other point...did you know that scholars have concluded that every single verse of the NT (save eleven verses) can be found quoted in the writings of the Early Church Fathers? You know, guys like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, etc? Yep, it's true.

So, two things from this:

1. If every copy of the NT were to disappear from the face of the earth, we could still re-create it from the ancient writings of the ECF's.
2. If someone HAD ever attempted to alter the text of scripture by deleting or adding to the text, not only would he have had to track down the thousands of copies of the autographs which were distributed all over the known world, but he would have had to chase down every quote in every epistle penned by an ECF in order to modify those quoted passages, too.

And how plausible is that? 

---

There are some variants such as the one you have highlighted, and I appreciate your illustration of the work that can be done by scholars in comparing manuscripts.

There are two OLDER (fourth century) manuscripts that do not contain Mark 16:9-20, but there are MORE manuscripts which do.

As for whether the gospels are fiction, that will be covered in future posts.

So, should we consider the oldest manuscripts to be more accurate? Or go by the later ones, for which we have more?

I'm sorry, but any text that has talking animals, men living in fish for 3 days, the sun going black for 3 hours (and no one else on the planet noticing), zombies climbing out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem (without any historian of the time taking notice), dragons living in Babylon, curing leprosy with the blood of some birds, breeding stripped goats by using stripped posts, etc., should be taken as fictional by default. 


You wouldn't accept the same types of stories in any other religious text, why do you make special case for yours? Never mind, Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

You can't draw a conclusion from that, can you?

Go back to the diagram in my OP. If two early copies (and they were fourth century, so not like second generation copies), said one thing, but there are 20 "daughter" copies from parent copies that no longer exist, the more numerous ones might suggest that they were copied from numerous parents that also had the longer ending.

It's plausible that the shorter ending manuscripts are more correct...it might even be probable. But based on the evidence put forward in this thread, there really isn't enough information to definitively decide the matter.

(And for the record, the Council of Trent formally established the longer version as the "correct" version, so clearly, SOMEBODY thought there was a good basis for doing so.)