The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

The reason I'm not addressing any particular point here is that I'm happy to concede absolutely all of it and get on to the only important part: what supernatural stuff actually happened. You said yourself in the other thread, it doesn't matter what people believed, it matters what the truth is. And all the bible can ever tell you is what people believed. So if I grant you everyone is an eye witness, every non-supernatural word you want is true, even the authors are very reliable and honest whatever you like. Then what?

I understand if you don't want to move to the end of the argument, but I'm just saying why it makes no difference to me until we get to that stage. At some point a leap of faith is required to just believe what the people in the bible believed. Can you explain why that is not the case?

[Mudhammam]

^

Exactly. Apologists can't fathom that early Christians could really believe in superstitions such as astrology, dreams, lots, and other forms of divination, write the Gospels as poetic biographies, blurring the line between facts and myths, derived from hearsay and popular theological interpretation of the "sacred" or "authoritative" Jewish texts, and embrace persecution for their beliefs because they sincerely believed it. I've yet to hear Randy even attempt an argument relevant to his thesis that we have reason or evidence to accept the miraculous and often bizarre claims of the NT writers as historical fact, which is why all of his efforts can be ignored as basically missing the point.

[Minimalist]

The Jewish Temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Jews know this. Ask them.

That's not what your godboy said, asshole.

[robvalue]

Nestor: No, I haven't seen any attempt either, and I'm interested to know if there is going to be something to bridge that gap or not. If not, this is just textual analysis. Which is fine.

As to my point, I trust my wife more than anyone in the world. But if she came to me and said, "I just saw a ghost", I will not believe her that she actually saw a ghost. I will believe that she believes it, and nothing more, until I have any evidence to examine. Even if 100 other people back up her story, I still won't believe it was actually a ghost.

Given this, why would I believe a bunch of guys from 2000 years ago more than my wife, and other people I can actually talk to, when their claims are even more fantastical? And this is conceding a huge amount, that what is written is actually what they believed. But you can have that for free.

[Randy Carson]

The reason I'm not addressing any particular point here is that I'm happy to concede absolutely all of it and get on to the only important part: what supernatural stuff actually happened. You said yourself in the other thread, it doesn't matter what people believed, it matters what the truth is. And all the bible can ever tell you is what people believed. So if I grant you everyone is an eye witness, every non-supernatural word you want is true, even the authors are very reliable and honest whatever you like. Then what?

Well, you're right, Rob. In the end, we are making a judgment call about what the authors/eyewitnesses reported. This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Jurors are asked to evaluate evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and to make a decision. The evidence for Christianity is stronger than most of the members of this forum would lead you to believe and better than authors like Bart Ehrman care to admit. I don't know which books you've read, of course, but I'm confident that there are some Christians with more than enough mental horse-power to argue side, and it would be to your advantage to read some of their books to hear the other side.

I understand if you don't want to move to the end of the argument, but I'm just saying why it makes no difference to me until we get to that stage. At some point a leap of faith is required to just believe what the people in the bible believed. Can you explain why that is not the case?

Hmmm...I guess I would want to ask you what you mean by leap of faith. If you mean that you say, "Well, I have no idea whether Christianity is true or not, but I'm just going to believe it anyway", then no, that is not what Christianity is about. Unfortunately, there are some very bitter, angry and hurt people active in this forum with HUGE chips on their shoulders, and they are the ones who seem to think that there is no logical or reasonable basis for accepting the claims of Christianity as true.

But if you mean that you can evaluate all the evidence presented objectively, then I don't think it's such a big "leap" to conclude that the claims of Christianity regarding the resurrection of Jesus really is the best explanation of all the facts.

---

The Jewish Temple was destroyed in AD 70. The Jews know this. Ask them.

That's not what your godboy said, asshole.

Why are you so angry at God, Min?

---

Nestor: No, I haven't seen any attempt either, and I'm interested to know if there is going to be something to bridge that gap or not. If not, this is just textual analysis. Which is fine.

As to my point, I trust my wife more than anyone in the world. But if she came to me and said, "I just saw a ghost", I will not believe her that she actually saw a ghost. I will believe that she believes it, and nothing more, until I have any evidence to examine. Even if 100 other people back up her story, I still won't believe it was actually a ghost.

Given this, why would I believe a bunch of guys from 2000 years ago more than my wife, and other people I can actually talk to, when their claims are even more fantastical? And this is conceding a huge amount, that what is written is actually what they believed. But you can have that for free.

Wow. Your ghost post is eerily similar to this story. 

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

So, you would not believe if your wife said she saw a ghost, and you would not believe even if someone should rise from the dead.

Seems like Jesus has you pegged, Rob.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry, but you did no such thing, because you've skirted the essence of the argument, which is that the Bible has been translated into several different languages serially, and then (again, mostly serially) transcribed by hand. Ehrman maps some of the changes in Misquoting Jesus. You'd do well to read it.

The only thing you did to the "Telephone Game" analogy is skirt its point.

Not so, PT.

The gospels and the epistles were written in Greek.

My English translation was made from the Greek and not from some intermediary language(s).

Directly from the Greek originals?

Do they differ significantly from that versions that went the Latin into vulgate? And what guarantee do you have that the one translation didn't inflict a modified meaning?

[Mudhammam]

This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Jurors are asked to evaluate evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and to make a decision.

Unfortunately, in this case, almost nothing is known about the credibility of the witnesses and they prove themselves all too willing to forego the basic questions even a moderately skeptical person would ask if they experienced voices and visions. Evaluating miracles in history or today is not like judging the guilt of a person accused of committing some crime. Your appeal to such a silly comparison demonstrates your utter lack of seriousness concerning the points you wish us to address.

The evidence for Christianity is stronger than most of the members of this forum would lead you to believe and better than authors like Bart Ehrman care to admit.

No, it really isn't, as your arguments have shown.

I don't know which books you've read, of course, but I'm confident that there are some Christians with more than enough mental horse-power to argue side, and it would be to your advantage to read some of their books to hear the other side.

Try reading other ancient sources that aren't Christian. In terms of miracles, you'll be about as impressed as we are with your Gospels---which is to say you won't be---yet their authors display far more thoughtfulness and skepticism than any of the NT authors (Try Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Cicero, and Lucretius to boot; they specifically address the types of vulgar superstition common in their day that you find so convincing when coming from Christian writers, and some of them even believed in it).

[Randy Carson]

Not so, PT.

The gospels and the epistles were written in Greek.

My English translation was made from the Greek and not from some intermediary language(s).

Directly from the Greek originals?

As I explained in the OP, the translations that we have to day are made from demonstrably accurate copies of the Greek manuscripts which are scattered about in museums and churches all over the world. The autographs themselves are lost.

Do they differ significantly from that versions that went the Latin into vulgate? And what guarantee do you have that the one translation didn't inflict a modified meaning?

Jerome translated from the Greek to the Latin, but beyond this, I could not say. However, modern English translations are not taken from the Vulgate.

It's Greek > English. No intermediate steps.

---

This happens in courtrooms around the world every day. Jurors are asked to evaluate evidence, to consider the credibility of the witnesses, and to make a decision.

Unfortunately, in this case, almost nothing is known about the credibility of the witnesses and they prove themselves all too willing to forego the basic questions even a moderately skeptical person would ask if they experienced voices and visions. Evaluating miracles in history or today is not like judging the guilt of a person accused of committing some crime. Your appeal to such a silly comparison demonstrates your utter lack of seriousness concerning the points you wish us to address.

Well, I can understand why you might make such an assertion, but it is just that. We can draw reasonable conclusions from the facts that can be verified. There is simply no basis for believing that the authors of the gospels were anything other than reliable eyewitnesses.

The evidence for Christianity is stronger than most of the members of this forum would lead you to believe and better than authors like Bart Ehrman care to admit.

No, it really isn't, as your arguments have shown.

I'm just getting started.

[Mudhammam]

Jesus got you rob! People who claim to have seen the virgin Mary talking to them at night and the face of Mickey Mouse in the sky must really be on to something!

---

Well, I can understand why you might make such an assertion, but it is just that. We can draw reasonable conclusions from the facts that can be verified. There is simply no basis for believing that the authors of the gospels were anything other than reliable eyewitnesses.

Uh-huh. Yeah, so maybe you can stop pussy-footing and get around to these "verifiable facts" about "reliable eyewitnesses" that you keep simply asserting but have yet to present anyone with a single reason to take seriously?

[robvalue]

Thanks for addressing my point.

But here we go, logical fallacies I'm afraid. Equivocation fallacy: courtroom. No half decent courtroom accepts supernatural explanations. In your example, we have a load of people in court just saying what they believe happened, and it's an extraordinary story. It's akin to "I saw a ghost appear and it scared him to death." Now, do you think any courtroom would ever accept a claim like that? Even if the court think these 20 witnesses, all with the same story, really do think they are telling the truth? Even if they are the most reliable witnesses ever? The answer is no. Or if they do accept it, the court is a joke. We're trying to establish whether there actually was a ghost, not just something a bit like a ghost but with a natural explanation. Reliability does not equal infallibility.

You can't pretend supernatural claims are the same as natural ones. In a courtroom we hear about things which we at least know are possible. Not so with supernatural things. So equivocation fallacy, I'm afraid.

You say there is more evidence. Evidence for what? In the courtroom example, what "evidence" could back up a ghost story? You're trying to establish the credibility of the witnesses, I get it. What I'm saying is I don't care how credible they are, why should I accept supernatural claims from them? I wouldn't from anyone else, not even my wife. I am not saying they are even lying. I'm conceding for the sake of argument that they are telling the truth about what they believed happened. But that doesn't mean that it actually happened. So yes, you're just arbitrarily deciding to believe what they believe. What else are you doing? You're saying it's more likely these things actually happened than they are mistaken.

It's my contention that this is an impossible gap to bridge. To give me a reason why I should believe what someone else believes, when they talk about something I have no reason to believe is even possible, requires a logical fallacy. I identified the equivocation fallacy above. Would you like to try again?