The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[abaris]

Unless I missed something, Craig is not incarcerated.  You must be thinking of another professional panderer -- perhaps Hovind?  Unfortunately, Craig is still loose and debating anyone silly enough to give him the time of day.

Yeah, my bad. These quacks get mixed up so easily.

In any case, Craig is anything but a historian. He's a theologian and apologist working on an evangelical collegue.

[Randy Carson]

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.

Ah, I see ... copies of copies.  Kind of like how people whisper a message from one to the other and see how far it gets distorted ... what was that game called again, Randy?  Help a brother out, I'm old and my memory is fading.

Parker, try to keep up. I dealt with Ehrman's silly Telephone Game in the OP.

It's Greek > English. No intermediate steps.

How do you know you have the original Greek texts?

Read the OP. No, seriously. It's all there. Post #1. Of this thread.

Thanks.

---

That would be awesome. It's kind of like a sheriff that was around a long, long time ago and used to keep order. He got everyone thinking they had to behave or they'd have him to answer to. Pretty soon, they were just living by his rules. When anyone was watching, anyway. It was second nature, and they taught all the rules to their kids.

They didn't even notice when he left town, they preserved his rule book. They had to keep writing it out for new people and over time it got twisted... what would the sheriff think? Does it even resemble what he started? Did he die, or is he at another town?

Rob-

C'mon...if you have an issue with anything I wrote in the OP, tell me where my argument is wrong.

Otherwise, don't keep repeating the falsehood that the Bible today is a corrupted text.

Atheism has some good arguments, but this isn't one of them.

[Angrboda]

If I'm reading you correctly, you infer an early date for Luke from two facts, the Pauline references to Luke and Pauline quotation's of Luke.

The first is a non sequitur as Luke-Acts is an anonymous work, the only thing connecting the early references to Luke with the document/s Luke-Acts is the speculations of the early church fathers. There is no direct evidence that the author of Luke-Acts and the early Luke are one and the same. That's pure assertion on the part of the church fathers, and as Hitchens' razor states, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The second is the assertion that Paul quotes Luke. However, we have no reason other than your assertion to believe that Luke influenced the writing of Paul, rather than that Paul influenced the writing of Luke. It is upon this speculation that you rest the entire case for the accuracy of the gospels, namely an early date for their composition. Regardless of what order you put the composition of the Gospels, it's clear that their influence upon one another is incestuous. The complexity of the inter-relationships cannot be straightened out by a mere assertion. If Christians are to be believed, the Pauline documents were influential in the early church. If that is true, it's not unreasonable to conclude that it influenced the writing of Luke after it. Indeed, Luke states that he had collected what had been written and said, indicating the material wasn't original to him. Since the conclusion that the influence ran one direction and not the other (or that both depended on an independent, unnamed source) is nothing more than pure assertion, it is likewise dismissed.

The final point is the appearance to the 500. I'm not going to say much on this count other than that there is legitimate controversy over whether the passage itself is original to Paul.

If I have missed an argument for the early composition of the Gospels that you feel needs addressing, let me know. I'm not a bible scholar, but I'm sure someone will rise to the challenge.

[Randy Carson]

And that leads me again to the fundamental question of why. Why did they sit down and write about what they heard?

First, I haven't forgotten or ignored your posts.

Second, I notice that you have dropped the "When" from your list of things that I allegedly haven't covered. Woohoo! Progress.

Guess I'll deal with the "Why" now.

1. Jesus instructed the apostles to make disciples of all nations.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

2. The authors of the gospels wrote so that others might have an accurate account of the things that were being reported about Jesus.

Luke 1:1-4
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

3. The authors wrote so that others might believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

John 20:24-31
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”  But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

So, why did the authors write the gospels?

1. Because the apostles were commanded to make disciples.
2. Because they wanted to provide an accurate account of Jesus' life.
3. Because they wanted to give others reasons to believe and be saved.

Before His death, Jesus prayed for ALL who would come to believe in Him through the message preached by His apostles:

John 17:20-23
20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Writing the gospels was one means of getting that message out to the world.

---

You're seriously refering to William Lane Craig? The one with the mail order degree from a non accredited christian university? The one currently residing in a federal institution?

When you make errors like this, which one of us appears to have the greater credibility?

In 1975 Craig commenced doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham, England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. Out of this study came his first book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), a defense of the argument he first encountered in Hackett's work. Craig was awarded a post-doctoral fellowship in 1978 from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation to pursue research on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus under the direction of Wolfhart Pannenberg at the Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München inGermany. His studies in Munich led to a second doctorate, this one in theology, awarded in 1984 with the publication of his doctoral thesis, "The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus during the Deist Controversy" (1985).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

---

If I'm reading you correctly, you infer an early date for Luke from two facts, the Pauline references to Luke and Pauline quotation's of Luke.

The first is a non sequitur as Luke-Acts is an anonymous work, the only thing connecting the early references to Luke with the document/s Luke-Acts is the speculations of the early church fathers.  There is no direct evidence that the author of Luke-Acts and the early Luke are one and the same.  That's pure assertion on the part of the church fathers, and as Hitchens' razor states, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The second is the assertion that Paul quotes Luke.  However, we have no reason other than your assertion to believe that Luke influenced the writing of Paul, rather than that Paul influenced the writing of Luke.  It is upon this speculation that you rest the entire case for the accuracy of the gospels, namely an early date for their composition.  Regardless of what order you put the composition of the Gospels, it's clear that their influence upon one another is incestuous.  The complexity of the inter-relationships cannot be straightened out by a mere assertion.  If Christians are to be believed, the Pauline documents were influential in the early church.  If that is true, it's not unreasonable to conclude that it influenced the writing of Luke after it.  Indeed, Luke states that he had collected what had been written and said, indicating the material wasn't original to him.  Since the conclusion that the influence ran one direction and not the other (or that both depended on an independent, unnamed source) is nothing more than pure assertion, it is likewise dismissed.

The final point is the appearance to the 500.  I'm not going to say much on this count other than that there is legitimate controversy over whether the passage itself is original to Paul.

If I have missed an argument for the early composition of the Gospels that you feel needs addressing, let me know.  I'm not a bible scholar, but I'm sure someone will rise to the challenge.

There is absolutely no question about the fact that the Luke who wrote Luke-Acts is the same person as the travelling companion of Paul. You may consider the case of the "we" passages in Acts, for example. The author is travelling with Paul - hence he says "we..." instead of merely "Paul...".

Earlier in this thread, I provided all of the scriptural references from Paul to Luke. They influenced each other. So, what?

Neither of them was present at the Last Supper. So, either Luke got his source materials for the words "Do this in remembrance of me" from his own interviews and research (and Paul copied it) or Paul got it from the apostles in Jerusalem during his visits there (and Luke copied Paul).

Either way, the dating material would be very early, and this is something that skeptics cannot allow.

[abaris]

So, why did the authors write the gospels?

1. Because the apostles were commanded to make disciples.
2. Because they wanted to provide an accurate account of Jesus' life.
3. Because they wanted to give others reasons to believe and be saved.

Before His death, Jesus prayed for ALL who would come to believe in Him through the message preached by His apostles:

And outside of bible proves bible?

[Minimalist]

Pliny the Younger - c 110 AD or 3 years after this alleged Ignatius bullshit - describes a band of xtians he interrogated.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

No church.  No jesus.  No trinity.  No communion.  No apostles.  No paul.  No Pilate.  No crucifixion.  No second coming.  No nothing.  In fact, Pliny probably wrote Chestians and was given some help by a later scribe who thought he was correcting Pliny's spelling as happened with Tacitus centuries later.

[Randy Carson]

Pliny the Younger - c 110 AD or 3 years after this alleged Ignatius bullshit - describes a band of xtians he interrogated.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

No church.  No jesus.  No trinity.  No communion.  No apostles.  No paul.  No Pilate.  No crucifixion.  No second coming.  No nothing.  In fact, Pliny probably wrote Chestians and was given some help by a later scribe who thought he was correcting Pliny's spelling as happened with Tacitus centuries later.

It would have been a truly remarkable thing if this Roman official had included that much theology in his report.

But we do see:

a. the church (that's the body of believers
b. gathering to worship Christ as God
c. regrouping to partake of "ordinary and innocent" food (as opposed to non-ordinary food? the Eucharist, perhaps?)
d. the torturing of believers for the faith

From all of this, we can conclude one thing with certainty: Jesus is not a Legend.

And that seals off another of the skeptics' favorite rabbit trails.

Ya know, Min, I'm starting to wonder if you are secretly a Christian who has gone undercover in this forum to occasionally bring up points like this. 'Cause sometimes you are pure gold. 

[Minimalist]

It would have been a truly remarkable thing if this Roman official had included that much theology in his report.

Horseshit.  Can you imagine one Roman aristocrat writing to another...

"Hey, boss.  Can you believe this?  I ran into a bunch of morons who worship some guy that we crucified as a criminal and they think he came back from the fucking dead to atone for their sins."

I would think the Romans would have been amused by the tale.... if it had existed at the time.

[dyresand]

It would have been a truly remarkable thing if this Roman official had included that much theology in his report.

Horseshit.  Can you imagine one Roman aristocrat writing to another...

"Hey, boss.  Can you believe this?  I ran into a bunch of morons who worship some guy that we crucified as a criminal and they think he came back from the fucking dead to atone for their sins."

I would think the Romans would have been amused by the tale.... if it had existed at the time.

Pretty sure the Romans would have laughed then up and straight slaughtered all of them for something that ridiculous. 

[Angrboda]

There is absolutely no question about the fact that the Luke who wrote Luke-Acts is the same person as the travelling companion of Paul. You may consider the case of the "we" passages in Acts, for example. The author is travelling with Paul - hence he says "we..." instead of merely "Paul...".

The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, nor of the events prior to Paul's arrival in Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first "we" passage in Acts 16:10.[13] In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony of events in the Gospel "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages.

Earlier in this thread, I provided all of the scriptural references from Paul to Luke. They influenced each other. So, what?

Neither of them was present at the Last Supper. So, either Luke got his source materials for the words "Do this in remembrance of me" from his own interviews and research (and Paul copied it) or Paul got it from the apostles in Jerusalem during his visits there (and Luke copied Paul).

Either way, the dating material would be very early, and this is something that skeptics cannot allow.

No, the materials would not be dated very early either way.  That's the point.  If Paul was the source of the common passages referenced by Paul, then you cannot date the composition of Luke-Acts prior to Paul.  The textual evidence in Acts suggests that it was Luke who was influenced by Paul in his later account.  This deprives you of justification for the early dating.  Hearsay from someone who wasn't even there at the time, written years — even decades later — is hardly a testimony to historical reliability of the documents.  You need an early date because Paul is a relatively poor source for historical details about Jesus; without the early date, the historical reliability of the accounts of Jesus' life is put in doubt.