The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Minimalist]

Aye, Pyr.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.


Thomas Jefferson  1823

[Randy Carson]

Tim-

It's a pleasure to have you join the thread.

I've printed out and read all of your articles at Strange Notions, and I've been working through a number of your blog posts, as well. As you can see from my signature (which I updated just yesterday), I have been very impressed by the work you have done to dispel the Jesus Myth Theory.

In the OP and post #270 (among others), I have attempted to lay out the beginning of a very basic argument for the historical reliability of the NT, and while I do expect you and I will agree on everything, I am interested to hear your views on the general reliability of the gospels, in particular.

Setting aside the miracles (which I presume you reject), what are your thoughts on:

1. The dating and order of writing of the four gospels (and how is your view influenced by the silence concerning the destruction of the Temple and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul?);
   
2. The identity of the authors (do you ascribe to the traditional authorship?);
   
3. Do you agree with Ehrman's "Telephone Game" analogy, or would you say that the oral culture of the Jews worked in favor of an accurate transference from oral to written message?
   
4. Do you think that the authors (regardless of identity) have provided us with generally reliable accounts of what the apostles and disciples were eye-witnesses to?
   

If you have addressed these points elsewhere and wish to refer me to them to save some typing, just provide the link.

Many thanks in advance.

Randy

[Cyberman]

Have you guys picked a ring yet?

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol. It's funny how butt hurt you are. But actually if your dumb ass could read, I said I ran out of patience explaining how logic works to a fucking idiot, which you once again confirmed by posting statements one could only think if a) they ignored everything I already said up to this point, or b) their brain is literally physically damaged. I think I'll opt for b.

-need I remind you that you spent the entire exchange arguing with some conspiricist -you invented- rather than responding to me, or even doing something so simple as telling us which historical paul™ you believe to be the real historical paul™?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

He...he does know that a dude named Jesus actually existing =/= the new testament is reliable, right?

Of course "he" does. 

However, if you actually READ what SOME posters in this forum write, you will observe that a fairly significant percentage of the members seem to be mythers.

Consequently, just getting to the baseline agreement that yes, Jesus really did exist, is a major task in itself.

However, one thing is for sure, if Josephus and Tacitus (whom O'Neill says are unimpeachable sources on this) are correct, then the NT was reliable about that.

But YOU try telling that to a few folks around here...

---

OK, suppose Jesus did exist and that he did run around the Middle East blabbling about this and that.  What did he say that was so important?  Based upon the dialogue countless other people have said far more important things about all kinds of issues.

---

Why not read what He said for yourself?

---

The most important thing the Jesus character ever said is found in Matthew 15:24  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...EB;KJV;NLT

---

Why not?  Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  

Carl Sagan.

To whom I reply, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Let that sink in.

Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either.  I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that we are agnostic about those things, because we simply don't know for sure whether they exist or not?

Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication.  I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified.  I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).

Please show me.  

---

The bible and the New Testament in particular are history - Arguably one of the most influential books of all time... But historically reliable? No, that's the conclusion bible academicians have been reaching for decades.

Update:

That was the trend of scholarship in the first half of the 20th century, but more recently scholars have been moving toward acceptance of the historical reliability of the gospels.

---

[Minimalist]

Hey!  I seem Tim is back.  Find any manuscripts of Q or are we still supposed to take your word  on "faith."

Have fun with him, guys.  I'm off to Symphony Hall.

[IATIA]

In most cases in an ancient source, when someone is mentioned, it's because they existed.

Does that include Zeus, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Ra, Anubis, Marduk, An, Enlil, etc.? I can list hundreds more if necessary.

[Mudhammam]

-need I remind you that you spent the entire exchange arguing with some conspiricist -you invented- rather than responding to me, or even doing something so simple as telling us which historical paul™ you believe to be the real historical paul™?

Honestly, it sounds like you need to remind yourself that you:
1. Advocated the conspiracy that Paul was a fictional character created for a story formatted like the Screwtape Letters.... LOL... to tell Christians about how this fictitious first-century Jew gained reputation by converting to the faith and being a missionary, writing letters to (real?) churches about his (the made-up person, that is) ideas relating to how Christians should live...
2. A position that you had no reason or evidence for which to presume, but kept insisting that I respond to your incoherent thesis supported by non-reasons and absolutely no evidence...
3. All the while confusing the source material, insisting that due to the embellished features relating to Paul in Acts, all texts are discredited, and that we should assume that the multiple attestations to the existence of a historical Paul near the end of the first-century/first quarter of the second were also written into a narrative by characters who were created by unknown authors.

Like I said, you're a complete moron.

[The Grand Nudger]

1-There you go, inventing conspiracists again.

2-Evidence that both the screwtape letters and -the letters supposedly written by paul- are in the format of...letters? You don't think that's a fairly benign observation? I would think it strange if they weren't...since that was the authors intent(-at least- the second time I've had to correct you on this count alone).

3-I specifically mentioned that we could (and should) disregard acts on numerous occasions - mostly because it's full of obvious myth and legend and we're trying to find us some historical paul...whatever that means. Does that mean we're done..that once acts is gone the rest is really real (or that from that point forward we have to forget that acts exists), that there could be no further, subtler misinformation (for reasons which are, frankly..legion) within, say...these supposed letters?

You were saying? -And speaking of what you were saying...at what point will trading barbs or calling me a moron help you to establish the historicity of paul....whichever paul you have in mind? How does that work>?

[robvalue]

In most cases in an ancient source, when someone is mentioned, it's because they existed.

Does that include Zeus, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Ra, Anubis, Marduk, An, Enlil, etc.? I can list hundreds more if necessary.

Exactly. If I pick up an "ancient source" I start from the position of not believing anything it says. This is the same scepticism I use when I pick up any new source, in fact. Even one someone just wrote down and gave to me. Now, if I know who wrote it, that is in itself a factor in deciding how reliable it is. For example, if my wife wrote it, I'm going to trust most things she says based on experience, unless I have a reason not to. However, the scepticism still applies in general and I don't believe everything she says. She has some supernatural beliefs, which I automatically do not believe, and I ask for evidence, which of course is not forthcoming.

If some unknown person wrote it that long ago and it's been through the Chinese whisper mill, I'm pretty much going to give it no credibility and rely only on what I can validate. I see no reason to assume any of it "probably happened" without an external reason to think so. And even if I can validate a couple of bits of it, that is not at all the same amount of "experience" as having personal experience with my wife making claims for many years. It's still all part of the initial attempt to establish credibility. Also, anyone who writes about angels and resurrections or any such garbage loses roughly 478 credibility points right away. Maybe more. They are almost certainly either deluded or in the business of making stuff up. Either way, reliable my sceptical arse.

My personal stance on history is I would rather simply say I have no good idea what happened, rather than come to a conclusion that I cannot be at least pretty confident about.

That is just my opinion, not a dictate.