h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

anhaga

<>

To quote from F.F.Bruce in his book "The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?"...
"The New Testament was substantially complete about AD 100, the majority of writings being in existence 20 to 40 years before this. In this country a majority of scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100....the situation is encouraging from a historian's point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when many were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did..."
"Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion ,and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing."
"...there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date...Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's 'Gallic War' (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day...The history of Thucydides (460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps belonging to the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of Herodotus (488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt...But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! There are in existence over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best of these go back to c. AD 350...In addition to these, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still..."

<>

I guess you would need to recognize Jesus as Lord before calling yourself a christian.

mikey2

F. F. Bruce? I'm glad you chose someone with whom I'm familiar. You may assume that I have an agenda when I examine the New Testament, but you surely must acknowledge the bias that Bruce himself acknowledged bringing to his study of the Gospels. I hardly think that an impartial examination of the New Testament would be easy when starting from the position of an Evangelical Christian who *from the start* feels that the *entire* Christian message stands or falls on the historical reliability of the New Testament.

As for the historical works Bruce cites in the bits you posted:

The Gallic War, although its textual transmission is more challenging to reconstruct than is that of the New Testament, is not filled with mutually contradictory narrations of the same events. Furthermore, aspects of geography, languages, customs, etc. described by Caesar are corroborated by such descriptions in the works of other Roman Historians. And, perhaps most importantly, despite difficult transmission, Julius Caesar wasn't just writing at a time when eye witness would still be alive, *he was there!* He *was* the eye witness of what he described. If you want to compare the accuracy of a Christian text to the accuracy , of the Gallic War, find a copy of Jesus' own description of his mission, one that he originally wrote down himself.

Thucydides' Peloponesian War is also an eyewitness account and what I wrote above also goes for it.

As for Herodotus, I'm surprised that Bruce would have brought him up. Herodotus. Herodotus' Histories are actually very much like the New Testament, a collection stories at second or third or even higher number of hand cobbled together by a pretty good storyteller.

And, more importantly, Bruce makes a laughable mistake in placing more emphasis on the history of MS transmission rather than the probably authority of the original texts from which surviving copies derive. Bruce talks of the gap between composition and surviving MS as though that is some acceptable sort of measure of reliability. It is not. The nine hundred year gap for Caesar is likely actually a case of two or perhaps three copyings away from an original made while Caesar was alive. For Thucydides there would be a few more. But Bruce seems to think that the 30 to 60 year gap in which *no* eyewitness reports of Jesus were written down gives more authority to the Gospels than Caesar or Thucydides can claim for writing down what they saw very shortly after they saw it.

Sorry. Bruce ignores evidence because it conflicts with his *clearly acknowledged* biased world-view.

I suspect you are probably right in your assumption: "I'm sure that the majority of mutations are at best unhelpful and at worst harmful." However mutations are necessary for a species to evolve and to adapt to a changing environment.

It has been found that in many simple species there are mechanisms in place to increase the number of mutations which occur and even to permit the exchange of genetic material with other organisms. In more complex species the reverse is generally true with gene repair systems which reduce the number and effects of mutations.

F

Oh.

I meant to mention that I could also trot out authorities -- in my case authorities who suggest that the New Testament is of questionable reliability. But I prefer to draw my conclusions from actually examining the evidence myself.

As some Italian painter whose name escapes me at the moment said: he who adduces authority uses memory rather than intellect"

So why does the New Testament get the date wrong for Jesus' birth?

F

<>

but that is so illogical! If it were the 10th, or the 30th, would that mean there is a God?

Vicky

<<<< am a reasoning, thinking adult and have concluded that there is a Creator God.>>

Same here.>>

And me 3!

(The forthcoming ridicule notwithstanding.)

Vicky

<>

No, they're not, and many of them will happily tell you why. They believe standard Christianity foolishly got it wrong for 1850 years, and that God awaited the USA to put things right... (not an unusual American view that... )

Essentially, they may be based on Christianity (though even that's doubtful... a fellow student of my son, a Mormon is currently 'evangelising' him, which is how I know this) but they believe they have changed Christianity, and improved it, and generally they don't have much time for the original.

Vicky

'No, they're not, and many of them will happily tell you why.'

You've got an odd bunch of Latter Day Saints down there, Vicky.

You might want to head over to their webpage to get a better idea of what the Church of *Jesus Christ* of Latter Day Saints believes. The big primary thing, as is obvious from their name, is that they believe that Jesus died on the cross to atone for our sins and rose on the third day. Yes, they do believe that 'standard' Christianity got it wrong for about 1800 years, but then all those Protestant churches thing that standard Christianity got it wrong for about 1500 years.

You might also want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationist

You know, the more I hear about New Zealand the more it seems like a strangely surreal place. But then, most of what I hear about New Zealand these days comes from your posts, Vicky.

Hello Mikey2 you are right there is an undeniable vagueness that besets ancient texts passed down to us, but the same applies to the bible.

I wouldn’t dismiss the relevance or factuality of any book because its background was sketchy. However the scriptures of all hues need to be examined more closely than other books.

Im not going to get too excited about who said what to who and when unitl what was said 2000 plus years ago affects my life today.

You may not be one of them but some people calling themselves Christians run around the place jailing people, persecuting and even killing them according to laws that they say are contained in the bible.

Now there is no solid universally acknowledge claim that the bible is true other than that made in the bible itself. There are no other records of the laws and rules or prophecies it contains. As such it’s got a very slim leg to stand on.

We’ve found coins and other manuscripts that give contemporary corroboration to other books. What other evidence is there that people have found which lends equal support to what the bible says? I think that any book maknig such big claims needs a firm support not the flimsy one of its own validation of itself.

one love

<>

I assume that for 'thing', you meant think... and that's not actually so. I am a Protestant, you know, so I have some idea what they think.


<>

If you really cared to, you could remedy that!
www.stuff.co.nz
for one,

Vicky

'that's not actually so. I am a Protestant, you know, so I have some idea what they think.'


You are a Protestant? Pray tell, what does your church Protest if not, for example, the authority of the Pope and of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church that was standard Christianity or about 1500 years? If your church doesn't think they got it wrong then why isn't it a Catholic Church?

Well I was protestant I remember there being some imilarite and differences.

RC. and CoE both thought Jesus was born of a virgin, but only the RC uses icons of Mary as protestants tend to think iconography is against the laws of Moses.

RC and CoE both go in for the last supper but only the RC believe in literal transubstantiation.

For a long time only the Prtestants thought ordinary people like me and you should get to read the bible sucessive Popes for a long time opposed this.

Those are just some of the basic ones but most significant ones.

Some CoE even thought that the Pope was an agent of the devil corrupting people and leading them away from the bigG.

Even in more recent times many people decided upon the ordination of women vicars that the CoE had it so wrong that they had to jump ship to the RC so they clearly think that the CoE arent making a good job of being christian.

one love

Well, of course, Blicky. Every denomination thinks that its got it right and everybody else has it wrong. That's why I find it strange that Mormons get criticized for exactly the same thing: they think they've got it right and everybody else has it wrong. And I find it doubly strange that so many Christians argue (apparently with a bunch of misinformation to back them up) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints isn't a Christian Church. Arguing that point is absurd. But then, many of the same people manage to argue that Intelligent design is an idea worth entertaining for more than a millisecond. I guess once you've swallowed one big absurdity little ones just slide down like juicy oysters.

<>

>>I respect your point of view. Do you respect mine? I am a reasoning, thinking adult and have concluded that there is a Creator God.<

You have not, to my knowledge, said or done anything to warrant my disfavor. You present as a decent person, and I have no reason to doubt your claim to be a reasoning, thinking adult.
Although I may respect you as a mostly harmless fellow human being, your views on God are no more worthy of respect than those of any other theist, which is to say, none at all.

I happen to think the theist argument is unsupported by reasonable evidence, the theist premise either incoherent or intrinsically flawed, and the theist conclusion irrevocably incorrect.
I also think most theists are unaware of the actual process by which they attain their conclusion, because theists have been, and are, deluded.


>>My faith in God relies on the New Testament. In my view that's the place to look for a meaningful description. As I've mentioned, you won't find historical documents more reliable, in spite of what has supposedly been 'demonstrated' on this site.<

Unfortunately I don't share your confidence in your Holy Book. Mostly it strikes me as an ambiguous, contradictory, and absurd rambling narrative, where it is not horrifically vile, cruel and hateful.
At any rate, the New Testament isn't what I'd call a user-friendly read. Can't you give me a brief 'precis', from your understanding, of the distinctive characteristics of the God in whom you believe?
Even a simple list may suffice, as a reference point, so to speak.


<>

>>That went over my head...could you elaborate and put that in layman's terms?!<

Disclaimer: "Damnit Jim, I'm a philosopher, not a physicist!"

Keep in mind that Richard Feynman, the greatest physicist of his generation, said of quantum theory,
'It is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain it in any classical way'.

I would add that I personally find it makes my brain hurt trying to think about it and hopefully some scientific bod can fill in the gaps, and correct my glaring errors. .

Anyway, as I see it, modern science supports the idea that our universe is fundamentally accidental, not purposeful.
That is, it is completely un-anthropomorphic, and functions or manifests due to the workings of natural laws, such that gods are increasingly rendered superfluous to the explanations of how everything works
The cause/effect nature of reality may seem intuitively obvious, however, Quantum Mechanics notoriously introduces randomness into the perceived pattern of reality.
Randomness is, by definition, an utter lack of pattern.
If there is no pattern, events cannot be defined in terms of cause and effect.
A truly random event lacks a cause.
An example: Virtual particle pairs apparently come into existence completely uncaused – with total randomness.
If this observation is correct, it conflicts with the notion of a 'Prime Mover', aka 'Creator God', thus:
The Prime Mover notion is based upon a number of assumptions, not the least of which is that effects require causes.
A personal agent responsible for events requires an identifiable, distinctive pattern -- what appears to be random must be shown to be otherwise, but there is no evidence to indicate this.
Science, being what science is, has not 'proved' Quantum randomness, but I'm told the experimental efforts to invalidate the theory always seem to end up providing additional support for it.

By the way, please note Quantum Randomness is neither the sole, nor the strongest, refutation of the 'Prime Mover' notion.

42 Posts! It took me days to read all that! Oh well. Two points I'd like to inject into this debate, if I may:

1) There is much talk about the reliability of the bible as a text. It seems to me relevant to consider that 'the bible' is no more than *some* of the many works available on the period in question assembled a good deal later to form a coherent whole. This is rather like trying to make a book out of the internet. Consequently it is hard to ignore the likelihood that, had many of the excluded material been kept in, a different picture would have emerged.

2) My biggest bugbear with religion is one that Blicky, in one of the most moderate posts I have ever read from him, alluded to, which is the problem that fundamentalists from many relgions will use their sacred texts as justification for all kinds of otherwise horrifically imoral actions. How on earth can anyone act with such brutal confidence on the basis of instructions given from someone they couldn't pick out of a lineup?

benjamin,

all faith types are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I'm trying to tease out the irony of a joke about relgion being taken from a allegory about the rise of communism, but I just can't be bothered.

Oh benjy you faith types give up so easily.

Hang on, when did I get dumped in the faith camp in this particular debate?