NationStates Jolt Archive

Extracting a side-discussion from a locked thread.


Then by that criterion, all biographies are a myth as well. After all, they come from third party sources...
No.

The bible does not come from third party sources.
Its much more like tenth or twelfth party.

See, history, and science (ironically enough) tell us that the earliest dates that the earliest of the biblical texts of the "New Testament" originates anywhere from 80, to 200 years after the death of Christ.

This means, that no firsthand witnesses are actually quoted accurately.
Its far more likely that the accounts within, were handed down from geeneration to generation, person to person, orally, until finally copied into written texts in Hebrew.
These were then translated into Greek, wich are the oldest existing copies of those texts, other than the supposed "Dead Sea Scrolls", IIRC.

So, what you have here, is a collection of stories, passed down and told differently many times, as such fables tend to be, much akin to children playing "telephone", wherein a group of kids shares a message with the next, and so forth, until the last one reveals the message.
The end result is always far different than the original.

To add further irony, some scholars think the very earliest text to be the Gospel of Thomas.
These folks believe that it may have been writen as early as 40 A.D.
Whats interesting about it, is that it contains no mention of Jesus's supposed divinity, any miracle working, and never refers to Jesus as "saviour", and instead, calls him "Teacher".
Its a collection of 114 (I believe) sayings of Jesus, and much more akin to Confucious.
Merely a collection of wisdom.

Its no wonder this text was omitted from the bible.


The New Testament, at least, is one of the most reliable ancient documents known. I am defining reliability to mean accurately representing what the authors of the various parts originally wrote.

The original New Testament manuscripts were written between A.D. 65-100 and are traditionally ascribed to various apostles (the inner-circle of Jesus's followers and the leaders of the early Church) or to their immediate followers based on the apostle's eyewitness testimony. The original manucripts have all been lost, but the earliest copies of most of the texts date from about A.D. 200-250. There are over five thousand ancient copies (some are partial) of the books of the New Testament.

By contrast, for most known ancient works (such as those by Plato, Aristotle, Caesar,...) there is a gap of on average seven hundred years between their composition and the oldest existing copy of the text. We know of many classical works from only a single surviving copy, and ten ancient copies of such works is considered a large number by scholars.

Therefore there is more reason to doubt that the contents of the Republic accurately reflect Plato's teaching than there is to doubt the reliability of the New Testament.

Reference
Habermas, G. (2001). Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable. Retrieved Dec. 21, 2005 from http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html)

Okay, um, no offense at all but....sometimes, it's really not a great idea to take a locked thread and simply try to re-animate the debate. I know you and Sasquatch had a good thing going, and I doubt you're simply out for blood or to raise a little hell, but most likely the dissolution of sensical conversation that you experienced the first time around is just as likely to happen this time.
[/my two cents]

If the New Testament isn't so reliable, then how come archeologist are finding physical edvience in Iseral to support the New Testament claims? How come the more we look for evidence to verify the truthlness of the New Testament, we find it?

I thought this "reliability of the Bible" sub-thread was far enough off-topic of the original thread and hadn't in itself generated that much heat, that the moderators might indulge me. I guess we'll see.

If the New Testament isn't so reliable, then how come archeologist are finding physical edvience in Iseral to support the New Testament claims? How come the more we look for evidence to verify the truthlness of the New Testament, we find it?
Good point.

The source I cited above also mentions that there are at least seventeen non-Christian sources with dates from around A.D. 50-180 that confirm aspects of the New Testament's contents.

You are guilty of misrepresentation, my friend. Also, your logic is faulty. Somebody who has taken logic more recently than I have please refresh my memory as to what fallacy this is.

Now, let me explain.

Just because the modern New Testament books are in a more direct line to their original written version, does not necessarily make them accurate. The reason that older copies of these works exist is because the Church has historically been a center of education, and the written word was preserved. Hence, church documents, such as very old copies of the original New Testament texts, would have a greater chance of survival than say a military order issued by Alexander because the Church hoarded the written word. That does not make those words accurate. They may be very close to what the original documents were in context, and there may be a large number of old copies in existance, but that does not make the words true. They are still copied second hand accounts of events written by men who were not historians but followers of a religious order.

Now, if you want to say that the New Testament in its current interpretation is very close to the books originally written because many copies have survived through the Church, and that very old copies exist so that the gaps in time between when reliable copies exist is much smaller than with other hsitorical documents, then I would agree. But that does not make the New Testament accurate by any means.

Good point.

The source I cited above also mentions that there are at least seventeen non-Christian sources with dates from around A.D. 50-180 that confirm aspects of the New Testament's contents.

Also, I think people would remembers if a strange 5'4' (this is how tall Jesus actually was), guy turned water into wine. I really think that they would remember the same guy rising from the dead 3 days after he was killed! As for the Book of Thomas, I dunno, I mean We got Mark, Matthews, Paul, and other NT writers who all wrote similiar experiences and stories about Jesus vs. the one guy who just called him a teacher. If you ask me, it's the Book of Thomas that needs to be looked at.

The New Testament, at least, is one of the most reliable ancient documents known.
You must be joking.

At any rate, prove it.

Now, if you want to say that the New Testament in its current interpretation is very close to the books originally written because many copies have survived through the Church, and that very old copies exist so that the gaps in time between when reliable copies exist is much smaller than with other hsitorical documents, then I would agree.

That is the point I was trying to make. The large number of ancient copies that agree with each other allows us to conclude that it is highly likely that those copies are accurate represenations of the original manuscripts, as opposed to the case of an ancient text for which we have only a single surviving copy and so no way of judging how much of the content is original and how much has been added or changed by others.

At any rate, prove it.

Did you read my post past the first line? If so, which of the arguments do you have a problem with?

Gee, don't people who are religious find it a bit sad that to reaffirm their belief they have to find concrete evidence to back up their religious beliefs?

I thought you guys had FAITH! Faith shouldn't need concrete proof.

Gee, don't people who are religious find it a bit sad that to reaffirm their belief they have to find concrete evidence to back up their religious beliefs?

I thought you guys had FAITH! Faith shouldn't need concrete proof.

I do have faith that the New Testament is an accurate picture of what happened in the life of Jesus Christ. However, it's still nice to see concrete proof show up now and then, if anything it'll make the non-believers grind their teeth. ;)

That is the point I was trying to make. The large number of ancient copies that agree with each other allows us to conclude that it is highly likely that those copies are accurate represenations of the original manuscripts, as opposed to the case of an ancient text for which we have only a single surviving copy and so no way of judging how much of the content is original and how much has been added or changed by others.

Maybe so; but the way your OP was worded, along with the title of the thread, was misleading- making it seem like a statement that the New Testament was factually accurate. Which is impossible because there are not only numerous contradictions within it, but also because the authors are biased being that they subscribed to the religious doctrines based on the tales they wrote.

Maybe so; but the way your OP was worded, along with the title of the thread, was misleading- making it seem like a statement that the New Testament was factually accurate. Which is impossible because there are not only numerous contradictions within it, but also because the authors are biased being that they subscribed to the religious doctrines based on the tales they wrote.

It may seem contradictiory now, in today's language. However, it you were to read it in Hebrew, it would make more sense and have less contradition. That's one of the problem with translation, things get lost in translation, and thus you have these condradition that wasn't there in the first verison.

I do have faith that the New Testament is an accurate picture of what happened in the life of Jesus Christ. However, it's still nice to see concrete proof show up now and then, if anything it'll make the non-believers grind their teeth. ;)

This is my point, the thread is misleading. The "concrete proof" you think you have is non-existant. What you have is a reasonably accurate secondhand translation of a copy of what the apostles wrote. Which has contradictions and is not historically accurate. My teeth are far from grinding.

Did you read my post past the first line? If so, which of the arguments do you have a problem with?
The conjecture.

So, really, most of your argument.


Prove that the New Testament is one of the most reliable ancient documents known. You made the claim. Can you not back it up properly?

This is my point, the thread is misleading. The "concrete proof" you think you have is non-existant. What you have is a reasonably accurate secondhand translation of a copy of what the apostles wrote. Which has contradictions and is not historically accurate. My teeth are far from grinding.

As for the conrdradition, look above, and what proof do you have that it's not historically accurate?

Maybe so; but the way your OP was worded, along with the title of the thread, was misleading- making it seem like a statement that the New Testament was factually accurate. Which is impossible because there are not only numerous contradictions within it, but also because the authors are biased being that they subscribed to the religious doctrines based on the tales they wrote.

Do you dispute the archeological evidence or confirmation in non-Christian ancient sources?

As for the conrdradition, look above, and what proof do you have that it's not historically accurate?

The fact that its not a Primary source? (historically speaking a primary source is material written at the time by someone who was alive at the time/first hand account/memoirs etc. Writing something 50yrs after is not a Primary source.)

As for the conrdradition, look above, and what proof do you have that it's not historically accurate?

The contradictions in the bible are too numerous to list, even assuming that many can be attributed to translation errors you mentioned. I am sure someone more versed in the NT can make this argument better than me, but for an example...how can Jesus have been crucified alone, and with two criminals at the same time? And how can he have spoken to them, and not at the same time? And how can they both ridicule him, and one ridicule him and the other see the error of his way at the same time?

As for the historical accuracy, I would say that the burden of proof is on those claiming their words are true. Which you have insufficient evidence to do. There may be enough evidence to prove that there was a historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, however, proving he is the son of God is impossible. This argument is WAY to big to cover in this thread, but my point is that just because there is a more direct line of written texts between when the apostles wrote them and the copies in existance today, does not make the words we have TRUE.

As for the conrdradition, look above, and what proof do you have that it's not historically accurate?
How about the fact that Jesus couldn't have read in the synagogue in Nazareth at the time the gospels say he did, because archaeologists have determined that during the time Jesus was supposed to have been on earth, Nazareth wasn't even a hamlet at the time? It wasn't big enough to support a synagogue of its own and there's no archaelogical proof that one existed.

There's a very significant difference between what we know as the New Testament being close to what was originally written and the New Testament being historically accurate. It may well link up very well with what was originally recorded, but that does not mean that what was originally recorded was historically accurate. Those are two very separate arguments.

The conjecture.
I am not aware of any conjecture in the OP. Please point it out.

The fact that its not a Primary source? (historically speaking a primary source is material written at the time by someone who was alive at the time/first hand account/memoirs etc. Writing something 50yrs after is not a Primary source.)

Well have you ever stop to think that maybe the apostles and Jesus's follwers were too busy carrying out his work and words to other lands that it didn't occur to them to write it down until 50 years has passed?

Do you dispute the archeological evidence or confirmation in non-Christian ancient sources?

The evidence of what, exactly? The entire New Testament? You have nothing that proves its complete accuracy. I do not dispute that there is a historic figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, nor that he was crucified at Golgatha. There are many other things which there is evidence of, but there is not evidence that he was the son of God, nor that all the written accounts lumped together and known collectively as the New Testament are factually accurate.

Well have you ever stop to think that maybe the apostles and Jesus's follwers were too busy carrying out his work and words to other lands that it didn't occur to them to write it down until 50 years has passed?

1) Gee, thats convienient.
2)Thats assuming you know what was going through their minds.
3) You'd think it would help them do their work with some sort of collection of their Gods writings, wouldn't you? Some sort of... book.... almost.

Conclusion: It ain't a primary source, therefore historically speaking, it is not reliable.

If I was to put the Bible down as a Primary source in my thesis bibliography- I'd fail.

The contradictions in the bible are too numerous to list, even assuming that many can be attributed to translation errors you mentioned. I am sure someone more versed in the NT can make this argument better than me, but for an example...how can Jesus have been crucified alone, and with two criminals at the same time?

He was alone in the sense that he didn't feel God's presence upon him, and the fact that only Mary, and his brother (I think) was there to support him.


And how can he have spoken to them, and not at the same time?


I never heard about this, please give me specific passages.


And how can they both ridicule him, and one ridicule him and the other see the error of his way at the same time?


Maybe they were both ridiculing him at the beginning, but finally one of them sees the error of his ways and notice that Jesus's only crime was speaking out against the Jewish leaders.

As for the historical accuracy, I would say that the burden of proof is on those claiming their words are true. Which you have insufficient evidence to do. There may be enough evidence to prove that there was a historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, however, proving he is the son of God is impossible. This argument is WAY to big to cover in this thread, but my point is that just because there is a more direct line of written texts between when the apostles wrote them and the copies in existance today, does not make the words we have TRUE.

You're right, to prove that Jesus Christ Is the son of God is impossible to do, that is where the faith thing comes in. However, people have recovered numerous manuscripts not related to the Bible itself, mentioning Jesus Christ. Hell even a Roman manuscript was recovered to show that Jesus Christ was a man that they executed via cruifixition.

How about the fact that Jesus couldn't have read in the synagogue in Nazareth at the time the gospels say he did, because archaeologists have determined that during the time Jesus was supposed to have been on earth, Nazareth wasn't even a hamlet at the time? It wasn't big enough to support a synagogue of its own and there's no archaelogical proof that one existed.

There's a very significant difference between what we know as the New Testament being close to what was originally written and the New Testament being historically accurate. It may well link up very well with what was originally recorded, but that does not mean that what was originally recorded was historically accurate. Those are two very separate arguments.

Who says that the synagogue wasn't there at the time Jesus read in it?

1) Gee, thats convienient.
2)Thats assuming you know what was going through their minds.
3) You'd think it would help them do their work with some sort of collection of their Gods writings, wouldn't you? Some sort of... book.... almost.

Conclusion: It ain't a primary source, therefore historically speaking, it is not reliable.

If I was to put the Bible down as a Primary source in my thesis bibliography- I'd fail.

1. Convienient has nothing to do with it. You are forgetting that the NT ended with Jesus's rising. Everything that Jesus has ever talked about came true, and that he proved everyone that he was the Son of God and that he was there to die for the sin of mankind. It's the same as having your favorite team win the championship times a 1,000. In the time of celebration, one doesn't stop to think about writing it down.

2. Many apostole did write down what they were thinking.

3. What good would a book do when most of the people couldn't read anyways? That wy oral communication was so important back then.

There may be enough evidence to prove that there was a historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, however, proving he is the son of God is impossible.

Very true, that above all is a matter of faith.

my point is that just because there is a more direct line of written texts between when the apostles wrote them and the copies in existance today, does not make the words we have TRUE.
I would agree with that. My intention in the OP was speak to the reliability of the NT texts to counter what I interpreted as BackwoodsSquatches's contention that the accounts passed through so many hands before being written down that we can't know what the original message was. The accuracy of the contents of the NT is a separate discussion.

If I was to put the Bible down as a Primary source in my thesis bibliography- I'd fail.
You win the thread.

If the Bible is not accepted as a source of information without actually going to dig up places, but some Hithite records are (acknowledging that I picked the Hithites out of thin air and they were for all intents and purposes gone by Jesus' days), then the community acknowledges that the Bible has been written by people who wanted to present things in a certain way, and that even then it still had to pass almost 2000 years of rewriting without being significantly changed.

The characters in the Bible may really have existed (although they were most likely portrayed inaccurately), as have the places, and maybe some of the events.

But all this doesn't change that it was essentially written as a recruitment book for an obscure religious cult, and needs to be treated accordingly.

If yall consider the NT inaccurate, then what do yall think of the Koran, or the Golden leaftlet (Buddisim), or the Torah?

The fact that its not a Primary source? (historically speaking a primary source is material written at the time by someone who was alive at the time/first hand account/memoirs etc. Writing something 50yrs after is not a Primary source.)
This must exclude all ancient documents from use as primary sources.

1. Convienient has nothing to do with it. You are forgetting that the NT ended with Jesus's rising. Everything that Jesus has ever talked about came true, and that he proved everyone that he was the Son of God and that he was there to die for the sin of mankind. It's the same as having your favorite team win the championship times a 1,000. In the time of celebration, one doesn't stop to think about writing it down.

2. Many apostole did write down what they were thinking.

3. What good would a book do when most of the people couldn't read anyways? That wy oral communication was so important back then.

1)Thats faith. Grand- not going to argue. Only here to debate the historical veracity or accuracy of it.

2)Yeah.... sadly. Most of them recounted thier memories decades later to second or even third parties. Don't forget that personal politics comes into play- everyone wants to make it seem like they had a bigger part to play in history (including the followers of the individual apostles)

3)To...help... them... recount the stories accurately maybe, instead of recounting them from memory?

Hey, I'm not questioning your faith here- you asked why the Bible wouldn't be considered historically accurate:

Academic history reason? Its not a Primary source, therefore its veracity might be (and probably is) tainted.

Argue with academia.

I never heard about this, please give me specific passages.

That would require more research than I am capable at this time of night, so I will let someone else find it. I am just pointing out the differences in specific stories in the different gospels.

Maybe they were both ridiculing him at the beginning, but finally one of them sees the error of his ways and notice that Jesus's only crime was speaking out against the Jewish leaders.

From what I remember, that's not how it was written. Two different gospels clearly state different stories.
However, people have recovered numerous manuscripts not related to the Bible itself, mentioning Jesus Christ. Hell even a Roman manuscript was recovered to show that Jesus Christ was a man that they executed via cruifixition.

Oh, I've said that there is evidence that such a historic figure existed, so you get no argument here.

You are forgetting that the NT ended with Jesus's rising.

What about the letters, and the Revelations? Or are you just specifically refering to the gospels?

That would require more research than I am capable at this time of night, so I will let someone else find it. I am just pointing out the differences in specific stories in the different gospels.


From what I remember, that's not how it was written. Two different gospels clearly state different stories.


Oh, I've said that there is evidence that such a historic figure existed, so you get no argument here.



What about the letters, and the Revelations? Or are you just specifically refering to the gospels?

I'm referring to the Gospels. You are right NT did end with Revelations.

If yall consider the NT inaccurate, then what do yall think of the Koran, or the Golden leaftlet (Buddisim), or the Torah?


Personally, I find them all to be opinion. They can't very well be accurate hsitorically if they are only a religion's take on what happened.

This must exclude all ancient documents from use as primary sources.

How? If they were written at the time then they are primary sources- if not, then they are general taken with a hefty serving of salt by historians.

Hieroglyphics for instance would be primary- ogham stones too (Celtic records).

Cicero, et al would be taken and sifted for the bare facts before vast cross checking could assertain the veracity of their facts. What do you expect from historians? To blindly accept as fact documents written a hundread years after an event occured?!

If yall consider the NT inaccurate, then what do yall think of the Koran, or the Golden leaftlet (Buddisim), or the Torah?

I would argue EXACTLY the same points with them.;)

But, I still say it would be hard to forget, or to fudge up a miracle. I mean put yourself into the followers shoe, and you just saw this dude who for the past 2 1/2 years, preach about love, peace, etc, walked on water! Not only walked on water, but calmed storms, turn water into wine, died in just 3 hours (normally it would take a man days to die via cruifixition), and on the third day rise from the dead?

But, I still say it would be hard to forget, or to fudge up a miracle. I mean put yourself into the followers shoe, and you just saw this dude who for the past 2 1/2 years, preach about love, peace, etc, walked on water! Not only walked on water, but calmed storms, turn water into wine, died in just 3 hours (normally it would take a man days to die via cruifixition), and on the third day rise from the dead?

My mate Ben did that too.

I wrote a book about it. Now, prove to me he didn't, because I can prove to you he did- wanna see the book? ;)


Thats faith mate- not history.

...died in just 3 hours (normally it would take a man days to die via cruifixition)

Being nailed rather than tied to the cross, and the spear of destiny probably had something to do with that. If you believe in such things, of course.

Hieroglyphics for instance would be primary- ogham stones too (Celtic records).

Heh, I didn't think of stuff written on rocks. ;)

Cicero, et al would be taken and sifted for the bare facts before vast cross checking could assertain the veracity of their facts.
My point was that I don't think there's any reason to treat at least NT texts any differently from classical writers in this regard. Certainly, a historian should consider religious bias of authors, but doesn't that go for all authors, ancient and contemporary? If the Gospel of Luke says, "Quirinius was the governor of Syria", and "vast cross checking could assertain the veracity" of that fact, isn't it as good as any other ancient source (barring hieroglyphics, of course ;))?

It may seem contradictiory now, in today's language. However, it you were to read it in Hebrew, it would make more sense and have less contradition. That's one of the problem with translation, things get lost in translation, and thus you have these condradition that wasn't there in the first verison.
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and the contradictions and inaccuracies are present in the earliest manuscripts. The Bible has been re-translated from the original Greek on numerous occasions, and the contradictions are still there - it is not a case of mis-translation.

The evidence of what, exactly? The entire New Testament? You have nothing that proves its complete accuracy. I do not dispute that there is a historic figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, nor that he was crucified at Golgatha.
I do - there's no corroborative evidence for either claim. In fact, the evidence is that Nazareth did not even exist at the time.

But, I still say it would be hard to forget, or to fudge up a miracle. I mean put yourself into the followers shoe, and you just saw this dude who for the past 2 1/2 years, preach about love, peace, etc, walked on water! Not only walked on water, but calmed storms, turn water into wine, died in just 3 hours (normally it would take a man days to die via cruifixition), and on the third day rise from the dead?
1st and 2nd century Palestine was full of such miracle stories - it was probably easier to spread a miracle myth than to disseminate the truth! Almost none of the stories in the Gospels are original - they're re-hashes of stories from other religions and cults.

I do - there's no corroborative evidence for either claim. In fact, the evidence is that Nazareth did not even exist at the time.
Flavius Josephus, Lucian, the Talmud? (http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm)

Flavius Josephus, Lucian, the Talmud? (http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm)
Josephus wrote in the 90s AD, probably recounting what he was told by Christians. He was not an eye-witness, and his texts have in all probability been doctored. Lucian and the Talmud are even later.

Corrobative evidence would need to come from the time of the events, i.e. no later than the 30s AD, or from verifiable eye-witnesses. There is no such evidence. The historical record is completely silent about Jesus until about 49 AD (Paul's first letters) and completely silent about the details of his life until the Gospels, which were written by unknown authors no earlier than 70 AD, and possible later than 100 AD.

I'm referring to the Gospels. You are right NT did end with Revelations.
It very nearly didn't. At the time when the church was deciding which books were and were not true scripture, there was a lot of opposition to the inclusion of Revelations and Hebrews.

There were also plenty of other texts which might have been included, but didn't make it - numerous other gospels, books of Acts and epistles.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html

A very good website going over the resurection accounts and how they work as one.

There's been a lovely book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/104-5562923-1940761?v=glance&n=283155) recently put out on this very topic.

I heard an interview with the author on the radio, and one of the things he emphasized was how much more difference they saw between the earliest manuscripts than would be found in later manuscripts, and particularly how the various texts comprising the New Testament used to differ a great deal more than they do in later editions. Apparently scribes, over the years, thought they should sound a bit more alike than they did.

Josephus wrote in the 90s AD, probably recounting what he was told by Christians. He was not an eye-witness, and his texts have in all probability been doctored. Lucian and the Talmud are even later.


Do you have the same reservations on the historicity of the life of Plato, then?

Plato's followers didn't contend he was the Son of God ;)

Plato's followers didn't contend he was the Son of God ;)
Irrelevant to the question of whether Plato or Jesus was an historic person.

Certainly, a historian should consider religious bias of authors, but doesn't that go for all authors, ancient and contemporary?
Yep, all of them. Its harder when the authors themselves might be fictional or glorified to be more important then they were.


If the Gospel of Luke says, "Quirinius was the governor of Syria", and "vast cross checking could assertain the veracity" of that fact, isn't it as good as any other ancient source (barring hieroglyphics, of course ;))?

For that particular fact maybe- but merely because it gets one thing accurate doesn't mean we can discount checking the rest and blindly follow.
Its very easy for someone to magnify their place in history (or some one they admire) by getting a few general vague issues right, like who was Emperor say, and then proceed to leave out crucial timelines etc etc.

I believe there is some confusion about Herod (I mean serious confusion- something like a difference of a man in his prime to a geriatric/dead King) and how old he would have been at the time of Jesus's birth... if memory serves.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Plato or Jesus was an historic person.
I know, I was kidding ;)

The difference with someone like Plato was that according to his biography: he spent several years advising the ruling family of Syracuse. Eventually, he returned to Athens and established his own school of philosophy at the Academy.

Now all of these facts would have been easily verified by looking at offical records of the city state of Syracuse and then the public records of the Athenians. So we can assertain that he did in fact spend several years travelling and advising, before returning to establish his own school, see?

Of course, then there are the actual texts he wrote in which he frequently refers to politics of the day so....

Now all of these facts would have been easily verified by looking at offical records of the city state of Syracuse and then the public records of the Athenians. So we can assertain that he did in fact spend several years travelling and advising, before returning to establish his own school, see?But do such records actually exist?

Of course, then there are the actual texts he wrote in which he frequently refers to politics of the day so....Do we actually know that Plato wrote the works ascribed to him any more reliably than we know that Matthew wrote the first gospel?

Do we actually know that Plato wrote the works ascribed to him any more reliably than we know that Matthew wrote the first gospel?

As far as I remember, we do know that Matthew wrote one of the gospels and that those are the earliest records of all the four gospels. What we don't know is how much of what he wrote is actual fact and how much can be attributed to bad memory, exageration and good intentions.

But do such records actually exist?

Yes


Do we actually know that Plato wrote the works ascribed to him any more reliably than we know that Matthew wrote the first gospel?
Yes. Because of the cross correlations with others at the time, and with public records. Don't forget this is Ancient Greece we are talking about not far flung Judea.

Athens was centre of the known world at this time, the record keeping at literature would have been second to none. When the Romans came the had a habit of killing nearly everyone, but keeping the public records (easier for governace and administration).

Plato also used day to day references that could only be from someone of his time. References to the rulers of Spartans that had taken control of Athens a few years earlier, references to important traders (whose later records would corrolate with Roman shipping etc etc), references to battles, generals and so forth.

And anyway, Plato would not be the best to use- we look to him for philosophical guidance, not to historical accuracy. The thoughts/theory are more important in his case.

ahhh i see candelar has it well under control...

back to the original post..

By contrast, for most known ancient works (such as those by Plato, Aristotle, Caesar,...) there is a gap of on average seven hundred years between their composition and the oldest existing copy of the text. We know of many classical works from only a single surviving copy, and ten ancient copies of such works is considered a large number by scholars.

Therefore there is more reason to doubt that the contents of the Republic accurately reflect Plato's teaching than there is to doubt the reliability of the New Testament.

yeah, we cant be sure of every word written by plato. its part of scholarly research to figure out what is real and what isnt when it comes to the ancient greek works.

and you know what? if it turns out that a paragraph or 2 of "the symposium" isnt exactly what plato wrote, it makes no difference to the world. its nice to know but of no big importance.

if it turns out that jesus of nazareth never existed, never said many of the things attributed to him, never was crucified or never rose from the dead, it makes fools out of billions of people living and dead.

every facet of jesus's supposed life is important, every word he spoke, every miracle he performed, every claim he made about what god wants from us.

so yeah, letters and essays written 50 to 150 years after the "death of jesus" must be suspect, must be carefully considered for accuracy and must be challenged by those who desire to know the will of god.

My point was that I don't think there's any reason to treat at least NT texts any differently from classical writers in this regard. Certainly, a historian should consider religious bias of authors, but doesn't that go for all authors, ancient and contemporary? If the Gospel of Luke says, "Quirinius was the governor of Syria", and "vast cross checking could assertain the veracity" of that fact, isn't it as good as any other ancient source (barring hieroglyphics, of course ;))?

wellllll, while the new testament does get some important things right, it gets some things glaringly wrong

perhaps you already realize that the story of the birth of jesus is made up but..

there was no census, the romans would never count people by ancestry (so no need for anyone to go to bethlehem), there are no accounts by "wise men" of other places recounting their trip to see the newborn messiah of the jews, i dont believe there is even an account of the slaugher of the innocents (something that people sure would remember)

add in the nonexistance of nazareth...

there are other things that arent coming to my mind...

its accuracy is quite suspect.

Yes
Then give me a citation, please, that shows reliably that:

Permanent records were made of the movement of individual travelers in ancient Athens and Syracuse.
That such records exist in a reliable form today.
That such records show the movements of one Mr. Plato, Philosopher, at about the time that he was supposed to be traveling.



Yes. Because of the cross correlations with others at the time, and with public records. Don't forget this is Ancient Greece we are talking about not far flung Judea.

The oldest copies we have of Plato's works are from 1200 years after he wrote the originals. Please cite some of these other works and public records that cross correlate.

and you know what? if it turns out that a paragraph or 2 of "the symposium" isnt exactly what plato wrote, it makes no difference to the world. its nice to know but of no big importance.

if it turns out that jesus of nazareth never existed, never said many of the things attributed to him, never was crucified or never rose from the dead, it makes fools out of billions of people living and dead.

So the political stakes are higher. There goes the quest for truth.:rolleyes:

So the political stakes are higher. There goes the quest for truth.:rolleyes:
HUH?

are you unaware that there are thousands of scholars who study plato and would love to make their reputations on proving that something we thought we knew about plato isnt true?

the only place where there is a political stake for avoiding the truth is in verifying the accuracy of the assertations of various religions.

Who says that the synagogue wasn't there at the time Jesus read in it?These guys. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060616334/104-0174748-3045554?v=glance&n=283155)

Then give me a citation, please, that shows reliably that:

Permanent records were made of the movement of individual travelers in ancient Athens and Syracuse.
That such records exist in a reliable form today.
That such records show the movements of one Mr. Plato, Philosopher, at about the time that he was supposed to be traveling.



Yeah sure... now go do your own homework. :rolleyes:



The oldest copies we have of Plato's works are from 1200 years after he wrote the originals. Please cite some of these other works and public records that cross correlate.

If he wrote the originals, then no one needs to cross check his work... unless you mean regards the individuals and events he uses in them because you can find the people he mentions in the Symposium, the Phaedo, the Crito etc etc in historical records.

Now;
Step 1: Pick up a history book
Step 2: Open it
Step 3: Learn for yourself instead of asking for facts to be handed to you on a platter.

I suggest you head to the Ancient/Classical Studies section of your University library or possibly the antiquites section, followed by a wander through the philosophy section. There's plenty in there for you to research yourself and for you to draw your own conclusions I assure you.

Then give me a citation, please, that shows reliably that:

Permanent records were made of the movement of individual travelers in ancient Athens and Syracuse.
That such records exist in a reliable form today.
That such records show the movements of one Mr. Plato, Philosopher, at about the time that he was supposed to be traveling.





The oldest copies we have of Plato's works are from 1200 years after he wrote the originals. Please cite some of these other works and public records that cross correlate.

Haha. This from somebody who refuses to even acknowledge requests that he backup/prove some of his own claims.

Extracting a side-discussion from a locked thread.



The New Testament, at least, is one of the most reliable ancient documents known. I am defining reliability to mean accurately representing what the authors of the various parts originally wrote.

The original New Testament manuscripts were written between A.D. 65-100 and are traditionally ascribed to various apostles (the inner-circle of Jesus's followers and the leaders of the early Church) or to their immediate followers based on the apostle's eyewitness testimony. The original manucripts have all been lost, but the earliest copies of most of the texts date from about A.D. 200-250. There are over five thousand ancient copies (some are partial) of the books of the New Testament.

By contrast, for most known ancient works (such as those by Plato, Aristotle, Caesar,...) there is a gap of on average seven hundred years between their composition and the oldest existing copy of the text. We know of many classical works from only a single surviving copy, and ten ancient copies of such works is considered a large number by scholars.

Therefore there is more reason to doubt that the contents of the Republic accurately reflect Plato's teaching than there is to doubt the reliability of the New Testament.

Reference
Habermas, G. (2001). Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable. Retrieved Dec. 21, 2005 from http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html)

That's a fair point, to which I have two responses.

1.) It does not particularly matter whether The Republic accurately reflects Plato's teachings, because all that matters is the ideas contained within them. Whether or not they were written by Plato, or whether Plato even existed, does not matter. On the other hand, it is of paramount importance that the New Testament accurately reflects the writings of Paul and the words of Jesus, at least on the theological side.

2.) As the founders of a religion, the people copying these early transcripts have incentive to change the scriptures in order to put them in line with their own beliefs, whereas the copiers of the plato have no such incentive.

and you know what? if it turns out that a paragraph or 2 of "the symposium" isnt exactly what plato wrote, it makes no difference to the world. its nice to know but of no big importance.

if it turns out that jesus of nazareth never existed, never said many of the things attributed to him, never was crucified or never rose from the dead, it makes fools out of billions of people living and dead.
So the political stakes are higher. There goes the quest for truth.:rolleyes:
Please allow me to withdraw the snark and the rolly-eyes. I posted without giving enough thought to what I wanted to say.

What bothered me is that it seemed you were applying a double standard. You were willing to accept the reliability of Plato texts while denying the NT reliability when objective evidence (number of surviving texts and closeness in time to the originals) is better for the NT.

I realize now that the thread topic, including some of my own comments, has drifted from the issue of textual reliability, that is, do the texts we have today reflect what was originally written, to the the issue of content accuracy, that is, was what was originally written historically true.

Concerning textual reliability, reading back over the thread I don't see anyone refuting the contention that the Bible of today is a reliable record of what was taught and written in the early Church. Unless one of you is holding back, I will consider myself victorious in terms of the OP. :p

The accuracy of NT content is a different question. Admittedly, due to the continuing importance of Christianity within Western culture, then answer to that question, one way or the other, has the potential to affect a lot more people today than the same question asked about Plato. I will also admit that at least by contemporary scholarly standards there is less evidence to support NT accuracy than there is for NT reliability. Unfortunately, except for the brief comments on historical evidence that I posted above, I don't have much to contribute to a scholarly discussion of NT accuracy, so I will have to let it rest, perhaps to fight another day.

(I would willingly argue all day long that the NT is accurate in its essentials, but for me it is primarily a matter of faith, not of evidence and reason, so I will restrain myself here.)

One related point that I would like to make, which some Christians may disagree with, is that I don't think the historical accuracy of the NT is an all-or-nothing proposition. The books and letters that make up the NT were written independently with different authors, audiences, styles, and purposes, and not all were intended to convey information that is historically accurate by today's academic standards. It may very well be that not every detail that can be interpreted as an historic event is in truth historically accurate. I'm sure there are also details which are historically accurate even if it can't be proven.

In the end, I don't think any of these details, accurate or not, make a difference in the overall spiritual and religious message of the gospel. (I would consider all the purported NT contradictions and fallacies mentioned earlier in the thread to be such insignificant details.) Barring incontrovertible evidence that the whole NT along with the body of Catholic tradition are frauds, I will believe in Jesus Christ, my Savior.

In closing, I have to say that, unless you are all Googling your facts as you go, I am surprised by the amount of knowledge some of you have about the documents of a religion you don't even follow. I suppose some of you were raised and educated in the faith and later left it, but your knowledge and your quickness with it show a large investment in study time. I am embarrassed as a Christian not to have an equal depth of knowledge in a subject I believe to be both important and true. I suppose I would make a better warrior for Christ if I spend less time on NationStates and more in study and prayer.

2.) As the founders of a religion, the people copying these early transcripts have incentive to change the scriptures in order to put them in line with their own beliefs, whereas the copiers of the plato have no such incentive.
Do you think the early copiers of Plato's works were not followers of his who might have had a motive to paint their master and his teachings in a positive light to encourage their spread? I'm not saying that his writings were actually distorted for that reason, but that there is no rational basis for assuming they were any more immune to partisanship than early Christians.

Do you think the early copiers of Plato's works were not followers of his who might have had a motive to paint their master and his teachings in a positive light to encourage their spread? I'm not saying that his writings were actually distorted for that reason, but that there is no rational basis for assuming they were any more immune to partisanship than early Christians.

Considering Plato and the other Sophists were committing heresy in their day, in their own city, against their own leaders, against their own friends and family- NO.

The death of Socrates spring to mind?

Considering Plato and the other Sophists were committing heresy in their day, in their own city, against their own leaders, against their own friends and family- NO.

The death of Socrates spring to mind?
That makes them sound even more like the early Christians.

"NO" as in you think the early Platonists were less biased than the early Christians?

That makes them sound even more like the early Christians

Early as in 100AD or early as in 32AD because if its the latter then they are not the same to the Sophists.


"NO" as in you think the early Platonists were less biased than the early Christians?
NO as in the Sophists were not trying to start up a new religion by hammering home facts and miracles... they were in fact doing the EXACT OPPOSITE. By questioning the very existence of religion and beliefs- not harping on about them.

The Sophists did not have a large following- merely a select few intellectuals who continued the open thought process; they had no reason to glorify the death of Socrates or the works of Plato- no one was interested enough back then! They did it for the sake of it- not to attempt to establish a new religion.

The Sophists did not have a large following- merely a select few intellectuals who continued the open thought process; they had no reason to glorify the death of Socrates or the works of Plato- no one was interested enough back then! They did it for the sake of it- not to attempt to establish a new religion.
I think you have a idealized notion of the Sophists.

It doesn't take a religion to bring out partisanship. Look at the U.S. Democratic party. (The Republicans are also partisan, but I realize many of you would not consider them non-religious.)

If Plato and the Sophists had no interest in embellishing historic facts, why is Socrates the "hero" of all of Plato's dialogues and always right? Surely if he were a human being surrounded by such a sharp crowd as the Sophists, even the Old Master must have been caught with his intellectual pants down on the rare occasion. Yet strangely, Plato's dialogues are silent on this.

If Plato and the Sophists had no interest in embellishing historic facts, why is Socrates the "hero" of all of Plato's dialogues and always right? Surely if he were a human being surrounded by such a sharp crowd as the Sophists, even the Old Master must have been caught with his intellectual pants down on the rare occasion. Yet strangely, Plato's dialogues are silent on this.

One could have said the same abnout Jesus you know!
Considering Socrates was the father of Sophistry, and the fact that he was a bonafide freakin' genius when it came to philosophical discussion (not forgetting most of the counters were along the lines of "The Gods do it." "The Gods make it rain" "The Gods gave you bad luck"), your right; finding a flaw in Socrates is quite improbable given its HIS FIELD OF PHILOSOPHY.

If you were to talk with Jesus, and you started picking holes in his argument; to which his response was "Um...eh, yeah. I know the Book says that and then kinda contradicts itself...em... mumble mumble mumble" you'd probably begin to question your belief too.

But back on track, HISTORICALLY SPEAKING- we know Plato/Socrates existed- it is recorded in the annals on Athens and the various Greek city states. This corresponds exactly with accounts in their works. Therefore, they are quite reliable.

The New Testament, being written somewhat after the death of Christ, a lot of the time second or third hand- is therefore LESS reliable.

Considering Socrates was the father of Sophistry, and the fact that he was a bonafide freakin' genius when it came to philosophical discussion (not forgetting most of the counters were along the lines of "The Gods do it." "The Gods make it rain" "The Gods gave you bad luck"), your right; finding a flaw in Socrates is quite improbable given its HIS FIELD OF PHILOSOPHY.

Urr, hate to break your flow here, but Socrates was strongly opposed to the Sophists. Their method was to win arguments by twists of rudimentary logic and through rhetoric (and thus showing how much they knew), whereas Socrates' main position was showing that he knew so little (but famously knew that he knew so little). Socrates was not the father of the Sophists, but rather their major opponent.

Urr, hate to break your flow here, but Socrates was strongly opposed to the Sophists. Their method was to win arguments by twists of rudimentary logic and through rhetoric (and thus showing how much they knew), whereas Socrates' main position was showing that he knew so little (but famously knew that he knew so little). Socrates was not the father of the Sophists, but rather their major opponent.

DAMMIT. I might have mixed up Stoic with Sophist... always get those bloody things muddled....

Point still remains though :p

DAMMIT. I might have mixed up Stoic with Sophist... always get those bloody things muddled....

Point still remains though :p

The Stoics didn't come along until about a hundred years later.

The Stoics didn't come along until about a hundred years later.

Drat and blast...

Then what... 'movement'... did Socrates begin? That Plato followed and then so forth...

Drat and blast...

Then what... 'movement'... did Socrates begin? That Plato followed and then so forth...

'Philosophy', pretty much. He made such an impact on it that we still refer to his predecessors by the term 'Pre-Socratics' and bracket them off from all that followed him. Of course, it is inevitable that some blurring of the ideas and impact of Socrates and Plato takes place here. Other options you could go for as your elusive 'movement' would be inventing the Socratic dialogue or dialectics, or possibly just being the father of Rationalism.

...dialectics...

That was the name I remember being used now all right. Thanks for that refresher course in Greek philosophy, its been too many years :p :D

That was the name I remember being used now all right. Thanks for that refresher course in Greek philosophy, its been too many years :p :D

About 2400, IIRC.

One could have said the same abnout Jesus you know!
I'm glad you picked up my meaning. You were describing the Sophists with the same admiration Christians often get criticized for having for the apostles and gospel writers.

HISTORICALLY SPEAKING- we know Plato/Socrates existed- it is recorded in the annals on Athens and the various Greek city states. This corresponds exactly with accounts in their works. Therefore, they are quite reliable.

The New Testament, being written somewhat after the death of Christ, a lot of the time second or third hand- is therefore LESS reliable.
You are confusing reliability with accuracy.

Of the works of Plato (remember, all we have of Socrates's teaching is what is recorded in Plato), no original manuscripts survive. All we have are a small number of copies of copies of copies... that appear to have been made more than a thousand years after the originals were written. Do we even know that the original works were set down in writing during Plato's lifetime? With the NT, we also don't have the original manuscripts, but we do have copies of copies of copies numbering in the thousands with some dating to less than 200 years after the originals. Therefore we can say with greater confidence that the NT as we have it today matches its original sources than we can say the same thing about Plato's works. That's reliability.

On the other hand, since Socrates is mentioned in at least one contemporary source that was independent of his philosophical movement (Aristophanes), where there appears to be no contemporary references to Jesus outside of the Christian community, the information in, say, the Republic that there once lived in Athens a philospher named Socrates is more likely to be accurate in an academic sense than the NT evidence of the historical existence of Jesus.

The reliability of a text and the accuracy of its content are separate issues.

Of the works of Plato (remember, all we have of Socrates's teaching is what is recorded in Plato),


Did Xenophon just get written out of history again? I know he was no Plato, but he did his part for keeping the thoughts of Socrates alive after he studied under him, seems that he's now forever destined to be remembered primarily for a very early draft of the screenplay for The Warriors, but anyhoo...

no original manuscripts survive. All we have are a small number of copies of copies of copies... that appear to have been made more than a thousand years after the originals were written.

Apart from the surviving fragments of works such as the Laches, which have been dated to the third century BC...

http://ldab.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/detail.php?theID=LDAB%203836

<snip>
In closing, I have to say that, unless you are all Googling your facts as you go, I am surprised by the amount of knowledge some of you have about the documents of a religion you don't even follow. I suppose some of you were raised and educated in the faith and later left it, but your knowledge and your quickness with it show a large investment in study time. I am embarrassed as a Christian not to have an equal depth of knowledge in a subject I believe to be both important and true. I suppose I would make a better warrior for Christ if I spend less time on NationStates and more in study and prayer.
you missed the "did jesus exist?" thread of a couple weeks ago. it was quite thoroughly discussed and is fresh in our minds.

the notion that what i thought was utterly backwards blew my mind. i always thought that there was this guy named jesus wandering around israel preaching a radical theology and that over time his followers decided that he must have been god. turns out to be rather more likely that someone came up with the idea of the spiritual son of god who saves us all and that later on his followers decided that he had been human.

take a look at the thread.

Of the works of Plato (remember, all we have of Socrates's teaching is what is recorded in Plato), no original manuscripts survive. All we have are a small number of copies of copies of copies... that appear to have been made more than a thousand years after the originals were written. Do we even know that the original works were set down in writing during Plato's lifetime? With the NT, we also don't have the original manuscripts, but we do have copies of copies of copies numbering in the thousands with some dating to less than 200 years after the originals. Therefore we can say with greater confidence that the NT as we have it today matches its original sources than we can say the same thing about Plato's works. That's reliability.
That doesn't follow. Since it would take only days or weeks to make a copy of a Biblical book, 200 years is plenty of time for the original to be seriously doctored, re-doctored and re-doctored again, and we know with almost complete certainty that they were changed, although we can't be totally sure by how much.

Also, time is not the only factor. We also have to look at whether people had motives and opportunity for changing texts. The early centuries of Christianity were a hotbed of conflict and division over doctrine, and even some of the most fundamental questions of doctrine (e.g. the Trinity, and the divine/human nature of Jesus) weren't settled until the 4th century ("settled" meaning that one side won and others were suppressed and labelled as heresy). The stakes were high, and the incentive to re-write scriptures to conform to desired beliefs were high, in a way in which they weren't with Plato.

Concerning textual reliability, reading back over the thread I don't see anyone refuting the contention that the Bible of today is a reliable record of what was taught and written in the early Church. Unless one of you is holding back, I will consider myself victorious in terms of the OP. :p
That depends on what you mean by the "early Church". 1st century? 2nd century? 3rd century? I've seen good arguments that the Gospels were all written later than 100 CE, and that the Christianity of the 1st century was very different to that which developed afterwards, with little or no reference to, or interest in, Jesus's earthly life, and perhaps even without a belief that Jesus ever had an earthly life, or that, if he did, it occurred in the early 1st century.

The pre-4th century Church was also very broad, with what we now take as orthodoxy being only one of a number of strands of belief. The differences in doctrine were far more fundamental than those which divide the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches today, and the number of scriptural books was much greater than the 27 which eventually found their way into the NT. So even if they were perfect copies of the original (which they're not), it is far too simplistic to say that the NT books represent the teaching of the early Church - they are the minority of texts which represent the views of the 4th century Roman-assisted victors in the battle for orthodoxy.

The New Testament is about as accurate as 2,000 high school students trying to explain what happened to a person screaming something incoherent as he went over a bridge and plummeted to his death as described by the six or so people who overheard it from a frantic person on a bus.

Sure, you might find the bridge he jumped off of, or was pushed off of, or tripped over, or was blown over by a mysterious gust of wind.

It's also possible that a few people manage to stick to the story that he screamed, "Oh craaaaaaaaaap!" as he went over, but it's bound to be followed by various interpretations such as, "Why me?" or "No! Not the rocks!" when they try to figure out the rest of his death cry.

Of course no one would be able to determine what color of shoes he was wearing because student #950 accidentally misinterpreted azure to mean crimison. So on and so on.... you get the idea.

bump

So, when you all find your arguments are you just googleing the subject at hand and jumping at the first article by someone with a PHD in Ancient Near Eastern History, or New Testament Theology/Early Christian Lit.? Throughout this entire discussion I saw very few citations, not even any Scripture references. I believe that the forum would be more interesting if there was more care put into the accuracy of the presentation of supporting information, but I am new to discussion forums.

So, when you all find your arguments are you just googleing the subject at hand and jumping at the first article by someone with a PHD in Ancient Near Eastern History, or New Testament Theology/Early Christian Lit.? Throughout this entire discussion I saw very few citations, not even any Scripture references. I believe that the forum would be more interesting if there was more care put into the accuracy of the presentation of supporting information, but I am new to discussion forums.
if you want big time theological debate you need to be in a theology forum.

So, when you all find your arguments are you just googleing the subject at hand and jumping at the first article by someone with a PHD in Ancient Near Eastern History, or New Testament Theology/Early Christian Lit.? Throughout this entire discussion I saw very few citations, not even any Scripture references. I believe that the forum would be more interesting if there was more care put into the accuracy of the presentation of supporting information, but I am new to discussion forums.

Personally speaking, I'm going off what I can still recall from my BA & MA in philosophy. Generally you don't need a citation for a statement such as 'Xenophon wrote Anabasis'. One of the nice things about NSGeneral is that we have quite a range of posters here and so when someone posts something which has come totally out of left field as far as factual accuracy goes, there is normally someone lurking who will leap in and say 'Nah, actually you're talking bullshit: I think you'll find that X was really doing Y to Z'.