Historical Proofs of the Bible

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Meno,

I don’t post much anymore, but this thread caught my eye because for many years my intellect was trapped inside an evangelical box similar to yours. I went through my own “apologetics” phase, where I would present “evidence” to non-believers—leading inexorably to the conclusions I’d long ago accepted on faith: that the Bible was inerrant, that Jesus was the risen son of God, that Christian fundamentalism was the only sound philosophical worldview, that the Democratic party was a direct product of Adam’s Fall… (you know the rest of the laundry list I’m sure).

Your posts look VERY familiar to me, Meno…and not just because I’ve written extraordinarily similar things on Internet forums. I have in front of me a book called The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by evangelical popularizer Josh McDowell. Maybe you’ve heard of it? I’d be surprised if you haven’t. Here are some relevant excerpts:

From p. 34:

“…we have close to, if not more than, 25,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, Homer’s Iliad is second, with only 643 manuscripts that still survive.”

And on p. 35:

"Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, who was director and principal librarian of the British Museum and second to none in authority for issuing statements about MSS, states that

‘besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors…’"[you cite Kenyon correctly, so I’ll move on]

On pp. 36-37 McDowell quotes the conservative scholar F.F. Bruce:

“For Caesar’s Gallic Wars (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.- A.D. 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full…”

Just to refresh your memory:

Meno, I think the most insidious aspect of your posts is not that you’ve plagiarized FF Bruce and tried to pass McDowell’s arguments off as your own; the most insidious aspect is that, at the outset, you asked your reader to keep an open mind…and you’ve declared that this thread is an exercise in objectivity. It is anything but…and you’re either lying to yourself or lying to us. What you’ve done is simply regurgitate arguments that were themselves chopped up into bite-sized chunks for mass distribution on the pop Evangelical market. (McDowell has sold millions of books; hardly the mark of a serious scholar.)

You aren’t here to join in the search for truth, Meno. You settled on “truth” long before you’d read these arguments. You’re here to proselytize. Let’s just be honest about that. And don’t call for open-mindedness unless you’re willing to engage in it yourself. Christ loathed few things more than hypocrisy.

22

I have given credit to the authors, and as for your opinion of me has no effect. I know I haven’t given credit, have you ever heard of getting permission from the publisher? I did get permission to use as needed.
Many years ago from Here’s Life, so your accusation is unfounded.
I think it is also pretty clear I didn’t take any credit, I gave the references. You seem to be settled on the truth, your attack is evidence to that end. I think you have a lot of bitterness to overcome, and for you information I have been involved in apologetics for 25 years. You imput is obvious biased, nobody else seems to mind what I’m writing. :smiley: Have a good day, if you can.

23

Hello F(r)iends,

Meno failed to make his references and sources clear; however, that does not does not repudiate the arguments themselves. Also, when one asks that everyone keep an open mind it does not suggest that the person suggesting must have an open mind. Moreover, it is common practice to ask others to put aside their biases to listen to the case presented by the speaker. Meno specifically requested that this thread was not for insults but rather for objective analysis. The objective material of which we must analyze, however, must be chosen by someone (in this case Meno).

Let’s argue against the information, not against the person providing the information.

-Thirst

24

:smiley:

25

Greetings, enjoyed reading the link. Most appears on target, however you do realize this is not a scholarly piece, no?

aspacia

26

I do not blame you. Do you work in the US. Many of our k-12 schools are a nightmare.

Good luck with your new career.

27

Ad homs, person insults are considered a fallacy. Like many on this board, I do not trust any religion, and have no doubt that if taken literally, all the books will lead to more bloodshed. Remember, Jesus claimed to bring the sword not peace. Matthew 10:34 I beleive. I could be off here.

I happen to agree with Dan, “Be careful what your beleive in.”

You claim to have an M.S., what is your discipline? If in the sciences, and Dan address the science aspect of the book; I am interested in a scientific refute without personal insults of course.

However, this is a free land, and am glad you receive comfort in your faith. Bob, the religion moderator, is great in this area.

With regard,

aspacia

:sunglasses:

28

I have a M.S. in Education. I certainly won’t dispute Dan’s assertion of be careful of what you believe. That is why I haven’t made a post recently because the research is tedious, and I try to be a careful scholar.
I don’t have a religion, because your observation is generally correct about not trusting it. As a my research is complete I will be entering a post. Thanks, for your imput.
:smiley:

29

meno,

so far all you’ve shown is historical proof that the books were written, compiled around the times we think they were. mainly the first and second century AD.

You’ve yet to show how this proves the archaelogical or historical accuracy for the words contained within.

Certainly if you are vying for a completely christo literal interpretation that adam was the first man, you have to deal with genetics.

we’ve got 23 chromosomes, and chimps have 24… the combination of two genes to one is one of the things that make us human… and the enlarging of the brain cavity, happened because of a defective jaw bone gene. The jaw became smaller, and the skull cavity bigger. These are just two of the many things proven through genetic science in the last 10 years.

30

Thanks for your post, I not up to archaeological evidence yet. I currently researching the date of the New Testament. As one who has taught literature in public school, it is a common assertion that all literature is first interpreted literally, unless it is meant to be so, such as poetry. Genesis unlike Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon is an historical account. Historical accounts are to my knowledge always interpreted literally, first, if the text supports another interpretation than that will be employed. I’ve always wondered, does everybody treat all other body of literature the way the Bible is treated? I believe the Bible is treated unfairly because it deals with significant moral issues, and people try to water down the message. I’m sorry I have no relations to monkeys, I am a human being, not an animal. But we are not discussing origins, just New Testament history and related matters. Hopefully I’ll have something to post by the 10 Feb. if all goes well. :smiley:

31

While I do not argue that the bible has many surviving manuscripts, a fictional text (Such as a stephen king novel) that survives 2000 years into the future, will not make it true. “Historical Proofs of the bible” (the title of this thread) should really be called "Historical proofs that the bible was written? Well thats just meaningless there are good reasons why it has survived, religious doctrine, widespread belief, being written many times, etc. That doesn’t mean anything. If I write a piece of bad philosophy and print it a billion times, its just as bad as when I started.

Additionally, the fact that survives still full of contradictions, mistakes and innacuracies actually goes against your argument, since it would be best defended by “changes in interpertation and translation over the years”.

Alas your historical analysis although nice, proves nothing.

32

Asp,
I’m aware the article I posted was hardly scholastic, that’s why I placed the disclaimer about it being slanted. I just didn’t have a more scholastic article on hand, and most (admittedly on further review, not all) of the facts in the article were correct. Just because it isn’t wrapped in a nice bow doesn’t invalidate it. If nothing else, it provides a nice starting point. Particularly the section on Constantine where, to my knowledge, the information contained was completely correct.
The editing of the Bible within historical context is important for this discussion.

33

Hum seems that I agreed with the gist of the claim, I was just asking if you realized that is was not scholastistic. I did not note any real disclaimer from you, hence I asked.

Right.

A simple yes, or no will suffice.

34

I was not trying to be defensive, merely justifying my choice. Also, I tend to use shorthand when refering to people, there was no game. Mastriani is not fit for hoisting sails merely because I call him Mast.

35

Sorry for the defensive reaction. My apologies. I just went rounds with another poster who intentionally used the term to insult me, but you are not responsible for his words. Again, I am sorry.

With regards,

aspacia

36

No offence taken, Aspacia. Had I been aware of the possible insult, I would not have used it. I will keep that in mind in the future. It all it takes is four extra keystrokes to keep things civil, I’ll gladly do it.

I don’t usually agree with you, but you’ve never done anything to make me lose respect for you (indeed, rather the reverse).

37

Hello F(r)iends,

Give it some time Xu, give it some time…

-Thirst

38

Is it just me, or does it ALWAYS come down to a carrot and stick? Why do evangelicals attempt to justify themselves with veiled threats? Post your research, don’t threaten us with eternal torture.

39

Hey, we can agree to disagree :smiley: Just trying to learn and understand. Actually, much on this board is quit interesting, especially the East - West thread. I am so very Western and lineral, Ouch!!

Hey, go ahead and call me Asp! :wink: You have my permission. Again, mine was an overly defensive reaction. :blush:

40

This is a brief introduction concerning the dates of the four gospel accounts; a more detailed account will follow.
The dates of the gospels and Acts are as follows:
Matthew, probably sometime between 65-70 A.D.;
Mark, somewhere between 55-60, maybe 62.
Luke, around 60, because it is agreed Luke used Mark as a reference.
John is perhaps the latest, but it is not wholy agreed upon any one date. My guess is about 80 A.D.
The book of Acts was written between 60-62.
Evidence/supports for these dates will follow in the next post, feel free to criticize my findings, constructively. Just as a reminder any mud slinging will be ignored, although all the posts thus far have been excellent. I may make some adjustments, this was done from memory, as so to keep my promise of posting today.

:smiley: