Part of the New Testament Proven True?

[heretic888]

Sorry wrong answer, If I have been forward enough to post the most elementary of evidence on both the dates of the manuscripts and what that means in context with classical litriture as a whole, then you can certainly be kind enough to offer your own evidence for your own behalf, for your own suppositions. Infact what I have pupplied are dates of actuall writings, I see that you have avoided the question raised about if we are to follow your propasition and take it to its logical conclusion i.e. the writing of John being invalidated because the earliest known manuscript is dated at 125 AD a mere 35-25 years after the original is suppossed to actually have been written, where does that leave such classics written by plato, socretes, Aristotle, etc, etc, if you admit that that proposition applys to all writings then you have just stated that the rudimentary foundations of our contemparary society are built on a pile of smoking dung, but if you simply claim that it only applies in the case of John or on scriptural writings, then you show yourself to have a one eyed pre-concreted view, which is not in search of truth, but only seeks to tear down anything remotly conected to Christianity. Reply to this first WITH EVIDENCE On this thread then I will deal with the other issues that you have raised.

The point I was trying to make in the quoted segment of my post was that a discussion of the dating of any of the books of the New Testament could in and of itself take an entire thread. This thread has been derailed enough without a blow-by-blow analysis of every book of the New Testament being thrown into the mix. That being said, the link I provided lists the range of dates that most scholars believe these texts were written as well as discussions of the scholarship of each individual book.

I have to admit that I find your proclamation of "evidence" to be rather misleading here. The only sources you have cited are three conservative apologists, at least one of which dates the Synoptics to around the mid-40's CE. You gave a list of random ancient works and their dates, of course, but this information was never supported by any citations. While I have no reason or interest in doubting the dates you suggested for these works, you have provided no "evidence" to support your assertions.

Furthermore, I have to say that attempting to infer judgements about the historicity of the New Testament based on the relative dating of completely unrelated ancient works seems like something of a Red Herring. Each historical source should be judged on a case-by-case basis on its own merit. Using a generalization of ancient literature to "prove" a specific case of ancient literature is rather clumsy methodology, in my opinion.

Laterz.

 

[bcbernam777]

I have to admit that I find your proclamation of "evidence" to be rather misleading here. The only sources you have cited are three conservative apologists, at least one of which dates the Synoptics to around the mid-40's CE. You gave a list of random ancient works and their dates, of course, but this information was never supported by any citations. While I have no reason or interest in doubting the dates you suggested for these works, you have provided no "evidence" to support your assertions.

Actually I never cited a single one of the authors, I just listed their names, I have not listed one Citation from their work at all

Furthermore, I have to say that attempting to infer judgements about the historicity of the New Testament based on the relative dating of completely unrelated ancient works seems like something of a Red Herring. Each historical source should be judged on a case-by-case basis on its own merit. Using a generalization of ancient literature to "prove" a specific case of ancient literature is rather clumsy methodology, in my opinion.

Laterz.

Well for a start I am not infering any judgments about the histoicity of the New Testament at all, I am simply contrasting your own propasition, and showing clearly that such a proposition does not hold to any decent scrutiny, although in saying this you have answered my question for me, because you have seperated the scripture from every other classical work, their commonality lies in the fact that they are all ancient works, therefore according to your own statement, about the invalidation of the scripture, based on the fact that the nearsest survivng manuscript is a decent 25-30 years after the event, you either have to apply this same principal to all ancient works, and therefore invalidating them, or, singulary apply this principal to one peice of ancinet writing, and if this is what you would do then you bias is obvious, and your own suppositions are tainted by that bias. If you actually understood histroy you would know that the Bible as such is not scripture to a historian, it is first and foremost another ancient text, and therefore receives an unbiased assessment based on that context, there after is it further classified. It is the Christian, not the historian who sees the text as sacred, and for now it is not the religious side we are dealing with it is the historical side and where it fits in the space time context

There is no red herring, I am asking you again to answer the question, and provide something to back up your claims, that is all I am asking, at the very least I provided dates (no I didn't make them up, I am not that much of an idiot). Back up your claims with something, any thing, I dont care where you get it just provide something more substantial as "he said she said"

(which by the way I find a great and quite provoking Irony in your argument, your line of stating the invalidation of the third parte story and I quote

"The only "evidence" we have that John lived to the dates that Church tradition claims he does comes from Irenaeus' Against Heresies, dated sometime around 190 CE. In this work, Irenaeus claimed to have met Papias, who Irenaeus reports as claming to have met John the Presbyter. The only other external corroboration for Papias comes ironically from Eusebius, writing over one hundred years after Irenaeus."

So far you yourself are relating second hand information from so called scholers [whom I have never heard of which apparantly is my fault] which is the same principal as "I am writing this here because I read it in a book somewhere" which if you apply the same level of counter argument you used in the above example would totally invalidate your own arguments [If I believed this particular for of evidence to be invald which I do not])


Heretic, just do 2 things, not difficult,

1# Present Factual evidence to the contrary (in regards to the dating of at least the Gospel of John)

2# answer the question I posed to yu about the dating of ancient literature and explain whether it is aplicable to all ancient texts and only the bible and if only the bible then why only the bible and why is it that this principal is not applicable to all ancient texts.

3# Acutally one more thing, explain if it is applicable to all texts, does that then invalidate those texts along with the ancient text known as biblios

When you have done these 3 things I will then address the other points that you have raised

 

[Jade Tigress]

Mod Note

Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Senior Moderator

 

[exile]

Well I guess plato is out of the picture then seeing as how he "supposedly" authored in 400BC but the earliest surving manuscript is dated from 900 AD. Caucers Canterbury tales (well its something a little more modern), the earliest know manuscript was written (so it is believed) at least 10 years after the Author died, so do we question its Authorship? Infact if you where to apply the very same principal you apply to John, to other maunscripts and bodies of literary work then you would have to rewrite the majority of classical as well as a siziable chunk of contemporary literary history. Infact lets look at the majority classic lieterary

Author Date Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy


Lucretius55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

You will notice that the majority of the writings are many of the Authors upon which our fundamental ideas of contemporary society stem from.

Guys---

I don't have a horse in this race (I'm not even very clear about just where the racetrack is), but there's a point of argumentation here I'd like to see cleared up. BCB, you give a bunch of authors whose `dates' are earlier---in some cases considerably earlier---than the first known authentic copies of the work they're known for. But I'm not sure that this helps your argument, or even bears on it. The fact is, if there were no independent corroborating evidence for the biographical dates and the linkage of those mss to those authors, then indeed we wouldn't be justified in positing any particular dating for the lifespan of the author, would we? We might use textual analysis, all kinds of philological tricks and rules of thumb to date them, and try to come up with a picture most consistent with what we think we have `nailed down'---that's what literary historians and philologists do for a living, and they argue like hell about small points of detail. But for sure, if we didn't know about Sophocles from contemporary sources, or many of the other people you mention, and have historical and textual bases linking them with the mss. attributed to them, we would in fact have reasons to be skeptical of any particular hightly specific date for them and for their authorship of the works in question.

Here's a parallel case from a very different neck of the woods: two historical linguists are arguing about the relationship between languages X and Y. Linguist1 says the two have a common ancestor; Linguist2 says, you have no evidence for that---they have virtually no common vocabulary, no cognates. Linguist1 says, ah, but that doesn't matter. Because here is another case we both agree on, languages A and B, and we both believe they're related, and they don't share any cognates either. Linguist2 says, true---but we do have evidence of their relatedness, in that A shares cognates with language L, and B shares totally different cognates with language M, and L and M have a ton of cognates in common. Since we have evidence that L and M are related, and we have separate evidence that A is related to L and B is related to M, then we're forced to conclude that A and B are related. But, goes on Linguist2, you can't conclude from that that anytime two languages share no vocabulary in common, they must be regarded as related. In the absence of corroborating evidence of the kind we have for A and B, we're not justified saying that there is support for relating two languages which share no vocabulary in common.

It seems to me that in your argument with H888 you're doing something similar to Linguist1---by virtue of the fact that there are certain cases where you have a discrepancy between the lifedates of the author and the appearance of the first copy, but where we have independent documentation for the author's lifedates and connections to particular mss, you're reasoning that we can safely ascribe certain lifedates to certain authors even where we don't have that independent contemporary evidence. And in this case, the burden of proof of the argument is on you, not H888, because all he's doing is claiming that the lifedate/ms date correlation your argument relies on is insecure. Your argument, if I'm reading this exchange correctly, hinges however on one particular set of lifedate/ms. date being correct on the basis of distinctly noncontemporary evidence. So I don't see how your citations of those author dates/manuscript date discrepancies helps your argument. The fact is that we don't really know just when Homer lived, or if s/he were a single author, or very much else about him/her/them. As far Caesar goes, though, we have plenty of historical evidence. bearing on the dates of his existence that also ties him to the mss. he produced. I think this is what H888 is getting at when he replies to you that this kind of argument has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't sound like a red herring to me; it sounds as though he's saying somewhat cryptically just what I'm saying here.

And once again, if we don't actually have good historical and philological evidence tying a later ms. to an earlier author with reasonably well-established lifedates, then you're right---we'd be mistaken to make any strong claims about the association between the author and the ms. But that implicates your argument too, no? Can you shed some light on this point for me?

 

[exile]

Sorry for the cross-posting---JT's warning and my note passed each other in cyberspace. We'd better get back on topic...

 

[Brother John]

Archaeologists have found a cave where they believe John the Baptist anointed many of his disciples, offering extraordinary proof of a central New Testament figure and his theology.

The Associated Press reports that the cave is located on the Kibbutz Tzuba, which is 2-1/2 miles from Ein Kerem, John the Baptist's hometown that is now part of Jerusalem. The cave includes a huge cistern with 28 steps that lead to an underground pool of water. Some 250,000 pottery shards were also found and are presumed to be remnants of small water jugs used in the Christian baptismal ritual performed by the fiery New Testament preacher. Wall carvings etched into the cave tell John's life story; they were likely made by monks in the fourth or fifth century. In addition, a stone was found in the cave that researchers believe was used for ceremonial foot washing.

Full Article

Highly doubtful...
though I don't doubt the veracity of his life, there's no mention of this cave.
No pottery would have been used for baptism, because this would be done by full immersion. Even the name "Baptism" means to fully immerse. Also: if you look into John's life, he was very active in openly calling (preaching) to hoards of people culminating in the patism for the repentance of sins. This couldn't be carried out in a cave. He lived in the open air as a "Nezerite"...a special vow, much like a monastic vow.

Sounds like it's more significant about the ancient monks than about John.

Your Brother
John (named after the baptist and the evangelist)

 

[Tez3]

MMA has nothing on academics arguing!

 

[Brother John]

MMA has nothing on academics arguing!

especially in the area of intellect, reason and knowledge.


Your Brother
John

 

[Tez3]

I'm curious to know, are the posters here practising Christians who are arguing over a matter of faith or is it purely an archeological question? I was just thinking that whether you believe in Jesus or John the Baptist tas religious or historical figures sure before anything else they would have done what was practical? In times of drought and water saving was a priority perhaps they could have used jugs of water and when the water level was high enough they would fully immerse people? Is this spoiling the argument?

 

[bcbernam777]

Exile I will be responding to your post shortly, I am over the other side of the country at the moment visiting my Children from my first marriage, so my heads not in the place where I can structure a decent reply, I will reply by the 30th.

Tez, I am a christian (well I try anyway )

 

[exile]

Exile I will be responding to your post shortly, I am over the other side of the country at the moment visiting my Children from my first marriage, so my heads not in the place where I can structure a decent reply, I will reply by the 30th.

Tez, I am a christian (well I try anyway )

OK, that's fine BCB (though the mods may not think that strand of the discussion is on-topic; probably better check)---I'm off to Vancouver and electronic isolation on the 20th till New Year's, so we can revisit this interesting area in a few weeks.... Hope your trip is going well!

 

[elder999]

Ritual bathing is part of ancient-and modern Judaic practice. As such, it is believed to have been practiced by the Essenes, as well as the Nazarites-about whom we know even less. However,i]mikvot (Jewish ritual baths) have been found at what are believed to be Essene sites, as well as at sites throughout the Middle East, inluding Masada.

This is from a Hebraic text on the construction of mikvot:

"A mikveh must hold at least 40 seahs of water (approximately 60 gallons). The whole body of the person or vessel to be purified must be totally immersed. And, most significant for our purposes, the water must be "living" water. That is, it must come directly from a river or a spring or from rainwater that flows into the pool; it may not be drawn. To meet this latter requirement, the rabbis permitted the use of an otter, a pool of living water that was connected by a plugged pipe to the main immersion pool. The main pool could be filled with drawn water (not qualified for use in ritual immersion), and when needed, the pipe between the otter and the main pool was unplugged, allowing the qualified, living water from the otter to come into contact with the water in the main pool, rendering it fit for immersions."

Essentially, while this probably is a mikveh, there is nothing to tie it to John the Baptist except for where it was found...

 

[Tez3]

I'm Jewish so admittedly whether the New Testament is proved true or not isn't of much significance to me but I am curious why people feel the need to have it proved true? If you believe why would you also need 'proof'? And then argue over the smaller details? As a Jew John the Baptist would have been familiar with his female relatives ritual bathing. As a Jew I guarentee he would have been very practical about his faith, and would have done what he could with what he could. Does where the baptisms were made make any difference to the baptism? Are they lesser if done by jug than by running water? I can't see him saying sorry I can't baptise you because there no river! I can understand the archeology arguments but not the religious ones! No ctricism intended rather bemusement!

 

[Ninjamom]

Tez, I think it actually has more to do with building a consistent, over-arching world-view than with having to have things 'proved'. Proof is 'nice' to have, and an encouraging adjunct to faith, but certainly not a replacement for it. At the same time, most of the Christians I've met (and I would like to include myself in that number, even if I be a poor example of one) are very much aware of the stereotype of the 'True Believer' who uses faith as a method of escape from reason, or outright denial of the same. If I am going to build my life around the teachings, principles, and (most importantly) the Person of Jesus Christ, then I want an intelligent, rational faith that jives with reality (Biblical, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, psycho/social, and personal experience).

You are correct, that I sincerely doubt that God would 'invalidate' a baptism if it were done the 'wrong way' (although I know many a sincere Christian who would disagree with me). However, the information in the article about the baths doesn't fit with the other information I have on the types and manners of baptisms in New Testament times. Therefore, I find the article interesting, but I disagree with it's assessment that this site was used by John the Baptist.

ADDED ON EDIT: I also think there is a desire for 'proof' of the New Testament's validity as an evangelical 'silver bullet' - the kind of 'proof' that would make the most ardent skeptic sit up and take notice. Personally, I would absolutely love to have something so crystal clear that no one could possibly deny the reality of God's existence, His goodness, and His ongoing involvement in people's daily lives. (Hey, this is GOOD STUFF!) But I've lived long enough to come to the conclusion that there will always be enough evidence to convince those who want to be convinced, and little enough to allow those who don't want to believe to choose that option as well.

 

[Tez3]

Ninjamom I love that user name! I think to be honest iIve never thought about having proof for my faith but then I don't think I've ever thought about it as my faith as such! I don't know if other Jewish people will agree with me but I've just taken it for granted that there's a God and I've never worried about what I've always considered the airey fairy stuff. I've always found my religion to be full of common sense and practicalities for living and dealing with life and it's problems rather than rather more abstract ideas. I am interested in other religions because I'm interested in people. My religion is totally right for me but I wouldn't suggest for everyone, in fact converts to Judaism are considred perhaps a little odd. I don't, I admit, understand all the agonising over faith in a lot of Christian communities. I find the argument on this thread fascinating!

 

[Ninjamom]

Thanks for the kudos on the name - the husband and kids actually were the ones who bestowed it on me .

............I've always found my religion to be full of common sense and practicalities for living and dealing with life and it's problems rather than rather more abstract ideas. I am interested in other religions because I'm interested in people.

I whole-heartedly agree with this (although I enjoy the abstract part, too). I also really appreciate the cordial environment here, and am grateful for the opportunity to discuss matters of faith without the flames.

Cheers!

 

[Tez3]

My sense of humour tends to get the better of me when arguments like this come up. What I saw when they were arguing if John the Baptist used jugs of water to baptise people or whether it was in the river was his Jewish mother shouting at him not to make a mess in the house and take all those people who were making the house dusty down the river and do whatever he was doing there and while he was at it couldn't he get a decent job, a nice wife and some grandchildren for her to fuss over. Sorry folks. You have to admit there's a very good chance that happened! John would know exactly what I'm talking about!

 

[Sukerkin]

Those attitudes gel nicely with my own and I wish more from the fanatical wings of every faith had as much security in their faith and common-sense.

To be clear, I'm an agnostic but I've always said that as a set of social rules go, you could do far worse than follow those set out in the bible.

"Love thy neighbour as yourself" is a principle that goes a long, long way in handling all kinds of disputes. On the other hand, "Make thy neighbour believe the same as you" is a sure fire way to cause conflict (and it bemuses me no end that otherwise compassionate and sensible people can so easily cast their reasoning aside when it comes to this matter).

 

[Tez3]

As a mother I have far to much to do to be a fanatic about anything! Perhaps if mothers ruled............!