I am not going to respond to your first post, Paul, as Jay summed things up fairly nicely.
You can keep on insulting me ("arrogant", "antagonist", "can't read", "annoying", etc) if that makes you feel better. It doesn't really bother me. *shrugs*
For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of Shadowhunter. Hmmmmmmm....... ;p
You make a claim: "This supposed 'transmission test' is not reliable criteria for establishing historical viability." O.K.....prove it!
Very well.
There are two primary flaws in establishing the 'transmission test' (independent of its connection to the Bible) as a criteria for historical viability.
One) Numerous historically viable texts and documents fail the 'transmission test':
You admitted this within your own post. There are only 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. By the criterion of the 'transmission test', the historical viability of these documents is highly questionable. However, we know from empirical historical evidence (of which the 'transmission test' is not a type) that this is not so. Thus, the reliability of the 'transmission test' on this front alone is brought into question.
Two) Numerous unhistorical texts and documents successfully pass the 'transmission test':
In ancient China, countless copies of the Tao te Ching were popularly known. The popularity of the Tao te Ching spread even to foreign lands such as Japan and Korea. However, modern historians acknowledge that there is very little possibility that Lao Tzu ever existed and, if he did, the Tao te Ching most certainly wasn't authored by him (as it is claimed to be). As I stated before, numerous copies have been published of popular fables such as Little Red Riding Hood and Uncle Tom. I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works. Again, the reliability of the 'transmission test' as a viable means of historical inquiry is also brought into question due to the fact that works of fiction can pass its criterion.
Additionally, there are many claims concerning the Bible and its connection to the 'transmission test' that don't quite bear out the weight of historical inquiry.
You stated that there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts.
However, you neglect to give the time frame in which all these manuscripts were produced (one of the criterion for the 'tranmission test'). You fail to state whether all these manuscripts were produced within a period of 100 years or 1,000 years.
You also give the impression that any of these copies of the New Testament are in any way historically close to their supposed 'originals'. However, this is not the case. We, in fact, do not have any full versions of the canonically recognized New Testament books prior to the 500's CE. That makes even the oldest of the manuscripts you described to still be over 300 years removed from their 'originals'. A single excerpt or portion dating to the 100's CE is not enough to establish a concrete historical link.
Thus, based on the above reasoning, I am forced to be skeptical on the New Testament and any historical viability it may have from the 'transmission test' --- which, as I demonstrated above, is itself a dubious means of historical research.
. But this does prove that the Gospels in the Bible weren't "changed" or "embelished" over time. The stories we have today are going to be extremely close to the stories that were being orally transmitted around the time of the apostles, and around the time they were first written down (a date that we still are uncertian of because none of the original manuscripts have been found). So, we can conclude that for whatever reason, people were telling and eventually writting the gospel stories, and they believed them to be true.
I'm afraid this is not quite true.
Regardless of the number of copies existing at any given time, the oldest of full New Testament books dates back to the 500's CE (and, rest assured, the number of New Testament manuscripts dating back this far is quite few indeed). That is well over 300 years removed from the 'oral stories' you cite as original sources.
In addition, there is no historical proof whatsoever that the New Testament books we have now are even dependent on any sort of first century 'oral tradition' --- there is indeed the possibility that they are all mid-to-late 2nd century creations. The first time the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 170 CE), and we still don't know if the Synoptics he refers to are identical (or even similar) to the copies we have now. The first time the Pauline epistles are mentioned is with Marcion (circa 140 CE), and his versions are in a quite different form than the versions we have now.
So, some discrepencies are good, historically speaking. They verify at least the existance and the beliefs more then they discredit.
Perhaps. But when the discrepancies are so extreme that they actually record the same event as taking place in two completely different locations (as with Jesus' supposed resurrection), then you have a problem.
O.K....differen't names in this case isn't a "hard" contradiction (I explained hard contradictions previously), if even a contradiction at all. Plus, you need to understand the nature of titles like "father" and "brother" in the ancient middle eastern world. "Brother" for instance could mean Sibling, friend, cousin, second cousin, brother in law, cousin in law, etc. Father could mean Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, elder, or teacher. They didn't have the same seperation with titles like father or Brother like we do today, so this really isn't a contradiction when you understand this, and you take it within the context of the authors intent.
For a text that, at its earliest, dates back to the 500's CE, you sure seem to be making an interesting presumption concerning the author's intentions (considering he/she never wrote anything to clarify this point).
Also, this was not written in the dialect of the "ancient Middle Eastern world". It is written in the Greek language, where the distinctions between "father" and "brother" and so on are more concrete. I think the contradition is pretty straightforward.
Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."
Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"
According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy.
Still no problems here, theologically, not if you understand how marraige is treated theologically. Christian theology explains that when a man and a woman marry, they are no longer 2 people. They become "one." When I marry, my wifes parents become my parents and vice-versa. This makes Jesus son of David through marrage. Who's "seed" at that point is moot.
Key words here: "according to Christian theology." Just because Christians of later centuries project their theology onto the New Testamental books does not change what was written by at least the 500's.
In no way was this how the Hebrews saw the situation, nor is it how they see it now. Born of the "seed of David" is a fairly straightforward description. Either, Jesus was born of the seed of David or he was born of a virgin. You can't have both.
There you go again. It's not "bunk," dude. You claim that because some historical events in the bible haven't been verified yet by outside sources, then you generalize "the entire claim of external consistency is bunk." This is false logic. Just because some things haven't yet been verified, that doesn't mean that the whole story must be false. I point out some things that HAVE been verified. What IS verified is more important to the external test then what HASN'T been verified.
I must admit... you do have a point here.
However, it is widely known among modern researchers that there was no census during Herod's reign, nor was there any attempted "slaughter of innocents". Neither Philo nor Josephus make any mention of either of these events.
In addition, the primary event itself, the trial and execution of Jesus, is completely absent from the Roman records. It is also absent of any historian's mention until around 115 CE (over 80 years after the event in question) and even these 'historical mentions' are of an incredibly dubious nature (Tacitus' supposed reference to Jesus and his record of Nero's persecution of the Christians, for example, is a forgery of the Middle Ages).
I will admit that
some of the events of the New Testament
may have historical viability. Of course, this brings into question as to when the New Testament books were actually written (its not hard to be historically accurate when you have hindsight). In addition, other events of the New Testament (including the existence and execution of Jesus) have no reliable external sources to corroborate their historical viability.
You again make a claim: "there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date." Then you proceed to give alternate dates. Have you given us sources or logical/historical proof to back up these dates? NO!
I actually gave evidence to support my claims, you musta just overlooked it.
There are numerous reasons to doubt the early (70-110 CE) dating of the Synoptics:
One) There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.
Two) The first time in recorded history that the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). Justin Martyr, writing only one generation earlier, fails to mention even one of their names a single time. In addition, Irenaeus is quite enthusiastic in his defense of these Synoptics as the "true canon" --- indicating the idea of defending these four exclusively was something of a new and novel idea at the time.
Three) The Gospel of Luke (and possibly some of the other Synoptics) has been demonstrated to be dependent on the Gospel of Marcion (circa 140 CE). The claim of Tertullian (circa 200 CE) was that Marcion had edited Luke. However, this does not bear the weight of logic; there are numerous verses within Luke that would indeed have benefitted Marcion's philosophical position (of docetism), and there are numerous verses in his Gospel of the Lord that indeed do not benefit his philosophical position.
Four) St Jerome (circa 320 CE) has admitted that the Gospel of Luke is of a very late date, written after other Gospels known to have first been published in 160 CE. He also admits that the Theophilus mentioned in Luke was in fact the Bishop of Antioch during the 170's CE.
Five) Irenaeus has admitted that the Gospel of John was written to repudiate the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. Cerinthus was active during the 140's CE.
Six) Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew contain verses whose content deals with the hierarchical system first being developed within Rome during the 170's CE.
Seven) Certain excerpts from our Gospel of Mark (namely, the chronological order of Jesus' teaching at Taberbaum) are directly derived and dependent on the Gospel of Luke --- indicating our Luke has historical precedence. As Luke has been demonstrated to be derived from Marcion, this indicates both Luke and Mark were written within the latter half of the 2nd century (150-200 CE).
Eight) There have been studies demonstrating Luke may also be partially dependent on the writings of Josephus (circa 95 CE).
There's your evidence.
Once again, these are your special dates, but not the dates of what the data points too.
The supposed "historical references to Jesus" that are so often bandied around date to about 115 CE. This includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc. Mind you, this does not mean all (or even any) of these references actually refers to Jesus or are even authentic (non-forged), but these are their supposed dates nonethless.
The only historical source to supposedly refer to Jesus before this timeframe is Josephus (95 CE), and even the authenticity of his excerpts (including the James reference) are questioned by many.
Not a bad question. You could ask this about News stories. Why did almost every paper in the country cover 9-11 when it occured? Because each paper had something a little bit different to offer about the same event. This is the same with the Gospels; each one emphasises different theological points, even though they are about the same events/occurances.
Actually, that's not what I'm talking about at all.
There were literally
hundreds of Christian gospels and epistles during the later half of the 2nd century, and the Synoptics were by no means the most well-known or popular of them (only Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in Rome, seem to have any faith in them). There is in fact no reason to conclude that the Synoptics are any more authentic than any of these other Gospels (especially considering we have no extant form of the Synoptics prior to the 500's CE and they are never mentioned by name until the 170's CE).
Laterz.
