7 ms·

People not used to working with history sometimes think that an entire copy of the original manuscript of the New Testament is required to have confidence that

People not used to working with history sometimes think that an entire copy of the original manuscript of the New Testament is required to have confidence that we read the original documents as they were written. If that can't be produced then it must be myth. Take this comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10504940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10504940 This may be the popular influence of 20th century liberalism and postmodernism (just another form of ancient skepticism) which would trade the historical method and the primary evidence for poor late-dated gnostic sources and sociological reconstructions (which have little data to go on). And sadly, sometimes people just believe that the Da Vinci code was non-fiction, and that the church was in cahoots in the 3rd century. In fact, the historicity of the New Testament is astounding. If you wanted to take seriously the claims of Jesus, you couldn't ask for better. Here are a few examples off the top of my head: 1. Primary sources dated as close as 22-25 years and as late as 70 years after the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. 2. Thousands of transcribed copies in several ancient languages, from different locations and periods. 3. Many manuscript fragments with early dates, e.g. the earliest, the John fragment (Papyrus P52) at the John Rylands Library in Manchester in England, dates from as early as 125 AD. 4. Multiple independent accounts of eye witness testimony including hostile sources. 5. Biographical accounts written as history. 6. The evidence and weight of the incidental accounts, the New Testament letters, which contain numerous historical details, facts, references and mutual understanding, taken for granted and mentioned in passing. 7. The disciples are frequently portrayed in a negative light in the gospels. 8. The testimony of women is relied on at various key points in the gospels, something which a 1st century fraud would not likely have included. 9. Integrity of the eye witnesses under intense pressure and scrutiny and brutal persecution. Most of the original apostles died horrific deaths, refusing to recant what they saw and heard (1 John 1). In contrast, the Watergate scandal lasted all of a few days before the group fell apart. 10. Many accurate geographical and political references, often of a very technical nature (e.g. various political offices and ranks, shipping navigation, climates, architecture). In summary, Christianity is an historical claim about an historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Anyone is free to investigate these claims for themselves, according to the historical method. For more on this, read Paul Barnett's "Jesus and the Logic of History" (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theology/dp/0830826033 http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog...), or "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by FF Bruce (himself a Rylands Professor).

danieltillett 11y ago
This is certainly not my understanding of the same topic. I have looked into this in detail and while I am not quite in the Jesus is mythical camp, I am certainly not convinced by the strength of the case for the historicity of Jesus Christ.
penguin82 11y ago
1. Primary sources dated as close as 22-25 years and as late as 70 years after the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. 22-25 years is still a very long time before any written records emerge. And it's eveb longer before John emerges, the real gunslinger of the gospels when it comes to miracles and religion. The gospels we have are not primary sources anyway - their authorship is very dubious. 2. Thousands of transcribed copies in several ancient languages, from different locations and periods. That doesn't make it historically accurate, it just means lots of people read the stories. 3. Many manuscript fragments with early dates, e.g. the earliest, the John fragment (Papyrus P52) at the John Rylands Library in Manchester in England, dates from as early as 125 AD. As far as I remember this contains a non-interesting 2 or 3 line passage from John. It does support the claim though that some portion of John was written before 100 years had passed after Jesus' death. 4. Multiple independent accounts of eye witness testimony including hostile sources. Barely. Compared to many other historical figures Jesus gets a shockingly low hit rate from historians. The evidence points to him probably existing, but little more than that when it comes to his deeds. Who outside the gospels (gnostic and otherwise) talks about him? I think it's literally just a couple of passages from later historians. NO contemporary sources mention Jesus at ALL, unless you think Mark/Matthew/John were written by their namesakes. 5. Biographical accounts written as history. Only Luke was written as a history and that's because he was commissioned to. He did not meet Jesus. He is a third-hand source at best. 6. The evidence and weight of the incidental accounts, the New Testament letters, which contain numerous historical details, facts, references and mutual understanding, taken for granted and mentioned in passing. I agree Paul was a real person who witnessed real events and wrote about them. Shame he appeared to be slightly insane, made dozens of unverifiable claims regarding Jesus and never actually met the man. 7. The disciples are frequently portrayed in a negative light in the gospels. By Paul? Probably jealous. By the gospel writers? They had an axe to grind. 8. The testimony of women is relied on at various key points in the gospels, something which a 1st century fraud would not likely have included. This is new to me, source? 9. Integrity of the eye witnesses under intense pressure and scrutiny and brutal persecution. Most of the original apostles died horrific deaths, refusing to recant what they saw and heard (1 John 1). In contrast, the Watergate scandal lasted all of a few days before the group fell apart. This no more verifies the truth of the gospel than it verifies the truth of the Qu'ran, the Talmud, or the mythical lost writings of the cult of pythagoras. 10. Many accurate geographical and political references, often of a very technical nature (e.g. various political offices and ranks, shipping navigation, climates, architecture). They did get this right, yes. It was definitely written in the first few centuries BC. > In summary, Christianity is an historical claim about an historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Anyone is free to investigate these claims for themselves, according to the historical method. The bible can be used as a historical source for historical facts. It can't be used as historical evidence for the truth of Christianity, it just doesn't hold up when you look at the claims in detail, look at the authorship, the motivations of the authors or the other contemporary sources. But christianity doesn't need to be verified by historical documents anyway - isn't that the point? Faith and whatnot.

danieltillett 11y ago

This is certainly not my understanding of the same topic. I have looked into this in detail and while I am not quite in the Jesus is mythical camp, I am certainly not convinced by the strength of the case for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

penguin82 11y ago

1. Primary sources dated as close as 22-25 years and as late as 70 years after the event of Jesus' death and resurrection. 22-25 years is still a very long time before any written records emerge. And it's eveb longer before John emerges, the real gunslinger of the gospels when it comes to miracles and religion. The gospels we have are not primary sources anyway - their authorship is very dubious. 2. Thousands of transcribed copies in several ancient languages, from different locations and periods. That doesn't make it historically accurate, it just means lots of people read the stories. 3. Many manuscript fragments with early dates, e.g. the earliest, the John fragment (Papyrus P52) at the John Rylands Library in Manchester in England, dates from as early as 125 AD. As far as I remember this contains a non-interesting 2 or 3 line passage from John. It does support the claim though that some portion of John was written before 100 years had passed after Jesus' death. 4. Multiple independent accounts of eye witness testimony including hostile sources. Barely. Compared to many other historical figures Jesus gets a shockingly low hit rate from historians. The evidence points to him probably existing, but little more than that when it comes to his deeds. Who outside the gospels (gnostic and otherwise) talks about him? I think it's literally just a couple of passages from later historians. NO contemporary sources mention Jesus at ALL, unless you think Mark/Matthew/John were written by their namesakes. 5. Biographical accounts written as history. Only Luke was written as a history and that's because he was commissioned to. He did not meet Jesus. He is a third-hand source at best. 6. The evidence and weight of the incidental accounts, the New Testament letters, which contain numerous historical details, facts, references and mutual understanding, taken for granted and mentioned in passing. I agree Paul was a real person who witnessed real events and wrote about them. Shame he appeared to be slightly insane, made dozens of unverifiable claims regarding Jesus and never actually met the man. 7. The disciples are frequently portrayed in a negative light in the gospels. By Paul? Probably jealous. By the gospel writers? They had an axe to grind. 8. The testimony of women is relied on at various key points in the gospels, something which a 1st century fraud would not likely have included. This is new to me, source? 9. Integrity of the eye witnesses under intense pressure and scrutiny and brutal persecution. Most of the original apostles died horrific deaths, refusing to recant what they saw and heard (1 John 1). In contrast, the Watergate scandal lasted all of a few days before the group fell apart. This no more verifies the truth of the gospel than it verifies the truth of the Qu'ran, the Talmud, or the mythical lost writings of the cult of pythagoras. 10. Many accurate geographical and political references, often of a very technical nature (e.g. various political offices and ranks, shipping navigation, climates, architecture). They did get this right, yes. It was definitely written in the first few centuries BC. > In summary, Christianity is an historical claim about an historical person, Jesus of Nazareth. Anyone is free to investigate these claims for themselves, according to the historical method. The bible can be used as a historical source for historical facts. It can't be used as historical evidence for the truth of Christianity, it just doesn't hold up when you look at the claims in detail, look at the authorship, the motivations of the authors or the other contemporary sources. But christianity doesn't need to be verified by historical documents anyway - isn't that the point? Faith and whatnot.