quote:
And I don't think anyone denies that the writer(s) of the books of the Bible, be it Moses or someone else, really existed. You see, the point is not whether Homer existed or not. My point is, and this goes for both the Bible and the Iliad: the number of (existing) manuscripts, no matter how little difference there is between them, says nothing about whether the described events really happened.
By investigating the manuscripts of history, is one of the only ways historians and scholars discover men of history. What you must realise is that 'evidence' CAN come from investigating the manuscripts. Just how reliable were they?, IS the Bible a reliable document, is the christian faith built upon a FACTual document? etc.
F.E Peters points out that "on the basis of manuscript tradition alone, the works that made up the christians New Testament, were the most frequently copied and widely circulated books of antiquity". We have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. As i mentioned before, in 2nd is Iliad by Homer, with only 643. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century. The books of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors. In that the books of the New Testament, were written in the latter parts of the first century. The earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century, so say 250-300 years later. This space in-between is nothing of that of great classical authors. Historians, scholars and history believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant playsof Sophocles, yet the earliest sustantial manuscript upon which its based was written more than 1400yrs after the poets death.
- Caesars Gallic wars (composed between 58 and 50B.C) there are several extant MSS. But only 9 or 10 that are good. And the oldest is some 900yrs later than Caesars death.
- Of the 142 books of Roman history of Livy (59B.C - A.D17) only 35 survive.
- Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (ca A.D100) only four and a half survive. Of the 16 books of his annals, 10 survive in full, and 2 in part. The text of these extant portions of his 2 great historical works, depends entirely on 2 MSS, one of the 9th century, and one of the 11th
- The history of Thucydides (ca 460-400B.C) is known to us from 8 MSS, the earliest belonging to ca A.D900, and a few scraps.
Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use are over 1,300yrs later. The New Testament however, 2 of the most important MSS were written within 300yrs after the NT was completed. And some virtually complete NT books, as well as extensive fragmentry MSS of many parts of the NT date back to one century from the original writings. Since the scholars accept as generally trustworthy writings of the ancient classics even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writing, and number of extant MSS in many instances small, it is clear that the reliability of the text of the NT is likewise assured.
Sir Frederick Kenyon stated "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, of every translation from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers from the church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
Again, scholars are satified that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, Thucydides, Cicero, or Virgil. Yet our knowledge of their writings depend of a mere handful of manscripts. Whereas the New Testament is counted in the thosands. Over 24,000. A careful study of the varients/different readings of the various manuscripts, reveal none of them that affects a single doctrine of scripture, nor cast doubt about the textual meaning. Not only is the NT unrivalled in its MSS. But the abundance of testimony which has come down to us, becoming the largest religion in the world.
Probably not even an inch of the evidence of the reliabilty the Bible has, but i dont want to write anymore. The evidence is clear IMO. Many of you cannot have or do not want the Bible to be trustworthy. One problem i constantly face in debates is the desire on many non-belivers, to apply one standard or test to secular literature, and another to the Bible.
All this does not prove the Bible is the word of God. But as i continue saying, the only way we find truth is by discarding the 'religions' and belief-systems of the world as we go long in life, investigating each and every one of them. Does the book of Mormon stand up to critical examination? Not one piece of anything has ever gave any credential to the Book of Mormon.
™ Version 4.2
