Confirmations of the New Testament

[shunyadragon]

I should note that the earliest manuscript of Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War"), which was published somewhere 58 and 49 BC, comes from the 9th cent. A.D. This, using shuny's logic, means it is clearly not at all trustworthy and needs to be dismissed out of hand. Heck, that's true with nearly every writing we have from the ancient world. The oldest copies date from many centuries later.

This is true, but for historians the claims and use of the ancient texts, is different from the claims of the Christian apologists. No texts of the Bible are 'dismissed out of hand' by historians. Historians tend to put known documents 'in the context of history' and not necessarily historical records. At present there is no evidence of first person witness authorship of the gospels. As Tassman referenced there is clear and specific evidence of an evolved, redacted, and added text over the first 300 to 400 years of Christianity. Much of this was done to reinforce the religious claims of Christianity.

Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War") is simply a commentary written by Julius Caesar, and not relied on to support religious claims. Historians acknowledge the records of Julius Caesar as a military record supported by archaeology and other records. As far as the New Testament the Historians acknowledge that it is written in the context of history, and acknowledge and accept the existence of Jesus Christ, and the factual events surrounding his life. What they do not acknowledge as fact are the miraculous and religious claims surrounding the life of Jesus Christ. This is also true considered the religious history believed by Christians, including the miraculous and religious claims of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. None of the ancient religions should claim that their historical scripture can prove their religious claims.

[lee_merrill]

“In the second and third centuries, when many Christian documents were being written and circulated, Christians didn’t yet have a sense of which writings were canonical and which noncanonical, because there was, as yet, no New Testament canon”.

“Even in the ancient world, texts could move between canonical and noncanonical status. For example, there are a number of writings—including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans—that were “canonical” at some point in antiquity but are noncanonical today.”

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tool...nical-writings

No, they were included in "acceptable" lists by some, as I have heard, but not by all.

These texts show the fluidity of the notion of Scripture in the early centuries of the Church as demonstrated by the Aland’s in ‘The Text of The New Testament’ as previously cited.

I found your quote in the second edition of this book, on page 69, for your reference. Yet you ignored my citation of the Aland's statement that the Greek NT editions substantially agree, how is this possible if the early texts were so fluid as you imply?

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

At present there is no evidence of first person witness authorship of the gospels.

That's simply not true, John writes "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you" (1 John 1:3), and Peter (whose testimony was said to be behind the gospel of Mark) wrote "we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pe 1:16). There is evidence that these are eyewitness accounts.

As Tassman referenced there is clear and specific evidence of an evolved, redacted, and added text over the first 300 to 400 years of Christianity. Much of this was done to reinforce the religious claims of Christianity.

Well, see my reply to Tassman in my previous post.

None of the ancient religions should claim that their historical scripture can prove their religious claims.

Unless their Scripture is grounded in history, as is the case for Christianity, as the video in the opening post demonstrates.

One aspect I find fascinating is that two extra-Biblical sources comment on a time of darkness around the time of the death of Christ, one calling it an eclipse during a time of the full moon, which is impossible to happen naturally.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

That's simply not true, John writes "What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you" (1 John 1:3), and Peter (whose testimony was said to be behind the gospel of Mark) wrote "we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pe 1:16). There is evidence that these are eyewitness accounts.


Well, see my reply to Tassman in my previous post.


Unless their Scripture is grounded in history, as is the case for Christianity, as the video in the opening post demonstrates.

One aspect I find fascinating is that two extra-Biblical sources comment on a time of darkness around the time of the death of Christ, one calling it an eclipse during a time of the full moon, which is impossible to happen naturally.

Blessings,
Lee

Already covered all this. Nothing here indicates a first hand witness.

[Teallaura]

Already covered all this. Nothing here indicates a first hand witness.

Yes, it does. You were simply wrong.

[shunyadragon]

I should note that the earliest manuscript of Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War"), which was published somewhere 58 and 49 BC, comes from the 9th cent. A.D. This, using shuny's logic, means it is clearly not at all trustworthy and needs to be dismissed out of hand. Heck, that's true with nearly every writing we have from the ancient world. The oldest copies date from many centuries later.

I thought I may add that based on the archaeological evidence the account of Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War") are not considered entirely factual accurate. Like the Bible nothing is 'dismissed out of hand' nor accepted as recorded, historians are naturally skeptical of all ancient records, and are justified by the bias of authors, and often questionable provenance.

I can provide more references concerning Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico ("Commentaries on the Gallic War") if you like.

[Tassman]

No, they were included in "acceptable" lists by some, as I have heard, but not by all.

Until Athanasius’ canon of 367 which comprises the New Testament as we know it today many texts fluctuated between canonical and noncanonical status. The Muratorian Canon (c.170 CE) shows this. It omits Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter and includes Apocalypse of Peter and Book of Wisdom. The Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century includes Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas.

I found your quote in the second edition of this book, on page 69, for your reference. Yet you ignored my citation of the Aland's statement that the Greek NT editions substantially agree, how is this possible if the early texts were so fluid as you imply?

But there is no original autograph. The original copies of the New Testament books perished and there is no way of knowing what the 'original' reading was. Furthermore, the early copies were not looked upon as scripture by early Christians. For them “Holy Scripture” referred to the Hebrew Scriptures.

And the “fluidity” or “flexibility” of texts is Aland’s description, not mine: “The New Testament text continued to be a "living text" as long as it remained a manuscript tradition, even when the Byzantine church molded it to the procrustean bed of the standard and officially prescribed text. Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves to be filled with the Spirit”.

‘The Text of The New Testament’. p. 69.

[lee_merrill]

Until Athanasius’ canon of 367 which comprises the New Testament as we know it today many texts fluctuated between canonical and noncanonical status.

Not really, only a few texts were considered doubtful, AFAIK.

The Muratorian Canon (c.170 CE) shows this. It omits Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter and includes Apocalypse of Peter and Book of Wisdom. The Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century includes Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas.

But the Muratorian Canon says the Apocalypse of Peter "some of our body will not have read in the church." And the Book of Wisdom some think may be a reference to the book of Proverbs. As far as the Codex Sinaiticus is concerned, inclusion of these items in a book does not necessarily note them as canonical.

But there is no original autograph. The original copies of the New Testament books perished and there is no way of knowing what the 'original' reading was.

Not with absolute certainty, but with good judgement and research, it's possible to discern what the original text was with a high degree of probability, in most cases. Thus the substantial agreement of the Greek NT editions.

Furthermore, the early copies were not looked upon as scripture by early Christians. For them “Holy Scripture” referred to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Not so, see 2 Peter:

"[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pe 3:16)

And the “fluidity” or “flexibility” of texts is Aland’s description, not mine...

Yes, but this has not dismayed the creators of Greek NT editions, which are in substantial agreement.

Source: The Text of the New Testament, pp. 27-28, emphasis in the original

… one further comment may be necessary to avoid a methodological misunderstanding. The number of instances where these various editions differ among themselves and from Nestle seems quite high. In reality their significance is minor. Consider that the text of Nestle-Aland25 comprises 657 pages. When von Soden and Vogels show 2047 and 1996 differences from it respectively, this amounts to no more than three differences a page. This changes the perspective completely.

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it does. You were simply wrong.

The weakness in any argument lee merrill and you offer is that there there are no first autographs known, nor any evidence what they actually composed of. There is evidence of an early simpler gospel Q, but it is inconclusive. Lee's citations only reflect the authors personal experiences, and reflections just as believers do today, and ah . . the fact that others wrote about it before Luke, which is already accepted that Mark first, than Matthew, than Luke were compiled in that order..

[Tassman]

Not really, only a few texts were considered doubtful, AFAIK.

Not so.

In the Muratorian Canon 170 CE 1&2 Peter were omitted as was James. And the Apocalypse of Peter and Book of Wisdom were included.
In the Codex Vaticanus (c.300-325CE) 1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon were omitted as was Revelation.
In Codex Sinaiticus (330-360CE) Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas were included in the canon.
And 1&2 Clement were included in the canon of Codex Alexandrinus (400-440CE).

But the Muratorian Canon says the Apocalypse of Peter "some of our body will not have read in the church." And the Book of Wisdom some think may be a reference to the book of Proverbs. As far as the Codex Sinaiticus is concerned, inclusion of these items in a book does not necessarily note them as canonical.

The greatest value of the Muratorian Canon is that as the earliest-known list of N.T. books recognized by the church.

Not with absolute certainty, but with good judgement and research, it's possible to discern what the original text was with a high degree of probability, in most cases. Thus the substantial agreement of the Greek NT editions.

The fact remains that there are no autographs extant for the NT, its most likely original texts must be reconstructed from imperfect, often widely divergent, later copies.

Not so, see 2 Peter:

"[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Pe 3:16)

Most critical scholars agree that “scripture” almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors. The one exception is 2 Peter 3:16 as you note. Interesting that your "exception" is based upon a text omitted from the earliest NT canon and which is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature.

Yes, but this has not dismayed the creators of Greek NT editions, which are in substantial agreement.

Source: The Text of the New Testament, pp. 27-28, emphasis in the original

… one further comment may be necessary to avoid a methodological misunderstanding. The number of instances where these various editions differ among themselves and from Nestle seems quite high. In reality their significance is minor. Consider that the text of Nestle-Aland25 comprises 657 pages. When von Soden and Vogels show 2047 and 1996 differences from it respectively, this amounts to no more than three differences a page. This changes the perspective completely.

© Copyright Original Source

The text of ‘Novum Testamentum Graece’, as edited by the Aland’s and used as the critical text for subsequent NT translations, was agreed upon as the best available early text. The text was agreed upon by a committee and when there was disagreement, as frequently occurred, they voted on it. Hardly a sound basis for arriving at an inerrant original autograph. And the committee itself does not make a claim that it restored the 'original' text of the New Testament.

[NorrinRadd]

And repeating moronic drivel doesn't make it any the less moronic.

That's not even pedantic - it's literally insane. Being an eyewitness to the Person doing anything at all is more than sufficient to establish that Person's existence.

Oh, and repeating the same exact barb makes you sound even more moronic. Impressive, really - I didn't think anything that can type could be that moronic.

For the sane people in the room, the point is established.

You have far more patience than I. I would have long since metaphorically shaken the dust from my feet and left the infidel to his way.

[One Bad Pig]

“In the second and third centuries, when many Christian documents were being written and circulated, Christians didn’t yet have a sense of which writings were canonical and which noncanonical, because there was, as yet, no New Testament canon”.

“Even in the ancient world, texts could move between canonical and noncanonical status. For example, there are a number of writings—including the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, and Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans—that were “canonical” at some point in antiquity but are noncanonical today.”

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tool...nical-writings

These texts show the fluidity of the notion of Scripture in the early centuries of the Church as demonstrated by the Aland’s in ‘The Text of The New Testament’ as previously cited.

A popular-level article with no supporting evidence? You might at least try to find a decent source.

[One Bad Pig]

Not so.

In the Muratorian Canon 170 CE 1&2 Peter were omitted as was James. And the Apocalypse of Peter and Book of Wisdom were included.
In the Codex Vaticanus (c.300-325CE) 1&2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon were omitted as was Revelation.
In Codex Sinaiticus (330-360CE) Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas were included in the canon.
And 1&2 Clement were included in the canon of Codex Alexandrinus (400-440CE).



The greatest value of the Muratorian Canon is that as the earliest-known list of N.T. books recognized by the church.

These are not canons, as you should know from the article you foisted on me. You can't even be consistent in your criticism.

One thing that you should note from the various lists is that certain books appear on many or all of them, all of which are in the canon today, whereas other books only appear here and there, none of which are in the canon today. The content of the canon is not nearly as murky as you attempt to portray.

The fact remains that there are no autographs extant for the NT, its most likely original texts must be reconstructed from imperfect, often widely divergent, later copies.

Repeating this assertion does not make it any more factual. Yes, there are no exant autographs; however, "often widely divergent" is a bald-faced lie.

Most critical scholars agree that “scripture” almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors. The one exception is 2 Peter 3:16 as you note. Interesting that your "exception" is based upon a text omitted from the earliest NT canon and which is concluded by most critical scholars to be pseudepigraphal literature.

Despite your protestations, even critical scholars date 2 Peter to c. AD 125, making it a very early reference to Paul's letters as 'scripture' regardless of its provenance.

The text of ‘Novum Testamentum Graece’, as edited by the Aland’s and used as the critical text for subsequent NT translations, was agreed upon as the best available early text. The text was agreed upon by a committee and when there was disagreement, as frequently occurred, they voted on it. Hardly a sound basis for arriving at an inerrant original autograph. And the committee itself does not make a claim that it restored the 'original' text of the New Testament.

Amazing how you can praise the Alands to the heavens when they make a statement you like, then turn around and throw them under the bus when they make one you don't.

[shunyadragon]

You have far more patience than I. I would have long since metaphorically shaken the dust from my feet and left the infidel to his way.

Than it will be understood that you endorse the name calling rhetoric of Teallaura, which reflects his lack of patience and understanding of those who believe differently.

[rogue06]

Amazing how you can praise the Alands to the heavens when they make a statement you like, then turn around and throw them under the bus when they make one you don't.

Oh yeah, like that's a shocker