18 replies to this topic

[mako]

our earliest manuscripts from Josephus and Tacitus are from the 9th and 10th centuries, and very few seem to have problems accepting most of what they have written

First and foremost, neither Josephus nor Tactius claimed to be disciples of a supernatural being that were putting forth the tenets of this being's "way for salvation", Second their material can be validated using other historians writings from that period and the periods prior to and afterward.  What Christians always seem to ignore is - if you make fantastic claims, then you must present fantastic proofs to back those claims.  This is something that they can not present, so they try attacking scholarship (even thought the majority of biblical scholars are Christians, but too honest to do the typical apologetic trick of lying to  cover the truth) in order to make their beliefs seem true.

Again GM, I ask you: How are ancient documents dated?

Numerous ways, throught epigraphics for one, by documental sequence for another, by historical content for another, and on and on and on!  

[Something Like Laughter]

First and foremost, neither Josephus nor Tactius claimed to be disciples of a supernatural being that were putting forth the tenets of this being's "way for salvation", Second their material can be validated using other historians writings from that period and the periods prior to and afterward. What Christians always seem to ignore is - if you make fantastic claims, then you must present fantastic proofs to back those claims. This is something that they can not present, so they try attacking scholarship (even thought the majority of biblical scholars are Christians, but too honest to do the typical apologetic trick of lying to cover the truth) in order to make their beliefs seem true.

woah, put out that strawman, mako. whether or not what the text says is true is a totally different issue from when it should be dated or if the text has been accurately preserved. its not that fantastic for a set of works to maintain its textual integerty.

[mako]

woah, put out that strawman, mako. whether or not what the text says is true is a totally different issue from when it should be dated or if the text has been accurately preserved. its not that fantastic for a set of works to maintain its textual integerty.

Far from a straw man argument, manuscript dates, especially in the case of the NT, is a definite problem.  We can already see that Mark has been added onto since the 4th century CE, in that 16:9-20 does not exist in the two oldest existing Codex.  This brings to question the textual integrity of the entire NT.  Without earlier texts of the NT to compare with the current versions, there is no way that it can be claimed that the “set of works” maintains textual integrity.   It can instead be argued that the probability of politically motivated editing was done extensively over the first three centuries of its existence.  As I said before, neither Josephus nor Tacitus were doing more than reporting history and their works can be verified by comparison to the works of prior or contemporaneous historians.  With the exception of those probable insertions by overly enthusiastic Christians, the textual integrity of Josephus or Tacitus is not nearly as important (especially since they can be validated by comparison with the works of other historians and by quotations of these works by early church fathers.    

[Something Like Laughter]

It can instead be argued that the probability of politically motivated editing was done extensively over the first three centuries of its existence.

argue it then.