The New Testament Documents

What Hacker News says

1. jorangreefNov 2015
   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

   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-Theolog...), or "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by FF Bruce (himself a Rylands Professor).

   Show morethread
2. jorangreefMay 2012
   God is not within the realm of science, science is our best effort explanation of the physical universe as we see it. Nor is God within the realm of philosophy for God by definition is beyond comprehension.

   God however may be within the realm of history, if at just the right time, God revealed himself in history. That is the Christian claim: Jesus died and rose from the dead in history.

   "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." - Paul the Apostle (a persecutor of the first Christians before seeing the risen Lord for himself, a Roman citizen, highly educated, he was himself martyred for his testimony, after being tried by several of the Roman magistrates, likely including Nero)

   To reject the claim of Christ a priori because of naturalistic views of the universe is inadequate.

   Better to examine the historicity of the accounts of Christ. How soon after the events were they recorded? What was the cost to those who gave their accounts? Did it happen? If it happened, what does it mean?

   Here are some good places to start:

   Paul Barnett - http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/... and see also http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Reliable-Paul-Barnett/dp...

   FF Bruce - http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...

   Show morethread
3. jorangreefSep 2011
   There's something rational about looking at historical events and asking if it's unlikely, likely, or strongly likely that they happened at all.

   For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?

   Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.

   In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?

   As for those who had seen Christ themselves:

   "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."

   "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

   "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."

   Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?

   Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:

   Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...)

   FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...)

   Show morethread
4. cobriMar 2021
   >>"The Bible is re-written every 100 years to accommodate this."

   This is provably false.

   "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of 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."[1]

   As an example, the New Testament is 25x more accurately copied across manuscripts than the Iliad [2].

   "The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice."[3]

   [1] Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts", p. 23

   [2] Bruce M. Metzger, "Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism", cited by Geisler and Nix, "A General Introduction to the Bible", pp. 366f

   [3] F.F. Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" p. 15

   Show morethread
5. jorangreefJan 2015
   The oldest fragment from the New Testament documents (apart from this fragment) is Rylands Library Papyrus P52 [0], a fragment from John's gospel, John 18:31–33 (front) and John 18:37-38 (back), circa AD 125, which is on display at John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

   The John fragment is one of several fragments in libraries and museums around the world, and there is an interesting list [1] of these if you are interested in textual criticism ("Are the documents we read today the same as what were originally written?") and planning a "history holiday" in any of those places any time soon.

   See also, FF Bruce's "The New Testament Documents: Are They reliable?" [2] for a scholarly discussion of the historicity of the New Testament. FF Bruce was incidentally a member of the council of governors for John Rylands Library.

   [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

   [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

   [2] - http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...

   Show morethread
6. jorangreefAug 2012
   See:

   David Seccombe, King of God's Kingdom, 280.

   R. Hooykaas, Christian Faith and the Freedom of Science, 17. Encyclopedia Brittanica article: Kepler, Johannes.

   Further, it's interesting that Kepler was schooled by a protege of Melanchthon, who was himself a key reformer with Luther and a contemporary of Tyndale. These men, together with Erasmus, were of the finest minds of their day, giants of the past, and giants still today.

   "What little I do know about many founders of the major fields of science seems to indicate that the founding men and women saw no such dichotomy."

   Yes, certainly "blind faith" and science are irreconcilable. Blind faith is a straw man. Men have wasted breath on it for years. Faith is quite different from blind faith. The two (faith and blind faith) are equally irreconcilable. Faith is simply acting today in the light of that which by reason one is fully persuaded of. It need not surprise that great men of reason and action are also men of deep, often Christian convictions about God.

   "However, it does leave me wondering how these great thinkers saw the world so differently."

   As John Newton wrote, "I once was blind but now I see". As Philip said to Nathanael, "come and see".

   The Christian of the 1st century would convert from Judaism either after seeing the risen Jesus, as at least five hundred on one occasion in Jerusalem did at the time, or after hearing of him from those who had. Their witness, at pain of death, was based on what they had seen and heard. Former persecutors such as Saul of Tarsus, a protege of Gamaliel, converted after seeing the risen Christ for themselves. [1][2][3][4]

   It is notable that at least two members of the Jewish ruling council, which tried Jesus, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, did not consent to the actions of the council and followed Christ. These men had education and wealth. They had access to Jesus and they believed, at great personal cost. Proclaiming a crucified criminal as Sovereign King, "God with us", would have been unthinkable for men such as these, were they not fully persuaded of God's raising him up, and of the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures, one example being Isaiah 53, which pointed to a suffering and triumphant Messiah. "Oh death, where is thy sting? Oh grave, where is thy victory?" To a naturalistic worldview which claims the name of science whilst being far from it, the gospel is hard to accept. Is it true? Did it happen? In our ignorance, we think of God as silent, unyielding. God is not silent, he has spoken and revealed himself in history. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.

   Today we see the Lord through the eyes of history, through the accounts of those who saw him. Our distance from the events need not be a hindrance, only the distance of the accounts from the events, and that is, in terms of history, a comparatively short span of only 20 to 60 years at most for the various accounts, today collectively known as the New Testament, the letters of Luke (a physician and meticulous historian in his own right by standards of ancient history), Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, Mark, James and Jude (brothers of Jesus) and outside of that, Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Clement, Polycarp etc.

   Concerning textual criticism of the New Testament documents, see:

   F.F. Bruce, various works. Paul Barnett, various works. Sir Frederic Kenyon, director of the British Museum for 22 years, various works.

   Note that the Wikipedia pages on these subjects are for once a poor source, they suffer from speculation, superstition, tradition, "sainthood", and the old school of form criticism ("Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect." - Kelber, W.H.).

   It is interesting that polemicists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens tend to avoid confronting the historicity of Christ, and Christ himself head on. They refuse to get into the ring, preferring easier prey. It is ironic that the brother of Christopher Hitchens, Peter Hitchens, a renowned journalist, would be an atheist who converted to Christ and has since written on the subject of "the rage against God".

   [1] - "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." - Luke, Luke 1

   [2] - "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." - Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

   [3] - "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. […] But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep." - Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:20

   [4] - "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word [the Logos, light, reason] of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete." - John, 1 John 1

   Show morethread