Claims about the NT

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

"The Gospels "were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus' death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." They are not disinterested accounts of what "really" happened, an impartial record of an infallible oral tradition. The anonymous authors were often biased "in light of their own theological understandings". Nor are the Gospels independent - "Mark was used as a source for Matthew and Luke" - and for many of the stories about Jesus there is no "corroboration without collaboration". And yet they are still "widely inconsistent, with discrepancies filling their pages, both contradictions in details and divergent large-scale understandings of who Jesus was."

Bart D. Ehrman, Biblical scholar, and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Professor Ehrman makes several claims:

1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history)

4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.

Are these claims true to your understanding? Just curious what your take on this quote may be.

Regards,

UF

[Trusting Jesus]

I wonder how Mr. Ehrman can call himself a Biblical scholar. He certainly does not have his "facts" right.

<>< ><>

Nathele

[nebula]

1) Gospels were written 35-65 years after Jesus' death

Perhaps, but there is no saying that the sermons of Jesus had not been recorded by His disciples, is there?

2) by people who did not know Jesus, did not see anything he did or hear anything he taught. (by deduction, could not be eyewitnesses)

Matthew - one of Jesus' 12 Apostles

Mark - tradition has it that he was under the Apostle Peter's tutalage when he wrote the Gospel; thus Mark's account would be Peter's.

Luke - collected his work from primary sources

John - another one of the 12 Apostles

Don't know where the above claim comes from?

3) They are not disinterested accounts of what really happened. (implying that the writers had an agenda beyond recording history)

Is it possible for religious writings to not have an agenda?

Of course, the Gospels were written to testify of Jesus.

Luke 1

1 Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled F1 among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

1 John 1

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life-- 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. [one can assume he wrote his Gospel message for this reason]

4) Gospels are not independent, Mark was used as source for Matthew and Luke.

Why re-invent the wheel?

I can imagine it was easier for Matthew and Luke to us Mark as a base-source and add in their own memories or research. This would explain the variations found between them - Matthew's memory was different from Peter's (isn't that true to life?) and Luke's research from several eye witnesses gave him a different picture as well.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

I wonder how Mr. Ehrman can call himself a Biblical scholar. He certainly does not have his "facts" right.

<>< ><>

Nathele

Dear Nathele,

Thank you for your comment to my question. From my understanding Professor Erhman has the following credentials:

DEGREES AND HONORS

Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary (magna cum laude), 1985

M.Div. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1981

B.A. Wheaton College, Illinois (magna cum laude), 1978

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Religious Studies.

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear nebula,

Thank you for your responses above to my questions.

Matthew - one of Jesus' 12 Apostles

Mark - tradition has it that he was under the Apostle Peter's tutalage when he wrote the Gospel; thus Mark's account would be Peter's.

Luke - collected his work from primary sources

John - another one of the 12 Apostles

Don't know where the above claim comes from?

Mark's writings (assuming they are directly from Mark) are not first-hand accounts. Mark cannot have been an eyewitness to events that he wrote about.

You even admitted that Luke is also not a first-hand, primary account, if he "collected his work from primary sources."

My question then is, which of the books in the NT are primary, first-hand accounts, and which are not?

Why re-invent the wheel?

I can imagine it was easier for Matthew and Luke to us Mark as a base-source and add in their own memories or research. This would explain the variations found between them - Matthew's memory was different from Peter's (isn't that true to life?) and Luke's research from several eye witnesses gave him a different picture as well.

Why re-invent the wheel indeed. As long as we can be honest about labeling what is first-hand primary accounts and what are really reproductions of "the wheel", and not consider the latter as "independent" sources.

Regards,

UF

[pokemaughan]

Yes, Mr. Ehrman is quite the comedian. Here is a little essay I wrote on the issue, if it's any consolation:

Keep in mind this is a very informal essay/letter and I'm by no means a biblical scholar (yet)- but the information is relevant and should be heard whether you're a Christian or not. The information comes from James White (Alpha and Omega Apologetic Ministries), Dr. Bob Martin (Reasons to Believe class at Faith), Bart Ehrman (atheist skeptic), and whatever research these three gentleman have put forth.

If you seek truth, look no further than the Bible, m'friends.

Revelations 3:20 (Jesus speaking) 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.'

Psalms 12:6 'And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.'

Mark 13:31 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.'

Isaiah 40:8 'The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.'

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

by pokemaughan

Thank you Dr. Martin and James White for your diligent research on God's faithfulness in preserving His Word

The commonly accepted view of the Christian's New Testament is that it is under at least one of these categories:

1. It was written too far after the actual events to be reliable

2. It has been altered or changed in some way, and thus is not reliable

3. All we have is copies of copies of copies (and so on), so therefore it is probably unreliable

4. It is a work of fiction created by some drunk monks who wanted power

Unfortunately, this is widely accepted on little basis in fact because of partial bias against the belief in Christianity. I'm writing this to give factual reasons as to why these views on the NT are not only false, but absolutely ridiculous when put under the light of real, tangible, evidence.

According to studies by textual critics of the New Testament, there are 400,000 variants in the manuscripts and copies we have today. “This is 3 variants per word!” they'll say. And they're right- with these numbers. But what kind of 'variants' are we talking about? Let me give you an example of what 99% of these 'variants' and 'errors' are-

YOU HAVE WON ONE MILLION DOLLARS!

YOU HAV WONE ONE MILLION DOLLARS

YOU HAVE WON ONE MILLION DOLLAS.

YOU HAVE WON ONE-MILLION DOLERS!

99% of these 'errors' are no more than mistakes in spelling, grammar, and word order. Tell me, can you still understand what is being said by the above example?

So after this 99%, we're left with 4,000 (1% of the 400,000) meaningful variants. This is 2.9% of the 138,162 words in the Greek NT. This is one meaningful variant every 3 pages. But here's an even bigger point- the amount of manuscripts is very important to the credibility of any given ancient text. If we only had one, the Christian faith wouldn't be well-founded, would it? But if we have many, many manuscripts, all saying the same basic things, there's a much larger base for belief. We currently have roughly 5700 catalogued Greek NT manuscripts, the average of which contains 200 pages. This is approximately 1.2 million HAND-WRITTEN and copied pages of text. 4,000 meaningful variants in 1.2 million pages? Doesn't seem so crazy as the critics want it to seem. This is a period of 1500 years of copying, with only 4,000 variants. On top of that, we've got over 15,000 translations of the NT into Coptic, Latin, and various other languages, coupled with quotations in letters from early church fathers that ALL confirm the Gospel. On top of THAT, there are many secular sources outside of the NT that confirm this 'Jesus' person and the events that happened in his life.

So what about these meaningful variants? One common example is scribal error. These are the kinds of errors we still make to today. To put it into perspective, even today to copy an entire book perfectly, by hand, is implausible. Our minds naturally tend to wander from fatigue and the monotony of repetition. This results is words and phrases sometimes being forgotten, suffixes and prefixes being mixed, and sometimes even entire trains of thought being jumbled. And this is in the comfort of our air-conditioned homes with nice pens that don't require dipping, and paper that is very smooth and easy to write on. These scribes, often untrained, were tasked with the duty of copying entire books of Greek under candlelight or daylight, oftentimes risking their lives just to copy the text. Christians of the NT also were not rich by any means- they were in fact quite poor. They had to write on papyrus instead of smoother, more efficient velum. Keep in mind now that papyrus is not much more than a leaf- meaning it has veins and various formations on its surfaces that could be very difficult to write on! Imagine trying to write careful, accurate, precise symbols on a piece of leather, with all it's veins and grain. Simple Greek symbols that could alter words entirely, some even as simple as a dash above a letter, could not be properly written due to these veins. And yet another thing to consider is the fact that these manuscripts they were copying were written in uncial text; that is, all capital-letters with NO SPACES IN BETWEEN. Here's an example of how tedious this could be:

GODISNOWHERE

This uncial phrase could be rendered GOD IS NOW HERE, or GOD IS NOWHERE!

Now, concerning the manuscripts themselves- the majority of the NT Greek manuscripts originate from after 1000 AD. These are called the Majority Text. The remaining earlier manuscripts are called the Papyri Texts. The earliest text we have is a fragment of a manuscript written in 125 AD; Papyri Manuscript p52, containing verses from the Gospel of John. Papyri Manuscript p72 is dated to 200 AD, containing 1st Peter, Jude, and 2nd Peter. Keep in mind that these are very conservative dates; some would push them even earlier. Manuscript p75, a copy of the Gospels of Luke and John, was written between 175 and 225 AD. Manuscript p66, containing Paul's letters, is dated around 200 AD. This puts the earliest surviving manuscript within 200 years, most likely earlier, of the actual events of Christ! The actual Gospels would have been written between 60 to 80 years after the actual events. To compare, most ancient manuscripts of other works of antiquity were written at least 900 years after the originals, and had NOWHERE near the amount of manuscripts the NT has. To say that we can't know what the NT originally said is to throw out every major ancient document before Gutenberg and printing!

This of course brings the thought in your mind, 'Wow, that's a long time. I doubt the written story is similar to what actually happened.' Well here's another thing you need to consider- at the time of Christ, people of the day were not dependent on technology and convenience like we are today. Memory was a weapon that was sharpened as soon as a child was brought up. Everything had to memorized, because most were illiterate! These NT peoples, the Jews in particular, had amazing capacity for memory. A Pharisee, for example, was raised to memorize the Torah in its entirety! This is the Old Testament books of Moses. The actual events were not recorded until at least 30-100 years after the ministry of Christ. Now to address the idea, that in this period of time myth and legend were inserted at whim- there simply was not enough time for myth to form! Myth needs many generations and separation from the original testimonies to flourish. And should have someone started teaching things contrary to what was originally seen, they would have been corrected by the witnesses themselves! The NT claims that there were at least 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Christ and thousands more that witnessed his ministry while still on earth- and this doesn't even count the thousands and thousands more that were taught the Gospel afterwards. If anyone DARED to put their own 'spin' on it, they would have been corrected right off the bat. I want to give you a small example to the reliability of memory-

When I was around 6, I vividly remember riding my bike down a dirt road hill, flipping over, and getting a pebble stuck in my forehead. I remember my brothers, Aaron and J.D., laughing at me. I remember screaming and running home. I remember blood gushing out of my head after my mother grabbed a rag and pulled the rock out. I vividly remember asking, “Am I gonna die?” I remember getting the stitches, and I remember the day my parents said it was time to get rid of them. The reason this memory stuck was because of the influential nature of the experience- it had a large impact in my life at the time. Keep in mind that my memory is nowhere near as polished as a man of the NT era. I could ask my brothers and my parents to record the account of the 'Gospel of the Pebble', so to speak, and they would come to the same conclusions concerning facts. They may have a different perspective, notice different things, focus on different things, but we would all ultimately agree. The Gospels of the NT are strangely similar! If these copyists and scribes applied even half of their capacity for memory on the reiteration of the Gospels, it's reasonable to believe that they were transmitted correctly.

Now concerning the Biblical canon and Constantine- for Constantine to somehow not only silence every believer that had heard the un-altered truth and simultaneously alter the NT Gospels to his own desire for power is laughable. This is something that we couldn't even accomplish today! This require him to find EVERY manuscript and change them to his will. This is power that not a single person has ever had, nonetheless Constantine! Not only this, but there wasn't even a centralized system to direct this kind of movement. Christians of the time were lower-class citizens under persecution by Rome. This, and considering the dates of the 124 Papyri Texts that were written BEFORE Constantine and the Council at Nicaea, there should be at least some evidence of alteration or controversy on what we have now, right? This is not so! Again, according to textual critics, what we have is 99.5% pure in transmission compared with the oldest manuscripts. So what is it that holds people back? Unbelief in the promise that God would preserve His Word!!

To summarize-

The NT is 95%+ accurate when compared to our oldest manuscripts, even those before Constantine.

The NT is the most thoroughly documented work of antiquity.

The NT was spread very quickly to many regions, and there was no controlling authority that successfully altered it. (any alterations would stick out like a SORE THUMB when compared to our ancient manuscripts)

This is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. You haven't even entered the world of prophecies of the Old Testament and other confirmations of the Gospels of Christ.

[EricH]

Mark's writings (assuming they are directly from Mark) are not first-hand accounts. Mark cannot have been an eyewitness to events that he wrote about.

Why could he not have been an eyewitness?

[nebula]

Matthew - one of Jesus' 12 Apostles

Mark - tradition has it that he was under the Apostle Peter's tutalage when he wrote the Gospel; thus Mark's account would be Peter's.

Luke - collected his work from primary sources

John - another one of the 12 Apostles

Don't know where the above claim comes from?

Mark's writings (assuming they are directly from Mark) are not first-hand accounts. Mark cannot have been an eyewitness to events that he wrote about.

But what if he was recording Peter's (firsthand) accounts?

You even admitted that Luke is also not a first-hand, primary account, if he "collected his work from primary sources."

That's what Luke said he did. Is there a problem with that?

My question then is, which of the books in the NT are primary, first-hand accounts, and which are not?

Did you not read what I said about Matthew and John?

Why re-invent the wheel indeed. As long as we can be honest about labeling what is first-hand primary accounts and what are really reproductions of "the wheel", and not consider the latter as "independent" sources.

Who is being dishonest?

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You don't have to accept them if you dislike them.

To summarize-

The NT is 95%+ accurate when compared to our oldest manuscripts, even those before Constantine.

The NT is the most thoroughly documented work of antiquity.

The NT was spread very quickly to many regions, and there was no controlling authority that successfully altered it. (any alterations would stick out like a SORE THUMB when compared to our ancient manuscripts)

This is only the tip of the iceberg, my friends. You haven't even entered the world of prophecies of the Old Testament and other confirmations of the Gospels of Christ.

Dear pokemaughan,

Thank you for your response to my posting. I appreciate the detail you provided. I am not concerned with the number of errors that do not detract from the meaning of the books (i.e. spelling, word rearrangement if meaning is not altered, etc.). I am more concerned with errors that do change the meaning of the original authors. Professor Erhman mentioned several in his Heyns lecture series. From what I have been able to gather, one of these was:

John 7 and 8 which mention the parable of the woman caught in adultery and her potential stoning. According to Professor Erhman, this parable did not exist in earlier greek versions of John. And no greek manuscript or commentary mentions this story until the 10th century. Furthermore, the writing style of this parable he claims, is very different from the writing style of the rest of the gospel of John. Additionally, and this bothered me most of all, was that he claimed that most biblical scholars know this and accept that this story was not part of the original gospel according to John.

Thanks in advance for providing your perspective on this.

Regards,

UF

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Mark's writings (assuming they are directly from Mark) are not first-hand accounts. Mark cannot have been an eyewitness to events that he wrote about.

Why could he not have been an eyewitness?

Dear EricH,

Thanks for your question. I shall attempt to answer:

If Mark was writing down the accounts of Peter, Mark was not writing from his own (first-hand, primary) account. Hence, Mark could not be the eyewitness. Peter would be the alleged eyewitness.

Example: You claim you saw an accident on 5th and Main. You tell me the story. I write what you tell me down on paper. I am not the eyewitness of the accident. You are the alleged eyewitness.

Hopefully I have clarified?

Regards,

UF