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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments to shiloh357.

could you provide me a contemporaneous (at the same time) source that confirms the existence of Alexander the Great?

Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that Alex is god, or that I have to worship Alex as my lord and savior otherwise I will burn in hell. So, it is of little consequence whether Alex can be proved to have existed or not.

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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

I was not refering to if Jesus is the Son of God or not argument, I was speaking of the original idea of this thread. If Jesus existed or not is totally different argument than if he is the Son of God or not. I thought you were talking about if he existed, it seems now you want to change the topic.

Let me ask you this, do you believe that Alexander the Great existed?

You are mistaken. The original idea of this post (and I should know, since I am the OP) was to seek comments from what Professor Ehrman claimed about the NT, and an example of a possible wholesale error that is present in the current John 7 and 8 in the pericope adulterae.

How this OP topic veered off into the existence of Alex is an interesting psych question. However, it is irrelevant.

Alex may have existed, and he may not have existed. My understanding is that there are only fragments of contemporaneous (at the same time) sources that mention him. These fragments, however, are indeed primary sources from those who claim to have witnessed his existence. What we do know is that there were some great campaigns fought under his name, of which we have numerous primary sources. But these sources will not do to confirm Alex's existence, just the existence of the campaigns.

If you have any comments that address the OP, I would be glad to hear them.

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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

in regards to the OP, if you applied the standard that Professor Ehrman wants to apply to the NT, then we would have to discount the vast majority of the historical figures and knowledge from before the 1700's.

I dont think you are willing to do that.

If you were to be honest you would have to admit you have never questioned the existence of Alexander the Great and yet the contemporaneous writings about him are no more than that of Jesus.

You are mistaken. The standard Professor Ehrman uses to apply to the NT is the NT itself. Professor Ehrman claims several things in his book (see OP). The example he uses to claim that the NT has been tampered with is the pericope adulterae (the parable of the woman about to be stoned for being caught in adultery) being present in the Western type text and not present in the older Alexandrian type text.

Professor Ehrman makes no mention or argument of the existence of anyone.

I think you need to rethink your position.

The contemporaneous writings about Alex are more than that of Jesus. We have fragments from primary contemporaneous sources for Alex. We have no such fragments for Jesus.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

What is getting overlooked is that Jesus' popularity was fairly local. Jesus did not leave the boundaries of Israel and even at that most of his ministry was in the Galilean region. Jesus was not known world over and even those in the Roman Empire that knew much of Him were the enlisted men and their immediate commanders.

So it is not surprising that we don't have volumes and volumes written about Him outside the gospels. That fact does not provide for any case against the historicity of Jesus.

We have less documentation that Plato was a real person. We have NO contemporaneous evidence of the existence of Plato and only 7 ancient manuscripts of his teachings exist and there is 1,200 year gap between the earliest platonic manuscripts and the time Plato is alleged to have existed, yet the historicity of Plato existence AND the accuracy of those documents are not challenged at least not publically.

The New Testament alone has over 25,000 ancient manuscripts and the earliest date to within 50 years of the aposltes and the original manuscriopts. Even though we do not have the original manuscripts, the wealth of manuscripts we do possess and the astounding near word for word agreement allows scholars to reconstruct the originals.

No other ancient manuscript enjoys the same degree of attestation as does the Bible. The NT is quoted so much by ancient extrabiblical writers of the first and second century, that even of the actual copies of the NT were lost, we could still reconstruct the entire NT based on the extrabiblical material available.

I would also point out that there are no genuine ancient historians who claim that Jesus never existed. They may not have believed the claims HE made or the claims made about Him, but the historicity of Jesus remains unchallenged.

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments.

Professor Ehrman makes no mention or argument of the existence of anyone.

no, but you did.

I think you need to rethink your position.

I have, that is why I went from being one that didnt belive that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Bible was the Word of God to being one that does.

The OP asked what your opinions were of Professor Ehrman's claims about the NT. You mistakenly misunderstood what I commented to someone else's question as being Professor Ehrman's position. I am not interested in your mistake. I am interested in what your opinion is of Professor Ehrman's claims.

The contemporaneous writings about Alex are more than that of Jesus. We have fragments from primary contemporaneous sources for Alex. We have no such fragments for Jesus.

1) How long after his life/death were these "fragments" written?

2) Were they written by people how really knew him?

3) were they written by disinterested parties?

4) Are they independent fragments?

To answer your questions:

1) These Alex fragments were written during the life of Alex. They were Alex's contemporaries, and knew Alex.

2) Yes. Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman

3) No, these are not disinterested parties, and would probably paint Alex in a favorable light.

4) Unknown. The above sources may have collaborated to create an Alex, that did not in reality, exist.

From Wiki:

There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin texts about Alexander, as well as some non-Greek texts. The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[2] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[2] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[2] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[2]

The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin.[2]

Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus and Nearchus. It is considered generally the most trustworthy source.

Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy;

Life of Alexander (see Parallel Lives) and two orations On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great (see Moralia), by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea in the second century, based largely on Aristobulus and especially Cleitarchus.

Bibliotheca historia (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Timagenes's work. The books immediately before and after, on Philip and Alexander's "Successors," throw light on Alexander's reign.

The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justin, is highly compressed version of an earlier history by Pompeius, with the selections governed by Justin's desire to make moralistic points, rather than with an eye for the history itself.[2]

In addition to these five main sources some scholars, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India, and much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others.

Regards,

UF

[Guest shiloh357]

The contemporaneous writings about Alex are more than that of Jesus. We have fragments from primary contemporaneous sources for Alex. We have no such fragments for Jesus.

1) How long after his life/death were these "fragments" written?

2) Were they written by people how really knew him?

3) were they written by disinterested parties?

4) Are they independent fragments?

To answer your questions:

1) These Alex fragments were written during the life of Alex. They were Alex's contemporaries, and knew Alex.

2) Yes. Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman

3) No, these are not disinterested parties, and would probably paint Alex in a favorable light.

4) Unknown. The above sources may have collaborated to create an Alex, that did not in reality, exist.

From Wiki:

There are numerous surviving ancient Greek and Latin texts about Alexander, as well as some non-Greek texts. The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments.[2] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman.[2] Finally, there is the very influential account of Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published.[2] His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources.[2]

The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin.[2]

Anabasis Alexandri (The Campaigns of Alexander in Greek) by the Greek historian Arrian of Nicomedia, writing in the 2nd century AD, and based largely on Ptolemy and, to a lesser extent, Aristobulus and Nearchus. It is considered generally the most trustworthy source.

Historiae Alexandri Magni, a biography of Alexander in ten books, of which the last eight survive, by the Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus, written in the 1st century AD, and based largely on Cleitarchus through the mediation of Timagenes, with some material probably from Ptolemy;

Life of Alexander (see Parallel Lives) and two orations On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander the Great (see Moralia), by the Greek historian and biographer Plutarch of Chaeronea in the second century, based largely on Aristobulus and especially Cleitarchus.

Bibliotheca historia (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Timagenes's work. The books immediately before and after, on Philip and Alexander's "Successors," throw light on Alexander's reign.

The Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus by Justin, is highly compressed version of an earlier history by Pompeius, with the selections governed by Justin's desire to make moralistic points, rather than with an eye for the history itself.[2]

In addition to these five main sources some scholars, there is the Metz Epitome, an anonymous late Latin work that narrates Alexander's campaigns from Hyrcania to India, and much is also recounted incidentally by other authors, including Strabo, Athenaeus, Polyaenus, Aelian, and others.

Interesting. The fact that at least two gospels were directly written by people who knew Jesus, is seen as liability due to their lack of bias, but this doesn't appear to be a problem for the writings pertaining to alexander the great by those who knew him personally.

The manuscripts you provide from Wiki have a far greater margin for error given they are fewer in number of actual manuscripts and have a far greaeter gap of time in between them and the actually time that Alexander lived.

I find it rather conspicuous that the claims against Jesus tend to center around the alleged lateness of the compliation of the gospels, but when compared to ancient manuscripts, the gaps are usually well over 1,000 years, but no one challenges the historicity of the person being written about, nor does anyone challenge the accuracy of the transimission of these documents.

[UndecidedFrog]

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

Dear shiloh357,

Thank you for your response to my comments to RunningGator.

Interesting. The fact that at least two gospels were directly written by people who knew Jesus, is seen as liability due to their lack of bias, but this doesn't appear to be a problem for the writings pertaining to alexander the great by those who knew him personally.

The manuscripts you provide from Wiki have a far greater margin for error given they are fewer in number of actual manuscripts and have a far greaeter gap of time in between them and the actually time that Alexander lived.

I find it rather conspicuous that the claims against Jesus tend to center around the alleged lateness of the compliation of the gospels, but when compared to ancient manuscripts, the gaps are usually well over 1,000 years, but no one challenges the historicity of the person being written about, nor does anyone challenge the accuracy of the transimission of these documents.

You are mistaken. None of the gospels we have are autographs (originals). The earliest versions of them date to 2nd-3rd century. The point of the OP was Professor Ehrman's claim that the gospels have been tampered with significantly. Professor Ehrman uses the various papyri and codexes of the NT to verifiy that indeed the pericope adulterae was not present in the Alexandrian type text, whereas it is present in the later versions of the Western type text. The questions remains, was the pericope adulterae part of the original gospel of John or not?

You are also mistaken it you think I accept the fragments written by primary sources for Alex's existence and deeds. The colleagues of Alex may indeed have exaggerated Alex's accomplishments. These primary sources are not disinterested sources. I look at them with the same skeptical eye as I look at the one gospel (John) that is alleged to be from a primary non-disinterested source. Mark appears to be a conflated source that mixes Peter with Mark. Matthew appears to be derived from Mark, making it a non-primary source. Luke appears not to be a primary source. With Professor Ehrman's claims, there is now some doubt whether the gospel according to John is the original version.

The manuscripts about Alex's campaigns do make claims that Alex made war against a certain people. That claim needs to be tested and verified by corresponding documents written at the time, by disinterested people, who witnessed it first hand. It does not take very much documentation to believe that someone (whether it be Alex or someone else) made war against others. However, if we are to compare such a mundane claim (of making war against others) with a claim that someone resurrected himself, I think the latter will need much greater and precise documentation. Yes, as the claims are different, the level of evidence to support the claims must be different, if they are to be believed.

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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments

I gave you my opinion of Professor Ehrman's claims about 7 pages ago. Basically it is a "so what"/

So am I to understand that you don't have an opinion on Professor Ehrman's claims. OK. Thanks for sharing.

can you prove these were the ones that wrote the "fragments"? how many words are on these "fragments"?

If you are interested, I suggest you read up on the scholarship and research made on these fragments. A good place to start would be the references listed in the Wiki page from which I quoted.

So then you are saying that Jesus and Alexander the Great have the same historical viablity?

No, I am not saying that. I have not done the research into the fragments of primary sources for either character. However, I am reading up on the work that Professor Ehrman has done. It is very interesting. However, I know you don't really care about that, as you have no opinion on his claims.

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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments

I would also point out that there are no genuine ancient historians who claim that Jesus never existed. They may not have believed the claims HE made or the claims made about Him, but the historicity of Jesus remains unchallenged.

I think the Frog missed this part.

Sorry, I did indeed miss that part. I could also point out to you similarly that no genuine current historians claim that the flying spaghetti monster never existed. It does not prove that the flying spaghetti monster then must exist, does it?

Usually, historians (of whatever age) only respond to written work. As the gospels and other books of the bible were not cannonized and accepted by the church until centuries after the alleged events, I doubt any historians would have had a chance before that time.

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.

Dear RunningGator,

Thank you for your response to my comments

So am I to understand that you don't have an opinion on Professor Ehrman's claims. OK. Thanks for sharing.

For the 2nd time, I have given my opinion on Professor Ehrman's claims about 6 or 7 pages back. My opinion on Professor Ehrman's claims is that they dont amount to a hill of beans. His arguments are weak and dont hold water. The big "four" that you listed could be used against every historical figure that lived more than 1000 years or so ago.

I have seen him in a number of debates about his work and he can not hold up to hard questions.

I am not surprised you latch on to his work, it supports your beliefs very well so it is only natural that you would hold to it.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion on Professor Ehrman's claims. Professor Ehrman also put forth a concrete example on the pericope adulterae. Specifically, that it was a later insertion into the gospel of John, and was not original. What do you think of that claim?

Contrary to what you may think, I am open to all work. I am open to all evidence. Thanks for your concern.

Regards,

UF