Hi Johnny,

In your last Post you quote Moreland and then comment as follows:

Moreland: The bibliographical test seeks 1) to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and 2) how far removed they are in time from the originals.

Johnny: Regarding the first item, there is no logical correlation that can be made between copies of manuscripts and their truthfulness.

The purpose of the bibliographical test is not to test the accuracy of the data in the documents, but rather to help us see if we have essentially what was written in the original. The number of documents and the closeness of the first copies to the autograph play a vital role in this process. This is called lower criticism or textual criticism and is done with every ancient work that is extant. Some works are better attested to than others. When we compare other ancient histories and writings to the NT, we find that the NT is better attested to than any other work in the ancient world. Because of this we are able to put together a more accurate copy of the original NT than we can with any other work of the period.

You wrote:

Regarding the second item, even if the manuscript copies are not removed very far in time from the originals, since we don’t have the originals, we can’t be reasonably certain what they said.

Actually, textual critics are rather certain that we have 99.5% of what was originally written. But, let’s run with your hypothesis for a moment. You saw the chart Moreland cites. If we cannot be sure about the content of the NT, then where does that leave us with those other works with far less and poorer attestation? Indeed if we must reject the NT with all it’s early manuscript attestation, we must likewise reject all the histories with their late and sparse attestation. In other words, if we reject the NT on your basis, we must also reject all the history of the ancient world. 

But there is something else going on here. You picked the criteria that we are using. Now you seem to be attacking it. If you didn’t like these criteria, why pick them. Once again I invite you to pick a set of tests that you do like. I only require that they follow the guidelines we previously discussed.

Regards,

Brady

Round 7 - From Johnny

Hi Brady

In your last post you quote the following from my post:

Moreland: The bibliographical test seeks 1) to determine how many manuscript copies we have of the document and 2) how far removed they are in time from the originals.

Johnny: Regarding the first item, there is no logical correlation that can be made between copies of manuscripts and their truthfulness.

Then you respond:

The purpose of the bibliographical test is not to test the accuracy of the data in the documents, but rather to help us see if we have essentially what was written in the original. When we compare other ancient histories and writings to the NT, we find that the NT is better attested to than any other work in the ancient world. Because of this we are able to put together a more accurate copy of the original NT than we can with any other work of the period.

Even if we had the originals perfectly preserved in our possession, there would be at least one major question for us to consider: What would have been the best evidence possible that initially, New Testament claims of miracles, including the physical resurrection Jesus, were true? The answer is, a substantial reasonably provable positive aftermath. Such an aftermath cannot be reasonably proven. Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, wrote a book titled ‘The Rise of Christianity.’ Among other things, Stark estimated the size of the early Christian Church in various stages of its growth. He estimated that the Christian Church in 100 A.D. consisted of 7,530 believers, a number less than the size of four good sized U.S. high schools. That is a much smaller number than Christian estimates, estimates that to my knowledge are not based upon credible scientific and/or historical research.

Brady wrote:

But there is something else going on here. You picked the criteria that we are using. Now you seem to be attacking it. If you didn’t like these criteria, why pick them. Once again I invite you to pick a set of tests that you do like. I only require that they follow the guidelines we previously discussed.

 I don’t at all object to Moreland picking his own criteria. All I am doing is disagreeing with his conclusions that are based upon those criteria. I think that his criteria are logical, but he did not successfully use them to make a convincing case for the New Testament.

I see nothing wrong with the approach that we are currently using. I am simply disagreeing with Moreland just as I would if I were having a live debate with him or any other conservative Christian. Regarding “If you didn’t like these criteria, why pick them? Once again I invite you to pick a set of tests that you do like,” how many tests do we need? In my opinion, Rodney Stark’s ‘The Rise of Christianity’ is the very best argument that skeptics can use against Christians. If it is reasonably possible that only a few people initially believed Gospel claims of miracles, including claims of the physical resurrection of Jesus, then logic would suggest that maybe those claimed miracles did not occur and were not initially considered believable by very many people.

Here is an excerpt from my essay at www.askepticalapproach.com: Adding further weight to Ms. Pagel's writings on the growth of the early Christian church is a book written by Karen L. King. Ms. King is the Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Harvard Divinity school. She is the author of a new book titled 'What Is Gnosticism?' (Harvard University Press, 2003), which offers a provocative look at Christianity during its formative centuries and the heterogeneous array of groups, doctrines, and beliefs that all claimed to be inspired in some way by Jesus. In an excerpt from Ms. King's book, she says, "At the beginning, each of these groups claimed to represent the true Christianity, although they disagreed over the basic issues. It wasn't until later that one group succeeded in labeling the others as heretics and driving them out of the fold." So you see, as Ms. King said,  there were other versions of the life and resurrection of Jesus that directly contradicted the Gospel claims. In addition, some opposing versions claimed a spiritual resurrection of Jesus rather that a physical resurrection.

The New Testament Canon was simply a matter of the Roman Catholic Church deciding by vote what ought to be considered Scripture. They destroyed as many competing documents as they could, and they were almost successful. However, in the 1950’s, very important discoveries were made in Nag Hammadi in the Middle East. Today, those discoveries are kept in the Nag Hammadi library. I mentioned those discoveries in my essay in the topic titled ‘The Growth of the Christian Church.’

Why should ordinary letters written by Peter to various churches have been added to the New Testament Canon?

Sincerely,