Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Sentis
Ceasar's works are probably much closer to being correct as there are other contemporary accounts of Ceasar's actions.

Caesar's Commentaries was written about 60 BC. The earliest extant copy dates from 900 A.D. The Gospel of John was written about 100 A.D. The earliest extant copy comes from about 130 AD. The Gospel is more historically reliable. :-)

"The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be, in fact, negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the N.T. may be regarded as finally established. To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the N.T. and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the N.T."
--Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum

4,353 posted on 01/10/2003 8:51:57 AM PST by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4315 | View Replies ]


To: Tribune7
tribune 7 wrote "Caesar's Commentaries was written about 60 BC. The earliest extant copy dates from 900 A.D. The Gospel of John was written about 100 A.D. The earliest extant copy comes from about 130 AD. The Gospel is more historically reliable. :-)"

Whatt you forget in your zeal to dismiss ceasar is that he isnt the only Roman writing about the events he witnessed and as such those other accounts support his work. Historic reliabilty
is not a process of what written accountis ealiest but which written account is more reliable and authoritive. By your logic then we must take the Sumerian writings on Gods and Godhood as actually fact because it is more ancient. Sorry that doesnt wash.


Tribune 7 wrote "for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the N.T."

Please prove this wild speculation. There is absolutely no Bibliographical evidence for the new Testament other than a handful of lines written by Flavius. Please name these references?

4,660 posted on 01/12/2003 5:15:35 PM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4353 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson