Replies

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?

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.

Tribune7 is not dismissing Caesar's writings. He is saying that the New Testament by any way you can think of, deserves to be considered historical as much as at least as any other of the ancient writings we call history.

Also BTW - Caesar's writings were intended as propaganda to make himself look good and build popularity.

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.

Well, I wasn't really seeking to dismiss him. The Commentaries are quite historically significant, albeit there is a strong propaganda aspect to them. The point I'm making is that we can be more historically certain that the words in the New Testatment are reliable than we can Caesar's.

is not a process of what written accountis ealiest

Caesar's work was written before the Bible.

but which written account is more reliable and authoritive.

These things are determined by scholarship. The Bible holds up better than any other work of antiquity. I'll provide links to the Kenyon quote and others below.

By your logic then we must take the Sumerian writings on Gods and Godhood as actually fact because it is more ancient.

What we are discussing isn't the religious teachings found in the New Testament but their historical context. By the traditional means of scholarship, the Gospels are exactly what they purport to be.

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

I didn't write that. Sir Frederic Kenyon of the British Museum wrote that. Here is a link to attributing that view to him. And another. And here is a another link with an extenstive quote from Kenyon made during a internet debate over Islam.

Concerning archaeology, it was his research in that field that led an unbelieving William M. Ramsay to become a Christian.