I understand and appreciate the possiblity of errors and additions creeping into an ancient text. But just for comparison purposes, some observations and a table:
"The great scholar F.F. Bruce in The New Testament Doctrine vividly pictures the comparison between the New Testament and ancient historical writings: "Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the contextual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of t he Roman history of Livy (59 B.C.-A.D. 17) only 35 survive; these are known to us for not more than 20 MSS of any consequence,- only one of which, and that containing only fragments of Books IIIVI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the 14 books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. A.D. 100) only four and a half survive; of the 16 books of his Annals, 10 survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one on the eleventh.
"The extant MSS if his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) and all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The history of Thucydides (c. 460-400 B.C.) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (B.C. 488-428). Yet no classic scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals." 7/16f.
The following is taken from F.W. Hall, "MS Authorities for the Text of the Chief Classical Writers," Companion to Classical Text (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1913).
| AUTHOR | When Written | Earliest Copy | Time Span | No. of Copies |
| Caesar | 100-44 B.C. | 6900 A-D. | 1,000 yrs. | 10 |
| Livy | 59 B.C.-A.D.17 | 20 | ||
| Plato (Tetralogies) | 427-347 B.C. | 900 A-D. | 1,200 yrs. | 7 |
| Tacitus (Annals) | 100 A.D. | 1,100 A.D. | 1,000 yrs. | 20 |
| also minor works | 100 A.D. | 1,100 A.D. | 900 yrs. | 1 |
| Pliny the Younger (History) | 61-113 A.D. | 850 A.D. | 750 yrs. | 7 |
| Thucydides (History) | 460-400 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1,300 yrs. | 8 |
| Suetonius (De Vita Caesarun) | 75-160 A.D. | 950 A.D. | 800 yrs. | 8 |
| Herodotus (History) | 480-425 B.C. | 900 A-D. | 1,300 yrs. | 8 |
| Horace | 900 yrs. | |||
| Sophocles | 496-406 B.C. | 1,000 A.D. | 1,400 yrs. | 100 |
| Lucretius | Died 55 or 53 B.C. | 1,100 yrs. | 2 | |
| Cattillus | 54 B.C. | 1,550 A.D. | 1,600 yrs. | 3 |
| Etiripedes | 480-406 B.C. | 1,100 A.D. | 1,500 yrs. | 9 |
| Demosthenes | 383-322 B.C. | 1,100 A.D. | 1,300 yrs. | 200* |
| Aristotle | 384-322 B.C. | 1,100 A-D. | 1,400 yrs. | 5 + |
| Aristophanes | 450-385 B.C. | 900 A-D. | 1,200 yrs. | 10 |
* All-from one copy.
+ Of any one work.
| Illiad | 500-600 years | 12 copies |
| New Testament | 50-300 years | 14,000 copies and counting |
Writings of Church Fathers
90-150 A.D. - 36,000 quotations covering all but 19 verses of the New Testament
10,000 places of error
9,600 are easily replaceable
350 are insignificant
Of remaining 50, none are in important doctrinal texts
98.33% accuracy"
excerpt from "Evidence that demands a verdict"
My doubts are enhanced by the fact that those spreading the word of these teachings had an agenda of conversion, and knew the claim of a miracle here and there would enhance business.
Yes, they did have an agenda of conversion, but the question is, were they lying in order to increase business, as we see in some of our beloved TV hucksters today? About the only 'enhanced business' I can see most of the early disciples got got was being put to death. They might risk death to spread such a message if they were somehow deceived into believing that Jesus had actually risen from death, but how would that have happened? Did Jesus somehow manage to convince his disciples that he had risen from death when he really hadn't? How could he do that after his execution by the Romans, even if he had wanted to? And if he somehow managed to do so, what does that say about his moral character?
On the other hand, would his disciples knowingly risk death for spreading what they knew was a lie? What would that say about their moral character?
Cordially,
About the only 'enhanced business' I can see most of the early disciples got got was being put to death. They might risk death to spread such a message if they were somehow deceived into believing that Jesus had actually risen from death, but how would that have happened? Did Jesus somehow manage to convince his disciples that he had risen from death when he really hadn't? How could he do that after his execution by the Romans, even if he had wanted to? And if he somehow managed to do so, what does that say about his moral character?It was red, wet ground over which the feet of the saints spread the Gospel and it will be red, wet ground which will finish the Great Commission given to those of us who love Him. The end is in sight and the known number of unreached nations, tongues, tribes and people groups is down to a handful. How long O God!
I'm less concerned with that, or about any of the personal flaws of the messengers, than the truth of what was said as regards those teaching i hold in high regard.
I guess what I mean is that something like the Golden Rule or love thy neighbor doesn't require the backing of a perfect or supernatural moral authority for me to recognize it as a good thing. I'm already sold on that. My own reason and judgement tells me that, just as it rejects certain elements of that same Sermon on the Mount as incompatible with my concept of morality.
I can't accept the miraculous claims because I see no convincing evidence to suspend my acceptance of natural, objective reality. But whether the claims of miracles were invented or added here or there, or for what reason, or by whom, is less important to me than the good of the message.
After all, I don't (and neither do you) believe for one minute the idea that Buddha ascended into a higher plane because of his Enlightenment, but there are many things in Buddhist teachings we both regard as true and good. I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that Mohammed was the spokesman for any god, but here and there in the Qu'ran are self-evident and good truths.
That's where I'm coming from on this. Hope that wasn't too wordy. Just trying to be clear.