Featured Jesus died on cross in 33 AD, first book of the New Testament was Galatians written as early as 48 AD.

[AgnosticBoy]

Some scholars argue that 30 AD is a better date for Jesus’ crucifixion than is the more traditional date of 33 AD.

So, 15 years between the event and the first surviving writing.

I think your point is anachronistic in that it applies modern-day standards and expectations to a much different time period.

The world back then was largely illiterate. That alone would be reason to not expect many writings about extraordinary events such as the resurrection. I'm sure had the population back then had enough writing material and knowledge, this would've been documented by many.

As for the timing gap between the event and when it's written, I think some of that involves how and why the New Testament were written. It seems that the interests of the writers weren't solely devoted to documenting facts, but also serving other purposes like teaching, developing a theology, trying to convince/encourage the community, etc. I bet that if they were just concerned on reporting on just the facts alone without any other purpose than those books could've been finished in a matter of months. Perhaps some didn't even think about documenting Jesus's life and teachings beyond oral tradition until much later on.

Surviving early complete and partial manuscripts include:

• Papyrus 46 (~AD 200)
• Codex Vaticanus (325-350)
• Codex Sinaiticus (330-360)

— — —

Now, this is a problem. Maybe we have even smaller and less complete papyrus pieces earlier than 200 AD. But this is an issue.

We don't have the originals, but we know they existed before 200AD because the early Church Fathers quoted from them during the 2nd century. And of course, these writings would've had to have existed before the Church Fathers wrote about them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why? Why is that a problem for you? The followers of Jesus expected Him to return during their lifetime. Notice how Paul thought he would be alive: 1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Personally, I believe it was only when it became clear that Jesus might not return while they were alive that the writers of the Gospels and Acts put pen the paper. Now, the Pauline Epistles were written to encourage and correct members of the various churches. They were not written to record history. Also remember that 2000 years ago most people were illiterate, so written accounts were less valuable than oral accounts.

Let me ask you this, do you also have a problem with other writings from antiquity? For instance, while there are over 6000 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts of the New Testament which, as you pointed out date from within 60 years or so, the earliest copy we have from Julius Caesar's "The Galic Wars" is 800-900 years after the original. And there are only around 250 copies. Here's a link that shows several other manuscripts and how few exist today and how distant they are from the originals: https://www.equip.org/articles/the-bibliographical-test-updated/

So, if you have problems with the Biblical manuscript evidence, you must have some major issues with other ancient writings. Why haven't you started a thread about the pitiful evidence for The Galic Wars?

Excellent post!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

while there are over 6000 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts of the New Testament which,

But how many of these are at all close to the events? For example,

• Papyrus 46 (~AD 200)

That's a lot of living and generations from events which occurred around 30 AD.

Eventhough it was common for things to be written about much later from the time it occurred but we do have to consider reliability. As you mentioned, legend and just plain memory problems can creep in. But another aspect to consider is that information transmitted by word of mouth today was not like it was back then. Now we don't rely on that type of communication as much when it comes to important matters so we don't put much stock into it. But back then, I would imagine that they would've been more careful with oral tradition since that was relied on more than writing. Of course oral tradition is not perfect but I don't believe we should think of ancient oral history the same way we would think about orally transmitted information today.

In the end, sometimes it's all we got. So by historical standards, oral tradition that's later written down is generally accepted by historians.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

But back then, I would imagine that they would've been more careful with oral tradition since that was relied on more than writing.

It gets tricky.

I remember reading I think about Rome that history was written for moral uplift. Meaning, they cooked the books and made the person less human and more "perfect." I personally don't find this kind of writing all that “uplifting.”

And about ancient Israel circa 50 AD, I just don't know. For me, there's a big range of uncertainity

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

And please notice, most skeptics will say 40 yrs. From 30 AD to 70 AD.

This 70 AD is the early estimate for the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

What the skeptics as well as many Christians overlook or don't know, is that most of the letters of Paul were written first.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

And please notice, most skeptics will say 40 yrs. From 30 AD to 70 AD.

This 70 AD is the early estimate for the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest gospel.

What the skeptics as well as many Christians overlook or don't know, is that most of the letters of Paul were written first.

And about ancient Israel circa 50 AD, I just don't know. For me, there's a big range of uncertainity

In my view, the creeds in the Bible are like a formalized form of oral tradition. One of the earliest creeds which even some of the skeptics like Dr. Richard Carrier accepts, is the Pre-Pauline creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

The Letter to the Corinthians dates to a little after ~50 AD. And here Paul says he "received" this creed which means it was already in existence before his writing of it. For it to be so formalized would've probably taken time. I wouldn't say that happened months after Jesus's death but more like years, probably after the faith started getting organized and established.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

The world back then was largely illiterate. That alone would be reason to not expect many writings about extraordinary events such as the resurrection.

I think I’m starting to understand how you and I might view things differently.

I think you take the view that we accept details on certain battles involving Julius Caesar based on much later writings, and we should do the same with the Resurrection.

Whereas I'm saying, the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence needs to be.

 

[Scooter]

I think you take the view that we accept details on certain battles involving Julius Caesar based on much later writings, and we should do the same with the Resurrection.

Whereas I'm saying, the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence needs to be.

The NT has over six thousand manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts written within 100 years of the events. These manuscripts are in Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Coptic and Syriac. By comparison, The Galic Wars has only 251 copies some 900 years after the events happened and from what I can discover, it is all in Latin. I don't know how much "bigger" you need, but to me the evidence for the Bible is huge when compared to other ancient writings.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The world back then was largely illiterate. That alone would be reason to not expect many writings about extraordinary events such as the resurrection.

I think I’m starting to understand how you and I might view things differently.

I think you take the view that we accept details on certain battles involving Julius Caesar based on much later writings, and we should do the same with the Resurrection.

Whereas I'm saying, the bigger the claim, the bigger the evidence needs to be.

That goes with a common point that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I tend to disagree with that point because it almost sounds as though we're expecting some mind-blowing type of evidence, may as well even call it some miraculous level type of evidence. In my view, the type of evidence is limited to what the field can produce. Since the resurrection is a past event, then the type of evidence we could expect for it is historical level. I believe we have that. As an example, let's even say that a modern-day resurrection occurred and we had scientific evidence of the person dying and coming back to life. Wouldn't that type of medical evidence be like any other type of ordinary? medical evidence? Or I can ask what would be considered extraordinary evidence (more than medical evidence?) and why would that be required.

In some cases, I think the issue is that some are wanting the evidence to be able to explain all of the implications, explain how it would square with already known events, etc. My response to that would be that we don't need to fully understand something before establishing that it exists (example UFOs, consciousness, etc). We can have evidence to establish existence, and then gather additional evidence to help explain all of the other things. I mean others might bring up there being an anti-supernatural bias or that skeptics are really rejecting these things based on metaphysical reasons and not because of evidence, but I can go more on that if that comes up in our discussions.