Very interesting that you would believe in the writings of Homer and Caesar but not the New Testament. Did you know that there is more historical evidence for the New Testament than there is for Homer OR Caesar? Existing Author Written copy Gap Copies ======= ======= ========= ==== ====== Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 yrs 10 Plato 400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 7 Tacitus 100 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 Thucycides 450 B.C. 900 A.D. 1350 yrs 8 Pliny the Younger 100 B.C. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 Herodotus 450 B.C. 900 A.D. 1350 yrs 8 Homer--Illiad 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 New Testament 45-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25-300 yrs 24,000 We have 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament as opposed to 643 from Homer. You can believe Homer without any problem but WHY the not New Testament? "an important presupposition which guides most historians in their work. Unless there is good reason for believing otherwise one will assume that a given detail in the work of a particular historian is factual. This method places the burden of proof squarely on the person who would doubt the reliability of a given portion of the text." (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament) If all Bibles & manuscripts were destroyed, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses just by using the 89,000 quotations of the New Testament used by the early church fathers 150-200 years after Christ. Sir Frederick Kenyon - Keeper of the ancient manuscripts and director of the British Museum, after a lifetime of study of ancient documents came to this conclusion: "No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to its text and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound" xx>Jesus, however, was never written about in any authenticated text, xx>nor even mentioned by any enemy or Roman official. OH yea... Try reading some of these non-biblical historical sources: - Tacitus - Seutonious - Josephus - Thallus - Jewish Talmud Here is the list of books I said I was going to leave for you. If you want to remain an atheist then you should at least have a glimpse at all the evidence out there. We Christians do NOT have a blind faith but rather have very solid evidence and reasons for believing in the reliability of the New Testament: Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press 1987 F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents. Revised Edition. London: InterVarsity press, 1960 R. T. France. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove IVP, 1986 Norman L Geisler and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press 1968 J. Harold Greenlee, Scribes, Scrolls and Scripture - A Student's Guide to the New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985 Josh McDowell. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers 1979 Don Stewart. Family Handbook of Christian Knowledge: The Bible. Josh McDowell, editor. Sand Bernardino: Here's Life Publishers 1983 PART 1 Confirmation by Historical Text There are three basic principles, or criteria by which all historical documents are tested: the Bibliographical Test is an examination of the textual transmission by which today's documents have reached us. In other words, not having the originals, how reliable are the copies, given the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the original and the copy? In applying the Internal Evidence Test, critics agree that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies. In the External Evidence test, we want to know if other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony of the Bible. - Bibliographical Test I cannot outline for you here the techniques by which scholars reach their conclusions. But it is important to know that there is wide agreement among scholars about manuscript authority. Benjamin Warfield declares that the facts show that the great majority of the New testament "has been handed down to us with no, or next to no, variation: and even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared, the real text of the sacred writers is competently exact; ... nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost...". Millar Burrows says "Another result of comparing New Testament Greek with the language of the papyri is an increase of confidence in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament...". He continues that the texts "have been transmitted with remarkable fidelity, so that there need be no doubt whatever regarding the teaching conveyed by them." Sir Frederick Kenyon emphatically states "It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain". F. F. Bruce says: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament." There is similar agreement among scholars about the reliability of the Old Testament. Some manuscripts have been found which date from before Christ! - Internal Evidence Test Consider that the New Testament writers of the Bible wrote as eyewitnesses or from first-hand information. Time after time, they said, "what we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you." And it would have been difficult to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, because there were so many of his disciples about, who could remember what did, and did not, happen. One of the strong points in the original preaching of the apostles was the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers : "As you yourselves also know...". So here too, there is agreement among scholars that the "New Testament must be regarded as a competent primary source document from the first century." - External Evidence test Apart from the Bible itself, what sources substantiate its accuracy, reliability and authenticity? Let me list for you just a few of the ancient writers whose works corroborate Biblical text. Eusebius, in his Ecclestical History, preserves writings of Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (130 A.D.) who used to talk with the Apostle John. He confirms stories about Peter, Mark, Matthew, and many of the sayings of Christ. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 180 A.D. Clement of Rome, 95 A.D. Ignatius, 70 - 110 A.D. Polycarp, 70 - 156 A.D. Tatian, 170 A.D. All these men wrote historical papers which shed confirming light on various aspects of the Bible. But perhaps as important as any of these, is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who, with no reason for us to suspect Christian interpolation, writes many accounts which confirm those of the Gospels of the Bible. PART 2 - Evidence from Archaeology Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archaeologist, writes "It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference." William F. Albright, one of the world's great archaeologists, writes, "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition." He adds, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries ... has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." I could give you one quotation after another, to fill pages, from experts who concur with this view. Let me give you a few specific examples of archaelogical confirmation of the Old Testament. According to the Bible, "the whole world had one language and a common speech." After the building of the Tower of Babel and its destruction, God "confused the language of the whole world." Many modern day philologists (those who study the science of languages) attest to the likelihood of such an origin for the world's languages. Other areas exist where, prior to archaeological discovery, the Biblical account was believed to be in error, because it conflicted with generally accepted knowledge and information. To cite one example: in the Biblical story of Joshua and the battle for Jericho, we read, "...the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city." This account had been discredited for the simple reason that the construction of ancient city walls prevented them from being easily breached from the outside, unless for some unexplainable reason they collapsed outward. By design, walls leaned inward, so that any weakness caused them to collapse away from the attackers. The Bible story had to be in error. Then, during the excavation of Jericho (1930 - 36), Garstang found something absolutely startling! In reference to his findings, he says, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city." In the face of everyone who had previously laughed at the Biblical account, it was proven true. There are also New Testament examples. For centuries there had been no record of the court where the Bible says Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate. It was recently discovered, left buried by Hadrian after he rebuilt Jerusalem, and so presumed not to have existed. Luke wrote a Gospel (story of the life of Jesus) and also the Book of Acts. On several points his writings have been presumed false because they did not concur with then-current understanding. Today, however, there remains not one area of conflict between established historical fact and Luke's writings.