In response to Richard Dawkins' site regarding Eve's Bite

Richard Dawkins' official website is taking a poke at an aspect of Eve's Bite, basically winding themselves into a lather over a paragraph in the book where I pointed out there are more than 5,600 manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts dating as far back as around 70 years after the death of Christ.

The Dawkins people are in a spin over the admittedly (in hindsight) ambiguous phrasing of the passage, which didn't make it clear whether I was suggesting there were 5,600 manuscripts dated from about 105 AD (which is a ridiculous suggestion) or merely that the list of manuscripts and fragments stretched that far back (which I was intending to suggest).

Dawkins (I use the word in reference to his site) realises that I'm probably basing  this on the Rylands fragment containing  a couple of verses from John, dated as early as 110 (although the general consensus appears to be 125AD).

I'm also basing it however not just on direct copies of the NT itself but on external letters and documents that quoted portions of the NT. One such is the letter from Clement of Rome, an early church leader, dated to 96AD and a copy of which dates to about fifty years later, which quotes Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Titus, 1 Cor, Hebrews, 1 Pet, and possibly Revelation.

Whilst we have no major copies of manuscripts prior to about AD200, we have sufficient documents from people like Clement and others that virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from their writings between around 80 AD and 250 AD.

For the pedants, my reference to manuscripts includes uncials, lectionaries and codices (scholar-speak for 'books') as well as traditional manuscripts.

On the carbon-dating issue, I was generalising. Some less important documents have been carbon-dated. The major ones have not for two reasons - damage to the papyrus and also because paleography (studying handwriting styles, vocabulary etc) is regarded as more exact than carbon-dating for the period in question.

The reference to 99.5% accuracy is in comparisons between the texts of the manuscripts (accuracy compared to what is published as the New Testament. Contrary to the assertions over at Dawkins, the manuscripts do not differ on and key points of Christian doctrine. The Dawkins people raise the issue of the ending of Mark, which we know was a later addition to the gospel. However, the points expressed in the added ending of Mark are all expressed elsewhere in his and the other gospels in unchallenged portions of the manuscripts, therefore no issue of doctrine is affected, nor is the missing ending significant.

Once again, the point I made in Eve's Bite remains unanswered by Dawkins: the historical evidence in favour of Christianity far exceeds the historical evidence in favour of any other ancient historical figure or event.

Comments

[Gid]

Its also worth bearing in mind that these manuscripts and fragments exist in spite of a systematic program to destroy every vestige of the Christian faith. From AD90 to AD313 no less than 10 Roman administrations tried to root out and burn such literature. These programs were sophisticated and in some cases empire-wide.

[peter]

Wow Ian you really have Richard Dawkins on the run. Absolutely career-ending? Is there anything he will be forced to resign from as a result?

[Ian]

Isn't it great Peter that a little wee book from little wee NZ can pop up on the great man's website...?

Probably thanks to Amazon and a reader's review there...who knows...

Still, Dawkins makes so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin...like Hitchens, he lets his religion get in the way of his objectivity.

[peter]

I don't like to break this news to you Ian .. but the contributors to the thread on the Dawkins blog don's seem to be supporting you?

[Ian]

D'ya think? With respect Peter...the last place I would expect to find support for Eve's Bite is on Dawkins' "official" website...

Their problem is however that they haven't read the book, nor do they appear particularly clued up on biblical scholarship (why is that a surprise? - Dawkins himself relies on scholarship that's a century out of date!).

[Ian]

Nor, I might add, have you read the book Peter...which leaves you flying blind on this one.

[Shout Above The Noise]

I think Peter will choke on the 'Born or Made' chapter.

[Sam Finnemore]

I was lucky enough to get a review copy for Craccum which I'll start on shortly.

[Danyl Mclauchlan]

Incidentally, you do realise that anyone who registers on the site can create new threads? The posts and arguments come from 'Dawkins' in much the same way as my posts come from Ian Wishart.

Contrary to the assertions over at Dawkins, the manuscripts do not differ on and key points of Christian doctrine.

The truth is that there are countless variations in the early manuscripts, some of which ARE key. 1 John sets out the doctrine of the Trinity which doesn't appear in any other Gospel and appears to have been added to John some time in the 4th Century. It simply doesn't appear in early manuscripts. Neither does the story of the women taken in sin.

[Danyl Mclauchlan]

John sets out the doctrine of the Trinity which doesn't appear in any other Gospel

Errata: The Comma Johanneum is in the epsitle of John, not the Gospel.

[dad4justice]

It must be hard for you Danyl because you were baptized in lemon juice , however, John 1 1:9 will please you, as GRACE lifts the burden .

[MrTips]

Oh please Danyl don't get all biblcally scholar on us. You know jack shit ...give it up.

[ian]

Hate to burst your bubble, Danyl, but the entire Bible is riddled with the Trinity doctrine.

[Philip]

It can be noted that there are at least two possible sets of gospel manuscript fragments from the mid first century - 7Q5 from near Qumran and Magdalen P64 from Luxor, though both are controversial. While the early date of 7Q5 is well established, its small size means that its identity as a fragment of Mark has been challenged. In the case of P64 it is clearly from Matthew but its early date has been disputed. These fragment could not fail to be controversial regardless of the evidence as there acceptance would disprove a lot of cherished theories about the late date and unreliability of the gospels.

[peasant]

if anyone wants to read dawkins site and bypass the registration crap, use this

login: fubar
password: isdead

[David Winter]

Ian said
Still, Dawkins makes so many mistakes it's hard to know where to begin

Hmm, I read the chapter of eves bite on evolution (that opens with a quote form Ann Coulter!) the other day. I think you want to be careful about throwing stones from your glass house...

[Danyl Mclauchlan]

Hate to burst your bubble, Danyl, but the entire Bible is riddled with the Trinity doctrine.

The entire Bible is riddled with passages that Christians interpret as referring to the Trinity Doctrine. The word trinity appears nowhere in either Testament.

However, the Bible is also riddled with passages that explicitly refute the polytheism of the trinity and refer to God as singular, plural, indivisible ect. John 1 was the only passage that directly addressed the notion of a tripartite God.

All that is beside the point, however. Its a classic case of textual variation between NT manuscripts. Some scholars have claimed there are more variations between the early manuscripts than there are letters in the entire New Testament. Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have both written extensively on this subject, although I doubt they hold a candle to Ms Coulter for research and intellectual rigour.

[dad4justice]

Fyi Danyl ; "Behold I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and all over the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

[Psycho Milt]

Could we watch you trampling on some serpents and scorpions and, er, not getting hurt? I for one would love to see it...

[Ian]

Danyl...try Matt 28:18-20 for starters as an expression of the Trinity direct from Christ.

Secondly, read this from Tektonics:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

Which deals with Ehrman and your concerns about variants.