Originally posted by bbarr
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Why should we think that the Bible is more historically accurate than, say, Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War? After all, Thucydides' work is widely considered one of the first historical accounts that eschews talk of the supernatural, and instead explains events in terms of political forces and huma ...[text shortened]... rife with supernatural wonder and contraventions of natural law as "historically accurate".
Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Of course, to be brief, there is no one of any authority that would begin to question this notion. In fact, the New Testament is thought to be the most authentic document of its time.
I will try to be as short as possible with this, but it will be difficult. There is a procedure to test the reliability of documents. Some of the parts of the procedure:
1) Take a look at the Time Span between the author's original work and the copies that were made.
2) Take a look at the number of copies.
3) Cross check copies for accuracy.
So lets use this to take a look at your Thucydides compared to the New Testament and the Iliad.
Time Span between Original & Copy
Thucydides - 1300 yrs
Homer - 500 yrs
New Testament - < 100 years
Number of Copies
Thucydides - 8
Homer - 643
New Testament - 5600
Accuracy of Copies
Thucydides - Yet To be Determined
Homer - 95%
New Testament - 99.5%
This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
Quote:
About the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." -
The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum.
To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.
After all, Thucydides' work is widely considered one of the first historical accounts that eschews talk of the supernatural, and instead explains events in terms of political forces and human motivations.
That is a huge overstatement to say that it shuns the idea of the supernatural. That is like saying a book about birds shuns the idea of the existence of dogs. On the contrary, books about birds talk about birds, and books of War (Thucydides'
History of the Peloponnesian War) talk about War. Because Thucydides does not mention the supernatural in this writing, it says nothing about his belief about the supernatural, one way or the other.
It really just defies explanation that you would take a book rife with supernatural wonder and contraventions of natural law as "historically accurate".
Instead what you should be asking is, "Why is our most historically accurate and reliable document filled with supernatural wonder and contraventions of natural law?" Does it mean that there is a the slightest possibility that these things can be true? There is so much overwhelming evidence, that it demands a verdict - it cannot be ignored.
If you are going to determine your outlook on life based upon some ancient document, shouldn't you base it upon the one that is most reliable? Not the one that is scraping the bottom of the barrel for reliability (Thucydides'
History of the Peloponnesian War)?