Katawa Shoujo Forums

The articles I've read show that around 24,000 ancient copies of the New Testament existed within 300-500 years of the actual events. Around three of those, and some odd fragments, can be dated to be within 100 years or less.

On the other hand, the earliest copies of the Annals of Tacitus, a Roman historian, can be traced to 1100 AD or so. And they've got about 20 copies of it from 1100 AD on. The earliest histories of Caesar, so my sources tell me, total about 10, and the earliest one dates around 900 AD. Pliny's got about 7 manuscripts, the earliest of which dates to around 850 AD. Tacitus and Pliny were contemporaries to the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and Paul, Peter, and Jude, and Caesar was only 50 years BC.

These numbers can be found on all kinds of Christian sites, such as this one. I've yet to see any atheist sites challenge those numbers or dates - or at least none on a cursory Google websearch, which surprises me. (Usually there'd be at least one, if not several, atheist sites fighting some claim or another a Christian makes about history.)

I am not sure if you are talking about original documents or copies here...
For copies this is definitely wrong. I have read texts from that time myself during latin classes in school, including "De Bello Gallico" from Caesar himself.
If you're talking about original documents - I have no idea how old the oldest Roman documents are, but what we have are faithful transcriptions (the Romans had a very well-functioning buerocracy) in addition to contemporary coins, statues and other stuff.

I'm not going to discuss the trustworthyness of the gospels or the bible here, since it is in no way relevant to the story and would open a shitstorm in any case.

griffon8 wrote: I'm not surprised because there would be no point to it. Copies of a single source still count as a single source.

OK, first of all, the Bible's not one big book. It's a collection of smaller books, letters, and other writings. There are the four Gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John - the Acts of the Apostles, the dozen or so Pauline Letters, the dozen or so Catholic letters, and the Apocalypse of John. In all, about 20 or 30 letters and books all compiled into one.

So there are thousands of copies of these several smaller books all bound together in one volume - like an anthology. It's not one source. It is a collection of sources. And my point still stands - in fact, more pointedly - as there are thousands of these collections of dozens of sources for the writings of the New Testament. But there are only a handful of manuscripts from any one other author, all of them centuries after their supposed origins.

So there are thousands of ancient copies of about 20-30 sources which claim Jesus existed, and all of these sources are contemporary.

Facts don't get more accepted because they're published more but because more evidence supports it. Twenty billion copies of a book that asserted the world was flat wouldn't make it more true.

True. However that could be even more punctually said of any other ancient historical figure, and even more so.
All we've got to go one of any of these is the testimonies of other people and themselves - histories and autobiographies. Very often only have a few extant, contemporary manuscripts to demonstrate the existence of a person. For serious historians, this is usually enough.

Why, then, shouldn't dozens of thousands, all far closer to the age of the contemporary source? You cannot arbitrarily pick and choose who does and doesn't exist simply because it is not certain they exist. You've got to go by the criteria set. And based off of what other historians have done, I would say Jesus's existence more than meets those criteria.

we also have Caesar's own accounts of his military campaigns and the writings of Cicero, a contemporary of Caesar's. These are the kinds of things we depend on to verify history. Multiple sources are important when dealing with historical events.

We have the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to verify Christ's existence. We also have the assumptive writings of the letters which demonstrate Paul, Peter etc. assumed Christ had risen from the dead, never mind existed. Are not the words of the contemporaries of Jesus and His disciples - Peter, His Pope, Matthew the tax collector, John His beloved, and Judas (the other one, not Iscariot) - enough for you?

Paddy wrote:enough for you?

Um, how did this turn into a discussion of whether or not Jesus existed? That wasn't the point anyone was trying to make until your post here.

Mirage_GSM wrote: I am not sure if you are talking about original documents or copies here...
For copies this is definitely wrong. I have read texts from that time myself during latin classes in school, including "De Bello Gallico" from Caesar himself.

The earliest extant copies of Caesar's writings are from 900 AD. The info within them can be dated to Caesar's time by historians. But not the copies themselves.

So, yes, you read something Caesar wrote. But it was copied from another copy, which has ultimately copied from Caesar's original centuries ago. But the original physical manuscript is lost to us.

(I mean, unless you really have the original copy of The Gallic Wars, which I'm sure historians would love to see. )

The same goes with the Bible and its books and letters etc. Copies of copies. But the earlier the copies get, and the more numerous, usually the more reliable (if they are intended to be historical, which both the Gospels and Caesar's writings are, I'm sure).

If you're talking about original documents - I have no idea how old the oldest Roman documents are, but what we have are faithful transcriptions (the Romans had a very well-functioning buerocracy) in addition to contemporary coins, statues and other stuff.

We have coins, and we have statues. But only copies of the original papyri and scrolls (well, most of the time). Sadly, there were many book burnings after the fall of Rome (mainly by the Vandals and other barbarians who invaded Rome, not by the Christians). The writings we've inherited are copies of Caesar's originals which were preserved by some act of providence. It in no way invalidates the existence of Caesar that it's a copy which dates 1000 years after the original.

I'm not going to discuss the trustworthyness of the gospels or the bible here, since it is in no way relevant to the story and would open a shitstorm in any case.

As you wish.

griffon8 wrote:

Paddy wrote:enough for you?

Um, how did this turn into a discussion of whether or not Jesus existed? That wasn't the point anyone was trying to make until your post here.

Um, I thought that was your entire point. If the Gospels are true, Jesus did exist. If they aren't, He didn't, and Christianity is false.

What did you intend with what you were saying? It seemed you were indicating the Bible is not a reliable historical document.

Paddy wrote:Um, I thought that was your entire point. If the Gospels are true, Jesus did exist. If they aren't, He didn't, and Christianity is false.

What did you intend with what you were saying? It seemed you were indicating the Bible is not a reliable historical document.

While I might agree with your statement about the gospels, that is not the point I was trying to make.

We were discussing the standards used to determine the reliability of an historical document or account. I am not interested in how this applies to the historical accuracy of any particular document, just the general application of it. This started with Mirage's comment about the only reference to the miracle of healing sight to a single account written fifty years after the alleged incident. Other than an offhand reference to a lack of atheist interest in disputing how many copies of the New Testament existed, I haven't mentioned the bible.

Okay, hope that clears it up.

Paddy wrote:

Mirage_GSM wrote: I am not sure if you are talking about original documents or copies here...
For copies this is definitely wrong. I have read texts from that time myself during latin classes in school, including "De Bello Gallico" from Caesar himself.
If you're talking about original documents - I have no idea how old the oldest Roman documents are, but what we have are faithful transcriptions...

The earliest extant copies of Caesar's writings are from 900 AD. The info within them can be dated to Caesar's time by historians. But not the copies themselves.

So, yes, you read something Caesar wrote. But it was copied from another copy, which has ultimately copied from Caesar's original centuries ago. But the original physical manuscript is lost to us.

(I mean, unless you really have the original copy of The Gallic Wars, which I'm sure historians would love to see. )

I have no idea what you read, but what I wrote was clearly about copies.

griffon8 wrote:

Paddy wrote:Um, I thought that was your entire point. If the Gospels are true, Jesus did exist. If they aren't, He didn't, and Christianity is false.

What did you intend with what you were saying? It seemed you were indicating the Bible is not a reliable historical document.

While I might agree with your statement about the gospels, that is not the point I was trying to make.

We were discussing the standards used to determine the reliability of an historical document or account. I am not interested in how this applies to the historical accuracy of any particular document, just the general application of it. This started with Mirage's comment about the only reference to the miracle of healing sight to a single account written fifty years after the alleged incident. Other than an offhand reference to a lack of atheist interest in disputing how many copies of the New Testament existed, I haven't mentioned the bible.

Okay, hope that clears it up.

Oh, OK. Sorry. I read it as though your comments were in reference to the Bible. My mistake.

You make a good point. I suppose the testimony of one priest about one woman's miraculous isn't exactly rock-solid evidence for people who don't even believe in God. It's a bit much for an sceptical materialist to even conceive of, I suppose. I mean, I'm not saying you have to believe in this miracle to be true to be a Catholic. But, as a Catholic, considering the other intellectual mountains I've overcome, it's not difficult for me to think it might be true.

Mirage_GSM wrote:

Paddy wrote:

Mirage_GSM wrote: I am not sure if you are talking about original documents or copies here...
For copies this is definitely wrong. I have read texts from that time myself during latin classes in school, including "De Bello Gallico" from Caesar himself.
If you're talking about original documents - I have no idea how old the oldest Roman documents are, but what we have are faithful transcriptions...

The earliest extant copies of Caesar's writings are from 900 AD. The info within them can be dated to Caesar's time by historians. But not the copies themselves.

So, yes, you read something Caesar wrote. But it was copied from another copy, which has ultimately copied from Caesar's original centuries ago. But the original physical manuscript is lost to us.

(I mean, unless you really have the original copy of The Gallic Wars, which I'm sure historians would love to see. )

I have no idea what you read, but what I wrote was clearly about copies.

I have no idea what you wrote.

When I say "copies", I mean transcriptions. I mean the words Caesar wrote, but applied to a later sheet of paper/papyrus/stone/parchment/etc. We don't have the original physical papyri or parchment or whatever Caesar wrote on. We have copies, which were probably written verbatim from the original. But these copies were copied by people who lived long after Caesar lived. Like your book. It is a physical copy of Caesar's original words, but not the original physical manuscript.

What do you mean when you say "copy"?

Exactly the same, but if not even highlighting the passages from my original post can make you see that, I'm not sure what else I can do...

...considering the other intellectual mountains I've overcome...

You know, this might not be the best metaphor to use in future discussions...

Mirage_GSM wrote:Exactly the same, but if not even highlighting the passages from my original post can make you see that, I'm not sure what else I can do...

Then you fail to understand that there are no older copies than the one dating to 900 AD.

According to Jeffery Henderson's "Civil Wars" (which is the only book I could find on the Wikipedia bibliography), until the Middle Ages the Gallic Wars had been lost to us. But the oldest known manuscript only dates back to 900 AD. Unless you have found some older manuscript no one else is aware of, I'm afraid you are wrong. There are no older existing copies.

...considering the other intellectual mountains I've overcome...

You know, this might not be the best metaphor to use in future discussions...

To even understand that there is a God in the universe, as a concrete fact of logic, is a difficult enough task.
Why is it such a bad metaphor?

This is the weirdest discussion I've ever had on the internet, and that's saying something...

I give up.

Mirage_GSM wrote:This is the weirdest discussion I've ever had on the internet, and that's saying something...

I give up.

Oh, really? That's nothing. You should see them on the Catholic Answers forums. It's astonishing how many pages a conversation even about a simple proof of God can fill and how many twists and turns a thread can take.

But OK. I'm done with this conversation, too. Back to the story, I guess.

I already have an idea for the next section - which kind of gives us an idea where Hisao is writing from and why. But I'll need to rewrite it to put it at the end of the book rather than the beginning. And to make it sound a bit less like I'm writing a contestant Scripture for a new quasi-Christian religion and more like a man pouring his heart out to us about his life and current situation. It may be a while - especially since my weekend is well booked-up.

Ok... I've had this on my mind for a while... I just didn't know when a good time to release it would be. Or how to.

I buried it for so long... I doubt anyone still visits here, much less reads this or expects it.

But, here goes.

PREFACE

Many people wondered how a man can write his own memories after he has been dead for a year. They did when Kenji Fushojiki came out with his "Tadashī no denki" [which means "The Life of the Righteous One"]. They dug up Tadashi's body when Fushojiki insisted it had been dictated to him by Tadashi himself. And it was not until a trial was held for libel - his book contained many scathing, libelous paragraphs which were completely untrue - that he declared he had made it up.

Many people will probably wonder how an old man, close to death himself, his eyesight failing, barely able to hold a pen anymore, is able to write his own memoirs - never mind that he's been dead for twenty years. But as I've written these things by the dim, burning lights of Rengoku, waiting for 30 years to see my beloved Lilly - it brings tears to my eyes to think of her - and Our Lord and Master, again, I also trust the Lord will somehow give this message to Tanomoshī-kun - his first name being Gamaliel.

Yessir. The Twilight Zone.