A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[Dancefortwo]

Is this Charlie24 coming at us again as a different person?

No, Chuckie is over in the sword thread.  These are two different delusional people.

[Minimalist]

Yeah....Chuckie is somewhat more rational.

[no one]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,magic! 

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, redemption! 


How is it that anyone cannot believe in the almighty god after such revelations?

[Gwaithmir]

FYI: Historians and writers contemporary to Jesus:


Philo of Alexandria c.20 BCE-c.50 CE
Florius Lucius 5 BCE-55 CE
Geminus 10 BCE-50 CE
Phaedrus 15 BCE-50 CE
Titus Livius 59 BCE-17 CE
Marcus Velleius Paterculus 19 BCE-31 CE
Pomponius Mela 15 BCE-45 CE
Valerius Maximus 10BCE-57 CE
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4-65 CE
Hero of Alexandria 10-70 CE
Appolonius of Tyana 15-106 CE
Gaius Musonius Rufus 20-101 CE
Pliny the Elder 23-79 CE
Silius Italicus 28-101 CE
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 35-100 CE
Martial 38-102 CE

Oddly, none of them had anything to say about Jesus' ministry, death, resurrection or miracles.

[Minimalist]

Correct, Gwaith, but to take the point even further, I have always found it most amusing that the earliest Roman writers who commented on this new sect knew about christians...(maybe) but knew fuckall about anyone named "jesus." 

Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about xtians conducting secret meetings in Bithynia c 110 CE.  He mentions that they worshiped "Christ" but even under torture none of them told him about this jesus clown.

Suetonius wrote about a guy called Chrestus getting his ass thrown out of Rome along with other jews during the reign of Claudius, c 56 CE.  There is another passage about xtians being punished among other malefactors but again, no fucking jesus.  It is of course totally possible that Suetonius wrote about chrestians and his spelling was corrected by a helpful copyist centuries later.  We'll never know.

Finally, the same applies to Tacitus, who in a manuscript copy the only one in existence, wrote Chrestianos in Book 15:44 of the Annales which ultraviolet examination showed had been changed to Christianos by yet another helpful scribe.  Again, no mention of any fucking jesus even if he was talking about "Christians" and not Chrestians, c 120 CE.

40 years later, c 160 CE, Lucian of Samosata in one of his satires mentions that christians followed an executed criminal but again does not mention the name "jesus."

Finally, c 180 CE we get the first Roman usage of the name jesus in Celsus.  But Celsus was no fan.

“First, however, I must deal with the matter of Jesus, the so-called savior, who not long ago taught new doctrines and was thought to be a son of God. This savior, I shall attempt to show, deceived many and caused them to accept a form of belief harmful to the well-being of mankind. Taking its root in the lower classes, the religion continues to spread among the vulgar: nay, one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity and the illiteracy of its adherents. And while there are a few moderate, reasonable, and intelligent people who interpret its beliefs allegorically, yet it thrives in its purer form among the ignorant.”

― Celsus, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians

I must say that Celsus was spot on!


By the way, Celsus also made this rather pithy quote given the historical background - the jews had been kicked out of Judaea 35 years earlier by Hadrian:

Again, if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this Spirit of which you speak into one corner (of the earth)? He ought to have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedaemonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?

Why indeed?

[rocinantexyz]

I'm still hoping for an answer to my question. You are under no obligation to answer it (of course); but if you won't, then you and I won't be chatting/debating anything.

Which questions...

It was a one sentence question I posted to you twice, and I made it bold; in very short replies. I'm blocking you because I don't think you are serious. If I'm mistaken and you are serious then don't waste your time answering the question (at least for me anyway) as I will never see your answer.

[SteveII]

I remember you not liking the ontological arguments. I think they do point out something though, if the idea of God is possible, that would include necessary. So, either God is impossible or exists - there is no in between.

That in itself is fallacious. Something conceptual can exist and be just as real and important to us than something that exist empirically. Just think about concept like law, rights, democracy, freedom, marriage, etc. God definitely exist as a conceptual being; where the "debate" lies is if God exists empirically. Of course there is no evidence for it and even some evidence of absence (as in we thought that elements of nature were explained by God's existence only to be proven wrong like Earth's biodiversity for example).

What I said is actually widely accepted--even among atheist philosophers--but a discussion on the pros and cons of the Ontological Argument and on what grounds it could fail is a long discussion for another day.

As for your first post

Premise 1 is just hearsay and legends.

Premise 2 is filled with historical inaccuracies and poor documentation. The religious texts as you know them were composed in the early 4th century and only fragments of them, potentially substantially different then than now (we have many evidence of modification to scriptures and pious frauds in the historical record). 

Your information is wildly wrong about P1 and P2. You might be confusing when the canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage/Hippo in the 4th century--which was the last in a series of discussions about existing books. Nothing at all of the NT was written anywhere near that time.

The New Testament canon, which consists of the collection of books accepted as authoritative and inspired by early Christians, was gradually established over several centuries. The process of canonization involved a combination of factors, including the recognition of apostolic authorship, the content's alignment with apostolic teachings, and the book's widespread acceptance and use in Christian communities and from what date.

The 27 books were written in the first century.

TIMELINE
Here is a chronology of relevant historical facts surrounding what was considered authentic:

Ignatius of Antioch (circa 50-117 CE):
Ignatius, an early Christian leader, wrote a series of letters while traveling to Rome to be martyred. In his letters, he quotes or alludes to many New Testament writings, indicating their recognition and use within the Christian community.

Papias of Hierapolis (circa 70-155 CE):
Papias, an early Christian bishop and writer, is known for his work "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord." Although his writings are mostly lost, later Christian authors like Eusebius mentioned Papias' references to Gospel authors such as Mark and Matthew.

Justin Martyr (100-165 CE):
Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, quoted from or alluded to many New Testament writings in his works, including the Gospels and Pauline letters. His writings provide evidence of the use of these texts in the mid-2nd century.

Marcion's Canon (circa 140-150 CE):
a heretical Christian leader, compiled his own list of authoritative texts that included only a subset of Paul's letters and an edited version of Luke's Gospel. His actions prompted orthodox Christians to consider which writings should be accepted as authoritative.

Tatian's Diatessaron (circa 160-175 CE):
Tatian, a Christian writer, compiled a harmonized Gospel account known as the "Diatessaron." This work combined elements from the four Gospels and is an indication of the acceptance of the individual Gospel texts in his time.

Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 130-202 CE):
Irenaeus, an early Christian theologian, provided important insights into the New Testament canon. In his work "Against Heresies," he affirmed the authority of the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, and he argued against alternative texts used by certain groups.

Muratorian Fragment (circa 170-200 CE):
This fragment is one of the earliest known lists attempting to define the New Testament canon. It includes most of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and some other writings. It also dismisses certain writings, indicating an emerging understanding of canonical texts.

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (early 4th century):
Eusebius of Caesarea, a church historian, documented the views of various Christian leaders and communities regarding the canonicity of different texts. He categorized books as universally accepted, disputed but accepted by many, and rejected.

Council of Carthage (397 CE):
This local council, held in North Africa, is often cited as the first official listing of the 27 books now recognized in the New Testament. However, it's important to note that the council's purpose was more to confirm the existing consensus rather than to establish a new canon.

DATING
Luke/Acts (the most careful attempt at a chronological history) was written before Paul died around 65 AD (left off with him in prison after following his whole life), no mention of Nero's 64 escapades, nor the death of James sometimes in the 60s (so obviously he wrote his book before then).  Luke/Acts was written before Matthew. Mark was written before Matthew. There is no debate that Paul's letters (13) were written in the 50-60s AD. John (5 books) were probably written later than these but still at by 90 AD. I would be glad to address specific claims you cite with a reference.

WHAT WAS LEFT OUT
Addressing what was omitted from the canon is less significant, as you can explore rejected candidates and the criteria for their exclusion. The process wasn't shrouded in mystery.

COPIES
We have 5856 Greek manuscripts
We have tens of thousands of individual scripture quotes within early writings to add to the database.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL SAID?
Textual Criticism takes the thousands of extant texts and compares them. That gives them the genealogies of each family of documents (like a family tree) and allows scholars to go back and find where a word or sentence may have been changed and what was most likely the original word or sentence by looking at the other family trees.  We have good reasons to think we are up to a 99% confidence in the words of the NT. There are no passages that change a core belief or affect the historicity of important events that are questioned. The error rate is down to knowing which word or punctuation was originally used. While Textual Critics offer valuable insights, their opinions on content and context aren't expert opinions in history or Biblical studies. I don't know how in the weeds you want to get, but I would be happy to respond to specific claims that give a reference.

WHAT ABOUT X
If you want to quibble about 2 Peter (3 chapters of 260) or whatever, then I will grant you that for the sake of the argument to save time for more important details.

[epronovost]

Your information is wildly wrong about P1 and P2. You might be confusing when the canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage/Hippo in the 4th century--which was the last in a series of discussions about existing books. Nothing at all of the NT was written anywhere near that time.

You should really brush up on our physical evidence for those texts. We have only two minuscule fragments of scriptures dating back from the mid 2nd century and only a handful, still very partial biblical texts from the 3rd century and than a great explosion of texts in the 4th including the first full books of the NT some of which saw some modification in the two century that followed, some copying errors others with some minor changes (the punchline and ending of the famous story of Jesus sparring the adulteress from a stoning being one of those most famous addition). It seems if there were texts of the various books and letters of the Gospel they were far, far from being widely circulated prior to the end of the 4th century and there is absolutely no evidence they were written at the tail end of the 1st century with a precious few exceptions (mostly some of the Pauline letters). If the Gospel circulated around prior to the 4th century it's most likely through oral traditions.

The 27 books were written in the first century.

That is both false for a good portion of them whose earliest date of production is the early 2nd century or significantly later than that. Note that the earliest estimate is not necessarily the best estimate. If you look at the latest estimate you can arrive at significantly higher dates since the range for the writing of most Gospels is of about 50 years. This large time gap is explainable by the fact there is very little conclusive evidence as to their first writing and their first example of widespread diffusion and standardization is from the 4th century. Finally, the term Gospel itself doesn't not necessarily means the specific written books, but the whole message of Christianity so any mention of the Gospel or even allusion to it don't allude to texts, but teachings. While the content of those texts probably circulated through oral tradition, discourse and songs we can't be certain they referred to a text back then. The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous. You should really read up on the criticism and debate over the authenticity over many of the writings of many of the writers you mentioned. The early Christian Church was famous for it's pious frauds and poor standards for copying and preserving documents (the collapse of the Roman Empire during the 5th century certainly doesn't help)

[Minimalist]

Justin Martyr (100-165 CE):

Justin, in his First Apology, written c 160 when Antoninus Pius was emperor, never mentions this "paul" asshole nor does he make reference to any of those named gospels.

He does indicate that xhristards had already invented the Theory of Diabolical Mimicry by which the early xtians explained the similarities between their own Jesus and the much older pagan Gods. They claimed that the devil knew in advance that Jesus was coming, so he sent the other "sons of god" (Mithra, Horus, etc) to test the faith of the Christians.


I mean....it takes a real asshole to come up with that one.  It means that the devil was smarter than this god shithead.

[Dancefortwo]

Your information is wildly wrong about P1 and P2. You might be confusing when the canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage/Hippo in the 4th century--which was the last in a series of discussions about existing books. Nothing at all of the NT was written anywhere near that time.

You should really brush up on our physical evidence for those texts. We have only two minuscule fragments of scriptures dating back from the mid 2nd century and only a handful, still very partial biblical texts from the 3rd century and than a great explosion of texts in the 4th including the first full books of the NT some of which saw some modification in the two century that followed, some copying errors others with some minor changes (the punchline and ending of the famous story of Jesus sparring the adulteress from a stoning being one of those most famous addition). It seems if there were texts of the various books and letters of the Gospel they were far, far from being widely circulated prior to the end of the 4th century and there is absolutely no evidence they were written at the tail end of the 1st century with a precious few exceptions (mostly some of the Pauline letters). If the Gospel circulated around prior to the 4th century it's most likely through oral traditions.

The 27 books were written in the first century.

That is both false for a good portion of them whose earliest date of production is the early 2nd century or significantly later than that. Note that the earliest estimate is not necessarily the best estimate. If you look at the latest estimate you can arrive at significantly higher dates since the range for the writing of most Gospels is of about 50 years. Finally, the term Gospel itself doesn't not necessarily means the specific written books, but the whole message of Christianity.While the content of those texts probably circulated through oral tradition, discourse and songs we can't be certain they referred to a text back then. The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous. You should really read up on the criticism and debate over the authenticity over many of the writings of many of the writers you mentioned. The early Christian Church was famous for it's pious frauds and poor standards for copying and preserving documents (the collapse of the Roman Empire during the 5th century certainly doesn't help)

Yup.  The earliest scrap of gospel is from John, # P52.  This was the 52nd piece of papyrus found with gospel writing on it and it's about the size of a credit card..  The copy is dated around 175 CE.

The calligraphy is not the best and is considered non professional because some of the letters are very sloppy. As it has been noted, not the work of "a practised scribe".  The early Christians had to use cheap scribes because these were not upperclass folks we're talking about here.  

I got into doing calligraphy when I was in college and different surfaces allow a different style of calligraphy and lettering.  Papyrus was not a long lasting type of paper.  If you've ever felt papyrus it has distinctive fiber grains from the papyrus plant and has a texture to it. It's rather stiff. It's nothing like vellum which is stretched animal skin. It's very smooth and lasts almost forever.  

Papyrus becomes brittle fairly quickly and falls apart so those gospel texts had to be copied numerous times. This is a problem because the chances of copying errors becomes much greater with each copy.     They also wrote on the front and back to save money.  Again, it's the size of a credit card.

[Minimalist]

Ignatius - one more xtian fraud.

https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ignatius.html

But what if Ignatius-cum-Polycarp is a demonstrable fabrication, the work of 2nd century Catholic Orthodoxy, seeding its own beliefs into an earlier era as "evidence" for a rebuttal to the challenge of Gnosticism, what then of this "witness to Jesus"?

[SteveII]

FYI: Historians and writers contemporary to Jesus:


Philo of Alexandria c.20 BCE-c.50 CE
Florius Lucius 5 BCE-55 CE
Geminus 10 BCE-50 CE
Phaedrus 15 BCE-50 CE
Titus Livius 59 BCE-17 CE
Marcus Velleius Paterculus 19 BCE-31 CE
Pomponius Mela 15 BCE-45 CE
Valerius Maximus 10BCE-57 CE
Lucius Annaeus Seneca 4-65 CE
Hero of Alexandria 10-70 CE
Appolonius of Tyana 15-106 CE
Gaius Musonius Rufus 20-101 CE
Pliny the Elder 23-79 CE
Silius Italicus 28-101 CE
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 35-100 CE
Martial 38-102 CE

Oddly, none of them had anything to say about Jesus' ministry, death, resurrection or miracles.

Why would they think Jesus was important in the first century where literally everyone believed in gods and gods affecting daily life? There were household gods, city gods, ...so many. That does not even take into account geography issues for local news and that in Palestine, the Jews' rebellion was bigger news. It is only in hindsight that he and the nascent church was important in the first century.

[SteveII]

Which questions...

It was a one sentence question I posted to you twice, and I made it bold; in very short replies. I'm blocking you because I don't think you are serious. If I'm mistaken and you are serious then don't waste your time answering the question (at least for me anyway) as I will never see your answer.

Not a problem, I thought there was a serious question I missed and not you simply asking me to refute all of wikipedia with a one-line cut and paste about a topic of so little relevance to the OP or that you cared to expound on to show the relevance.

A general note
I suppose I scan for post to answer as either 1) new people that seem naïve about what Christianity really is and 2) people who would put some effort into a conversation. I believe in a healthy block list for people who are obviously not interested in a discussion and/or are overly antagonistic or vulgar and so don't see a lot of posts. If you get a sense that someone may be blocked but have a good point and want to hear an answer, feel free to point that out.

[SteveII]

Your information is wildly wrong about P1 and P2. You might be confusing when the canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage/Hippo in the 4th century--which was the last in a series of discussions about existing books. Nothing at all of the NT was written anywhere near that time.

You should really brush up on our physical evidence for those texts. We have only two minuscule fragments of scriptures dating back from the mid 2nd century and only a handful, still very partial biblical texts from the 3rd century and than a great explosion of texts in the 4th including the first full books of the NT some of which saw some modification in the two century that followed, some copying errors others with some minor changes (the punchline and ending of the famous story of Jesus sparring the adulteress from a stoning being one of those most famous addition). It seems if there were texts of the various books and letters of the Gospel they were far, far from being widely circulated prior to the end of the 4th century and there is absolutely no evidence they were written at the tail end of the 1st century with a precious few exceptions (mostly some of the Pauline letters). If the Gospel circulated around prior to the 4th century it's most likely through oral traditions.

You miss the point and aim of Textual Criticism. I asked ChatGPT to write a summary of the process for us:

Textual criticism, within the context of the New Testament or any ancient text, is the scholarly discipline focused on reconstructing the original wording of a text by comparing and analyzing various copies or manuscripts that have been preserved over time. The New Testament textual criticism specifically deals with the manuscripts of the New Testament writings, attempting to establish the most accurate and authentic version of the original texts.

Here's how textual criticism works, particularly in relation to the New Testament, and how scholars can reach high confidence about the original wording without possessing the original manuscripts (often referred to as "autographs"):

1. Manuscript Tradition: The New Testament has a large number of surviving manuscripts, which are copies made by hand before the invention of the printing press. These manuscripts come in various forms such as scrolls and codices (book-like structures), and they were produced across different time periods and geographical locations.

2. Variants and Errors: Due to the nature of manual copying, errors and variations inevitably crept into these manuscripts. These could be spelling mistakes, omissions, additions, or other changes introduced by scribes during the copying process.

3. Comparative Analysis: Textual critics study these manuscripts and compare them to identify differences, which are referred to as "variants." By comparing the different readings, scholars can discern patterns of error and understand the ways in which scribes might have unintentionally altered the text.

4. Internal Criteria: Scholars apply certain principles to evaluate which variant is more likely to be original. These criteria include:
  - Transcriptional Probability: The idea that scribes were more likely to change a text to make it conform to grammatical or linguistic norms rather than to introduce a more difficult reading.
  - Shorter Reading: The principle of "lectio brevior praeferenda," suggesting that the shorter reading is more likely to be original since scribes were prone to add explanations or elaborations.
  - Harder Reading: The principle of "lectio difficilior praeferenda," which argues that scribes might have intentionally simplified or clarified difficult passages, so the more challenging reading is more likely to be original.
  - Consistency with Author's Style and Vocabulary: The choice of words and phrases that are consistent with the author's known style and vocabulary is favored.

5. External Criteria: Scholars also consider the geographic and temporal distribution of different variants across manuscripts. Earlier manuscripts, especially those from different geographical areas, are often given more weight in establishing the original reading.

6. Manuscript Families: Textual critics classify manuscripts into different families or groups based on common patterns of errors and variants. This helps in understanding the lineage of manuscripts and how they might have been copied from each other.

7. Critical Editions: Textual critics create critical editions of the New Testament, where they present the original text as accurately as possible based on the analyses of the available manuscripts. These editions include footnotes or apparatuses that list significant variants and provide information about the manuscripts supporting each reading.

8. Continuous Refinement: As new manuscripts are discovered or reevaluated, the textual reconstruction is refined over time. The goal is to create editions that are as close as possible to the original text.

It's important to note that while the original manuscripts are not available, the rigorous methods of textual criticism, combined with the abundance of surviving manuscripts, allow scholars to attain a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the New Testament text. The science of textual criticism has been instrumental in preserving and understanding ancient texts, including the New Testament, and it continues to be a dynamic field of study.

I have no idea where you got the oral tradition for the first 3 centuries idea. To repeat it, you ignored my timeline I posted above and I am wondering how those facts correlate to your theory. You might also want to browse this list of extant documents where in many they are discussing the very documents you say must be "oral traditions". There is even a subsection dealing specifically with you claim where they list the early documents that reference the books of the New Testament. Take an an example Mark 15 (the earliest gospel, the crucifixion chapter). There are ten surviving documents before 325 that specifically quote from Mark 15 alone. If you go to the crucifixion chapter of Matthew 27, there are over 70 such references in surviving documents.

There is absolutely no legitimate doubt that the Gospels and other books were discussed in an unbroken chain from the time they were written until today.

The 27 books were written in the first century.

That is both false for a good portion of them whose earliest date of production is the early 2nd century or significantly later than that. Note that the earliest estimate is not necessarily the best estimate. If you look at the latest estimate you can arrive at significantly higher dates since the range for the writing of most Gospels is of about 50 years. This large time gap is explainable by the fact there is very little conclusive evidence as to their first writing and their first example of widespread diffusion and standardization is from the 4th century. Finally, the term Gospel itself doesn't not necessarily means the specific written books, but the whole message of Christianity so any mention of the Gospel or even allusion to it don't allude to texts, but teachings. While the content of those texts probably circulated through oral tradition, discourse and songs we can't be certain they referred to a text back then. The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous. You should really read up on the criticism and debate over the authenticity over many of the writings of many of the writers you mentioned. The early Christian Church was famous for it's pious frauds and poor standards for copying and preserving documents (the collapse of the Roman Empire during the 5th century certainly doesn't help)

Your dating comment: not so. I outlined the reasoning for the dating I used. You are welcome to refute it with additional reasoning.

Further, do you know why some historians use a later dating? Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course we can't have any predictions like that...because, you know, God does not exist, so it must have been written after the temple was destroyed in 70AD. It is well established that Mark was the first Gospel so all the others must be even after that. The late-date assumption is based on question-begging reasoning and not for any other reason. Again, I would welcome a documented challenge to that, but every time I bring it up, none is forthcoming.

I responded to your unusual oral traditions theory above. Also, where do you get "The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous" from? That seems to be completely made up. Most of the NT were actually letters written to Churches and then immediately copied and sent to other churches--this is not contested by anyone who knows anything about it. I would refer back to the link that catalogs all the mentions of the NT in first, second and third century non-biblical texts.

[SteveII]

Premise 4 and 5 is purely anecdotal and lacks any way to make the difference between placebo effect and real supernatural effects and that's without delving into people confusing natural phenomenon with the supernatural like Saint Elmo fire. 

Testimony is evidence. We are talking about a lot of testimony. You are special pleading (informal logical fallacy) if you deny that religious personal testimony is different without also giving a non-question begging answer. I'm not sure you can do that.

Premise 6-7 is begging the question

The Ontological Argument (P6) is an interesting puzzle that at least gives a good discussion on what we mean by necessary and contingent. I put it in the list because I find it interesting and sometimes will debate it if the right person comes along (mainly as an exercise).

The various Cosmological Arguments (P7) are not question begging. I would be happy to debate, say the Kalam version (lots of science and metaphysics).

Premise 8 is basically assuming that 6 and 7 are true and a certain misunderstanding as confusing the universe constant as prescriptive laws (how something ought to work) instead of descriptive laws (what something is).

The Teleological Argument is not a misunderstanding of laws, it is a math problem. I am willing to debate it specifically if you like.

Premise 9 is categorically false and nonsense. The human mind is a model by treating as if it was real you are reifying. The human mind is simply an emergent property of the brain and dependent on it. Alter the brain and you alter the mind. There is no mind without a physical brain.

Premise 10 is also categorically nonsense and factually incorrect. 

The Argument from Consciousness is quite interesting. No one knows how consciousness works and it creates huge problems for material determinists. I haven't debated the topic in awhile and would look forward to finding out all the latest theories, but it will be highly technical and require research for each of us.

Conclusion 1 is false due to poor historicity and downright false claims of historical accuracy. Conclusion 2 is evidence for the existence of religion not God. Since the existence of religious belief was never in question I don't know why it needs to be stated, but fair enough. Conclusion 3 shows a remarkably small and very surface level of knowledge towards naturalism and completely ignores non-theistic philosophical branches that deal with the same issues like pragmatism, idealism, nihilism, etc.

C1 we are dealing with in another post.
C2, I welcome your argument why testimony is not evidence.
C3, I don't think you understand P6, P7, P8, P9, P10. The statement I typed out are not themselves arguments. These reference series of other what are referred to as Natural Theology Arguments.

You would be surprised how much science is contained in every one of these natural theology arguments. It is extremely naïve to think the Christian must be ignoring science and philosophy when in fact it is the atheist who gets tripped up between science (the process) and naturalism (the metaphysical claim). I assure you, my knowledge of my worldview, naturalism, science, and philosophy is not "surface level". But, don't take my word for it, pick one or two that interest you and I will start another thread (not the Ontological--has no science in it).

[epronovost]

There is absolutely no legitimate doubt that the Gospels and other books were discussed in an unbroken chain from the time they were written until today.

Here's a little bit of knowledge from an historian. Textual criticism cannot assess the medium of a text. It cannot make the difference from a recited text like a poem or even oral tradition and a written text. Take the example of the Gospel of Q. There is no evidence that the Gospel of Q was ever written down. It might very well be a purely oral Gospel. 

Your dating comment: not so. I outlined the reasoning for the dating I used. You are welcome to refute it with additional reasoning.

Further, do you know why some historians use a later dating? Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course we can't have any predictions like that...because, you know, God does not exist, so it must have been written after the temple was destroyed in 70AD. It is well established that Mark was the first Gospel so all the others must be even after that. The late-date assumption is based on question-begging reasoning and not for any other reason. Again, I would welcome a documented challenge to that, but every time I bring it up, none is forthcoming.

I responded to your unusual oral traditions theory above. Also, where do you get "The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous" from? That seems to be completely made up. Most of the NT were actually letters written to Churches and then immediately copied and sent to other churches--this is not contested by anyone who knows anything about it. I would refer back to the link that catalogs all the mentions of the NT in first, second and third century non-biblical texts.

This is the most repeated piece of stupidity about the Gospel. In Mark 13, Jesus does not make a precise prediction of the destruction of the Temple. He just says that one day it will be destroyed and that what will announce it will come when people will lose faith, rumors of wars will be brewing, there will earthquakes and famine, etc. In other words, the Temple will be destroyed when the world will look like it's going to shit. As far as prediction goes it's the equivalent of predicting a storm when there will be dark clouds overhead and thunder grumbling in the sky; not exactly the hallmark of precision or insight.

I don't see why such vague prediction of catastrophe reveals any sort of ability to see the future. It's not even completely accurate with the destruction of the Temple by Romans in 70 AD. The last major Earthquake in Palestine in the first century AD was in 33, technically the earthquake that supposedly mark the death of Jesus and caused no major damage; nowhere near as devastating that the one 60 years earlier and the one 70 later. 

The very idea this relate to a specific event of the destruction of Jerusalem by Romans in 70 AD is rather thin. It's a rather general "end of the world" prediction with the idea that only those Christians that survive the tribulation and don't loose faith or get mislead will survive this end of the world scenario. 

The idea that historians actually believe this vague prediction to be referring specifically to the events of 70 AD is a bit ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous due to the fact, the destruction of the Temple is supposed to be one of the great step for the end of time which is something that evidently did not happen.  

As for your list of document. Here is something you should know. 1) We have almost no documents from the first two centuries of Christianity. 2) the early Christian Church and later the Catholic Church produced a lot of fakes and forgeries to better sit their power which makes authentifying documents to the author difficult let alone dating them properly since there is a range of date associated with the author too; half of the document you mention are of dubious authorship and authenticity. 3) many of the references you used are based on the assumption that Gospel existed in writting and thus any allusion to elements of their contant is considered a direct reference. This is a rather sloppy assumption since, once again it might very well refer to. It's not like those letters and discussion make references to Gospel by verse and chapter since even fully written early Gospels were not formated in verse and chapters yet.

[epronovost]

Testimony is evidence. We are talking about a lot of testimony. You are special pleading (informal logical fallacy) if you deny that religious personal testimony is different without also giving a non-question begging answer. I'm not sure you can do that.

A personal testimony can only provide you with evidence that someone had those specific emotions, but it doesn't extand to the reality of the cause of their emotions. People make mistakes all the time. Testimony can be used to support evidence or establish that something has taken place, but it's too limited and unreliable to be used to prove extraordinary events.

The Argument from Consciousness is quite interesting. No one knows how consciousness works and it creates huge problems for material determinists.

You sure can attempt it, but it's universally terrible no matter which format used since it's filled with vague grammar and filled with reification problems. Even the term consciousness can be used rather differently depending on context. Consciousness can be used as synonym for awake for example or it can be used to describe broadly the capacity to formulate thoughts, learn, express desires, experience emotions and use those sensorial capability in a willful manner. Your argument of consciousness would have to define carefully what consciousness is supposed to be and at the same time, avoid formulating a model instead of describing something observable accurately.

[Dancefortwo]

That in itself is fallacious. Something conceptual can exist and be just as real and important to us than something that exist empirically. Just think about concept like law, rights, democracy, freedom, marriage, etc. God definitely exist as a conceptual being; where the "debate" lies is if God exists empirically. Of course there is no evidence for it and even some evidence of absence (as in we thought that elements of nature were explained by God's existence only to be proven wrong like Earth's biodiversity for example).

What I said is actually widely accepted--even among atheist philosophers--but a discussion on the pros and cons of the Ontological Argument and on what grounds it could fail is a long discussion for another day.

As for your first post

Premise 1 is just hearsay and legends.

Premise 2 is filled with historical inaccuracies and poor documentation. The religious texts as you know them were composed in the early 4th century and only fragments of them, potentially substantially different then than now (we have many evidence of modification to scriptures and pious frauds in the historical record). 

Your information is wildly wrong about P1 and P2. You might be confusing when the canon was discussed at the Council of Carthage/Hippo in the 4th century--which was the last in a series of discussions about existing books. Nothing at all of the NT was written anywhere near that time.

The New Testament canon, which consists of the collection of books accepted as authoritative and inspired by early Christians, was gradually established over several centuries. The process of canonization involved a combination of factors, including the recognition of apostolic authorship, the content's alignment with apostolic teachings, and the book's widespread acceptance and use in Christian communities and from what date.

The 27 books were written in the first century.

TIMELINE
Here is a chronology of relevant historical facts surrounding what was considered authentic:

Ignatius of Antioch (circa 50-117 CE):
Ignatius, an early Christian leader, wrote a series of letters while traveling to Rome to be martyred. In his letters, he quotes or alludes to many New Testament writings, indicating their recognition and use within the Christian community.

Papias of Hierapolis (circa 70-155 CE):
Papias, an early Christian bishop and writer, is known for his work "Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord." Although his writings are mostly lost, later Christian authors like Eusebius mentioned Papias' references to Gospel authors such as Mark and Matthew.

Justin Martyr (100-165 CE):
Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, quoted from or alluded to many New Testament writings in his works, including the Gospels and Pauline letters. His writings provide evidence of the use of these texts in the mid-2nd century.

Marcion's Canon (circa 140-150 CE):
a heretical Christian leader, compiled his own list of authoritative texts that included only a subset of Paul's letters and an edited version of Luke's Gospel. His actions prompted orthodox Christians to consider which writings should be accepted as authoritative.

Tatian's Diatessaron (circa 160-175 CE):
Tatian, a Christian writer, compiled a harmonized Gospel account known as the "Diatessaron." This work combined elements from the four Gospels and is an indication of the acceptance of the individual Gospel texts in his time.

Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 130-202 CE):
Irenaeus, an early Christian theologian, provided important insights into the New Testament canon. In his work "Against Heresies," he affirmed the authority of the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, and he argued against alternative texts used by certain groups.

Muratorian Fragment (circa 170-200 CE):
This fragment is one of the earliest known lists attempting to define the New Testament canon. It includes most of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, and some other writings. It also dismisses certain writings, indicating an emerging understanding of canonical texts.

Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (early 4th century):
Eusebius of Caesarea, a church historian, documented the views of various Christian leaders and communities regarding the canonicity of different texts. He categorized books as universally accepted, disputed but accepted by many, and rejected.

Council of Carthage (397 CE):
This local council, held in North Africa, is often cited as the first official listing of the 27 books now recognized in the New Testament. However, it's important to note that the council's purpose was more to confirm the existing consensus rather than to establish a new canon.

DATING
Luke/Acts (the most careful attempt at a chronological history) was written before Paul died around 65 AD (left off with him in prison after following his whole life), no mention of Nero's 64 escapades, nor the death of James sometimes in the 60s (so obviously he wrote his book before then).  Luke/Acts was written before Matthew. Mark was written before Matthew. There is no debate that Paul's letters (13) were written in the 50-60s AD. John (5 books) were probably written later than these but still at by 90 AD. I would be glad to address specific claims you cite with a reference.

WHAT WAS LEFT OUT
Addressing what was omitted from the canon is less significant, as you can explore rejected candidates and the criteria for their exclusion. The process wasn't shrouded in mystery.

COPIES
We have 5856 Greek manuscripts
We have tens of thousands of individual scripture quotes within early writings to add to the database.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL SAID?
Textual Criticism takes the thousands of extant texts and compares them. That gives them the genealogies of each family of documents (like a family tree) and allows scholars to go back and find where a word or sentence may have been changed and what was most likely the original word or sentence by looking at the other family trees.  We have good reasons to think we are up to a 99% confidence in the words of the NT. There are no passages that change a core belief or affect the historicity of important events that are questioned. The error rate is down to knowing which word or punctuation was originally used. While Textual Critics offer valuable insights, their opinions on content and context aren't expert opinions in history or Biblical studies. I don't know how in the weeds you want to get, but I would be happy to respond to specific claims that give a reference.

WHAT ABOUT X
If you want to quibble about 2 Peter (3 chapters of 260) or whatever, then I will grant you that for the sake of the argument to save time for more important details.

1)  The letters of Ignatius are spurious at best.   They show an advanced concept of the church hierarchy and other doctrines that didn't exist until the 4th century   Scholars don't believe any of them were written by Ignatious. 

Here he suppodedly writes he had a special military escort from Syria to Rome for his execution.

From Syria even unto Rome I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both by night and day, being bound to ten leopards, I mean a band of soldiers.

That is a complete fantasy.  An escort of 10 soldiers were commisioned to take him from Antioch to Rome? LOLOL. Sure they were. From Antioch to Rome is almost 2000 miles. One has to board a ship in Syria, cross the Mediterranian Sea, most likely with stops at ports in Crete or some other island.  Then back on land with horses and onward to Rome for the execution.  What a lie.  A complete lie. 

Rome executed people where they lived. They didn't spend time and money  hauling them around all over the Empire for executions.  In the year 106 CE Christians were not a large enough group of people to be any sort of a threat to the Roman Empire. But early Christians were so full of self-importance and yearned to wear the mantel of martyrdom like a masochist so the execution stories were magnified to the point of being an out and out lie.

  
I will go through your list one by one a little later.

[SteveII]

There is absolutely no legitimate doubt that the Gospels and other books were discussed in an unbroken chain from the time they were written until today.

Here's a little bit of knowledge from an historian. Textual criticism cannot assess the medium of a text. It cannot make the difference from a recited text like a poem or even oral tradition and a written text. Take the example of the Gospel of Q. There is no evidence that the Gospel of Q was ever written down. It might very well be a purely oral Gospel. 

Your dating comment: not so. I outlined the reasoning for the dating I used. You are welcome to refute it with additional reasoning.

Further, do you know why some historians use a later dating? Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 has Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. Of course we can't have any predictions like that...because, you know, God does not exist, so it must have been written after the temple was destroyed in 70AD. It is well established that Mark was the first Gospel so all the others must be even after that. The late-date assumption is based on question-begging reasoning and not for any other reason. Again, I would welcome a documented challenge to that, but every time I bring it up, none is forthcoming.

I responded to your unusual oral traditions theory above. Also, where do you get "The fact most early Christian were completely illiterate, including most of the first Christian preachers and evangelists, would make the presence of a written Canon very superfluous" from? That seems to be completely made up. Most of the NT were actually letters written to Churches and then immediately copied and sent to other churches--this is not contested by anyone who knows anything about it. I would refer back to the link that catalogs all the mentions of the NT in first, second and third century non-biblical texts.

This is the most repeated piece of stupidity about the Gospel. In Mark 13, Jesus does not make a precise prediction of the destruction of the Temple. He just says that one day it will be destroyed and that what will announce it will come when people will lose faith, rumors of wars will be brewing, there will earthquakes and famine, etc. In other words, the Temple will be destroyed when the world will look like it's going to shit. As far as prediction goes it's the equivalent of predicting a storm when there will be dark clouds overhead and thunder grumbling in the sky; not exactly the hallmark of precision or insight.

I don't see why such vague prediction of catastrophe reveals any sort of ability to see the future. It's not even completely accurate with the destruction of the Temple by Romans in 70 AD. The last major Earthquake in Palestine in the first century AD was in 33, technically the earthquake that supposedly mark the death of Jesus and caused no major damage; nowhere near as devastating that the one 60 years earlier and the one 70 later. 

The very idea this relate to a specific event of the destruction of Jerusalem by Romans in 70 AD is rather thin. It's a rather general "end of the world" prediction with the idea that only those Christians that survive the tribulation and don't loose faith or get mislead will survive this end of the world scenario. 

The idea that historians actually believe this vague prediction to be referring specifically to the events of 70 AD is a bit ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous due to the fact, the destruction of the Temple is supposed to be one of the great step for the end of time which is something that evidently did not happen.  

You really missed the point on this one. I was not arguing the accuracy. I was explaining why people put the gospels at a later date. It is irrelevant if it was a prophesy or not or whether it came true or not. So in technical terms, I countered the late date argument by pointing out the logical fallacy and I offered other arguments that are hard to debate for an early dating. You did not refute my argument for the early dating.

As for your list of document. Here is something you should know. 1) We have almost no documents from the first two centuries of Christianity. 2) the early Christian Church and later the Catholic Church produced a lot of fakes and forgeries to better sit their power which makes authentifying documents to the author difficult let alone dating them properly since there is a range of date associated with the author too; half of the document you mention are of dubious authorship and authenticity. 3) many of the references you used are based on the assumption that Gospel existed in writting and thus any allusion to elements of their contant is considered a direct reference. This is a rather sloppy assumption since, once again it might very well refer to. It's not like those letters and discussion make references to Gospel by verse and chapter since even fully written early Gospels were not formated in verse and chapters yet.

(1) So? We don't have the original of MOST documents beyond a couple of hundred years and certainly not anywhere near that old. This is not the help you think it because the whole enterprise of textual criticism is all about solving for that.

(2) You are regurgitating atheist forum nonsense where it is repeated so often with no one objecting that you assume it is true. Please offer proof, references, or lay out the whole argument if it is your own because I all you have here are tired assertions.

(3) Again, you keep putting forward this oral tradition theory for the gospels. I think I understand the disconnect. The gospels were compiled and edited a few decades after the events (Luke says so right in the beginning). So you could characterize the information contained in them as existing in that form (oral tradition) during that period. But you made the ridiculous claim that they were oral traditions for centuries and that's what I jumped on. You seem to be holding firm on your theory though. Again, please reference some scholarly work that does not date the written gospels to the first century--which were then referenced from that day all the way to this day.

[epronovost]

(3) Again, you keep putting forward this oral tradition theory for the gospels. I think I understand the disconnect. The gospels were compiled and edited a few decades after the events (Luke says so right in the beginning). So you could characterize the information contained in them as existing in that form (oral tradition) during that period. But you made the ridiculous claim that they were oral traditions for centuries and that's what I jumped on. You seem to be holding firm on your theory though. Again, please reference some scholarly work that does not date the written gospels to the first century--which were then referenced from that day all the way to this day.

Do you have any evidence that were written down and not largely fragmentary and oral traditions? Do you have any direct quoting from different clearly named and identified Gospels within the letters of the early bishops with clear signs that they are directly quoting a text? These early bishops wrote in Greek and Latin and thus were educated and thus knew how to make proper textual quotation. What evidence of direct quotation do you have and that this quotation came from a text and not from oral tradition? I don't think their letters contained notions of bibliographical references either. Sure many of these letters were informal preaching and communication between one another and it would be unlikely to see them usingdirect literary quotation, but I think your position assumes far too easily the existence of early written Gospels in their full forms as we know them today.

Since there is little evidence religious teaching were commited to writtings, my position that the Gospel as books and texts and not just as teachings and oral traditions comes from the following evidences. 1) There is not a single fragment of those texts from the late 1st century and early 2nd century. Yet, a fully written Gospel is a fairly decent size book and very, very precious and expensive. The sort of book that would be meticulously preserved and cherished, copied when damaged and used by evangelist as proof and authoritative accounts to drawn more converts. This is unlike simple letters which we would expect to be thrown away rather quickly and never be copied. We would have found more fragments if it were the case that these books existed in an already complete fashion and this even if we were to assume there wasn't a lot of Christians at that time. 2) I find it very strange that no artwork of early Christians and from the early Christians depict those books yet depiction of evangelist preaching and priests conducting ceremonies without the use of a pulpit, all dining around a table and with no books or scrolls shows that the early Christian didn't considered the Gospel in written form as something available or important. The stunning lack of fragments of documents from the 1st and 2nd century shows and lack of depiction of written documents in early Christian worship up until the late 4th century makes me think the Gospels as we know them were not written yet. Some parts of them might have already been circulating around, but I seriously doubt that at the biggining of the 2nd century you had 4 distinct books already in circulation and readily used for quotation between early bishops. The general contant, the parable and stories of those books and some fragmental version of them probably did start to exist in the late 1st and early 2nd century, that I am sure of it too, but four fully formed books (and probably a few more), I seriously doubt so. There is to a too great lack of physical evidence to say so I would say.

[Minimalist]

Why would they think Jesus was important in the first century where literally everyone believed in gods and gods affecting daily life?

Ah, yes.... once again Stevie falls for the GREAT XTIAN PARADOX!

Jesus was so important and dangerous that the rulers had to break every rule in the book to crucify him on Passover....while at the exact same time he was such a fucking irrelevancy that no one took any notice of him.


Make up your fucking mind, Stevie.

[Dancefortwo]

Why would they think Jesus was important in the first century where literally everyone believed in gods and gods affecting daily life?

Ah, yes.... once again Stevie falls for the GREAT XTIAN PARADOX!

Jesus was so important and dangerous that the rulers had to break every rule in the book to crucify him on Passover....while at the exact same time he was such a fucking irrelevancy that no one took any notice of him.


Make up your fucking mind, Stevie.

Whoever wrote "Matthew"claims 

  And his fame went throughout all Syria 

Yes no one in Syria ever wrote about him.  Thousands came be be healed by him but no one wrote about him.  His crucifixion was a huge thing but no one took note of it.   That's how mythical stories play out.

[Minimalist]

The only way to read that horseshit and claim it is real is to be wearing the Holy Blinders.  A child should be able to see through it.

Stevie must have multiple sets of those blinders.

[1Sam15]

Ah, yes.... once again Stevie falls for the GREAT XTIAN PARADOX!

Jesus was so important and dangerous that the rulers had to break every rule in the book to crucify him on Passover....while at the exact same time he was such a fucking irrelevancy that no one took any notice of him.


Make up your fucking mind, Stevie.

Whoever wrote "Matthew"claims 

  And his fame went throughout all Syria 

Yes no one in Syria ever wrote about him.  Thousands came be be healed by him but no one wrote about him.  His crucifixion was a huge thing but no one took note of it.   That's how mythical stories play out.

Wasn’t there zombies climbing out of the ground that day too?

[SteveII]

(3) Again, you keep putting forward this oral tradition theory for the gospels. I think I understand the disconnect. The gospels were compiled and edited a few decades after the events (Luke says so right in the beginning). So you could characterize the information contained in them as existing in that form (oral tradition) during that period. But you made the ridiculous claim that they were oral traditions for centuries and that's what I jumped on. You seem to be holding firm on your theory though. Again, please reference some scholarly work that does not date the written gospels to the first century--which were then referenced from that day all the way to this day.

Do you have any evidence that were written down and not largely fragmentary and oral traditions? Do you have any direct quoting from different clearly named and identified Gospels within the letters of the early bishops with clear signs that they are directly quoting a text? These early bishops wrote in Greek and Latin and thus were educated and thus knew how to make proper textual quotation. What evidence of direct quotation do you have and that this quotation came from a text and not from oral tradition? I don't think their letters contained notions of bibliographical references either. Sure many of these letters were informal preaching and communication between one another and it would be unlikely to see them usingdirect literary quotation, but I think your position assumes far too easily the existence of early written Gospels in their full forms as we know them today.

Since there is little evidence religious teaching were commited to writtings, my position that the Gospel as books and texts and not just as teachings and oral traditions comes from the following evidences. 1) There is not a single fragment of those texts from the late 1st century and early 2nd century. Yet, a fully written Gospel is a fairly decent size book and very, very precious and expensive. The sort of book that would be meticulously preserved and cherished, copied when damaged and used by evangelist as proof and authoritative accounts to drawn more converts. This is unlike simple letters which we would expect to be thrown away rather quickly and never be copied. We would have found more fragments if it were the case that these books existed in an already complete fashion and this even if we were to assume there wasn't a lot of Christians at that time. 2) I find it very strange that no artwork of early Christians and from the early Christians depict those books yet depiction of evangelist preaching and priests conducting ceremonies without the use of a pulpit, all dining around a table and with no books or scrolls shows that the early Christian didn't considered the Gospel in written form as something available or important. The stunning lack of fragments of documents from the 1st and 2nd century shows and lack of depiction of written documents in early Christian worship up until the late 4th century makes me think the Gospels as we know them were not written yet. Some parts of them might have already been circulating around, but I seriously doubt that at the biggining of the 2nd century you had 4 distinct books already in circulation and readily used for quotation between early bishops. The general contant, the parable and stories of those books and some fragmental version of them probably did start to exist in the late 1st and early 2nd century, that I am sure of it too, but four fully formed books (and probably a few more), I seriously doubt so. There is to a too great lack of physical evidence to say so I would say.

Have you ever actually read any of the NT? I'm am beginning to think you haven't and you are backfilling your assertions as best as you can from the interwebs.

Luke wrote about 25% of the NT.

LUKE 1
Dedication to Theophilus
1Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Then in ACTS 1, Luke continues his research project at some point in the future:
Prologue
1The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Two things we can glean from Luke the opening paragraphs of Luke: 1) he is attempting to write an orderly account. If you read to the end of Acts, he writes of details all the way up to 62AD with Paul in Rome (there is your dating). and 2) look at the first verse of Luke. He explicitly says others have already attempted to set an orderly narrative that was then delivered to others and from which Theophilus had been instructed.

It will get boring to paste all the greetings from the every one of the letters to the churches. Paul gave shoutouts to people he knew in the individual churches and gave instructions on who to send were and who was coming next. No one believes that these things were not written down (well, except internet atheist who believe what they tell each other).

Look at this table of the earliest extant manuscripts from Wikipedia. Let's just do the first line. Eleven large fragments of Matthew from Egypt. But here's the thing, the next oldest fragment will be from a different region (let's say Syria) and not a descendent of these fragments here found in Egypt. So, what does that tell the textual critic scholars? There were earlier copies. Okay, then you get another copy a hundred years newer from Rome. It wasn't a descendent of either but it it had some very specific words in a particular passage that were only found in the Egyptian copy. That means there was an older copy that the Roman and the Egyptian text came from, but was newer than the one from which the Syrian branch broke off. After 5800 Greek copies, you can group and figure out where the transcription errors, word drop/adds/changes (sometimes just spelling), and punctuation variations changed and develop a family tree for every book and epistle. You can even have a pretty good idea what what the original because if one branch had a particular wording and the others eighteen did not, then...well, you have a pretty good idea what the original said, don't you.

This was an example I made up illustrating Textual Criticism and not to be understood as an actual example.

Finally, your last paragraph has 2 points you made. (1) is actually the exact opposite. From the same Wikipedia article above: "Complete and correctly-copied texts would usually be immediately placed in use and so wore out fairly quickly, which required frequent recopying. Manuscript copying was very costly when it required a scribe's attention for extended periods so a manuscript might be made only when it was commissioned."

(1) and especially (2) is an argument from silence. The argument from silence is a fallacy that occurs when someone claims that the absence of evidence or information proves a particular point or assertion. This fallacy assumes that if there were relevant evidence or information, it would have been presented or documented, and therefore its absence confirms the desired conclusion. However, this reasoning is flawed because the lack of evidence or information does not necessarily imply anything about the truth or validity of a claim. It's possible that the evidence was never recorded or has been lost over time, rendering the argument from silence unreliable and invalid as a logical basis for drawing conclusions.