Just because the originals burned up doesn’t mean what was written in 400 AD was made up or embellished. If nothing was written down for 400 years, and then someone attempted to write the history of what happened, that would be different. But that is not what occurred. There were written records out the wazoo. Paper tends to burn, but luckily, copies exist elsewhere.
Here is an excellent article that discusses your questions:
http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-testament-text-reliable#.VAX-VvldV7s
People didn’t wait 500 to 600 years to start writing - the originals were lost along the way and what remains are copies or texts that reference original sources.
Early Christians had no bibles. But they had prayer, and a personal relationwhip with their Creator. The bible helps, but it is not a requirement.
Don’t worry, Rebel Ace.
There’s no lack of ancient texts.
Given his background, we would expect St. John to be the literary expert of the disciples. And sure enough, he writes the most poetic, most literary of the gospels.
As a tax collector, St. Matthew would also have to be literate. And sure enough, we have the Gospel of Matthew.
As a fisherman, St. Peter would be less literate. But as first among the disciples (which refers to priority, not timeline), he authorized his secretary, St. Mark, to put to paper his gospel. And he also wrote a couple of letters himself.
St. James was the third of the trio of innermost disciples. We have his letter, too.
St. Paul was chosen to be representative among the Greeks. From him, we have twelve or perhaps 13 letters. Some set aside the tradition that Hebrews was written by Paul because its language was so different, but this would make sense, since he was writing in his native tongue to his native countrymen.
And then there’s St. Luke, whose education as a doctor made him as close to a scientist as could be found in Ancient Palestine. He wrote with the expressed purpose of a factual documentary, adding to his own witness that of St. Matthew and the Blessed Virgin Mary
But that’s not all we have.
St. James was the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem. While he only wrote one brief letter which survives, he was the original author of the Liturgy of Saint James, which survives to this day. Although skeptics insist certain portions are later additions, there’s little doubt that much remains of his Liturgy.
St. Mark also wrote a Liturgy. Again, it’s debated how much of the modern Liturgy of St. Mark was written by the disciple, himself, but the use of the Liturgy of St. Cyril by the Copts who lie outside of “Constantinian Christianity,” and which is a verbtum translation of the Liturgy of St. Mark into Coptic, must be read in the light that the Copts were militant against liturgical innovation — some even celebrate the Eucharist on Saturday! — and held the Liturgy of St. Mark to be authentic at least in the fifth century.
St. Ignatius of Antioch was the first chosen successor of the disciples after they began to die, and the remaining apostles left the first center of early Christianity after Jerusalem. Even while John was still alive within his see, Ignatius wrote commentaries on John’s work.
St. Clement of Rome was the first chosen successor of Peter to be able to speak openly in Rome. And we have his letters, a few of which are likely to be fakes (Google Pseudo-Clementine Literature), but many of which are well established to be authentic; the distinction is as sharp as that between the authentic letters of St. Peter and the apocryphal gospel of St. Peter.
The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve) is a “liturgical guidebook” even more primitive than the Liturgy of St. James. The title may not mean to assert it was hand-written by any one of the Twelve, but it is likely to have been written during the first century and to have been regarded in that time as being “orthodox” to the first followers of the apostles.
Other writers who knew the apostles personally include Papias, Polycarp, St. Barnabas, Hermas, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus.
We have hundreds of other antenicene works. The special status given to these few demonstrates that they were rare in their orthodoxy, and that the orthodox were very hesitant to usurp their forefathers in authority.
This is simply not true!
From Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded., p. 388). Chicago: Moody Press.
JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT (C. A.D. 117–138)
This papyrus fragment (2 1/2 by 3 1/2 inches) from a codex is the earliest known copy of any portion of the New Testament. It dates from the first half of the second century, probably A.D. 117–138.
The original text contains a photo of the fragment.
Even though accounts were written long after the events, they are regarded as true accounts because they were divinely inspired by God.
I am trying to study events that took place locally in 1775.
The primary people and events are pretty much the same but the details are often contradictory. Even depositions by people that were present at the same event are different in many respects.
I offer this chronology for your review and consideration:
http://www.bswett.com/2012NTChron.html
It begins: “This paper is a result of trying to understand when and where and by whom the books of the New Testament were written. I waded through numerous Internet archives and found that almost everything is controversial, with some scholars denying what others assert, so I decided to do my own research. I have relied on internal and external evidence, but not on modern scholarship, because so many modern scholars seem determined to justify their own preconceptions. For example, some say Matthew and Luke were written after 70 because they do not believe Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2; Luke 21:5-6), but about 75 Josephus wrote that many people escaped from Jerusalem during a lull in the Roman siege (The Wars of the Jews 2.20.1), and about 325 Eusebius wrote that Christians remembered what Jesus predicted and fled from Jerusalem before it was destroyed (Ecclesiastical History 3.5.3).”
Of course if you need to see the actual, original letters, that is impossible.
The writings of Irenaeus and the Didache are much older (late first century and mid 1st century respectively). The Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are early third century.
What it makes me think is that you don’t know the subject, which is known as ‘textual criticism’ or ‘lower criticism’.
FF Bruce, Norman Geisler and Josh McDowell have all written books on the subject of the reliability of the New Testament documents.
There are existing fragments that date back as early as the first century. We also have the very extensive writings of the ante-Nicene church fathers. 10 volumes of letters written before 325 AD. The church fathers quote so extensively from the biblical text that we could reassemble the original simply by using their letters.