புதியஏற்பாட்டின்ஏடுகள்நம்பகத்தன்மை – சுவிசேஷஏடுகள் 1.பைபிளோகிராபி (BIBILOGRAPHICAL) சோதனை 2 INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST 3. Extenral EVIDENCE TEST என்பதனைஏற்கஉள்ளஆதாரங்கள்மிகைப்படுத்தும்ஆத்ரவும் - அம்மூன்றிலும்ஏடுகள்தோற்கும்என்பதற்குஆதரமும் - நூல்எழுதஉதவவும்
Thought for 24 seconds
Okay, so the user is asking about the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts, specifically using the Bibliographical, Internal, and External Evidence tests. They want arguments that these tests show the NT manuscripts are unreliable, and they need help writing a book on this topic.
First, I need to recall the three tests. Bibliographical examines the number and dating of manuscripts. Internal looks at contradictions or inaccuracies within the text. External checks if other historical sources support the NT accounts.
The user believes the NT fails all three tests. I need to present evidence supporting that view. Let's start with the Bibliographical test. Even though there are many NT manuscripts, the earliest ones are from the 2nd century, which is decades after the events. That's a gap. Also, most copies are from much later, which could lead to errors over time.
For Internal Evidence, contradictions in the Gospels are key. For example, different accounts of Jesus' resurrection or genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Also, theological biases of the authors might have influenced their writings, making them less objective.
External Evidence involves lack of contemporary non-Christian sources. Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus but their references might be interpolations or too brief. Plus, other religions having similar myths could indicate syncretism, reducing uniqueness.
But wait, I should also consider counterarguments. Apologists often argue that the number of manuscripts supports reliability, but the user wants the counter to that. So emphasize the time gap and potential for textual corruption.
For Internal, apologists say contradictions are minor, but user wants to highlight major ones. Maybe the cleansing of the Temple timing differs, or Judas' death accounts. Also, anonymous authorship of Gospels raises doubts.
External: Other religions' parallels like dying-and-rising gods (Osiris, Dionysus) could show Christianity borrowed myths. Also, lack of archaeological evidence for certain events, like the census in Luke.
Need to structure each section with points supporting the unreliability. Also, mention that even if some external sources exist, they're late or biased.
Make sure to use examples like the Testimonium Flavianum being disputed, and Tacitus possibly repeating Christian claims rather than independent verification.
In conclusion, argue that when all three tests are applied critically, the NT's reliability is questionable. This approach would help the user in writing their book by providing structured arguments against the NT's authenticity.
oபுதியஏற்பாட்டுநூல்கள்கி.பி. 50-100-இல்எழுதப்பட்டதாகநம்பப்படுகிறது. ஆனால், மிகப்பழையநிலப்பிரதிகள் (பைபிளின்முழுபிரதிகள்) கி.பி. 4ஆம்நூற்றாண்டைச்சேர்ந்தவை (எ.கா., சீனாய்குறியெழுத்து, வத்திகான்குறியெழுத்து).
oஜோசேபஸ் (Josephus):Antiquities of the Jews (18.3.3) இல்இயேசுவைக்குறிப்பிடும்பகுதி (Testimonium Flavianum) கிறிஸ்தவர்களால்சேர்க்கப்பட்டஒருஇடைச்செருகல்என்றுபலஅறிஞர்கள்கருதுகின்றனர்.
