
    Very interesting that you would believe in the writings of Homer and
Caesar but not the New Testament.  Did you know that there is more
historical evidence for the New Testament than there is for Homer OR
Caesar?
                              Existing
Author         Written        copy          Gap               Copies
=======        =======        =========     ====              ======
Caesar         100-44 B.C.    900 A.D.      1000 yrs            10
Plato          400 B.C.       900 A.D.      1300 yrs             7
Tacitus        100 B.C.       1100 A.D.     1000 yrs            20
Thucycides     450 B.C.       900 A.D.      1350 yrs             8
Pliny the
Younger        100 B.C.       850 A.D.       750 yrs             7
Herodotus      450 B.C.       900 A.D.      1350 yrs             8
Homer--Illiad  900 B.C.       400 B.C.       500 yrs           643
New Testament  45-100 A.D.    125 A.D.       25-300 yrs     24,000

   We have 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament as opposed to 643
from Homer.  You can believe Homer without any problem but WHY the not
New Testament?

    "an important presupposition which guides most historians in their
work.  Unless there is good reason for believing otherwise one will
assume that a given detail in the work of a particular historian is
factual.  This method places the burden of proof squarely on the person
who would doubt the reliability of a given portion of the text."
(Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament)

    If all Bibles & manuscripts were destroyed, we could reconstruct all
but 11 verses just by using the 89,000 quotations of the New Testament
used by the early church fathers 150-200 years after Christ.

     Sir Frederick Kenyon - Keeper of the ancient manuscripts and
director of the British Museum, after a lifetime of study of ancient
documents came to this conclusion:  "No other ancient book has anything
like such early and plentiful testimony to its text and no unbiased
scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is
substantially sound"

xx>Jesus, however, was never written about in any authenticated text,
xx>nor even mentioned by any enemy or Roman official.

  OH yea...

    Try reading some of these non-biblical historical sources:
         -  Tacitus
         -  Seutonious
         -  Josephus
         -  Thallus
         -  Jewish Talmud


  Here is the list of books I said I was going to leave for you.  If you
want to remain an atheist then you should at least have a glimpse at all
the evidence out there.  We Christians do NOT have a blind faith but
rather have very solid evidence and reasons for believing in the
reliability of the New Testament:

 Craig Blomberg,  The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.  Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press 1987

F. F. Bruce.  The New Testament Documents. Revised Edition. London:
InterVarsity press, 1960

 R. T. France.  The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove IVP, 1986

 Norman L Geisler and William E. Nix.  A General Introduction to the
Bible.  Chicago: Moody Press 1968

 J. Harold Greenlee, Scribes, Scrolls and Scripture - A Student's Guide
to the New Testament Textual Criticism.   Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985

 Josh McDowell.  Evidence that Demands a Verdict.  San Bernardino:
Here's Life Publishers 1979

 Don Stewart. Family Handbook of Christian Knowledge: The Bible.  Josh
McDowell, editor.  Sand Bernardino:  Here's Life Publishers 1983


PART 1   Confirmation by Historical Text
There are three basic principles, or criteria by which all historical
documents are tested: the Bibliographical Test is an examination of the
textual transmission by which today's documents have reached us.  In
other words, not having the originals, how reliable are the copies,
given the number of manuscripts and the time interval between the
original and the copy?  In applying the Internal Evidence Test, critics
agree that one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis,
and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by
contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.  In the External Evidence
test, we want to know if other historical materials confirm or deny the
internal testimony of the Bible.

- Bibliographical Test
     I cannot outline for you here the techniques by which scholars
     reach their conclusions.  But it is important to know that
     there is wide agreement among scholars about manuscript authority.

     Benjamin Warfield declares that the facts show that the great
     majority of the New testament "has been handed down to us with no,
     or next to no, variation: and even in the most corrupt form in
     which it has ever appeared, the real text of the sacred writers is
     competently exact; ... nor is one article of faith or moral precept
     either perverted or lost...".

     Millar Burrows says "Another result of comparing New Testament
     Greek with the language of the papyri is an increase of confidence
     in the accurate transmission of the text of the New Testament...".
     He continues that the texts "have been transmitted with remarkable
     fidelity, so that there need be no doubt whatever regarding the
     teaching conveyed by them."

     Sir Frederick Kenyon emphatically states "It cannot be too
     strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is
     certain".

     F. F. Bruce says: "There is no body of ancient literature in the
     world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the
     New Testament."

     There is similar agreement among scholars about the reliability of
     the Old Testament.  Some manuscripts have been found which date
     from before Christ!

- Internal Evidence Test
     Consider that the New Testament writers of the Bible wrote as
     eyewitnesses or from first-hand information.  Time after time, they
     said, "what we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you."  And it
     would have been difficult to invent words and deeds of Jesus in
     those early years, because there were so many of his disciples
     about, who could remember what did, and did not, happen. One of the
     strong points in the original preaching of the apostles was the
     confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers : "As you
     yourselves also know...".  So here too, there is agreement among
     scholars that the "New Testament must be regarded as a competent
     primary source document from the first century."

- External Evidence test
     Apart from the Bible itself, what sources substantiate its
     accuracy, reliability and authenticity?  Let me list for you just a
     few of the ancient writers whose works corroborate Biblical text.

     Eusebius, in his Ecclestical History, preserves writings of Papias,
     the Bishop of Hierapolis (130 A.D.) who used to talk with the
     Apostle John.  He confirms stories about Peter, Mark, Matthew, and
     many of the sayings of Christ.

     Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, 180 A.D.
     Clement of Rome, 95 A.D.
     Ignatius, 70 - 110 A.D.
     Polycarp, 70 - 156 A.D.
     Tatian, 170 A.D.

     All these men wrote historical papers which shed confirming light
     on various aspects of the Bible.  But perhaps as important as
     any of these, is Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who, with
     no reason for us to suspect Christian interpolation, writes many
     accounts which confirm those of the Gospels of the Bible.


PART 2 - Evidence from Archaeology

Nelson Glueck, renowned Jewish archaeologist, writes "It may be stated
categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a
biblical reference."

William F. Albright, one of the world's great archaeologists, writes,
"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial
historicity of the Old Testament tradition."  He adds, "The excessive
skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries ... has been progressively
discredited.  Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of
innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the
value of the Bible as a source of history."

I could give you one quotation after another, to fill pages, from
experts who concur with this view.  Let me give you a few specific
examples of archaelogical confirmation  of the Old Testament.

According to the Bible, "the whole world had one language and a
common speech."  After the building of the Tower of Babel and its
destruction, God "confused the language of the whole world."  Many
modern day philologists (those who study the science of languages)
attest to the likelihood of such an origin for the world's languages.

Other areas exist where, prior to archaeological discovery, the Biblical
account was believed to be in error, because it conflicted with
generally accepted knowledge and information.  To cite one example: in
the Biblical story of Joshua and the battle for Jericho, we read,
"...the wall collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took
the city."  This account had been discredited for the simple reason that
the construction of ancient city walls prevented them from being easily
breached from the outside, unless for some unexplainable reason they
collapsed outward.  By design, walls leaned inward, so that any weakness
caused them to collapse away from the attackers.  The Bible story had to
be in error.

Then, during the excavation of Jericho (1930 - 36), Garstang found
something absolutely startling!  In reference to his findings, he says,
"As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell
outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up
and over their ruins into the city."  In the face of everyone who had
previously laughed at the Biblical account, it was proven true.

There are also New Testament examples.  For centuries there had been no
record of the court where the Bible says Jesus was tried by Pontius
Pilate.  It was recently discovered, left buried by Hadrian after he
rebuilt Jerusalem, and so presumed not to have existed.

Luke wrote a Gospel (story of the life of Jesus) and also the Book of
Acts.  On several points his writings have been presumed false because
they did not concur with then-current understanding.  Today, however,
there remains not one area of conflict between established historical
fact and Luke's writings.




