Without doubt the veracity of the Bible has been one of the issues that has driven questioning Over the past years. However, as we know, the strength behind it literary is huge, usually leaving his critics look bad. For example, if we compare the number of manuscripts of the Bible in connection with such manuscripts of Plato, Herodotus, Tatius, Livio, etc ..., we note that generally the manuscripts of these are taken as true and true, and comparing to note that the biblical manuscripts and evidence outnumber those of the characters mentioned above. Both
History "Herodotus," the "Gallic Wars" of Caesar, the "Natural History of Pliny the Second, or The History of Rome "by Livy, are taken as true without grumbling. However, when some are mentioned in the Bible, take it as if it were inventing this or that group, and as if I had a legitimate literary. As we know, this is what the Bible critics wanted, but yet the literary-historical evidence point to the contrary.
In the next chart we can see something out of any literary text. While there are fewer copies of it, it is likely that with the passing of the years, much of its essence is lost. However, if copies of a text are abundant, then we have no choice but to accept his veracity.
Similarly, the period of time between when they were written manuscripts of a particular work and the oldest copy also attest to the veracity of this. Clearly both shorter time period, such as matching time of writing, as strongly in number of manuscripts, the Bible overwhelmingly exceeds the aforementioned classics. So why try to deny it is a literary marvel, even when the evidence could not be more blunt? As Robert Alter, a scholar of comparative literature at the University of Berkeley on one occasion:
"... the cryptic conciseness of Biblical narrative is a reflection of Profound art, primitiveness Not ..."
0 comments:
Post a Comment