Do Barnett and Bruce detail the evidence for the stories of hundreds of early martyrs? I wonder if those stories could have been created later in order to strengthen the apparent case.
There is a temptation to explain these events away, each on their own, one event at a time, tackling one and moving on to the next, without ever tackling the combination of them together.
Your question of whether the New Testament documents have in fact survived intact down the ages is of tremendous importance. In terms of textual criticism, one would amongst other things compare the number and antiquity of New Testament manuscripts with those of other ancient literature.
Daniel Wallace provides an overview:
"In comparison with the remaining manuscripts of any Greek or Latin literature, the NT suffers from an embarrassment of riches. It is almost incomprehensible to think about the disparity. When it comes to quantity of copies, the NT has no peer. More than 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts are still in existence, ranging in date from the early second century to the sixteenth century. To be sure, the earliest ones (i.e. through the third century) are all fragmentary, but they cover a substantial amount of the NT."
"And Greek manuscripts do not tell the whole story. The NT was translated early on into a variety of languages, including Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic and Arabic. All told, there are between 20,000 and 25,000 handwritten copies of the NT in various languages. Yet if all these were destroyed, the NT text could be reproduced almost in its entirety by quotations of it in sermons, tracts, and commentaries written by ancient teachers of the church... How does this compare with the average classical author? The copies of the average ancient Greek or Latin author's writings number fewer than 20 manuscripts. Thus, the NT has well over 1,000 times as many manuscripts as the works of the average classical author."
F.F. Bruce provides another:
"Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC), there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC - AD 17), only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, that containing fragments of Books 3-6, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,3000 years later than the originals. But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect!"
And Sir Frederic Kenyon:
"The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
You may also be interested in the English reformers in Oxford in 1555 (martyred by their own Church of England), here is an audio of David Seccombe PhD (Cambridge University) on the subject: http://bit.ly/ohQ63h
"My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed thee."
Well, this is funny, because here's the issue on which Dawkins fails completely to apply the principles he advocates we all should.
Incidentally, so do you. You claim thousands of eye witness accounts. Well, how many of those have been independently verified? Furthermore, even the highly know and regarded ones are ridden with inconsistencies and outright lies (I'm thinking Elie Wiesel here).
And even if they were there remains the point that no hard proof whatsoever has been produced to support the claim that the Holocaust as is told today ever happened. No documents exist that don't require a double interpretation to support such claim. No gas chambers that differ any bit from standard delousing chambers used at the time, even in the US, have ever been uncovered. This could go on.
I'm not trying to advocate for one version or the other. That's not the point. The point is, that this issue is NEVER applied the same principles that are applied to a rational inquiry or scientific endeavour or even a case being judged in a court of law. If you don't believe me, well, go and check by yourself. But don't just limit yourself to the Yad Vashem because that's the same as reading the Bible and saying it proves itself (although there are plenty of inconsistencies in the Yad Vashem data curiously).
I admire Dawkins and his work, but the truth is, in the issue of the Holocaust he's as stupid as the people he accuses of being stupid. Even worse, I bet he would viciously defend his stupidity against anyone who would challenge him otherwise.
I have an adopted Jewish aunt. Her mother and father put her on one of the last trains to leave Germany for England. At the last second her mother pushed her baby sister through the window to her. She never saw her parents again.
I have a Jewish friend who's grandfather was one of the last survivors of a concentration camp, and who walked to Israel and started repairing shoes on the streets of Tel Aviv.
I live across the road from the South African Jewish Museum, and I have seen the photographs. I am not a historian and I do not claim to be one, but I think it's sensible to say that something happened, and that hundreds of thousands of people died and were affected. Furthermore, anyone who would suggest these things never happened would have some "explaining away" to do.
Next time you choose to post this sort of thing from an anonymous account, just write 'I'm an antisemite' instead. It'll save us all time.
It's painful that there is even the need to remind people of this.
For example, I have heard of a handful of Germans today who for one reason or another say the Holocaust never happened. In light of the thousands of eye witness accounts, is it sensible to say that?
Another example, there are atheists today who for one reason or another say the Resurrection never happened, and not necessarily because they have ever looked into the historical primary and secondary sources.
In light of the hundreds of people who died at Roman hands in the 1st century, refusing to recant that they had seen the risen Lord, is it sensible to label their testimony a delusion, or inherited from their parents, without any thorough investigation at all?
As for those who had seen Christ themselves:
"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church."
"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."
"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep."
Are the New Testament sources primary, accurate, unbiased, trustworthy? When were they written? Have they been corrupted or do we read them as they wrote them? How many sources are there inside and outside of the New Testament? Are they independent? Are they coherent?
Here are some people who have tried to address these questions:
Paul Barnett, "Is the New Testament history?" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-History-Paul-Barnett/dp/...)
FF Bruce, "New Testament Documents" (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/...)