Hmmm. I'm gratified to see that my blog is starting to attract some comments, and I'm particularly glad to see some of my old pals from William Crawley's Will & Testament blog showing up to drop a line or two. You're most welcome, folks :-)
PB suggests that Prof FF Bruce argued that because the gospels exist in so many ancient (by which he means over 100 years after the death of Jesus) fragments, this is a testament to their truthfulness.
As an argument, this is clearly ludicrous. For example, if we were to make a zillion copies of Mein Kampf and distribute them around the world, would that make Hitler's rambling claptrap any more "true"? Of course not. What Bruce's argument (in this line anyway) points to is merely *popularity*, not veracity. He's really no further on.
Yet it is amazing how often this false argument rears its ugly head. Perhaps that's just a mark of the desperation of some people, when faced with people who do not believe. Christians would do better to buck up their apologetics, rather than rely on nonsense.