Are the Gospels reliable?
March 5th, 2018 at 8:39:39 AM permalink | |
pew Member since: Jan 8, 2013 Threads: 4 Posts: 1232 | The text has not changed. There I said it. |
March 5th, 2018 at 11:10:31 AM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
Holy Cow, is this wrong. Any real NT scholar will tell you that we do NOT have any of the original documents. What we have are copies. And those are copies of copies of copies of copies, and add a few more copies into that. It was 250-300 years after the originals were written that we see the first copies that are still around today. So as far as accuracy goes, what the heck are you talking about. First we have oral stories being told countless time for decades and decades before being written down. We know they were changed and embellished because we had scads of 'gospels' that were not chosen to go in the NT that are wildly different from the 4 that made the cut. Then we have centuries of people copying them. Only they weren't copying the originals, they were copying the copies of copies of copies of copies. Anything that was altered gets copied too, and gets passed off as original. One of the things that long ago shattered Bart Ehrman the most was, when he still believed in god, was that god made no attempt to preserve the original documents by the original writers. If you go into this as Ehrman did, speaking and writing Greek, you're stunned at the amount of just plain old material there is to wade through, and NONE of it is original. So saying the gospels are 'accurate and reliable' is a stunningly wrong statement on just about every level. We have NO originals. As a comparison, we know the Declaration of Independence is accurate because WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL!!! Get it? The Lincoln picture comparison is very good. No surviving negatives means what you have is pictures of pictures of pictures. Copies of copies of copies of copies. It could be a Lincoln look alike, who would really know for sure. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
March 5th, 2018 at 3:37:21 PM permalink | |
Mosca Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 22 Posts: 730 | You mean like, are they really The Gospels? What difference does it make? I mean, they're certainly real enough. As historical documents, they might not rise to the level of Pliny the Elder at Vesuvius, but they are as reliable as they could be, given the era. And this is strictly my opinion, but I think that oral histories in those times are more accurate than they would be today; there were people who specialized in memorizing accounts. It was a real job. You get that sense when the authors themselves write that they are trying to be as accurate as possible: they felt they were writing important history. This was a big deal to them. They were afraid it would get lost. But again, what difference does it make? If they were proven to have undergone a transformation in text, and in meaning, would those who accept them doubt them? If they were proven to be exactly accurate, would apostates become believers? So, the question might appear interesting, but I think it is just an excuse to parse things. The Gospels are the foundation of the faith of the Christian world. The faithful don't really have much else to go on, do they? |
March 5th, 2018 at 4:15:05 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
So this is incorrect. There is papyri dating from the year 135 AD that contains parts of John's Gospel who is unanimously considered the last Gospel written. Bishop Papias from around the year 125 AD knew of several of the Gospels. St. Clement of Rome (92-101 AD) cites the Gospels. St. Ignatius of Antioch who was martyred in 107 AD speaks of the four Gospels. St. Ireneus between 178 - 188 AD attests to all four Gospels by name.
Again you are incorrect here. There was not just one big warehouse or monastery doing all the copying. In that case I see what you are saying, if no one catches the era it just keeps going. However, the Gospels were copied all over the place and in many different languages. By comparing the copies from many different independent sources you can easily see what one person copying might have made a mistake with. This is why having so many manuscripts becomes so important and makes the Bible the most reliable of all books in the ancient world. Reliable in the sense that you have enough copies from many different places to compare and find the mistakes or the deviations.
That is not much of a comparison is it? How old is the Declaration of Independence compared to the Gospels. One comparison you might want to make is based on oral tradition. I was forced in middle school to memorize the first paragraph of the Declaration and preamble of the Constitution and I can still recite them today. That document is some 250 years old and many of us can perfectly recite the preamble. Oral tradition is a reliable way to pass things along, especially when it is important and the culture takes it very seriously. If, God forbid, we lost the original we wouldn't have too much trouble I think creating an accurate copy. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
March 5th, 2018 at 4:35:57 PM permalink | |
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 | There is a Wikipedia article discussing all of the aspects mentioned here, along with those mentioned in other threads. Except for "the Bible is accurate because the Bible says so.". For some reason they don't discuss that one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels The article also says that the oldest surviving fragments were from the year 125 or so. It isn't claiming it was written then, just that they are the oldest surviving fragments. It claims that scholars claim the gospels were first written down sometime between the years 50 and 100+, depending on the gospel. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
March 5th, 2018 at 4:38:47 PM permalink | |
Dalex64 Member since: Mar 8, 2014 Threads: 3 Posts: 3687 | As for the scholarly assessment of the gospels,
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan |
March 5th, 2018 at 5:31:04 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 |
WRONG!!! Because NONE of the originals are available, the material gotten from decades of flawed story telling, NONE of the thousands of copies are valid because they're all different. That's what they were doing at the council when they put the NT together, arguing over which gospels in this horrid mess were ones they should use. This is even a bigger cluster-frick than I thought. As I said, look at Matthew Mark and Luke. In none of these does Jesus say he's god, which is what the whole religion is based on! It's not till John, written last and lonnnng after the first 3, that we read that Jesus said he was god. Why didn't the first 3 mention this? Because John hadn't invented it yet, obviously! This is a huge deal, Jesus says he's god, yet Matthew Mark and Luke know nothing about it? Right....... I'm glad for this thread, because the reading I've done in the last few days has made me even more of a believer in what a complete sham this daddy/god worshiping religion is. It's based on hearsay and not even good hearsay. It's just another myth that was passed around, but this one was turned into a powerful business. It shows just how low humans will go to have power over other humans. Disgraceful. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
March 5th, 2018 at 7:22:41 PM permalink | |
Evenbob Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 146 Posts: 25010 | Got 30 min? This answers about every question you can have about gospel reliability. What a mess the NT is, I feel pity for anybody that has to make sense out of it. If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose. |
March 5th, 2018 at 8:22:58 PM permalink | |
FrGamble Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 67 Posts: 7596 |
The point Bob is that they are not all different. Since they are the same the variants stand out and help you see where the vast number of manuscripts agree and where errors may be.
This seems a little out of place and will bring us into a theological discussion. So let's stick to the facts. The letters of Paul were mainly written even before the Gospel of Mark. The fact that Christians believe Jesus to be God comes way before John's Gospel. It is found in the Synoptic Gospels too, but let's agree that Jesus' Divinity is known before the first Gospel was written.
I too am glad you are doing some reading about this too. Feel free to share because what you have posted so far has been demonstrably incorrect. “It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” ( |
March 6th, 2018 at 5:50:47 AM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5055 | I asked about the word "reliable" and FrG has told us what he meant by it. I'd have to say the various positions that have been taken have not budged, unless someone was new to the idea of examining the whole question, surprised that the Church itself will acknowledge what issues there are. "Are the Gospels reliable" does sound like a Bible Study subject to be discussed among believers seeking re-assurance from what they might be hearing this day and age. It's the age of the internet and not the age of the tactic of shaming [or worse] of heretics. And not the age of the ability to completely control the flow of information to the public that was enjoyed in the early centuries AD. I tip my hat to FrG's ambitions here, imagining he literally must take the issue on with some of his flock, some of whom are on their way to losing their faith when hearing details of Higher Criticism. Age of the internet or not, H. C. is not what anybody is first taught in Sunday school. I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |