Is The Bible Reliable?

[mortify]

This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words? It seems to me there is no reasonable certainty, and that is leading to some uncomfortable consequences.

What do you guys think about the reliability of the NT?

[kafka]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285092406' post='2175108']
This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words? It seems to me there is no reasonable certainty, and that is leading to some uncomfortable consequences.

What do you guys think about the reliability of the NT?
[/quote]
[i]This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? [/i]

God is the Supreme Author of Sacred Scripture. He inspired the Sacred Writers, therefore it is infallibly and inerrantly reliable. This truth is beyond reason and sense.

[i]The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. [/i]

that is an error. Two Apostles, and two disciples, one of whom may have been an eye witness when he was young (Mark) authored the Gospels. Luke was influenced by Matthew's and Mark's Gospel and he was also influenced by Mary. Perhaps some other disciples, or Christians added some parts under inspiration after the bulk was written but these were also under inspiration.

[i]All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words?[/i]

The Faith is built on three pillars: Sacred Tradition first, then Sacred Scripture, then Magisterium. Sacred Tradition is the Deeds wrought by God in salvation history. Jesus establishing the Catholic Church is first a Deed he enacted, and it is reflected and expressed in Sacred Scripture. But the point is we believe and accept in love-faith-hope, first that God has effected acts in history.

In the end it is a matter of accepting the truths concerning the Bible taught by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium as a point of departure and then one may hope to do a valid scholarly study of Sacred Scripture.

As far as the only extent edition being from 300 a.d. I dont have time now to answer that, other than God's providence guides the translations. Will find quotes from Dei Verbum later.

Edited September 21, 2010 by kafka

[sixpence]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='[url="http://xisbn.worldcat.org:80/liblook/resolve.htm?res_id=http://www.iris.rutgers.edu&rft.isbn=1285092406&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book"]1285092406[/url]' post='2175108']
This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels...
[/quote]

I also have a new american Catholic Bible, wondering if it is the same one, (it is a dull pumpkin color with a yellow cross). It says that Matthew was written by an unknown author and was based off of Mark and other sources. It says the post-70 AD dating is confirmed by the mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, while Mark was around 70 AD. It says it is approved by the national conference of catholic bishops and whatnot

[Winchester]

I once told the Bible to meet me at the airport at seven in the evening. It never showed up.

[CatherineM]

I never met my grandparents. They died when my dad was 6 months and 3 years old. I tell stories about them all the time. I wasn't an eyewitness. Neither was my father who told me the stories. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that the stories are accurate.

One of the first things freshmen at OSU learn is where the old hanging tree is. It's a narly huge old tree outside of Perkins where they hung outlaws in the wild west days. None of the older students were eyewitnesses. They were passing on the history of the area to us as it had been passed to them.

The Gospels were written in a time when oral tradition was the primary way that history was recorded. They knew what they were doing, and I doubt God would let them screw it up.

[kafka]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1285103773' post='2175151']
I also have a new american Catholic Bible, wondering if it is the same one, (it is a dull pumpkin color with a yellow cross). It says that Matthew was written by an unknown author and was based off of Mark and other sources. It says the post-70 AD dating is confirmed by the mention of the destruction of Jerusalem, while Mark was around 70 AD. It says it is approved by the national conference of catholic bishops and whatnot
[/quote]
I think that is rubbish. I think they inadvertently placed to much trust in those scholars they commissioned to writed those introductory articles.

[kafka]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285092406' post='2175108']
Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. [/quote]
and too tired to look through my Dei Verbum commentary, so I will just quote Conte which I agree with:

"The Word of God in Sacred Scripture, though written, is also lived by the Church, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from erosion or degradation over time. God did not merely write the Bible. He wrote the Bible and He continues to protect its truths, so that the passage of time and the particular errors possible in any particular edition do not cause the introduction of any error, nor the loss or distortion of any truth, in Scrpture itself.

Any particular edition of the Bible is, in a sense, Scripture. But in full, Scripture is all editions, manuscripts, versions, throughout the world, not only in written form, but as these truths are lived in the Spirit, and guided by Tradition and Magisterium."

Also it is interesting to note that the Canon of Sacred Scripture definitely taught by the Magisterium on several occasions such as Florence, Trent, Vatican, and and quoted in encyclicals is defined by way of the Latin Vulgate tradition, and not from the Greek or Hebrew traditions:

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)

[Ed Normile]

The Bible? Its there every time that I need it, it always has something to offer me thats relevant to what I need, it seems pretty reliable too me.

ed

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285092406' post='2175108']
This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words? It seems to me there is no reasonable certainty, and that is leading to some uncomfortable consequences.

What do you guys think about the reliability of the NT?
[/quote]
The notes of the NAB unfortunately have modernist tendencies, and are often a load of poo.
A better question for a Catholic to ask might be, "Are the NAB footnotes reliable?"

The truth is that in terms of having written documentation close to the time of the events described, the events of the Gospels are among the best-documented in ancient history. (The earliest copies of most records of historical events in ancient times were written centuries after the events described took place. Modernist "biblical scholars" until a few decades ago, usually claimed that the Gospels were actually written down many generations after the death of Christ (because they did not believe in the supernatural events recorded in the Gospel and claimed they were myths and legends that grew up in the "Christian community). However, more recent archaeological evidence has proven that hypothesis false, and shows that the Gospels were likely written at the times Christian tradition has always said they were written. Fragments of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew have been dated to well within the first century, and a fragment of the John's Gospel (universally regarded as the last of the four Gospels written) dated to the end of the first century has been found in Egypt, showing that the Gospel was already in wide circulation at this time.

Tradition tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was written by one of Christ's disciples and an eyewitness, and the Gospel of John was written by Christ's "beloved disciple" John, also an eyewitness, as stated in the Gospel itself: "This is that disciple who gives testimony of these things and has written these things: and we know that his testimony is true." (John 21:24)
The Gospels of Mark and Luke were written by companions of St. Paul active in the early Church who would know many eyewitnesses, including St. Peter and the Blessed Virgin, and used them for sources.
There is really no solid evidence proving the traditional Christian view of the authorship of the Gospels to be false.

You can always choose to doubt, or claim the history was later changed (again, without any solid evidence) but then, this leads to problem of why so many in the early Church were willing to give up their lives to defend what they knew to be a hoax or fabrication. When the first Christians were being persecuted by the Jewish authorities and the Romans, you'd think that at least someone would step up to admit the whole thing was false, rather than face death. But that never happened.

[Winchester]

'AD' precedes the date.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285274330' post='2175514']
'AD' precedes the date.
[/quote]

Your B.C. date. This followed the date.

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/3111157686_200e89d3c3.jpg?v=0[/img]

~Sternhauser

[kafka]

Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 18.

"It is common knowledge that among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special preeminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness for the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our savior. [b]The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin.[/b] For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

So the Council teaches the expression of the Living Tradition that the Gospels are written by the Apostles or close associates to the Apostles. Matthew-Apostle, Mark associate of Peter, Luke associate of Paul, John-Apostle.

Also Eusebius and Jerome taught that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the other three Gospels. I dont have quotes but I am sure I could find at newadvent.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285092406' post='2175108']
This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words? It seems to me there is no reasonable certainty, and that is leading to some uncomfortable consequences.

What do you guys think about the reliability of the NT?
[/quote]
The New American Bible is a poor translation and the footnotes are atrocious, but the WORD of GOD is always reliable. Buy a better translation such as the RSV-CE.

[Fragments]

Why do the different translations offer more or less? Surely the word of God stands still.

[kafka]

[quote name='Fragments' timestamp='1285359840' post='2175741']
Why do the different translations offer more or less? Surely the word of God stands still.
[/quote]
Good Point! God wrote the Sacred Scripture, yet Sacred Scripture is also lived by the Church: Living Scripture. And guided by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium so that all of the truths of Sacred Scripture are protected over time. The Holy Spirit guides and protects Sacred Scripture so that no substantial erosion or errors enter into the Word of God itself. The Church assists the Spirit by Living the truths of Scripture and teaching the truths of Sacred Scripture.

Very good point. Any particular edition of the Bible is, in a sense, Scripture. But in full, Scripture is all editions, manuscripts, versions, throughout the world, not only in written form, but as these truths are lived in the Spirit, and guided by Tradition and Magisterium.

The truths of Scripture are so profound and prolific no one version could possibly express in full what God intends to express in words. So one version may be better than another, in certain books or certain chapters or verses, etc. It is beyond any one version to fully express all that God intends.

Then there are certain erroneous erosions in modern translations which have occurred in modern times and
which the Magisterium teaches against and provides rules to guide sound translations.

Edited September 24, 2010 by kafka

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285274246' post='2175513']
There is really no solid evidence proving the traditional Christian view of the authorship of the Gospels to be false.
[/quote]

Reasonable doubt can be cast. One of the reasons most scholars believe the authors of the Gospels were not eye witnesses was because they copied from one another. Why would Matthew copy from Mark when he could write his own unique account? This type of thing is more consistent with a non-eyewitness believer collecting sources to compile their own narration on Jesus Christ.

[quote]You can always choose to doubt, or claim the history was later changed (again, without any solid evidence)[/quote]

If the gospel accounts are taken as history then change can be demonstrated. All you have to do is compare older manuscripts to newer ones. A pretty famous example is the story of Jesus and prostitute (John 8), a story which was unknown to early manuscripts. This is what the NAB says about it:

[color="#0000FF"] [7:53-8:11] [color="#FF0000"]The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts.[/color] A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after John 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Luke 21:but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jeremiah 17:13 (cf the note on John John 8:6) and the statement, "I do not judge anyone," in John 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.[/color]

That a whole passage of verses was inserted centuries later should cause some worry.

[quote]but then, this leads to problem of why so many in the early Church were willing to give up their lives to defend what they knew to be a hoax or fabrication. When the first Christians were being persecuted by the Jewish authorities and the Romans, you'd think that at least someone would step up to admit the whole thing was false, rather than face death. But that never happened.
[/quote]

First you're assuming that those accounts of martyrdom are true. Secondly, aren't there many examples of people dying for things they believe in even though they're clearly false?

The uncertainty is troubeling.

[mortify]

[Maggyie]

Pope Benedict talked about this in one of his interview-books (I forget which one). The journalist brought up all the secular information we have about the historical nature of Scripture, and how it makes it look like a bunch of folk tales etc, and how could he (Cardinal Ratzinger) still believe and accept the Gospel?

I don't have his answer word for word, but the point is that God goes beyond plain-on-the-face literal interpretation. This is not the same thing as Genesis, which is clearly a parable/fable type of story. The Gospel IS historically reliable in that it tells us what happened: Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus died on the cross, Jesus rose from the dead. But it is not necessarily "accurate" (as in, LITERALLY accurate), word-for-word. It is accurate in another sense, in that it supplies us with accurate and truthful information about the Church and about what God is calling us to.

This is why the Catholic Church has the much more historically comprehensible combo of Scripture AND Tradition. The Bible did not fall out of the sky already written. Different parts were made up at different times and meshed together by the Church. The Church came before the Bible. The rationale for believing in the Church came before there was any Biblical rationale, before there was any Bible at all. Remember that for thousands of years most Christians were illiterate, and they had to get confirmation about the truth of the Catholic Church in other ways. What Jesus says about Peter and the Church, as written in the Gospel, I think is a fairly accurate reporting of what He said, especially given that it confirms a reality that was being lived in the Church from Pentecost on. But even if it wasn't, word for word, what He said, the Gospel report has been confirmed by His followers as a good representation of what He meant. They would be the ones to know.

The insertion and reassembly and over-zealous editing of Scripture has been going on a long time. The Holy Bible is the Word of God, but we don't look at it the way Muslims look at the Koran. None of the deletions or insertions or edits have anything to do with the Creed, and a mature, educated faith can look at the history of the compilation of the Bible as a demonstration of the on-going help of the Holy Spirit.

I think there are a number of Catholic scripture scholars who do not shy away from historical reality when it comes to the growth of the Bible (again it was an organic, centuries old process, it did not fall from the sky complete). This information, if presented correctly, should strengthen faith and not threaten it in the least. I will see if I can find some names for you...

Edited September 28, 2010 by Maggie

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285384705' post='2175815']
Reasonable doubt can be cast. One of the reasons most scholars believe the authors of the Gospels were not eye witnesses was because they copied from one another. Why would Matthew copy from Mark when he could write his own unique account? This type of thing is more consistent with a non-eyewitness believer collecting sources to compile their own narration on Jesus Christ.[/quote]
Yes, you can cast doubt on anything if you so choose, but you still haven't made a positive case for the Gospel being unreliable.

Christian tradition has always regarded Matthew as the oldest Gospel, and written by an eyewitness. Mark was not an eyewitness, though he was a disciple with Paul, and thus had contact with the original apostles who personally knew Christ when He was on earth. His Gospel was likely largely based on that of Matthew, but shortened and adopted for a largely Gentile audience. (Modernist "biblical scholars" typically assert that Mark was written first, because it was shorter and contained fewer miraculous events - but that assertion is based on the presumption that Jesus Christ was not divine and the miraculous events never happened, rather than any actual historical evidence.)

Someone compiling events from original first-hand sources does not prove either account false.
If I (who have never been to Vietnam) were to write a book about the Vietnam War, which used earlier written sources by reliable eye-witnesses who had actually fought in or reported on the war, it would not prove either written account false or unreliable.

By your standards, we would have to discredit almost everything written in ancient history.



[quote]If the gospel accounts are taken as history then change can be demonstrated. All you have to do is compare older manuscripts to newer ones. A pretty famous example is the story of Jesus and prostitute (John 8), a story which was unknown to early manuscripts. This is what the NAB says about it:

[color="#0000FF"] [7:53-8:11] [color="#FF0000"]The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts.[/color] A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after John 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Luke 21:but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jeremiah 17:13 (cf the note on John John 8:6) and the statement, "I do not judge anyone," in John 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.[/color]

That a whole passage of verses was inserted centuries later should cause some worry. [/quote]
For someone with so much doubt about the truth of the Gospel, you sure take the words of the NAB footnotes as inerrant gospel truth!

Not all manuscripts we have are necessarily complete, and it's quite possible that the story of the woman caught in adultery was part of the original Apostolic tradition that was not actually written down in that particular account until later. If something is canonical, it does not mean it was necessarily written down by the same person, but assures that it is in fact true and inspired, regardless of the human author. Remember, the Bible itself was compiled from the works of many human authors.
I see no reason to doubt that event really happened. Given, that all the Gospels contain the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, and numerous miracles, there is no reason not to believe that Christ forgave a woman caught in adultery.

Remember, the written Gospels came from the pre-existing oral teaching of the Gospel by the Church, not the other way around. Contrary to popular protestant belief, the Church didn't start with people picking up and reading the Bible (KJV, leather binding, gold trim) after it was dropped out of the sky.


[quote]First you're assuming that those accounts of martyrdom are true. Secondly, aren't there many examples of people dying for things they believe in even though they're clearly false?

The uncertainty is troubeling.[/quote]
You have no reason to assume the accounts of the martyrdom are false (unless you're simply going to be contrary and doubt everything anyone has ever recorded). There is plenty of evidence of the persecution and martyrdom of the early Christians.

If you knew the whole story of Jesus was a lie (as you would if you were one of the original followers of Christ), would you have rather died, rather than give up the lie?
I find that simply ridiculous and implausible.

I can't force Faith or belief in Christ on you, but I suggest you throw out that NAB croutons, get a real Bible, and reflect prayerfully on its message.

There is a lot more evidence to back up the truth of the Gospels than there is to support the various bizarre modern conspiracy theories to discredit them (which almost invariably seem to involve the Evil Repressive Institutional Church violently overthrowing and suppressing the Original Christian Community, who were, of course, [i]really[/i] a carefree band of hedonistic secular-humanist liberal hippies, who weren't hung-up about stuff like religious doctrine and moral rules).

[Maggyie]

Okay I found it, it is in the book "God and the World: A Conversation with Peter Seewald." Chapter 10 has a section called "Gospels and Gospel Writers" in which the future pope talks about this problem at length. It goes on for so long that I can't reproduce it here without it being a text dump, but he does talk about how most scholars that Matthew probably didn't write the Gospel According to Matthew. How it was probably an oral tradition handed down to somebody else. Maybe get your hands on this book and see if it answers any questions!

EDIT: And Ratzinger also talks about doubt, too, in another part. He says it's never quite past... so don't lose yourself to despair that you have some doubts. It's part of the human experience.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Maggie