Is The Bible Reliable?

[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

[Skinzo]

[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]

The Gospels in fact do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. They record Jesus' prediction but none of the writers say "this came to pass". This fact supports the idea that the Gospels were written before 64 A.D. John A. Robinson, an otherwise liberal Episcopalian wrote an interesting book called "Redating the New Testament" in which he made a good case that the later dating theories were based on an "almost wilful blindness". If there was anything the early Christian community had to crow about it was the destruction of Jerusalem. What better way to present Jesus as a very accurate prophet? Yet the Gospels are silent on the subject as is the rest of the New Testament.

S.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Skinzo

[Socrates]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1285955144' post='2177326']
The Gospels in fact do not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. They record Jesus' prediction but none of the writers say "this came to pass". This fact supports the idea that the Gospels were written before 64 A.D. John A. Robinson, an otherwise liberal Episcopalian wrote an interesting book called "Redating the New Testament" in which he made a good case that the later dating theories were based on an "almost wilful blindness". If there was anything the early Christian community had to crow about it was the destruction of Jerusalem. What better way to present Jesus as a very accurate prophet? Yet the Gospels are silent on the subject as is the rest of the New Testament.

S.
[/quote]
Good points.

Modernist scholars do not believe Christ actually could accurately prophesy future invents, and for this reason insist the prophecy must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem. Just as they insist that accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels must have been later additions to the original story of Jesus.

Much of their dating is based not in sound history, but on materialistic a priori assumptions against Christ's divinity and the reality of the supernatural.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285695792' post='2176462']
 This is not the same thing as Genesis, which is clearly a parable/fable type of story. 
[/quote]
That's a rather broad statement, too broad really. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement but if you are referring to the existence of Adam and Eve (often thought these days by many "scholars" even Catholic ones to be a "fable") the Church has asserted quite the contrary as Pope Pius XII made clear in Humanii Generis. The Church does affirm the existence of Adam and Eve. 





S. 

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1285697770' post='2176477']
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.
[/quote]

The problem with the Seewald book is that Cardinal Ratzinger is merely relating what some Scripture scholars think without offering his own point of view. A better source of  his opinion would be his "Erasmus Lecture" of 1988 in which he addressed the problems of modern biblical criticism in a more explicit manner. It's quite a long address but this passage is quite relevant:

"In fact, at the heart of the historical-critical method lies the effort to establish in the field of history a level of methodological precision which would yield conclusions of the same certainty as in the field of the natural sciences. But what one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. This is a practical rule which is presupposed as plainly and self-evidently valid. Now, if the natural science model is to be followed without hesitation, then the importance of the Heisenberg principle should be applied to the historical-critical method as well. Heisenberg has shown that the outcome of a given experiment is heavily influenced by the point of view of the observer. So much is this the case that both the observer’s questions and observations continue to change themselves in the natural course of events. When applied to the witness of history, this means that interpretation can never be just a simple reproduction of history’s being, “as it was.” The word “interpretation” gives us a clue to the question itself: every exegesis requires an “inter,” an entering in and a being “inter” or between things; this is the involvement of the interpreter himself. Pure objectivity is an absurd abstraction. It is not the uninvolved who comes to knowledge; rather, interest itself is a requirement for the possibility of coming to know.

Here, then, is the question: how does one come to be interested, not so that the self drowns out the voice of the other, but in such a way that one develops a kind of inner understanding for things of the past, and ears to listen to the word they speak to us today?" 


See: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/04/biblical-interpretation-in-cri

Essentially, the historical-critical method has major limitations and should not be accepted as if it were some kind of scientific truth. Too much theory is involved.

Scott Hahn has an interesting take on the whole issue: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp

One can never tell when evidence will emerge that upsets some theories. For example, some critics used to deride the mention of Gallio as a pro-consul that Paul appeared before in Acts 18. This concerns Paul's time in Corinth. These scholars insisted that no such person ever existed as there was no verification from any Roman sources that anyone named Gallio was ever a proconsul. Therefore, they claimed, the authenticity of Acts was questionable. For many years, this was the prevailing point of view among some biblical scholars. However, in 1905 a researcher in Paris  was sorting through some Roman inscriptions originally  found in the city of Delphi. These inscriptions were shown in fact to be a letter from the Roman emperor Claudius and sure enough it was addressed to the "proconsul Gallio of Achaia" ! The inscription was succesfully dated to 52 A.D. which places Paul's arrival in Corinth at 49/50 A.D. 

One can never be sure. 




S. 

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1285097894' post='2175128']
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.
[/quote]

This of course, explains the protestant translations.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285956124' post='2177332']
Good points.

Modernist scholars do not believe Christ actually could accurately prophesy future invents, and for this reason insist the prophecy must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem.  Just as they insist that accounts of miraculous events in the Gospels must have been later additions to the original story of Jesus.

Much of their dating is based not in sound history, but on materialistic a priori assumptions against Christ's divinity and the reality of the supernatural.
[/quote]




Well said. I think many of them are biased against Christ's divinity and the possibility of miracles.

Another point Robinson makes is that the NT does not refer to the deaths of Peter and Paul though most scholars put their deaths at or around 67 A.D. Ditto for St. James the Just. The historian Josephus dates the death of James to 62 A.D. Yet the NT never mentions it. 





S.

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1285696826' post='2176470']
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.[/quote]

We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text?

[quote]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. [/quote]

What are the sources of this tradition? How reliable are those sources?

[quote](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.)[/quote]

Virtually all biblical scholars accepted that Mark was written first and it has more to do with Matthew copying Mark than an inability to accept miraculous events.

[quote]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.[/quote]

You're assuming those primary sources were original eyewitness accounts.
[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![/quote]

The point is the Church recognizes the opinions of scholars that are at odds with you.

[quote]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.[/quote]

This works for the person of faith who believes the Magisterium is divinely preserved from error, however it doesn't help the person trying to objectively ascertain the reliability of such a story. Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable.
[quote]
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.[/quote]

Except for the fact it's not in any of the early manuscripts and that no Church father other than Augustine comments on it.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Maybe they didn't think it a lie but really *though* He did resurrect.

[quote]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.[/quote]

The Church does not regard the commentary as croutons, in fact, the Hierarchy is fully aware of the textual issues associated with the Bible, and it's probably why things like "no salvation outside of the Church" aren't taken as seriously as they used to.

[Micah]

[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][quote]We're relying on texts written by unknown authors who were not eye witnesses to the supposed events that were recorded. We don't have the original texts of these authors, all we have are copies of copies. Analysis of these copies shows that changes were made to the texts, and at times they were consciously driven by a theological motive, i.e. the scribe's bent towards a particular theological position motivated their changing the text a particular way. With this in mind, how can you consider the NT a reliable text? [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]Can you please provide examples of said corruption. For example, some scholars believe a "retractor" added a chapter to the end of the Gospel of John, but considering that this chapter is in unity with the rest of scripture and Christians believe the Bible is divinely inspired, the burden lies on the critic to define what he/she means by unreliable, and if it is unreliable. If by unreliable you mean it was not authored by John, then once again the burden rests on the critic to provide evidence, which after roughly 19 centuries is still naught but circumstantial. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4][quote]Generally speaking, if someone inserts a passage into an author's work centuries later, such an account is rendered unreliable. [/quote][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]
[/size][/font][/color]
[color=#595959][font=arial, verdana, sans-serif][size=4]How. so. ? This way of thinking reflects a historians line of thought. I would know; I'm a history student. It's only pertinent so far as the insertion somehow corrupts the manuscript, which we, Christians, know will never occur absolutely. And if you don't believe in divine handiwork, then the Bible is just so many letters and you need not worry.. [/size][/font][/color][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img]

[Skinzo]

Mortify,

  Have you ever read Scott Hahn on the John 7:53 controversy? This is what he said in "Scripture Matters" :

"The misuse of this passage is not something new. In fact, the story is actually missing from many ancient manuscripts of John's Gospel, and many modern versions of  the Bible relegate it to a footnote or place it in brackets. (Indeed, some of the ancient manuscripts that omit the story do so with an indication that "something has been left out." This is otherwise unprecedented in the New Testament.)

Apparently, in the early Church, the passage was sometimes omitted in order to avoid scandal. St. Augustine explained that moral rigorists tended to exclude the story because they feared it could lead people to a lax attitude about adultery.

At the Council of Trent, when the biblical canon was defined, this passage was authoritatively included in the Vulgate. The Magisterium confirmed the story's place in the New Testament more than once in the twentieth century."


S. 

[mortify]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1286248448' post='2177906']
Apparently, in the early Church, the passage was sometimes omitted in order to avoid scandal. St. Augustine explained that moral rigorists tended to exclude the story because they feared it could lead people to a lax attitude about adultery.
[/quote]

There are two problems with this hypothesis, one being that the earliest manuscripts we have exclude the story, and secondly none of the early Church fathers comment on it.