How do we know the Gospels are reliable?

[coolduude]

This question was brought up in Lee Stroble’s ‘The Case for Christ’ and he adressed it and found out that the Gospels are reliable. I just forget why they are. What the proof is basically. Can anyone help me out?

Thank you,
coolduude

 

[Bookcat]

This question was brought up in Lee Stroble’s ‘The Case for Christ’ and he adressed it and found out that the Gospels are reliable. I just forget why they are. What the proof is basically. Can anyone help me out?

Thank you,
coolduude

tis after midnight where I am so I have to get to bed…but yes they are reliable. And from the manuscripts etc they are actually better supported than many ancient works that are so commonly accepted!

Here is one document from the Church that can be of help and interest:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM

heading to bed…

 

[prodigal-sun]

I accept the scriptures because they were compiled by the One Holy Apostolic Church left to us by Christ himself. It is through this authority that the bible has been given to us and called good.

This is why the scriptures can be called reliable. Without this Authority these pages would possibly be just a bunch of forgotten manuscripts lost in some collectors basement!

Peace!

 

[patg]

This question was brought up in Lee Stroble’s ‘The Case for Christ’ and he adressed it and found out that the Gospels are reliable. I just forget why they are. What the proof is basically. Can anyone help me out?

Thank you,
coolduude

Stroble’s logic is pretty weak. The reliability all comes down to faith as there is no external independent attestation or evidence for the events. Also, there are many things taught in the gospels for which there can be no evidence.

 

[RedBert]

is this what you mean?

"notable early manuscripts of John include Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, in consequence of which a substantially complete text of the Gospel of John exists from the beginning of the 3rd century at the latest. Hence the textual evidence for the Gospel of John is commonly accepted as both earlier and more reliable than that for any other of the canonical Gospels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

we have an almost complete Gospel according to John from the early 200s

 

[Ignatius]

This question was brought up in Lee Stroble’s ‘The Case for Christ’ and he adressed it and found out that the Gospels are reliable. I just forget why they are. What the proof is basically. Can anyone help me out?

The reliability of the Gospels, i.e. Doctrine of inerrancy, flows very naturally from the Church’s teaching that it is the Word of God. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, if it is the Word of God then it is the Truth.

 

[RedBert]

The reliability of the Gospels, i.e. Doctrine of inerrancy, .

I think the OP post is asking about manuscript evidence: not inerrancy.

in other words: how close are we in knowing what what in the originals?,

 

[hellopeople]

I think the OP post is asking about manuscript evidence: not inerrancy.

in other words: how close are we in knowing what what in the originals?,

I really can’t say how reliable the gospels really are…it seems as though each of the gospel writers had an agenda that they were trying to follow. So how much of the Jesus’ story did they change to fit their agenda? I’m not too sure. The reliability of the gospels is a bit of a mystery IMO. You have to realize that these gospels were written 30+ years after the death of Jesus as well, so how much of the story got embellished or changed over that time?..and did Jesus actually say the words that he is attributed, or did he just say things that were like that. Also, you have to realize that the gospels are written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic so the gospel is already translated once. Also the manuscripts we have are quite removed from the originals and errors could creep in.

So, IMO, they probably aren’t extremely accurate.

 

[coolduude]

is this what you mean?

"notable early manuscripts of John include Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75, in consequence of which a substantially complete text of the Gospel of John exists from the beginning of the 3rd century at the latest. Hence the textual evidence for the Gospel of John is commonly accepted as both earlier and more reliable than that for any other of the canonical Gospels.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

we have an almost complete Gospel according to John from the early 200s

No, like this:
garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

IMO, records from the 200s aren’t reliable because the events they’re describing took place 170 years prior.

Gary Habermas was interviewed in The Case for Christ so I guess this is essiantialy what I was looking for

 

[Pawel_J]

I really can’t say how reliable the gospels really are…it seems as though each of the gospel writers had an agenda that they were trying to follow. So how much of the Jesus’ story did they change to fit their agenda? I’m not too sure. The reliability of the gospels is a bit of a mystery IMO. You have to realize that these gospels were written 30+ years after the death of Jesus as well, so how much of the story got embellished or changed over that time?..and did Jesus actually say the words that he is attributed, or did he just say things that were like that. Also, you have to realize that the gospels are written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic so the gospel is already translated once. Also the manuscripts we have are quite removed from the originals and errors could creep in.

So, IMO, they probably aren’t extremely accurate.

Exactly.
In addition to that we have to say, we do not have original manuscripts of Gospels from the 1st century. The earliest manuscripts come from 300 and 350 AD (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). It means that the earliest documents we have at our disposal are manuscripts that have been copied many many times since the originals were written. Multiple manual copying resulted in numerous errors, casual and sometimes purposeful. It depended on who copied the manuscript and how the work was done. Professional copying of the manuscripts started only in the fourth century and this significantly curtailed the number of errors. Nevertheless, the reliability of a manuscript always depends on, which earlier manuscript was the basis for the specific copy and so on backwards. The problem of reliability is in fact very complex.

 

[coolduude]

It’s not too complex actually. Take a look at this (it’s from the link above so I suggest you visit that site):

Older strategies that support the historical reliability of the New Testament often begin their case by pointing out that the New Testament documents enjoy superior manuscript evidence.* Recent indications are that the New Testament is supported by more than 5500 copies and partial copies in Greek and other languages, while most ancient classical Greek and Roman texts have fewer than 10 each.* Moreover, there is comparatively little significant variation between these manuscripts, even when they are derived from different textual families.

While this extraordinary quantity and quality of the available texts does not tell us if the New Testament writings are historically reliable, most scholars think that the far more manuscripts and portions do indicate that we essentially have what the authors originally wrote.* This is obviously a crucial point to begin.

Further, the New Testament copies are much earlier—that is, closer to the original writings—than the classical texts.* Most of the New Testament is available from copies that are only 100-150 years after its completion, while a copy of the entire New Testament dates from about another 100 years after that.* In contrast, the classical counterparts generally date from 700-1400 years after their original compositions.* This enormous difference significantly closes the distance between the authors and the earliest copies, placing the dates of the New Testament copies much closer to the events themselves.* This makes it at least possible that the biblical writers were in a better position to know what actually occurred.[2] etc, etc

It even covers Jesus’ sayings.

I do believe the Gospels are reliable even if there are no originals

 

[Pawel_J]

It’s not too complex actually. Take a look at this (it’s from the link above so I suggest you visit that site):

Older strategies that support the historical reliability of the New Testament often begin their case by pointing out that the New Testament documents enjoy superior manuscript evidence.* Recent indications are that the New Testament is supported by more than 5500 copies and partial copies in Greek and other languages, while most ancient classical Greek and Roman texts have fewer than 10 each.* Moreover, there is comparatively little significant variation between these manuscripts, even when they are derived from different textual families.

While this extraordinary quantity and quality of the available texts does not tell us if the New Testament writings are historically reliable, most scholars think that the far more manuscripts and portions do indicate that we essentially have what the authors originally wrote.* This is obviously a crucial point to begin.

Further, the New Testament copies are much earlier—that is, closer to the original writings—than the classical texts.* Most of the New Testament is available from copies that are only 100-150 years after its completion, while a copy of the entire New Testament dates from about another 100 years after that.* In contrast, the classical counterparts generally date from 700-1400 years after their original compositions.* This enormous difference significantly closes the distance between the authors and the earliest copies, placing the dates of the New Testament copies much closer to the events themselves.* This makes it at least possible that the biblical writers were in a better position to know what actually occurred.[2] etc, etc

It even covers Jesus’ sayings.

I do believe the Gospels are reliable even if there are no originals

Minor differences between a certain number of manuscripts do not prove their better reliability in relation to those, where the differences are superior. The so called Byzantine manuscripts, dated from the seventh century, are an example. They are more or less similar in wording, but this proves only they were copied basing on one or a few similar texts and the copying was done on a small, limited territory. It is important if texts used as pattern to make these copies were close to the original or full of errors and amendments. We do not know that. To get closer to the truth a critical and historical analysis of the NT texts is necessary.

 

[coolduude]

Minor differences between a certain number of manuscripts do not prove their better reliability in relation to those, where the differences are superior. The so called Byzantine manuscripts, dated from the seventh century, are an example. They are more or less similar in wording, but this proves only they were copied basing on one or a few similar texts and the copying was done on a small, limited territory. It is important if texts used as pattern to make these copies were close to the original or full of errors and amendments. We do not know that. To get closer to the truth a critical and historical analysis of the NT texts is necessary.

Well all I have to say is read the link (if you haven’t already) and then make a decision. I do think that your logic is flawed, but that’s my opinion.