reliability of the new testament.

[catholicm17]

How reliable is the new testament? Does it really construct the life of Jesus and was it his words that were written down?

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Any good books on this subject?

 

[steve53]

Hi Bart!

 

[danserr]

How reliable is the new testament? Does it really construct the life of Jesus and was it his words that were written down?

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Any good books on this subject?

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207

It’s a short pop article but will give you an idea of some of the issues. You do have to sign in to read it though.

Ehrman is pretty radical, but he does get alot of attention from the media.

There is a lot to watch with him. First of all, many of the things that he says are technically true, they just don’t matter as much as he claims they do. You have to understand, he was a Fundamentalist Christian, so he interpreted every single line and word in the bible literally and was apparently so traumatized when he learned that the bible contained scribal errors that he gave up his faith.

So to someone like him, learning that some of the letters attributed to Paul might not really be by Paul, was very traumatic. To a Catholic or more mainline Protestant, that’s not really such a big deal. He will also pick out a word here or there to quibble over in a gospel and then claim that because these few words are in doubt, how can we possible trust the gospel? Obviously, though, this is just silly, a few words in doubt hardly makes the whole gospel unreliable. By the same logic we could not consider any text reliable, not even from the 20th century before computers were invented.

Anyway, there are a great many other books out there by authors who show that there are good reasons for considering the New Testament as a whole to be reliable.

• Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth amazon.com/Jesus-Myth-Carsten-Peter-Thiede/dp/0745951473/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309300556&sr=8-1
• NT Wright has a lot of good stuff, both scholarly and popular.
  amazon.com/Challenge-Jesus-DVD-N-Wright/dp/0830838325/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1309300745&sr=1-1
• Lee Strobel is a popular writer on the Resurrection
  amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307/ref=pd_sim_b_1

It’s a long list, but these few can get you started.

 

[supertubos]

How reliable is the new testament? Does it really construct the life of Jesus and was it his words that were written down?

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Any good books on this subject?

Remember: the New Testament is not a book of History. Good Old Bart in 1000 years will be forgotten and the New Testament still remembered.

The New Testament is a Book about the Faith of the Apostles in Jesus Christ, it was written to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God so that we, now, could believe in Him. Good Old Bart, who, it seems, has got no faith, came to the New Testament looking for History. So he came with empty hands and the poor guy calls the Evangelists deceivers because they did not give him what he wanted. They really deceived him because he came for History and they gave him Faith.

But the Evangelists did not deceive the Believers and Good Old Bart has no right to talk for them. Cheers, Bart.

 

[catholicm17]

Cheers guys.

People like Ehrman have hurt my faith recently, i am just finished reading my 350 page magnificat which contains many Bible verses and Paul’s writings.

I cant eradicate the doubt of what i am reading an fear it is not true.

 

[danserr]

Remember: the New Testament is not a book of History. Good Old Bart in 1000 years will be forgotten and the New Testament still remembered.

The New Testament is a Book about the Faith of the Apostles in Jesus Christ, it was written to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God so that we, now, could believe in Him. Good Old Bart, who, it seems, has got no faith, came to the New Testament looking for History. So he came with empty hands and the poor guy calls the Evangelists deceivers because they did not give him what he wanted. They really deceived him because he came for History and they gave him Faith.

But the Evangelists did not deceive the Believers and Good Old Bart has no right to talk for them. Cheers, Bart.

Well, be careful what you mean by this. The NT is certainly historical in the sense that the gospels say they are reporting history and Jesus’ life as it actually was. Consider the gospel of Luke for instance, he says in the preface that he is interviewing the witnesses and investigating events to try to give an accurate idea of what happened. Luke is actually quite a good historian, for example.

 

[AuroraB]

You might try reading Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth”, or the series of talks he gave on St Paul and his writings, available in book form. I would say stick to orthodox Catholic writers for a while before reading the fringe and get a good grounding in the traditional Catholic way of interpreting the Bible, you can’t go wrong with the last two Popes.
Stick with the Jesus you know. He left us the Church, and the New Testament grew out of the early Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it’s meant to be interpreted in the Church, it’s the Catholic Church’s book. I’m not familiar with the writer you mention, but I’ve learned to ignore the sceptics, they are not half so interesting as orthodoxy. When you’ve tasted the real thing, you don’t fall for sham.

 

[Ignatius]

How reliable is the new testament? Does it really construct the life of Jesus and was it his words that were written down?

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Any good books on this subject?

Dr. Mary Healy is a professor of Scripture at at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and senior fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. She has several Graduate and Postgraduate degrees in Biblical Theology. She earned her S.T.D., summa cum laude, Biblical Theology, Pontifical Gregorian University (2000). Dissertation: “What the Heart of Man Has Not Conceived”: A Theological Approach to 1 Cor 2:6-16. She also earned her S.T.L., summa cum laude, International Theological Institute, Gaming, Austria (1998).
Dr. Healy has a great book out on the Gospel of Mark (amazon.com/Gospel-Catholic-Commentary-Sacred-Scripture/dp/0801035864)

She was recently interviewed by Patrick Coffin on Catholic answers. If you would prefer audio, you can listen to the Catholic Answers Podcasts. They are available on iTunes.

Hope this helps.

 

[exnihilo]

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Even if there are mistakes it is something altogether different to claim there was a purpose to deceive. Mistakes are not by themselves proof of an intent to deceive.

Also keep in mind that to be popular in our culture you have to say or do something shocking. This is as true for ‘intellectuals’ as pop stars. Academics get notoriety by coming up with allegedly novel ideas. If they merely add to a long line of thinking no one notices them. The novel ideas are often just rehashing bad ideas that have been dismissed and were forgotten.

 

[steve53]

The NT is actually fairly accurate. Luke has some obvious contradictions, but Luke does admit that some of the material he included was second-hand- so possibly erroneous.

If you are interested in the history of those times, Hagan does an excellent job in “Passover” and “Rome.” He uses all the best sources of the early first century A.D. (and there are only a handful) to recreate that world, and goes into the seminal events of the New Testament, mainly the crucifixion. Hagan also goes beyond that to the persecutions of Nero and the fall of Jerusalem.

To his credit, he doesn’t put forth a defined vision of Jesus, but lays out the facts and probabilities as far as they can be determined. You can fill in the “Jesus” blanks whoever you want- from an opportunistic zealot to being the son of God.

But Hagan lays the historical groundwork that I think would be helpful to you.

 

[mathematoons]

How reliable is the new testament?

More reliable than many documents we accept as historical fact.

Does it really construct the life of Jesus and was it his words that were written down?

Of course, as do extrabiblical sources.

According to scholar Bart Ehrman the New Testament is full of forgeries, and the authors wrote to decieve.

Why would the Apostles be willing to die for a hoax that they know is a hoax?

Any good books on this subject?

I keep saying: Read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell.

When I get to have a signature, I’ll write that there, but for now, I must repeat myself, repeat myself, repeat myself…

 

[Crumpy]

by coincidence, I’m starting to read the Ignatius Study Bible. Right at the very beginning, there is an essay about the synoptic problem and other issues regarding the gospels, such as issues of authorship, date of composition, the speech and sayings of Jesus, etc.

In reality, this is an extension of similar problems of reliability in the Old Testament. There are lots of issues about real or apparent contradictions in the OT. I have read about these, as it turns out, in Jewish commentaries.

Their approach is to acknowledge the difficulties, but they have an upbeat respect and even a delight in that God decided to speak in more than one way.

We should all be haunted by Jesus’ words “will the son of Man find faith when he returns?”

 

[supertubos]

Cheers guys.

People like Ehrman have hurt my faith recently, i am just finished reading my 350 page magnificat which contains many Bible verses and Paul’s writings.

I cant eradicate the doubt of what i am reading an fear it is not true.

Doubt is good. I have not read the guy. But from what I hear, it is nor enough to cite verses, you need to interpret them well and it seems the guy has strange interpretations. cheers.

 

[supertubos]

Well, be careful what you mean by this. The NT is certainly historical in the sense that the gospels say they are reporting history and Jesus’ life as it actually was. Consider the gospel of Luke for instance, he says in the preface that he is interviewing the witnesses and investigating events to try to give an accurate idea of what happened. Luke is actually quite a good historian, for example.

Be careful with what you mean by history and historians. Certain historians deny the Holocaust !!!

History is not the facts, it is an interpretation of the facts. II World War on Japanese and American Books have different interpretations. If A has an accident with B, the accident is the same, the historical narratives are different, sometimes contradictory.

“Jesus is the Son of God”, “Jesus resurrected from the dead”, these are statements that are historical but no historian would agree with the sentences unless he has got faith. So, maybe Faith is more historical sometimes than History Itself. Cheers.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

The NT is actually fairly accurate. Luke has some obvious contradictions, but Luke does admit that some of the material he included was second-hand- so possibly erroneous.

Hello steve,

I have to ask, what contradictions?

Thank you.

 

[danserr]

Why consider the Bible reliable? Here is a summary of a few reasons.

Critics like to claim the gospels are unreliable, often because they are (supposedly) written 40-60 years after the events they tell about, others (like Bart Ehrman) claim the text is in doubt. Or they claims the source is not perfect and so can’t be trusted at all.

1. No historical source is perfect, not even from the 20th century. If we demanded perfect historical sources before we know anything, then we could never know any historical fact, even from the 20th century.
2. The text of the Bible is actually very well established. We have excellent manuscripts in all the original languages and when skeptics, like Ehrman, try to cast doubt on it, they are basically quibbling over a word here or there. A word in doubt is hardly a reason to doubt whether the whole text is reliable.
3. 40-60 years is really not so late as far as such sources go. Tacitus wrote about events 100 years afterward, but historians still accept him as a reliable source. The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written 400 years after his death, but historians still consider him a reliable source. Additionally, remember, this was an oral culture used to training in memory and preservation of sacred tradition over time (especially the Jews).
4. There are reasons to think the gospels were written earlier than often thought. The order of writing is universally agreed to be Mark and Matthew, then Luke, then Acts, so if Acts was written before 63 AD, this would prove the others were written before that. John AT Robinson lists some reasons to think Acts was written before 63 AD.
   a). Peter, James, and Paul were executed in 63 AD, but Acts doesn’t mention it. This is an odd omission, so Acts was probably written before they were executed.
   b). The Author of Acts does not refer to Paul’s letters. This suggests it was written before they became widely circulated.
   c). The portrayal of Romans in Acts and Luke’s gospel is positive. This makes sense if it was written before Nero’s persecutions in 63 AD, but not if it was written later.
   -Another note, Acts sometimes switches to the first person, which suggests the author himself was traveling with Paul to learn about this stuff, that makes him a pretty reliable source.
5. Even 40-60 years in not enough time for legends to arise. Prof. A.N. Sherwin-White points out that even 2 generations is not enough time for the growth of legend to wipe out the hard core of historic fact. And the authors were using sources that were from even earlier.
6. Jesus’ radical concept of himself as the unique divine Son of God is historically probable. Take the parable of the wicked tenants in the vineyard. The owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of the vineyard to collect its fruit. The tenants ignore his other messengers so he says “I will send my only son, surely they will respect him.” The point is that Jesus is the son and saw himself as God’s unique son, not just another prophet. This parable is found in the so called “Q,” and so recognized as legit even by radical skeptics.
7. There is good evidence for the Resurrection. Three facts may be established whether one considers the Bible a reliable source or not.
   A). Jesus was buried and his tomb found empty 3 days later. Habermas found that 75% of scholars admit this.
   B). Jesus’ followers experienced visions of him. Even the skeptic Ludemann admits these happened. He tries to explain them as hallucinations (which is problematic), but he admits they happened.
   C). The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead, despite having every reason not to.
   – The most probable explanation of these facts is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, leaving behind an empty tomb.

Suggested reading and a links:
Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth, (2005).
William Lane Craig, The Son Rises, Reasaonable Faith chap 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207
NT Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope chap 3 and 4.

 

[danserr]

Be careful with what you mean by history and historians. Certain historians deny the Holocaust !!!

History is not the facts, it is an interpretation of the facts. II World War on Japanese and American Books have different interpretations. If A has an accident with B, the accident is the same, the historical narratives are different, sometimes contradictory.

“Jesus is the Son of God”, “Jesus resurrected from the dead”, these are statements that are historical but no historian would agree with the sentences unless he has got faith. So, maybe Faith is more historical sometimes than History Itself. Cheers.

But an account by a modern writer denying the holocaust would not be historical. Or at least it depends how you use the word. Some people use the word to just refer to any statement made about the past and then say if it is an accurate statement we call it true history and if a false statement, then we call it bad history.

I am not sure what you mean by the gospels are not historical. They make what the authors claim are true statements about the past and Jesus as he actually lived. The evidence for their accuracy is so good that I think we are rationally justified in considering those to be true statements about the past. Luke himself is explicitly writing as a historian.

And it is not true that no historian would agree with those statements “Jesus rose” unless he had faith. The Jewish historian and theologian Pinchas Lapide, for instance, said that he is convinced on the basis of the evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. Yet he did not become of Christian. He believed the evidence, but did not have faith. One may believe in Jesus on the basis of faith, but I think the evidence is good enough that it is also possible to accept the portrait of Jesus in the gospels on the basis of the evidence. This should convince us to 2 things. 1. the evidence for Jesus is actually very good when we actually bother to look at it. 2. faith is still necessary, not necessarily to accept that the evidence is good or believe in it, but to make the further commitment to God that being and living as a Christian entails.

 

[steve53]

The three that stand out is his birth stories for Jesus, Jesus preaching in the Temple as a kid (probably lifted from Josephus by a secondary source), and his mis-identification of the High Priest of the Second Temple who Paul insulted. The latter is from Acts, but the same author.

 

[patg]

A good reference on this is the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the pontifical biblical commission and Pope Paul VI (available online).

 

[danserr]

The three that stand out is his birth stories for Jesus, Jesus preaching in the Temple as a kid (probably lifted from Josephus by a secondary source), and his mis-identification of the High Priest of the Second Temple who Paul insulted. The latter is from Acts, but the same author.

I would not agree about the the preaching in the temple is later or unreliable. It’s not such a strange story if you think about it. We all know about bright children who impress their elders with what they know. It’s perfectly realistic that this could have been the case with Jesus.

What about the birth story seems like a problem? I remember a couple questions on it, but nothing that struck me as a major problem.