Reliability of the new testament

[Help_me_please_1]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

 

[Gorgias]

There are many approaches to the question of “reliability”.

From a historical perspective, we can see that early Christians gathered, from the very first days of the Church, to break bread; in these gatherings, they told the story of Jesus. As the Gospels began to be written down (let’s say in the 60AD-110AD timeframe), one would expect that any written “gospel” that diverged from the ones that people were familiar with, from their regular worship, would be not accepted by everyone. We do see this – the “gospels” that were written by Gnostics and other pseudo-Christian sects were rejected by Christian assemblies, for precisely this reason.

From the perspective of the development of the canon of Scripture, we see that, among the criteria for a work to be considered canonical, are the following: it was used by Christians everywhere, its provenance was well-established, and it didn’t diverge from the teaching of the Church. (In other words, it was reliable, across the life of the Church and the geographical span of the Church.)

From the perspective of the notion of the “deposit of faith”, we understand that Scripture is God’s Word to us. In other words, it is what God wishes us to understand about salvation history. It would be an interesting argument that would assert that the New Testament (specifically) would be both “God-inspired” and “unreliable”.

Does that help, as a starting point?

 

[karebear92]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

It is true because it follows the traditions and was widely accepted across almost all of the Christian churches, most specifically they were used and taught in the churches founded by apostles. Nothing within the scriptures contradict doctrine either, which really separated them from the Gnostic gospels and other Christian stories.

 

[fhansen]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

The best approach would be to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Scripture here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

 

[Gorgias]

The best approach would be to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Scripture here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

This is a nice suggestion, but a difficult one. The OP identifies him/herself as “Catholic, hopefully”. Imagine if you identified yourself as an “auto mechanic, hopefully”, and in response to your question, “is a 2011 Camaro reliable?”, someone handed you a manual of advanced physics for combustion engines…

The CCC is a great resource, but it’s meant primarily as a reference for bishops, priests, catechists-- that is, people who already have a significant education in theology under their belts!

“Help me please” – I might instead recommend the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults; it’s a much easier read, and it covers the material of the CCC (not verse by verse, mind you, but it covers the same material). Also, if you decide to take on the CCC (after all, it’s freely available on the 'net!), please make sure that you ask questions on anything that doesn’t seem clear, or seems confusing…!

 

[bmullins]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

If I might suggest, the book “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel goes into this topic with great detail. Not only affirming that scripture is reliable, but showing how that the accounts of each of the witnesses being recorded are as accurate as any other historical documents we have. It’s a very well thought out presentation. I found a copy of it at my local library so might have luck finding it there.

 

[BB2]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

I’m not going to argue for or against, but what I will say is that biblical scholars have a number of ways to determine if something is true (or at least reliable) in the New Testament. Not everything that is in the Bible is historically genuine. There is a lot of myth. One way to analyze the veracity of a verse/chapter is through what is called the “criterion of mutliple attestation” - if a certain event or saying is autonomously cited in more than one Gospel, it is likely to have occurred. By “autonomously”, it is meant that the Gospel didn’t merely borrow it from another Gospel, as the Gospels are sometimes interrelated. Of course, the criterion of multiple attestation has its own limits, but it serves a useful function nonetheless.

Biblical scholars also recognize that there is what is called “pious fiction” or “legend” in the Bible - events that didn’t really happen, but are merely myth to support the messianic status of Jesus. For example, many scholars believe the “Massacre of the Innocents” didn’t really occur. The “Star of Bethelehem” also never happened.

Biblical scholars don’t read the Bible in a vacuum. They also resort to contemporaneous historians - Josephus is quite popular. Sometimes the Apocrypha can be helpful too. Many biblical scholars also search for who is called the “Historical Jesus”, rather than the image of Jesus depicted by mainstream Christianity. So you could regard proper analysis of the Bible as a science itself rather than relying on faith. Essentially, it boils down to: Question everything.

 

[bmullins]

So you could regard proper analysis of the Bible as a science itself rather than relying on faith. Essentially, it boils down to: Question everything.

Or you could acknowledge that the bible is not a history book, as much as a book that contains history. It should be studied using a hermeneutic of faith, as it is indeed a book about faith. Proper analysis would not entail simply denying something happened assuming that science makes it improbable, but instead to acknowledge that the very nature of faith means that it is indeed possible.

You don’t study history by ignoring history, so you shouldn’t study a book of faith by ignoring anything that requires faith.

 

[Bezant]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

It depends on what sort of reliability you’re talking about, and the key to understanding scripture is understanding why it’s been written.

 

[BB2]

Or you could acknowledge that the bible is not a history book, as much as a book that contains history. It should be studied using a hermeneutic of faith, as it is indeed a book about faith. Proper analysis would not entail simply denying something happened assuming that science makes it improbable, but instead to acknowledge that the very nature of faith means that it is indeed possible.

So a book that contains history is not a “history book”? You might be happy with this mental gymnastics, but the OP is looking for proper historiography in the context of the Bible.

In reality, there is really no such thing as a “history book”, with the exception of encyclopedias. Books written in the past are product of history, and can certainly therefore be analyzed by the yardstick set out by historians.

You don’t study history by ignoring history, so you shouldn’t study a book of faith by ignoring anything that requires faith.

It works both ways. The Tanakh, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, et. al, are all books of faith. Do you have faith in the claims made in each book? And if so, how do you reconcile this with your Christian beliefs?

 

[bmullins]

It works both ways. The Tanakh, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, et. al, are all books of faith. Do you have faith in the claims made in each book? And if so, how do you reconcile this with your Christian beliefs?

I don’t have to have faith to realize that the books are about faith. If I were to study any of those books, I would study it from the faith of the people writing it. I would not try to make it fit a scientific or historical perspective. I would realize that yes, they have historical data that can be mined, but that there are also spiritual lessons to be found that should not be ignored or dismissed because they do not fit the paradigm of historical study.

When you study the Bible, it should be studied using a hermeneutic of faith, not a hermeneutic of science.

 

[triumphguy]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

Reliable in what way?

True? A bit true? The Only truth?
True in that it describes accurately certain facts about Jesus the man? Or true in that it reveals Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God?
Historically and scientifically accurate?
Unchanged over the years?

The Bible is the living growing relationship of people with their God put into the written word. The more you desire to engage with the Living God, the more Truth you will find in the Bible.

 

[BB2]

I don’t have to have faith to realize that the books are about faith. If I were to study any of those books, I would study it from the faith of the people writing it. I would not try to make it fit a scientific or historical perspective. I would realize that yes, they have historical data that can be mined, but that there are also spiritual lessons to be found that should not be ignored or dismissed because they do not fit the paradigm of historical study.

So I have to ask again: How do you reconcile this with your Christian beliefs?

 

[bmullins]

So I have to ask again: How do you reconcile this with your Christian beliefs?

There is nothing to reconcile? I study the Bible from a Christological perspective, with a Christian faith. If I want to truly understand Muslim beliefs then studying it as from a Christian mindset will only get me angry and upset. I would have to study it from the Muslim perspective in order to understand it. I couldn’t come in with the notions that I have about God and apply them to that text, anymore than they could understand the Bible without understanding Christ. Just as a Jewish person could not study the Torah in more than a superficial manner without understanding God and covenants.

I don’t have to believe their faith, to study it from their faith perspective. But I do have to acknowledge that without understanding their faith, I will not get the proper interpretation from their text. Anymore than you can get the proper understanding from the bible if you reduce it to simply another text book.

 

[TOME]

Is the New Testament reliable? Depends on your definition of reliability, that is, what are you looking for?

Remember, the four gospels are first and foremost Faith Documents. By this I don’t mean that they are documents that can only be accepted on faith (although this too is true), here I mean that each gospel came out of a particular faith community and each reflects who Jesus Christ is or was to them. These documents took years to come to their present form, but the important thing is to remember that each is an expression of the community from which it came.

The early Church and the Church of the Fathers realized this which is why the Church has always rejected every attempt to bring all four gospels into a unified whole (even though this has been attempted numerous times).

I wrote in another post, the way to begin your approach to studying the gospels is to look at each gospel as you would a portrait of the same person painted by four different artist. Even if you had one person sitting in a room with four artist and each artist was given the exact same colors of paint, I am sure you would get four distinct portraits of that person. So too with the gospels but remember here the artist are the gospel writers and the faith community they are writing from and for and most important it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding them.

 

[BB2]

I wrote in another post, the way to begin your approach to studying the gospels is to look at each gospel as you would a portrait of the same person painted by four different artist. Even if you had one person sitting in a room with four artist and each artist was given the exact same colors of paint, I am sure you would get four distinct portraits of that person. So too with the gospels but remember here the artist are the gospel writers and the faith community they are writing from and for and most important it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding them.

Oh, don’t worry about this TOME ! Most biblical scholars recognize that different people will always give a slightly different narration of events as they happened. Hence why there is some disparity in the precise sayings/events.

 

[TOME]

BB2

Perhaps you missed my point which means I did not make it very well. My suggestion to “Help me please” was to use my thoughts as a starting point because doing so may help this person to identify what he/she is really looking for.

I am sure you know that what I suggested is how many bible scholars, today, approach the gospels themselves. Over the years scholars came to realize that there was a lot more that caused the differences between the gospel of John and the Mark, Matthew and Luke, than just four authors using different words here and there. I am sure you have studied such things as to why scholars have determined that Caiaphas’ interrogation of Jesus as fond in Mark in closer to the actual words spoken, than we find in Matthew or Luke but that this is not as important as to what particular community and its faith experience this gospel was written, and the same goes for the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John.

So know I hope you see the point of my suggestion and that it was just a starting point for serious studies.

But remember the one warning Pope Benedict XVI constantly gives when it comes to the study of the Bible. The use of all the modern techniques for scripture study is necessary and good but their value is only if it point to the Paschal Mystery and does not get lost in itself.

 

[Contarini]

Please tell me what the reliabilityof scripture is. Was it embellished in it’s early days or is it al true. Please give me your argument as to why it is true.

Sticking to the Four Gospels for now:

1. There is a consensus among scholars (i.e., all except the most skeptical would agree on this) that the Gospels contain accurate information about Jesus. Two scholars who have written about this question and are respected by folks across the spectrum are E. P. Sanders and John Meier (the latter is Catholic). You can find a summary of Sanders’ conclusions here. Meier is famous for discussing the criteria scholars use to determine whether something in the Gospels is historically reliable or not. Sanders and Meier don’t always agree with each other, and I’m certainly not suggesting that they are always right even when they agree with each other. But their conclusions about what can or can’t be proven historically with regard to Jesus are pretty mainstream and are respected even by scholars who disagree with them.
2. Faith doesn’t depend just on what can be proven historically. I don’t think faith should ignore historical evidence by any means–they have a symbiotic relationship. But it’s perfectly appropriate to believe something by faith that one can’t prove historically.
3. I do not believe that it is required for Christian orthodoxy to think that everything in the Gospels happened exactly as described. Many on this forum will say that the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe this, and it’s true that Vatican II said that the Gospels recount what Jesus really said and did. I believe that they do, but I don’t think this rules out the possibility that some of the stories in the Gospels contain theological “glosses” or literary embellishments. And that’s why I find historical scholarship of the kind represented by Meier and Sanders to be valuable, although I don’t hold my faith hostage to it.

Essentially I start from two ends: historical scholarship and the teaching of the Christian tradition. When they agree, fine. When they disagree, I look at how strongly the given question is insisted on by each of my sources of knowledge. If a given story is historically extremely improbable and not central to the tradition, I have no problem speculating that it may be valuable as divinely inspired theological commentary rather than as history, though I’m rarely going to say with confidence that this is the case with regard to the Gospels, given the teaching of the Church mentioned above. But if something is central to the tradition, I will believe it even if the historical evidence is weak. I do not find any irreconcilable conflicts between faith and history when I apply this method.

Edwin

 

[TOME]

Contarini,

I think you made some excellent points and I also agree with you that E. P. Sanders and J. P. Meier are two good sources. I would like to add the your suggestions the work of Raymond E. Brown, “Introduction to the New Testament”.

I would also like to add the two works of Pope Benedict XVI going under the title of “Jesus of Nazareth”. I would suggest people start with his first book then go to his latest (for continuity’s sake). I add these because he gives a very clear demonstration how the best in modern biblical scholarship can be applied to a clearer understanding of the gospels. (Plus I have been an admirer of his works for over 35 years).

Finally, Vatican II does teach that the gospels recount what Jesus really said and did and very often some take this as meaning that the gospels must be taken literally, but in the same dogmatic constitution, Dei Verbi, in chapter six section 23 the Church expresses the necessity of biblical scholarship. The Church, herself, understands that there is a lot more to the gospels.

 

[bmullins]

I would also like to add the two works of Pope Benedict XVI going under the title of “Jesus of Nazareth”…

I’m about halfway through with the first volume. So much good information already, and still a book and a half to read. I had read that Pope Benedict was a very impressive theologian, but I was still surprised to see such concepts articulated in such a friendly and familiar way.