Are the Gospels reliable?

Just a little timeline here.

Some stuff happened in the years leading up to 30-35CE

after that, there is an unknown period of purely oral tradition, unknown original writings, unknown copies.

Then, nearly a century later, the oldest known scraps were written in about 125CE.

Which copies, which originals, and which version(s) of the oral tradition that that first, and all subsequent writings were based on, is unknown.

That is nearly a century of unknown provenance.

I've read the first 4-5 pages of this. Not sure I will read more. Maybe if I block EB? Hard to acknowledge I agree with several things he said when he's being so effing rude about it.

I also would appreciate some acknowledgement of sources when quoting several paragraphs from someone making an argument you agree with.

A topic worth discussing. But it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Doncha think, EB? You're quite articulate when you want to be.

Quote: Dalex64

Some stuff happened in the years leading up to 30-35CE
after that, there is an unknown period of purely oral tradition, unknown original writings, unknown copies.
Then, nearly a century later, the oldest known scraps were written in about 125CE.
Which copies, which originals, and which version(s) of the oral tradition that that first, and all subsequent writings were based on, is unknown.
That is nearly a century of unknown provenance.

The most important years to any
story are the first couple of years,
let alone the first century.

Xtions believe the gospels are true
because they have to, not because they
are. There is nothing reliable in the
NT, none of it is original or even copies
of originals. It's the most bogus and
useless provenance imaginable.

Some Xtions can't stand that all they
have is faith. It drives them crazy because
they know with faith, and a dollar, you
can get coffee somewhere. And without
the faith, you can still get it, making faith
pretty much worthless.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I've read the first 4-5 pages of this. Not sure I will read more. Maybe if I block EB?

Probably for the best, your delicate
sensibilities are apparently not up to
my contempt for the god religions.

I don't mind Judaism and Hinduism
and Buddhism in the least, though.
Because they keep it to themselves,
they don't hit you over the head
with it. They don't even want you if
you weren't born into it. Oh, you can
convert, but you'll always be an outsider.

It's Mormonism and Xtionity and Scientology
that gall me, for obvious reasons.

Quote: Dalex64

Just a little timeline here.

Some stuff happened in the years leading up to 30-35CE

after that, there is an unknown period of purely oral tradition, unknown original writings, unknown copies.

Then, nearly a century later, the oldest known scraps were written in about 125CE.

Actually the first letters of Paul were written around the year 50 AD. Scholarship is in pretty universal agreement about this. So we are talking about less than 20 years after the history shattering "stuff" you alluded to earlier. Scholars also point to the first Gospels being written around the year 60 AD and the last one John, being written circa 100 AD.

Quote:

Which copies, which originals, and which version(s) of the oral tradition that that first, and all subsequent writings were based on, is unknown.

That is nearly a century of unknown provenance.

Yes, it is unmistakable and unavoidable that in dealing with written documents close to 2000 years old there is some unknowns to say the least. It is good to remember that for every other writing of this time that we do not doubt its reliability we have far, far less in terms of manuscripts and attestation and we have even further distances of unknown provenance.

Quote: Evenbob

There is nothing reliable in the
NT, none of it is original or even copies
of originals. It's the most bogus and
useless provenance imaginable.

Why do you continue to say this? You know that the New Testament has 5x as many manuscripts that attest to it and that they agree on 99% of their content. The disagreements largely account for word spellings. Bart Ehrman has said as much. The Bible occupies a unique and special place in all ancient literature with the scientifically proven surest reliability. Now, for Dr. Ehrman and many others even with this level of reliability it is still an ancient work and as Dalex pointed out just recently has a time of unknown provenance. It is not enough for him and others to put his faith in divine inspiration, the oral tradition, and the infallible nature of the spiritual truths the NT and Gospels present. That is fine and I understand their argument. But then you come in and say that it is the most bogus and useless thing?!? Do you see how this kind of puts you out there by yourself on a lonely island. You go too far to make your point and in the process you hurt your argument.

Quote:

Some Xtions can't stand that all they
have is faith.

Ultimately all any of us have is faith. Remember faith is how we live our lives. It is based on convergence of probabilities, evidence, experience, etc. to arrive at a logical and reasonable conclusion without hard and fast proof. Faith is a good thing for all of us and we could do nothing without it. Blind faith is an evil.

You still have nearly 100 years of unknown provenance, whether written or oral.

Now you bring up another argument that we do not doubt the reliability of other period documents.

Do you have an example of a 95 year gap in recordkeeping when questioning the reliability of a document?

It's pretty clearly been done that the gospel documents and changes to them over time are pretty well tracked between 125CE and now.

Let's compare apples to apples here.

That 95 year gap is a 95 year break in reliability. Yes I know it is unavoidable when dealing with 2000 year old documents. That doesn't give you a pass to say that "we can't do any better therefore we must assume they are reliable"

Quote: Dalex64

You still have nearly 100 years of unknown provenance, whether written or oral.

Now you bring up another argument that we do not doubt the reliability of other period documents.

Ancient sources are very much hit and miss, but it's amazing how much the Romans recorded, and how much of it survived to this day. It helped they had historians.

One should also consider bias and prejudice. What was the agenda of gospells' writers? What about those gospells that didn't make it to the canon?

Next, what other records exist from adversaries, rivals, enemies, allies, friends, and neutrals?

Quote: FrGamble

Actually the first letters of Paul were written around the year 50 AD.

The real ones or the fakes. There
are 13 letters, 6 of them are fakes
and were not written by Paul.
Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians,
1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus are
forgeries. There are no originals
of Paul's letters, they were copied
and copied and copied and changed
and changed and changed. No
reliability there.

Quote:

we have far, far less in terms of manuscripts and attestation

The fact is, and I know how you love
facts, historians say the fewer copies
you have of something the more true
to the originals it will be. For obvious
reasons. There are thousands and
thousands and thousands of copies
of every book in the NT, making it
impossible to know what the originals
looked like. The book of Acts is a
forgery. In fact, 11 of the 27 NT books
were written by forgers. It was the
fave cottage industry in the 300 years
following the cross..

Asking if the NT is reliable is an
oxymoron. The words 'New Testament'
and 'reliable' can never be used in
the same sentence, they are polar
opposites.

Quote: FrGamble

Why do you continue to say this?

Because it's true?

It all boils down to this:

"The original accounts of Jesus were embellished by oral tradition and were not written down until after the apostles were dead. Thus they are largely unreliable and fail to give us an accurate picture of the real Jesus."

That's all you need to know. If you
want to take what was later written
as truth, you aren't a rational person,
you're a religious person with an agenda.
Rationality isn't in your wheelhouse.

I'm an atheist, and very rational.