And away we go again. I will continue where I left off.
4. The gospels have a large time span before being canonized what gives the assumption that it can have been influenced and altered.
There is nothing about being canonized that magically protects them from alteration. In fact most of the actual errors came after connonization and are simple scribal mistakes that have little effect on the whole. They were always revered writeing and considered as holy as they are now. The only difference between composition and canonization was the removeal of other works that were used at the time. The fact that is really important here is the time period between the events and the first extant copy. As I have said before while I wish the books were dated to 1 second after his death they are infact the most reliable textual tradition of any book in ancient history.
Dating estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use
higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus
[21]) view as follows:
- Mark: c. 6873,[22] c. 6570[23]
- Matthew: c. 70100.[22] c. 8085.[23]
- Luke: c. 80100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[22] c. 8085[23]
- John: c. 90100,[23] c. 90110,[24] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of
Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65[
citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64/5 that had such impact on the early church
[25]. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern
NIV Study Bible:
- Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
- Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
- Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
- John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
The two most important criteria in order to establish reliability of a textual account of an event or events are:
1. Was the the account or accounts composed within the lifetime of witnesses to the events. The bible definately was even if you use the later dates above.
2. Was there enough time for myth to infect the story.
Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the
gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.
When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
I have read many papers by scholars who point out that it takes far longer for myths to arise especially one as complecated as this, than the time between the events and the Gospels. Also since the Quran supports all of the crucifixion story and many of the other aspects of Christ's life in the bible except the actual physical death then you would have to agree that they appear reliable. You could also find large portions of the new testament in early church writeings that are earlier than the some dates for the Gospels which confirm that the facts were in written form even earlier than the earliest dates given for the Gospels.
5. You yourself have accepted the fact that 5% has been corrupted so how do we know its only 5% and the number is not higher hence the long time span and different scribes, church fathers and maybe Paul.
They have thousands of early manuscripts in many languages plus tens of thousands of somewhat later ones. They have developed computer programs that can compare all these manuscripts and highlight all discrepencies. That means that there is known to be approx 5% meaningful errors in the bible as well as a higher percent of meaningless errors. Like two Ns in Johns name etc....... I will point out that this includes total errors not errors in a line of transmission which is the more meaningful statistic and would be much lower. That is why modern bibles actually footnote all known possible errors and usually give the facts that surround them. Even Bart Ehrman agrees with this.
6. If i was to use the Old-testament's reliablity we would go no-where since we do not know for example who wrote Hebrews and other scriptures.
Hebrews is not in the old testament. It is virtually certain that Paul wrote Hebrews but as we are not discussing Hebrews or the old testament because it is just too much to cover at one time then I won't comment further.
7. In the more earlier scriptures of Mark Jesus(p) is more pictured as a messenger/man and the later the story evolves in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as last.
The Gospels did not evolve. They were and it makes very good sence that they were written from different perspectives for different puposes and to different audiences. Evolution is a convienient assumption dreamed up to make a biased point. They are exactly what I would have desired God to have done. I would not want and there would be no need for four identicle gospels. There is quite a lot in common between them as it is. If they were identicle then critics would simply switch to the claim that they are copies of each other. There is no pleaseing someone who refuses to believe. You would agree I believe.
8. There is no record of strong Oral tradition.
As far as the New testament is concerned there was no need or requirement. The original witnesses were alive when the gospels were written and they relied on written records at this period in history not on oral tradition as in Moses' time. There was no formal oral tradition but as churches were already coming together then these events would have been discussed and questioned and explained by the apostles over and over again. There is also no known document or account of any witness suggesting that the events of the Gospels were false at the time. If the apostles were making this stuff up looks like someone who was a witness would have written "I was there and this or that never happened". There are even written records outside the bible that confirm many of the events during this time. See Flavious Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the younger, the Talmud, Lucian etc......
That is enough fun for now. Tune in tomorrow for the next installment.
