That may well be. As I attempted to point out, there exists a sharp division among scholars as to the nature of the biblical texts. It is, however, by no means correct to imply that there is a "consensus" among scholars that the biblical texts are not historically reliable.
The fact is that the New Testament was put together after the fact. In the early days of Christianity, there were many Scriptures. What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea.
Your first sentence is self-evident. Your second sentence is unsubstantiated if you are implying that there were many gospels, out of which four were chosen. Yes, there were much later Gnostic gospels that surfaced in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Nicene Creed does not mention a specific list of canonical texts.
The New Testament books that composed the canon are amply represented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, several of whom compiled lists of books that were considered canonical. A careful examination of the lists finds a remarkable correlation with those which were later recognized by the Council of Hippo.
If you approach this from a position of “respect for the full authority of the sacred textsâ€, you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.
No argument here. I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of. However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices (which reflect the worldview of the person making them and therefore may or may not be correct interpretations.)
One must clarify that the doctrine of inspiration extends only to the original manuscripts. Of course slight differences will occur in later copies and translations. However, almost all of the differences are regarding slight differences in wording or phrasing. There are amazingly few changes that impinge upon a significant point of doctrine.
One common claim about alleged "contradictions" has to do with the variations in accounts of events found in the Gospels. However, one must not expect that all the Gospels be carbon copies of each other - if so, what would be the point of having four Gospels?
The point is to present four perspectives of the events of Jesus life that highlight different theological themes. If you can imagine four different accounts of an automobile accident provided by four people viewing it from different perspectives. Of course they will present unique details, they will use differing words and aspects of the events, but the main account will be consistent. This is part of the richness of the Gospels, and in no way is evidence that they are "contradictory."
You claim that scholars are “dismissive of what they deride as “literalistic fundamentalism†and are dedicated to “proving†that the Bible is not an inspired document.†I he never read one who fits that description. That is an assumption on your part, based on your already-held theological views, nothing more.
Here we will have to agree to disagree. As stated, I have spent years in the world of theological and biblical scholarship, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many scholars who are not at all open to the idea that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God.
Of course they will not broadcast the hidden intentions of their heart! It is death by a thousand cuts, and all the while, underlying everything they say, is the unspoken assumption that sacred Scripture was a human book written by men trying to convince others to join their particular religion.
Furthermore, all the quotes attributed to Jesus may not be accurate. Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them. And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.
I find this claim particularly specious. How could anyone know with any degree of certainty what other possible things Jesus may or may not have said? Of course the Apostle John himself says that Jesus spoke "many other things that were not written in this book." The Gospels do not claim to be exhaustive compilations of all the words of Jesus.
As for "differing versions of many key quotes," it must be recognized that during his three-year ministry Jesus doubtlessly repeated His teachings to different audiences. Slight variances in the accounts of these teachings are insignificant.
There were many Gospels and other scriptures in circulation in the early Christian world. As time went on, some came to be more popular than others. Eventually, the church elders sat down and codfied the Scripture, what was in and what was out.
It is not true, as you said, that “almost all of the differences are regarding slight differences in wording or phrasing.” Looking at earlier texts, there are whole sections inserted or deleted, transcription errors that affect meaning, details that change and contradict other details, slanting of the story to a particular audience (each Gospel, for example, was written fora different group of people), and as I noted before, editorial choices regarding which meaning of a word Jesus spoke was the correct one. Correct or incorrect, each of these affects and alters the substance and meaning of the text.
One small contradiction in the Gospel is what Jesus said, if anything, on the way up Calvary. He is quoted in two different Gospels as saying two different things (that’s possible — he could have said both), and in another as being silent all the way up the hill. Now, he could not have spoken and been silent.
Just one, and a small one, but an easy one to remember off the top of my head. And one that is not reconcilable. There are numerous others.
One of the differing versions of a key quote: In Matthew, “You are the light of the world.” In John: I am the light of the world.” Which is accurate?