Reliable in terms of what? Being more or less theologically consistent with each other (which they should be since the NT was compiled to support a specific declaration of faith)? In that case they are. In terms of knowing which ones are what Jesus really said? No way to know. In terms knowing which copies are the closest to the original? No way to know. In terms of knowing which NT docs are more or less historically reliable that other books rejected for the NT? Can kind of sort of tell sometimes, but this is the world of miracles and insivible people in the sky that said they would be right back and disappeared for the past 2000 years. Define "reliable" and then we can talk.
I will not read material by people with an agenda to prove. You keep linking to books by people interesting in proving the bible true, not in determining whether or not it is true. Why not send me a Watchtower link?
You read Bart, he has NO AGENDA to prove? really?
Those books I linked are all by scholars comparable to Bart and Metzger is one of THE if not THE scholar of NT history.
Your questions are dealt with in those books and NONE of them claim the beible to be inerrant by the way.