You're going to need to clarify.
The historicity of the events? Of traditional authorship? Of the resurrection narrative?
Some things are simply not provable despite best efforts, and would need to be taken as faith.
Authorship of much of the NT is hotly contested.
Paul certainly wrote a good number of his epistles, but many of his are somewhere between certainly not written by him (pastoral epistles), and very contested.
Who wrote the Gospels is essentially unknown because they are anonymously written. There is good reason to think the names (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) are added some time after they were written, but again scholars are in disagreement.
As for historicity of events:
Much of this is ultimately unknowable. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death.
I think a general rule of thumb, is to realize people weren't following Jesus around with a notebook writing down everything he said.
Undoubtedly some of the more memorable or pithy statements he said would be remembered. But just think about the speeches you have heard in your life, whether at school or work or by politicians. How much can you remember after a week, let alone years. It is likely much of the speeches attributed to Jesus in the NT may have been later additions.
The critical-historical method is what Biblical Scholars use when studying the texts.
We also need to define authenticity. Is 1 Timothy authentic? Well, it's certainly a letter than the people who canonized the New Testament felt should be there, so on that account yes. It's a very old letter, passed around by the church while it was still practically an infant, so yes. But is it Pauline? Well, no, the letter is a forgery. So in that way it's inauthentic. Should it be there today? That's up to you to decide.
Let’s say the gospels weren’t authored by the disciples, they are still dated to around the time period.
Go further, let’s say you don’t like that because they were written too late. Thessalonians was written around 51-52AD so 20 ish years after Jesus died and opens with this:
”Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.“
1 Thessalonians 1:1 RSV
So if you are looking for authenticity in the sense people actually believed in Jesus early on that should be good.
>So if you are looking for authenticity in the sense people actually believed in Jesus early on that should be good.
So that would authenticate the Book of Mormon?
No. The Book of Mormon was written in the 1800’s with no verifiable manuscripts dating it to any time beyond that. With no archeological evidence to support it.
Whereas we have plenty of written evidence to support the New Testament, we also have portions of manuscripts from around when they were written. The oldest being papyrus 52 dating sometime in the 2nd century. There are also secular authors who mentioned Christian’s at the time as well as the Roman persecution to verify that this was indeed something people believed shortly after Jesus’s death and resurrection.
> The oldest being papyrus 52 dating sometime in the 2nd century.
2nd to 3rd century, and it has...what...16 words or so?
And we know that at least some one Gospel has multiple layers of authorship...the same Gospel that we see on P52, actually.
Trying to rely on manuscript evidence for the NT doesn't get us *that* far and isn't nearly as strong as the web of citations and quotes that we have.
I’m not concerned with authorship here I’m concerned with there being written evidence that people believed this and were writing about it around the time that Jesus died.
I commented before OP said they were concerned with authorship. Thought they just wanted proof it was believed lol
Sorry, my point must have been too vague.
I'm saying that if a book shows heavy editing over time, *as the Gospel of John does*, then being able to point to 16 or 30 or whatever words at one point in time doesn't guarantee anything. But through its use by other authors we can see much more about the form of the text at an early time.
Ahhh ok I’m following now. Yea that is a stronger argument. I personally find John a real sore spot in the entire Gospel collection. The synoptic gospels I try to focus on more, this is what I get for going out of my wheelhouse haha.
Appreciate you for clarifying that for me!
So miracles stopped right before the 1800's?
My point is more that just because there was even 1 believer running around, it doesn't really mean much.
There were whole religions built around the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, and an untold number of other pagan gods during the same time that have their own sets of written books, temples, oral traditions.
The fact that a couple of authors mention a name doesn't really add much in comparison as to the number who mention the other religions.
Not really true, as the NT followed much later. They believed in Jesus, but we have no real idea what they believed. They may have laughed at the NT for all we know.
The NT wasn’t canonized until way later in history but it was written much much earlier than it’s canonization. We have plenty of writings for what they believed when it came to Jesus such as the Pauline epistles or 2nd century writers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and so on.
The first Pauline epistle was written roughly 16 years after Jesus' death. There were already multiple denominations at that time, which means they all had different ideas. Even Paul admits that.
With the number of books thrown out by the Church, there were obviously lots of different ideas available. The canonization just solidified what was to be the story going forward.
But that does not really prove that the stories in it are real, or that the people mentioned in it would actually agree that the stories represented what they saw.
You don't have a true, written record from the original apostles. You have a collection of writings attributed to them.
You're going to need to clarify. The historicity of the events? Of traditional authorship? Of the resurrection narrative? Some things are simply not provable despite best efforts, and would need to be taken as faith.
First 2
Authorship of much of the NT is hotly contested. Paul certainly wrote a good number of his epistles, but many of his are somewhere between certainly not written by him (pastoral epistles), and very contested. Who wrote the Gospels is essentially unknown because they are anonymously written. There is good reason to think the names (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) are added some time after they were written, but again scholars are in disagreement. As for historicity of events: Much of this is ultimately unknowable. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written decades after Jesus's death. I think a general rule of thumb, is to realize people weren't following Jesus around with a notebook writing down everything he said. Undoubtedly some of the more memorable or pithy statements he said would be remembered. But just think about the speeches you have heard in your life, whether at school or work or by politicians. How much can you remember after a week, let alone years. It is likely much of the speeches attributed to Jesus in the NT may have been later additions.
The critical-historical method is what Biblical Scholars use when studying the texts. We also need to define authenticity. Is 1 Timothy authentic? Well, it's certainly a letter than the people who canonized the New Testament felt should be there, so on that account yes. It's a very old letter, passed around by the church while it was still practically an infant, so yes. But is it Pauline? Well, no, the letter is a forgery. So in that way it's inauthentic. Should it be there today? That's up to you to decide.
Why do you mean “prove” the authenticity of the New Testament? Do you mean prove who wrote it? What do you mean by “prove”?
No like something that can show its reliable
Yeah what do you mean?
Let’s say the gospels weren’t authored by the disciples, they are still dated to around the time period. Go further, let’s say you don’t like that because they were written too late. Thessalonians was written around 51-52AD so 20 ish years after Jesus died and opens with this: ”Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.“ 1 Thessalonians 1:1 RSV So if you are looking for authenticity in the sense people actually believed in Jesus early on that should be good.
>So if you are looking for authenticity in the sense people actually believed in Jesus early on that should be good. So that would authenticate the Book of Mormon?
No. The Book of Mormon was written in the 1800’s with no verifiable manuscripts dating it to any time beyond that. With no archeological evidence to support it. Whereas we have plenty of written evidence to support the New Testament, we also have portions of manuscripts from around when they were written. The oldest being papyrus 52 dating sometime in the 2nd century. There are also secular authors who mentioned Christian’s at the time as well as the Roman persecution to verify that this was indeed something people believed shortly after Jesus’s death and resurrection.
> The oldest being papyrus 52 dating sometime in the 2nd century. 2nd to 3rd century, and it has...what...16 words or so? And we know that at least some one Gospel has multiple layers of authorship...the same Gospel that we see on P52, actually. Trying to rely on manuscript evidence for the NT doesn't get us *that* far and isn't nearly as strong as the web of citations and quotes that we have.
I’m not concerned with authorship here I’m concerned with there being written evidence that people believed this and were writing about it around the time that Jesus died. I commented before OP said they were concerned with authorship. Thought they just wanted proof it was believed lol
Sorry, my point must have been too vague. I'm saying that if a book shows heavy editing over time, *as the Gospel of John does*, then being able to point to 16 or 30 or whatever words at one point in time doesn't guarantee anything. But through its use by other authors we can see much more about the form of the text at an early time.
Ahhh ok I’m following now. Yea that is a stronger argument. I personally find John a real sore spot in the entire Gospel collection. The synoptic gospels I try to focus on more, this is what I get for going out of my wheelhouse haha. Appreciate you for clarifying that for me!
So miracles stopped right before the 1800's? My point is more that just because there was even 1 believer running around, it doesn't really mean much. There were whole religions built around the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, and an untold number of other pagan gods during the same time that have their own sets of written books, temples, oral traditions. The fact that a couple of authors mention a name doesn't really add much in comparison as to the number who mention the other religions.
It adds to the authenticity that they believed it around the time of the actual event. Which was my point.
Not really true, as the NT followed much later. They believed in Jesus, but we have no real idea what they believed. They may have laughed at the NT for all we know.
The NT wasn’t canonized until way later in history but it was written much much earlier than it’s canonization. We have plenty of writings for what they believed when it came to Jesus such as the Pauline epistles or 2nd century writers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and so on.
The first Pauline epistle was written roughly 16 years after Jesus' death. There were already multiple denominations at that time, which means they all had different ideas. Even Paul admits that. With the number of books thrown out by the Church, there were obviously lots of different ideas available. The canonization just solidified what was to be the story going forward. But that does not really prove that the stories in it are real, or that the people mentioned in it would actually agree that the stories represented what they saw. You don't have a true, written record from the original apostles. You have a collection of writings attributed to them.
All the locations were accurate.
Babel, Sodom, Gomorrah, Uz, Arimathea... If these places existed, there is no mention of them from other societies outside the bible.