The historicity of the New Testament and what alternatives would be

While a lot of threads on the existence of Christianity often get focussed on the existence of divine beings, I was wondering if such a debate could happen by simply focussing on any evidence affirming or denying the accuracy of the New Testament and any alternatives.

So in that case, how accurate was the New Testament and is there much proof to affirm or deny it? And what alternatives exist and what proof is there to affirm or deny them? Also, what advantages would theory have over another? And if the New Testament is false, why would the correct theory have failed to become the theory commonly accepted by the public?

Quite a complext opening post, and I think you need to unfold some of the arguments/questions.

Firstly: Is this about the historical events and descriptions of society in that timeframe, or is it the more religious events (turning water into wine ect.)

Secondly, what do you mean by alternatives? Are you seeking a different explanation to events or people portraied in the new testament?

Thirdly, what do you mean by theory? Philosophies or historical method or archaeology, or something fourth? I wouldn't call the new testament a "theory", and on what scale should it be "false".

Best regards,

/KotR

One place to start would be the "Synoptic problem" which indicates three gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) had a common unknown source(Q) , one of them were copied by the other two or a combination.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knight of the Rose

Quite a complext opening post, and I think you need to unfold some of the arguments/questions.

Firstly: Is this about the historical events and descriptions of society in that timeframe, or is it the more religious events (turning water into wine ect.)

Secondly, what do you mean by alternatives? Are you seeking a different explanation to events or people portraied in the new testament?

Thirdly, what do you mean by theory? Philosophies or historical method or archaeology, or something fourth? I wouldn't call the new testament a "theory", and on what scale should it be "false".

Best regards,

/KotR

---

It would be more of the historical events.

As for alternatives, I meant any alternate explanations that explain what actually happened at the time and also explain the beginning of Christianity.

For theories, I meant explanations that would be proved or disproved in a historical method or archaeological way.

I was calling the New Testament a theory because it was an explanation how Christianity arose and it explains what happened in 1st century Palestine.

All of the significant details of the birth of the most important character in the New Testament are directly copied from prior religions. Often the same stories had been used repeatedly by multiple religions for hundreds of years before they were used by early Christian writers. It would be very difficult indeed to take seriously any other historical text which had that kind of start.

It's also important to note the countless early documents and books which the Catholic church simply suppressed because they were found to contradict or undermine the established story of the birth of their religion. Additionally most of the Gnostic and Jewish accounts of Jesus which survive directly contradict the accounts presented in the New Testament, and realistically any discussion of that is going to end up Backroomed, for good reason.

That being said, some of the details from the New Testament are reasonably verifiable, and some are unsupported by any other period text. An example of the former would be the Roman execution of Jesus, while an example of the latter would be Herod's order to slaughter hundreds of children.

Taken as a whole and compared to other period histories it's difficult to take the NT seriously precisely because it is still being used as a religious text. People within the religion have excellent grounds to defend it absent any scrap of proof, while no few anti-religion zealots happily assault it even where it is probably correct. Your best bet would be to read a broad selection of period histories first, find the points they tended to agree on, and only then read the NT and see which points it hits and which it misses. Though this would leave open the potential for past abuse of power by the church it would at least remove your own potential bias in either direction.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

It would be more of the historical events.

As for alternatives, I meant any alternate explanations that explain what actually happened at the time and also explain the beginning of Christianity.

For theories, I meant explanations that would be proved or disproved in a historical method or archaeological way.

I was calling the New Testament a theory because it was an explanation how Christianity arose and it explains what happened in 1st century Palestine.

---

Thank you for that elaboration, yet I would still think that you have two basic questions muddled together. Historical events might or might not be backed up by other sources. I am not an expert in that period, so others have to chime in here. As for calling NT a "theory", I would call it a "source" as it doesn't claim to guess what happened, but describes events, historical and religious. Due to its genre, it explains many events as "proof" of religion, but not as a theory.

Whether the historical accounts are reliable or not is a different question. One of the problems with ancient history is the lack of (written) sources, and therefore it can be quite difficult to either confirm or disprove statements in the sources. Gnostic texts would also be a "source", written with an alternative motive. So you can't outright say that if it says differently there, then accounts in NT are wrong.

But you can be quite sure that NT is a highly edited piece of work, so as a historian you need to be extra carefull in using it.

Maybe other orgas can recommend books on the history of the ancient near east?

/KotR

I really recommend anyone who is doubtful about the historicity of the the Bible in general to read Joshua McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict it is very good at analyzing the historicity of the Bible, particularly the New Testament.

And I recommend the doubters to first read a review of that book: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...f_lowder/jury/


CBR

Anyone who grounds any part of their historical analysis in ex post facto prophetic correctness has ceased making a historical argument and has begun to make a religious one (More properly a supernatural one, since no few modern churches reject the idea of prophecy). McDowell's book is well worth reading, but it is a religious text, an essentially apologist work, and not a work of history or even historical analysis.

You can still buy the original version of this book used on Amazon.com, which I would strongly encourage as McDowell himself has expressed frustration with the editing of the new version.

:egypt: