Authenticity of the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter SalamKhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Church, herself, is the continuous link; there are few entities existing that have a history traceable to such ancient beginnings. The Roman Catholic Church can name it’s Pope’s from the present one back to the first, some two thousand years ago. And, by possessing a living legacy to the beginning, receiving the faith as it was revealed, and being established for the purpose of preserving and proclaiming it, Scripture has less immediate import in determining truths of the faith than it does for a Sola Scripture adherent for example.
 
Gorgias said:
And therefore, comparing the style of the New Testament to Greco-Roman biography is as valid as comparing the NT to the literary stylings of Barney the Purple Elephant…
Click to expand...
But still, historical biography is a significant part of the Gospel writings, and the Gospels were allegedly written by eye-witnesses.
 
I have a few more questions, if you all don’t mind:
  1. On the Alexandrian body of manuscripts, which is the basis for the critical text of the New Testament vs. the Byzantine body of manuscripts, which is the basis for both the majority and received texts of the New Testament. As it relates to traditional Christian doctrines, it seems that the Byzantine body of manuscripts is more suitable for a primary source with incontrovertible proofs, however, is it more authentic than the Alexandrian body of manuscripts? Some cite the early Church Fathers as having quoted from the New Testament, and their quotations correspond to the Byzantine body of manuscripts. However, modern scholars have pointed out that these are most likely interpolations, as these Church Fathers are based on manuscripts which post-date the Alexandrian body of manuscripts.
It is true that he also comments on the “self-attesting” power of the gospels, and cites evidence from the early apologists that for them Scripture possessed this sort of luminous power, a conviction arising from the grace and light which characterizes the Word of God. Other writings simply lack this power.
Click to expand...
Source- http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=477

Which of the Church Fathers made this argument, I am interested in what they meant by this?
  1. How do you deal with some of the Church Fathers, such as Origen and Jerome, seemingly acknowledging the corruption of scripture?
  2. When the authenticity of Christian scriptures is challenged, some Catholics (and Orthodox) argue that the church is the authority in determining which books are canon and which books are not. However, to non Christians such as myself, this argument does not convince me that the New Testament is authentic, after all, I do not believe that the church was founded by Jesus (A), or that the church is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit from error. So if was truly a case of the church determining what is scripture, how am I expected to believe that the church simply wasn’t biased in this matter?
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
40.png
Gorgias:
You were claiming that our Bible is based off a single, adulterated copy.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t claiming that, re-read what I actually wrote.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? 😉
SalamKhan said:
I could assert that all the copies were based on a single inaccurate copy
Click to expand...
 
SalamKhan said:
Here’s the rest of the what I said:
Click to expand...
Yeah. I read it the first time. 😉

Your hypothetical assumption, however, is so far beyond the pale that it simply could not be accepted at face value. If it doesn’t presume that each book was corrupted prior to being assembled together, then it presumes that the entire Bible was corrupted after compilation… and that no one noticed.

Both are simply untenable suggestions. So, it’s not a matter of “substantiation” – your assertion, on its face, is simply not realistic. 🤷‍♂️
 
Gorgias said:
If it doesn’t presume that each book was corrupted prior to being assembled together, then it presumes that the entire Bible was corrupted after compilation… and that no one noticed.
Click to expand...
LOL, you’re taking it way too literally.
 
SalamKhan said:
LOL, you’re taking it way too literally.
Click to expand...
OK… fair enough. So, then, all you’re saying is “well, it’s equally as valid that it’s corrupt as that it’s not”… and I’m demonstrating that no, really, it’s not. 🤷‍♂️
 
Why not cite some other ancient documents that are in your opinion better substantiated? Describe how better.p
 
The lack of original copies of the epistles written by the Apostles is a non-starter in critiquing the New Testament. The copies we retain are contemporaneous with the Apostles and preserved in the writings of the Fathers and Tradition. In addition to the Greek, there are also Aramaic translations of the New Testament dating to at least the death of St. Thomas and still used in the Nestorian Church. Despite what more “modern” scholars might say, the Vulgate is an accurate translation of the Greek into Latin.

Hebrew and Aramaic copies of the Deuterocanon and most of the Tanach were found at Qumran, though the Greek Deuterocanon was more widely available as that was the common language of the day. Christ and the Apostles do reference these works despite Protestant claims to the contrary.

All of that plus Jewish, Catholic and Byzantine Tradition corroborating each other(though obviously the Jewish Tradition excludes the NT and Fathers) all make the lack of original, handwritten letters from the Apostles a moot point. They were accurately preserved and handed down from God to Moses to the Prophets to the Assembly to Christ to the Apostles to the Church. Complete, unbroken succession.

Praised be Jesus and Mary.
 
Last edited:
SalamKhan said:
and partly on modern scholars who believe the authorship of the Gospels to be spurious and not written by eye-witnesses.
Click to expand...
Before one begins attempting to inject and spread questionable opinions, one really should become well educated in his topic.
And well educated from the correct sources.
Based on that comment, you may be quite misled. What education have you had on Gospel authorship? What are your sources? I would be seriously critiquing them.
 
Do you know who authored many of those scrolls and of that community?
 
Spyridon said:
believe St. Matthew the Apostle wrote his gospel first.

Afterwards St. Mark used Matthews gospel as a template,
Click to expand...
You have your timeline wrong. Mark wrote first, a couple of decades before Matthew and Luke.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
timeline wrong. Mark wrote first, a couple of decades before Matthew and
Click to expand...
That’s according to the Markan priority hypothesis.

The part of my post you quoted was illustrating the Augustinian hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top