Board index ‹ Bible

[jimwalton]

I’m really curious, and just curious—not trying to take a position or make a federal case. What if archaeologists today found an anonymous document in Israel containing many of the same stories of Jesus we have in the Gospels? What would that do, in your mind, to the credibility of the Gospels? Negative (give the Gospels even less credibility), positive (give them more), or neutral (no effect)?

Or (hypothetical situation #2), suppose they found the same kind of document, but with a name attached (who cares what name)? What would that do, in your mind, to the credibility of the Gospels? Negative, positive, or neutral?

[Monkey D]

Probably nothing. There were many Gospels found that were not included in the Bible. Why would one more matter?

[Chris Christopherson]

This has all happened before - Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example.

I think if we go down to the LDS HQ or to the Vatican and ask them about the discoveries, we may get two different types of results. So, it's safe to say that the response would be mixed. That, at times, the discovery of new texts reinforce faith and lead to the advent of new institutions of interpretation. And, at other times, new discoveries threaten institutions and are not wholly welcome.

At the end of the day, I think new discoveries, if we go down the street and ask the regular Bible reading Christian, reinforce faith and have a positive effect on the individual.

[jimwalton]

Yeah, I notice a difference there. Joseph Smith didn't claim anything was found in Israel from the time of Christ, but a new revelation given just to him. That claim didn't enhance the faith of normal Christians.

The DSS, on the other hand, was a large depository of documents from the era and prior to it, that greatly expanded our reference material for the culture and era, and was widely regarded as a positive addition to our knowledge.

[Hard Nosed]

I'd honestly be more impressed by some contemporary source that lambasted jesus. there were plenty of people doing fan fiction of jesus, decades after the events they claimed to describe, no reason why one more would make any difference. And we already know that gospel authors had no problem claiming their work was written by authorities. so a name isn't going to effect their credibility either.

[Shadow Destroyer]

Not enough information in your question. Many of the Gospels use other Gospels in creating their own. Would we see the same thing? When was this "Gospel" written? What Gospels is this "Gospel" similar to? Etc.

[jimwalton]

Well, I think I'd add to my query by specifying that it turns out to have been written during the same era (AD 50s-80s). It would probably share at least some of the same stories, but may (hypothetically, who knows) have some new ones.

My reason for asking: People often accuse the Bible of "The Gospels is all we have, therefore it's automatically unreliable." Well, what if something else was discovered? Would it REALLY make a difference, because now we have an account that is NOT in the Bible. If it was anonymous, one could always accuse "unknown source." But if it had a name on it (and probably not necessarily a name that was known), then I assume that would still be "unknown source." Even if it had a name like "Barnabas" on it, some would still say, "There were lots of Barnabases. We don't know which one it was, " therefore, "unknown source."

Or would it be, "This is awesome! There IS an extra-biblical record of Jesus from the era found in situ." I'm just curious what people now, in 2016, would make of it.

For those who complain that "The Gospels are the only account we have, therefore they are unreliable," but who would discredit a new discovery that was exactly what they were asking for, it would make me wonder if their objection was honest, then, or just a smokescreen for "I wouldn't believe it no matter what happened." You know?

[Mr. Bojangles]

This has already happened with the Nag Hammadi find and others. There are dozens of other Gospels and "Acts" writings.

What would make a new find interesting is if it could be conclusively dated contemporaneously with or earlier than the Canonicals and if it did not show literary dependence. It would also help if the author identified himself or named sources. Something written in Aramaic or showed Palestinian origin - especially pre-70 - would be the most significant find in Christian origins ever made. Whatever it meant to Christians and historians alike would depend on what it said.

[jimwalton]

Mr. Bojangles, that's great input and a helpful reply. Thanks.

[Fat Kid]

As a Mormon, I believe the Book of Mormon to be an accompanying testament of Christ with the Bible. Obviously the Book of Mormon hasn't been around as long as the Bible has. However, to answer your question, One of the LDS's articles of Faith is:

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

So yes there will mostly likely be more revealed unto the world.