1) What period of time did the writings of the OT cover and what period of time did the writings of the NT cover?
OT = 4000BC - 400BC
NT = 0 - 70AD
2) When were these writings physically generated?
OT = 1000BC - 400BC
Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests
NT = 70-95AD (there is no definitive source for this, as scholars/experts do not agree on the dates)
3) Can the Scripture writings, relative to historical events, be corroborated and if so by what means?
Historical events can be corroborated, but that in no way corroborates any claims made about Jesus, his actions or his divine nature. If authors were alive during the historical events, they would be expected to have gotten them right, even if they were making up everything about Jesus. (This is just common sense and simple logic. The accuracy of historical events do not support the accuracy of supernatural claims)
But, there are examples of historical errors in the New Testament. For example (
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-major-historical-errors-in-the-Bible):
Matthew 27:52 "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life."
Nobody ever noticed it or mentions it anywhere else, while all kinds of minor events are recorded by Roman historians at that time.
Luke 2:4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
The census and its dating itself is dubious, I will not use that but focus on the rules of this census.
When the Romans ordered a census to register people and properties, they did it for administrative (mainly taxing) purposes. They wanted to know where you lived now and the property you owned. They could not care less who your ancestor 1000 years before was and where he lived. They never held such a census anywhere in the entire Empire, because what use would that information be to them?
On top of that, it is not even possible for such a census to be held. Ask yourself the question where you would you go? You are lucky when you succeed in tracing back the paternal line for 3 or 4 centuries when you are not from an aristocratic family, even with todays modern archives.
Historically not true beyond any reasonable doubt.
4) Can the Egyptian Pharoes and the kings in the Bible, as well as other world leaders, be verified with secular means?
I would assume the Kings and Pharoes mentioned in the bible would be correct, whether or not the supernatural claims are. It would be very easy for writers back then to get the names of these rulers right. But, it provides no support for claims made about Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, etc. because we have practically no corroborating accounts of any of these men outside the Bible. Even Josephus most likely only mentioned Jesus and John the Baptists very briefly. Early Christians then added to these accounts to bolster their historical argument ... or at least that is what the experts think.
Scholarly opinion varies on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in
Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the
Antiquities, a passage that states that Jesus the
Messiah was a wise teacher who was crucified by
Pilate, usually called the
Testimonium Flavianum.
[4][5][1] The general scholarly view is that while the
Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian expansion/alteration.
[5][6][7][8][9][10]Although the exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear,
[11] there is broad consensus as to what the original text of the
Testimonium by Josephus would have looked like.
[9]
All in all, there is no way of knowing who wrote the New Testament books, as they were named for the Apostles. "The Gospel According to Mark", for example, didn't mean that Mark wrote it. It was written in honor of the apostle, most likely. (Obviously Paul's letters are an exception; and, possibly Luke/Acts, who was an assistant to Paul).
Here is an interesting take on this by a Biblical Scholar. Can't say he is right or wrong, but he is an expert on the subject.
Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says