The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

You would be guessing wrong.  Even most Christian scholars have long since admitted the the traditional authorship has no basis in fact.  Your posts have not been remotely persuasive as the to authorship of the gospels.

Prove it. You must have a source for this, right? Cause you wouldn't simply assert such a thing because it fits with your presuppositions, right?  

But and I repeat what ought to be obvious to you is that eyewitness testimony "is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers."

And I repeat that there are solid reasons why your cherished belief that Christianity is based upon "stories...recorded thirty years later...by many, many anonymous tellers" is simply crap.

But you can't let that go, because if you consider the alternative, your whole world changes.

As long as you can remain convinced that the gospels are unreliable...even fiction...you can go on living as you always have. Enjoy it while you can.

Citations?

There's bland old Wikipedia which does a fair summary of the historical scholarship:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[8][9][10][11] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[13][14][15] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion

Concerning the first gospel written:

Most scholars believe that Mark was written by a second-generation Christian, around or shortly after the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple in year 70

So 40 years after the crucifiction (give or take) by someone who is a child of a convert.


How about Mathew?

Matthew was most likely written at Antioch, then part of Roman Syria.[77] Most scholars hold that Matthew drew heavily on Mark and added teaching from the Q document.[78] While Matthew arranged this material into compilations, such as the Sermon on the Mount, much of the material goes back to the historical Jesus.[79] According to E. P. Sanders, the infancy narrative is an invention.[80] Matthew presents Jesus' ministry as limited to the Jews, though the resurrected Jesus later commissions the disciples to preach to all the world. Geza Vermes judges that the ministry of Jesus was exclusively for Jews and that the order to proclaim the gospel to all nations was an early Christian development.[81]

According to the majority viewpoint, this gospel is unlikely to have been written by an eyewitness.[78] While Papias reported that Matthew had written the "Logia," this can hardly be a reference to the Gospel of Matthew.[78] The author was probably a Jewish Christian writing for other Jewish Christians.[82]

Biblical scholars generally hold that Matthew was composed between the years c. 70 and 100.

Luke:

Luke was written in a large city west of Palestine.[87] Like Matthew, Luke drew on Mark and added material from Q.[88] Luke also includes a large amount of unique material, such as the parable of the good Samaritan, and many of these parables seem to be authentic.[89] Luke emphasizes the universal nature of Jesus' mission and message,[90] but Geza Vermes concludes that this theme is not authentic to the historical Jesus.[91] As is the case with Matthew, much controversy has surrounded the Lukan birth narrative.[80]

Some scholars[92][93] uphold the traditional claim that Luke the Evangelist, an associate of St. Paul who was probably not an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry, wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles. Others point out that Acts contradicts Paul's own letters and denies him the important title of apostle, suggesting that the author was not a companion of Paul's.[94]

As is the case with all the Gospels, it is unknown exactly when the Gospel of Luke was written. Scholars have proposed a range of dates from as early as 60 AD to as late as 90 AD.[95][96][97] Donald Guthrie argues, however, that Acts was written in the early 60s AD (since the book ends before the death of Paul, which most probably occurred during the Persecution of the Christians under Nero between AD 64 and AD 68), and therefore the Gospel of Luke would have to have been written prior to that, around AD 60.[/url]

John:

John was likely composed at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_centers_of_Christianity#Anatolia]Ephesus, though other possibilities are Antioch, Palestine and Alexandria.[103] Some scholars believe that Jesus' teaching in this gospel cannot be reconciled with that found in the synoptics,[104] whilst others, including John A.T. Robinson hold the view that the synoptics are best reconciled within the framework of John.[105]

In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[106][107] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[108] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[109][110] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."[111]
Most scholars date the Gospel of John to c. 80–95.[54][112]

I've left the hotlinks in the footnote live, so you can see what the text is based on.