The written records as evidence

[Aractus]

This is firmly established by having independent contemporary authors

There wasn't a single contemporary author. Everything about Jesus came at least a couple of decades after his death.

But that's still contemporary. And you aren't 100% correct, the earliest epistle (the epistle of James) came at least 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

The Epistle of James is another interesting case, it too can be reliably dated, in a sense, in that it is near certain that it was written prior than AD 49 (the Jerusalem conference). I suppose though, more importantly are the clear parallels between the Epistle and the words of James recorded in Acts 15. This brings the date to around c. 45 AD, which is just 1 decade after the death of Jesus.

writing asymmetrical works.

Maybe for the most part. The telling of the story evolves as you read the gospels in chronological order though.

No. That viewpoint isn't unique, some atheists have suggested that all the books of the New Testament read chronologically tell an "evolving story"; but then that's based on their assumptions that all the epistles of Peter are written before the Gospel of Mark, and other such assumptions. There's no way to make such broad assumptions. I do think that Matthew is written well before Luke and that John is written much later, but you know that many scholars believe that the synoptic problem is only solved when Luke and Matthew are written within 2 years of each other!

So, to take that viewpoint, you have to make many broad assumptions of the dates of the gospels, and indeed the epistles. Take John, for instance. The author was a Palestinian Jew (as was the author of Matthew), the author was an Apostle (an eye witness). Most importantly the author was the Apostle John, and every time he mentioned himself he uses the phrase "the disciple who Jesus loved". It is theorized he used this phrase because he was given this nickname by the other disciples or by Jesus, and not because he actually invented it for himself.

Most scholars date the gospel to c. 90-100 AD. P52 poses a problem for this date, because it dates palaeographically to c. 90-135 AD and a pre 2nd century date cannot be excluded. Its existence alone testifies to its widespread usage and copying at that time. Interestingly, John doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple/siege of Jerusalem and nor does he have the prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem! That throws a spanner in the works, meaning that most scholars exclude any possibility that it could have been written c. 70-80 AD for this reason alone. John still could have been the last canonical Gospel written, even if it was written in 62 AD.

So when was it written? We don't know, it's near impossible to reliably date John! As I said before, only certain writings can be reliably dated, and even then you usually only have an indicator saying "earlier than this point" - or in some people's view "later than this point". John has neither, and if it's written as late as 90 AD then you have to assume P52 dates to c. 135 AD. I will say this - John does know about the death of Peter this is made clear in John 21:18, so it is written after Peter's death. However we do not know reliably when Peter died, and although the 2nd century church fathers place the date around the mid 60's AD like Paul, an earlier death mid 50's is also entirely possible!

They certainly knew about each other. Markan Priority is a good theory with lots of explanatory power.

Most scholars think that Matthew didn't know about Luke and that Luke didn't know about Matthew. The Epistle of James is placed earliest, by most scholars, so obviously he didn't know about Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul's Epistles, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, Revelation or Hebrews.

None of this remotely makes a difference. The reason being that the above is *necessary* for the NT to be true, but not *sufficient*. And you've also got the fact that it doesn't matter that historical places were used as a backdrop for what could potentially be a mostly fabricated story. Spiderman swings from building to building in New York. That doesn't make it any more plausible as a true story, although it would be *necessary* for him to be residing in a real place as opposed to fictional if it were to be a true story - naturally.

Don't edit quotes unless you make it obvious you've edited them, OK? That's the same courtesy I would extend to you.