The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

After a bit of...interaction with the mods, I'm not 100% certain about what I can and cannot post at this point. Therefore, I'm going to outline the case I WOULD have made and wait to see what happens next.

---

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament – Summation

Catholic apologist Trent Horn wrote, “The balance of evidence in favor of God's existence outweighs the evidence against God's existence. No one piece of evidence may prove it, but taken as a whole they may very well accomplish that task.”

Here is that evidence.

The four gospels have been accurately delivered to us (meaning we know what they wrote).

• Nearly 6,000 copies of the New Testament can be studied using textual criticism.
  
• The Telephone Game and all attempts to claim distortion via oral tradition are bogus.
  

The authors wrote early (meaning it was possible that they were actual eyewitnesses).

• Silence regarding the Destruction of the Temple (AD 70) and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul) (AD 64-65) suggest an early date.
  

The authors recorded eyewitness accounts.

• All of the early sources attribute the gospels to the traditional authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The synoptic gospels are not attributed to major figures such as Peter, James or Mary; instead, they are assigned to a tax-collector (Matthew), a lesser character who may not have been present (Mark), and a gentile (Luke). This is one example of how the gospels meet the Criterion of Embarrassment.
  
• Matthew was an apostle, and may have been chosen specifically because of his record-keeping skills which were needed to make contemporaneous records of Jesus’ teaching and deeds.
  
• Luke interviewed people who were present. This may have included Mary for the nativity account.
  
• Mark was the companion of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
  
• John was an apostle.
  

The authors wanted to write accurate accounts (as opposed to pious fiction).

• Luke and John specifically state that they are writing so that others may know the truth.
  
• The disciples believed they were passing on the words of God – a responsibility they took seriously.
  

The authors wrote accurate accounts which are verified and corroborated.

• Jewish and Roman accounts corroborate the basic story.
  
• Verifiable external evidence suggests that the authors had intimate knowledge of the geography, architecture, religious and political leadership, religious customs, language of the day, etc. Even the names of the people appear in the correct percentages.
  
• Unintentional internal corroboration provides additional evidence that the gospels are accurate.
  
• Accuracy regarding these details adds to the impression that the authors are credible.
  

The authors were accountable to other eyewitnesses – both supportive and hostile.

• Many eyewitnesses were still alive at the time the gospels and epistles were written. Anyone disagreeing with a gospel could have easily refuted an erroneous account.
  
• The Jews did not deny the tomb was empty; they offered alternative explanations for why it was.
  

The authors had no ulterior motive.

• What did the authors of the gospels gain from their work? The three classic motives are: power, money, and sex. Not only did Christianity reject these things in general, but the authors were persecuted and killed.
  

Additional Points for Discussion:

• The disciples suffered and died for their beliefs. None recanted their story at the last minute to save himself. People are willing to die for what they believe, but rarely are people willing to die for something they know to be a lie.
  
• Skeptics such as James and Saul were converted.
  
• Key social structures were changed in the wake of the resurrection of Jesus.
  
• The emergence of the Church suggests that it was founded by someone, directed by someone and based upon the life and teachings of someone. It is unlikely that this person was a legend.

  ---

With the reliability of the gospels established by the weight of the evidence, we must consider two additional points:

1. The four gospels clearly show that Jesus claimed to be God.
   
2. The four gospels contain clear support for the resurrection of Jesus which He offered as proof of His claims.
   

There are reasons to dispute all of your premises, especially that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts or that they were attributed to the Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John early.  Nor is there much corroboration of the Gospels elsewhere in the historic record.  The Gospels contradict each other.  And what historical records we do have contradict the Gospels.

I don't have time for a point by by analysis, but you have yet to do that either.

My major point is that you simply cannot prove god, or miracles, or a resurrection via eyewitness testimony, even if it were modern day eyewitness who you could cross-examine.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof in order to make them more likely than not.  For example, if I claimed my dog flies, my say so, even in a court of law under oath would be unlikely to convince anyone because the chances that I would be lying or disillusion would be much greater than the chances of a wingless flying dog.  So too if I and my whole family claimed my great grandmother rose from the dead last Friday.  That would be so even if our disinterested neighbors agreed.  To prove her resurrection would need to provide solid physical evidence of her death, produce the great grand mother herself, and provide proof of her identity.  Even then, we'd have a hard time proving that she really had died and that she wasn't someone else. This is why skeptical people do not believe in ghosts, ESP, or UFO abductions despite tons of eyewitnesses.

So, I see your quest to prove the resurrection or that Jesus was god via the Bible as hopeless.  Regardless of whether the claims you make about it above are true, the Bible is not sufficient evidence on which to base supernatural claims.  No historical account is.