The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

Jenny-

Until I've been a member for 30 days, I'm not permitted to counter your Wikipedia links with links of my own.

However, I own and have actually read books that would call much of what the Wiki article says into question. So, I could provide plenty of sources for the view I have laid out in the OP.

You actually read books?  What a coincidence, so do I.  And so do many others here.  Why we might all be intellectual twins.

Seriously I do both read and own books.  Some of them are even about Biblical and Christian history (such as it is) and Christian theology, as well as books concerning The Reformation, a little Aquinas, a little C.S. Lewis, etc.  All told perhaps three three foot long shelves full.  But I also have books about atheism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and Judaism.  Not to mention several of the Great Courses series on the topic.  I know much less about Islam. 

Lest that seem like an obsession with religion let me assure it is not.  We own about 288 linear shelf space of books, much of it double shelved, and that doesn't count what we have on Kindle.  And while I haven't read every book on those shelves, between my husband and I we have.   When decorating I think of it as thick wallpaper.  

But let's say for arguments' sake that you're right. the first gospel, Mark(?), was written around AD 70. So what? In the cultural context of Judaism, that would be NOTHING for the disciples to contend with.

What do you mean in the cultural context of Judaism?  Jews didn't live any longer than anyone else.  Forty years during a time period when the average person lived to something under forty is not a short period of time.   Ten years would probably be way too long to expect an eyewitness account.  And even in the extremely unlikely event a disciple lived that long, why would he wait forty years to write it down assuming he could write.   The whole idea is highly improbable.
Add to that the he didn't sign his work, or say it was eyewitness and it becomes more improbable yet. Add that he wrote it a long long ways from home in a foreign language and were beginning to beat a dead horse, a very dead horse.

See, it's your assertion that the Gospels cannot be reliable. And in order to discredit them, you have to accept the idea that no one could possibly have gotten the story straight after xx years. Unfortunately, this flies in the face of what we know of oral cultures, of the ability to memorize huge amounts of data and to recall it accurately, and of the role that the community of believers would have played in keeping the Jesus story within very narrow boundaries. IOW, I like the fact that the eye-witnesses wrote early and often, but I'm not dependent upon that fact. It's just another piece of circumstantial evidence that may help skeptics overcome their doubts if they think it through.

Actually, oral cultures are no better at remember events than the rest of us.  

Be honest, if you had been a witness to something significant, and later you heard someone telling a false version of the event, you, as a living witness, would be in a position to call that person on the carpet for their additions, omissions and errors, wouldn't you?

Sure, but stories spread fast and change often, and it's not as if I would have read it in a newpaper.  And the gospels were written after the disciples were most likely dead.   And historically, he who writes first wins.

But you won't concede that ability to the early Church. Nooooo, they were all biased and eager to expand the notion that Jesus was God. So, they just kept piling one miracle on top of another until the man became the God.

(The fact that there is no evidence that the Gospel changed over the course of time, is a problem, but why let that spoil a good thing? Just ignore it.)

Why would it matter that the gospels stayed essentially the same over time if they weren't accurate to begin with?

NOW

It is true that I don't think the gospels are particularly trustworthy.  But suppose for an instant that they were written by eyewitnesses and that those witnesses at least were attempting to tell the truth.  Suppose that they wrote it all down on note pads while following Jesus around.  I still would not consider the gospels proof of the supernatural.  

Why not?  Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Were I to accept god on earth, miracles, and the resurrection on that basis I'd have no reason not to believe in UFO abductions, ghosts, big foot, Nessy, ESP, Mormonism, and a variety of other things that I'm pretty sure you don't believe in either.  I don't believe in Christianity for the same reason you don't believe in those things.

Which is not to say I think the gospels are pure fabrication.  I'm pretty sure a man named Jesus, lived, was born in Galilee (not Bethlehem) to a woman named Mary, was baptized by John the Baptist, preached, and was crucified.  I'm also sure his mother was not a virgin and did not think she had born the son of god (ask me why and I'll show you the gospel text).   I'm less sure, but still think that he told people he could perform miracles only for believers (an early gospel but anti John stance) and that preached that the kingdom of god was coming to earth within his own life time.