The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

Tim-

It's a pleasure to have you join the thread.

I've printed out and read all of your articles at Strange Notions, and I've been working through a number of your blog posts, as well. As you can see from my signature (which I updated just yesterday), I have been very impressed by the work you have done to dispel the Jesus Myth Theory.

In the OP and post #270 (among others), I have attempted to lay out the beginning of a very basic argument for the historical reliability of the NT, and while I do expect you and I will agree on everything, I am interested to hear your views on the general reliability of the gospels, in particular.

Setting aside the miracles (which I presume you reject), what are your thoughts on:

1. The dating and order of writing of the four gospels (and how is your view influenced by the silence concerning the destruction of the Temple and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul?);
   
2. The identity of the authors (do you ascribe to the traditional authorship?);
   
3. Do you agree with Ehrman's "Telephone Game" analogy, or would you say that the oral culture of the Jews worked in favor of an accurate transference from oral to written message?
   
4. Do you think that the authors (regardless of identity) have provided us with generally reliable accounts of what the apostles and disciples were eye-witnesses to?
   

If you have addressed these points elsewhere and wish to refer me to them to save some typing, just provide the link.

Many thanks in advance.

Randy