The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[robvalue]

In most cases in an ancient source, when someone is mentioned, it's because they existed.

Does that include Zeus, Hercules, Gilgamesh, Ra, Anubis, Marduk, An, Enlil, etc.? I can list hundreds more if necessary.

Exactly. If I pick up an "ancient source" I start from the position of not believing anything it says. This is the same scepticism I use when I pick up any new source, in fact. Even one someone just wrote down and gave to me. Now, if I know who wrote it, that is in itself a factor in deciding how reliable it is. For example, if my wife wrote it, I'm going to trust most things she says based on experience, unless I have a reason not to. However, the scepticism still applies in general and I don't believe everything she says. She has some supernatural beliefs, which I automatically do not believe, and I ask for evidence, which of course is not forthcoming.

If some unknown person wrote it that long ago and it's been through the Chinese whisper mill, I'm pretty much going to give it no credibility and rely only on what I can validate. I see no reason to assume any of it "probably happened" without an external reason to think so. And even if I can validate a couple of bits of it, that is not at all the same amount of "experience" as having personal experience with my wife making claims for many years. It's still all part of the initial attempt to establish credibility. Also, anyone who writes about angels and resurrections or any such garbage loses roughly 478 credibility points right away. Maybe more. They are almost certainly either deluded or in the business of making stuff up. Either way, reliable my sceptical arse.

My personal stance on history is I would rather simply say I have no good idea what happened, rather than come to a conclusion that I cannot be at least pretty confident about.

That is just my opinion, not a dictate.