The Gospels are the most reliable historical documents about the historical Jesus of Nazareth

Thanks Pro, sorry for the delay, I’ve been very busy with work. The Gospels, that is, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are not reliable documents to begin with. As for the historical view of Jesus, if we were left with only the bible to prove that Jesus existed as a historical person, we might not have sufficient evidence to prove Jesus’ existence. The multiple contradictions in between these books help prove this point. Take the example of Jesus’ genealogies between Luke and Matthew that are rife with error, starting with Jesus’ supposed grandfather who in Matthew is called Jacob, while in Luke is called Heli. Matthew lists 26 Generations from Jesus to King David, while in Luke lists 41 generations to get to David. These contradictions continue and do not abate. From the start: Matthew says Joseph immediately fled to Egypt with baby Jesus, while Luke states that they stayed in Bethlehem. To the end: Matthew says Jesus was crucified with two taunting prisoners and declared “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” while Luke says that one prisoner taunts Jesus while the other is saved by Jesus and that Jesus’ final words were “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” As a rational person with a preference for events that are possible in the material world, the gospels are also historically inaccurate as to the so-called miracles of Jesus. Books that most scholars believe were written at the very earliest from 40-100 years after the death of Christ in Greek and then passed down generation by generation through the process of recopying, with revisions a certainty (in fact, regional translations were common) – these books are about as historical as the tale of Beowulf. Being that there are no complete manuscripts dating from the first or second centuries for any gospel and that the seven major complete versions, although ‘written’ in some cases up to 1000 years after the events of Jesus (and therefore having hundreds of years to get their story straight) still came up at only 62% variant free, the reliability of such a document is doubtful. The origins of such documents are also dubious, as there is no proof that such writings came from any one of the Apostles, as there are no documents old enough to prove such a thing. If such a book is good enough to work as historical proof then may I present the Quran’s version of Jesus’ death: “And they said we have killed the Messiah Isa son of Maryam, the Messenger of God. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him unto himself. God is almighty and wise.” Or from the Talmud, "It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover.” In the Quran, Jesus isn’t killed at all, but rather is raised into heaven and an imposter is murdered in his place. Meanwhile, the Talmud just says he was hanged. The Quran and the Talmud are both equally as contradictory, ancient, and unreliable, and so should work just as well as a historical document – at least for Pro, perhaps. If Jesus even existed at all, the document you absolutely do not want is the document that is charged with religious controversy and a history of being changed and altered because of its importance – and its power. What you would want was a quiet piece of information proving that Jesus was born and died – something without controversy, something boring like a census or an official letter. Something like Tacitus would work and he does mention a Jesus who “suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…” and who started “…a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.” Tacitus is writing firsthand here, unlike the earlier record by Thallus, whose words aren’t to be trusted, as they are from a secondary source. His account seems more reasonable; a man started a ruckus in Judea and was put to death, but not before his teachings had spread. No mention of the resurrection, or earthquakes, zombies or floating to heaven. Suetonius wrote in a historical document “Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome)”. Lucian of Samosata made fun of early Christians and Christ by saying “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account… then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.” Again, no supernatural mentioning, just death. Josephus, a Jewish account, said “Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” A common sight among non-biblical accounts is the objectivity of their words. No miracles, no fluff, just a historical account; a crucified Jewish troublemaker who was killed.