As a historical document, the New Testament is unreliable

Let us begin with a brief summary of my opponent's argument. He begins his argument by asking "What makes a document reliable? " However, he doesn't actually answer this question. He then remarks on two observations. The first (contention I. B.1) is that the Gospels are anonymous and were named by Early Church Fathers "long after the books were written. " The second (contention I. B.2) is that theGospels were written past the year 70 CE. Next, my opponent lists several "errors" related to the narratives of the Passion week (the week leading up to and including Christ's death). The first (contention II. A.1) is that Mark made a mistake in stating that they came to Bethphage prior to Bethany. A sub point of this is that Matthew corrected this mistake. The second (contention II. A.2) is that the Gospels present a portrait of Pilate that is inaccurate. Finally my opponent provides an anachronism that "disproves" the validity of the Gospel accounts. This anachronism is that the Jews did not have the authority to put a man to death (contention III. A) and supports it by two arguments. Proof 1 (contention III. A.1) is that archeologically there is evidence that the Jews did put people to death, the example of a inscription near the temple warning of the death penalty is given. The next proof (contention III. A.2) is that in Acts chapter 6 Stephen is killed for blasphemy, and therefore the Jews did in fact have the right to put people to death. Now, I do not wish this debate to simply turn into an exchange of Mr. Infidel proposing contradictions and me resolving them. We've done that debate before, and I am sure we will do it again. However, this debate is much more conceptual. Rather, I would like to show that even if these "mistakes" or "contradictions" are present (I am not conceeding that they are) that it does not make the Gospel accounts historically unreliable. Observations (Contentions I. B.1 and I. B.2)First, I would like to address the observations my opponent makes of the Gospels. The Gospels are indeed anonymous and were likely written after 60 CE. (The year 70 is probably a little late for Mark, and is definately early for John. The accepted dating among most scholars is Mark in 60-65, Luke and Matthew in 70-80, and John sometimes in the early 90s). However, this is irrelevant in determining historical accuracy or reliability. Consider the following scenario: If I wrote on a piece of paper that George Washington was the first president of the United States, was a general during the Revolutionary War, and was married to Martha and didn't sign my name. .. would that make it any less accurate? Of course not, all of those things are historical facts, and simply because I wrote them 200+ years after the fact and did not sign my name does not change that. Neither date of writing nor attributed authorship makes a document more or less reliable or accurate. Furthermore, my opponent's claim that the attribution of the Gospels come long after the books were written is true, but misleading. As early as the 150s we have Ireneaus attributing the traditional authors to all four Gospels. [A] This is within 3 generations of the authorship of the earliest Gospel (Mark) and within 2 of the latest (John). Futhermore, Ireneaus was an apostle of Polycarp, who was an apostle of John himself. If John did not write the Gospel we would expect his disciple (Polycarp) to know it, and in turn we would expect him to communicate this to his disciple (Ireneaus). So even if we do not have John's name on the Gospel, we have someone who is only one generation removed from John attributing it to him. Passion Week ObservationsNow, I'm not going to address the details specifically, rather I am going to point out the flaws in my opponent's reasoning. Mark's Geographic MistakeMy opponent makes a contradiction out of the fact that when traveling from Jericho to Jerusalem, one would come to Bethany prior to coming to Bethphage. However, this is really not an issue. I am originally from the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropoltan area. The two cities aer right next to each other opposite the Missisippi River. However, due to a radio jingle on a popular radio station when I was growing up I always refer to it as Minneapolis-St. Paul, in that order. If I was driving from Stillwater (On the Minnesota/Wisconsin Boarder) to South Dakota I would drive through both cities, Minneapolis first, then St. Paul. However, if I would driving the opposite direction, I would still refer to it as Minneapolis-St. Paul. This does not mean that I don't understand the geography or am mistaken, it simply means that the specific order in which I progressed through the cities was not important to me. Similarly, we see no significant difference if Mark says Bethphage and then Bethany, and if Matthew says Bethany and then Bethphage. Unless the author was INTENDING to explain the geography this is absolutely irrelevant. There is no indication that the author was intending to give a strict geographical account, nor a strict chronological account, and this therefore makes no difference. My opponent is dismissing a document for not providing details about something it doesn't care about. If I said "I drove from South Dakota to Wisconson and drove through Minneapolis and St. Paul," would that be grounds to dismiss my account as historically inaccurate or unreliable? No it would not, and it isn't grounds to place Mark or Matthew in that category either. Pilate's CharacterThis point is particularly interesting. My opponent uses primarily Philo and Josephus to compare the Gospel's account of Pilate's character. This is an exercise in begging the question, as my opponent has done nothing to prove that Philo or Josephus are any more or less reliable than the New Testament itelf. Beyond that, let us check these two documents according to my opponent's criteria. According to Murrell Selden, Josephus places the date of Herod's death in January of 1 BCE. [B] This is contrary to the accepted historical date of 6 BCE. Furthermore Josephus has a radically incorrect chronology of the return of Judah from exile. One author writes "anachronisms in Josephus are no strange thing" [C] Furthermore, it is widely know that Josephus was writting as a lapdog of Rome (he was already a traitor during the Jewish War), so his historical objectivity is already in question. One could make similar arguments and point to similar issues in Philo, but for the sake of space I shall refrain. At this point, the very criteria with which my opponet seeks to discredit the New Testament comes into question under that critera. He must resolve this if this argument is to have any force. OT Reliablity? Furthermore, lets compare the Old Testament to the New Testament and see if my opponent is willing to dismiss that as easily. According to item 8 of The Rambam's Thirteen Principles "I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moses. " Let us observe what happens to the book of Exodus when my opponent's requirements for reliability are applied. Authorship - Anonymous. There is no attribution in any of the five books commonly attributed to Moses. Date - Dating varies greatly depending on how you look at it. However, references to places that would only be called that much later (Dan and Bethlehem) seem to indicate that it was written long after Moses's death. This is further bolstered by teh fact that Genesis 36:31 references a time "before there erigned any king over the children of Israel. " This places the document after there was a king in Israel, which was at least 150 years after the death of Moses. If my opponent wishes to dismiss the New Testament on the ground provided, he will also have to dismiss the books of Moses. Otherwise he is going to have to come up with other critera with which to do so. [Please see comments for References]