Why not? As if men don't make up stories? They do now and they did then. Do you think humans two to six thousand years ago didn't write fiction? That fictional stories are only a new phenomenon? Did the events in the movies Saving Private Ryan or Titanic happen? How about Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter?
As the purportedly divine word of God, yes. For other purposes, maybe not.
It's almost ironic that we have more collaborating evidence for some of the stuff in the hebrew bible than we have for events in the new testament which according to what christians tell other christians is the most historic of texts.
In the same sense that Joseph Smith had a personal relationship with the angel Moroni. In the same sense that Remy the rat had a personal relationship with the deceased Chef Gusteau.
Pity none survived.
Two simple trains of thought:
The Bible has that. Josephus et al.
Just a note you do need to distinguish between biblical/ancient hebrew and present day Hebrew.
So was a lot of Herodotus' The Histories, which is a great example of 'another ancent work we'd approach with such skepticism.' It's a mixed bag of a pretty good attempt at historical and present (at the time) inquiry, and borderline ethnography. One big difference from the NT is that we have a lot of contemporary examples of how others recieved (and criticised) the work.
Not every word, I agree, but some parts are.
Yes, modern Hebrew differs in grammar and usage from biblical Hebrew. And while there is a cursive form of Hebrew, neither modern nor ancient has minuscules. The claimed distinction here is over the meaning of a word written in Hebrew that purportedly differs according to capitalization. I just want to know where the distinction is said to come from.
So how do we distinguish between eyewitness accounts that have been accurately preserved after decades of oral transmission, and eyewitness accounts that have been wildly embellished or interpolated in the interest of telling a good story that gets people's attention? Given how unreliable oral traditions are known to be for the preservation of accurate history, how do we establish the veracity of the oral traditions concerningn Jesus after so many retellings without resorting to the invocation of magical intervention? Remember that the "eyewitness" oral traditions supposedly preserved by the various gospel authors (including those outside the Biblical canon) already have significant differences between them.
Nonsense. Neither Josephus or Tacitus confirm biblical accounts. And neither are contemporary. At best, they confirm there were people in the second century that believed in the Jesus myth.
Most reasonable folks would agree with that. (but not you)
Oral traditions are unreliable from the time a witness is deposed to the time the witness testifies. Even with the best of intentions.
The existence of differences is conclusive evidence that the method of transmission was unreliable.
Assuming that is an impossibility.
Nobody has provably done it yet, so yes—impossible until proven otherwise.
So you would believe a contemporary source? Why?
You seem to be inferring ill-intent.