The Historicity of the Canonical Gospels

It is no mystery that non-theists frequently attack the historicity of the canonical gospel accounts.  Why? Because probabilistic argumentation for Christ's divinity and resurrection hinge on the basic historicity of the New Testament texts.  When arguing that the Christian explanation of the claims of Christ and the events surrounding His resurrection are the most rational, non-theists have to reply with an alternative explanation for those claims and events.  The problem for them, however, is that any reply they make is (in essence) pure speculation since they have no available counter-sources from which to draw.  In order to forward their alternative explanation as even remotely plausible (rather than mere wishful thinking) they have to debunk the historicity of the Gospel narrative. 

In order to forward the generic arguments in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection, Christians need historical evidence for the following: Christ claimed divinity; Christ was thought to be an historically real human being; Christ died; There was an empty tomb / a missing body; and the Apostles, broadly speaking, believed these things to be true

If these things are true, then the probabilistic argumentation in favor of Christ's divinity and resurrection hold. IE) the alternative explanations are probabilistically less likely because they are speculative whereas the Christian explanations fit with the earliest sources. Non-theists typically argue against these texts in the following ways:

• They contradict each other
• They show signs of literary craftsmanship
• They are late in developing / composition
• They are all from one side of the issue

Counter-arguments after the jump!