In answer to your questions (and they are good ones) Here is my small two cents worth:
1. You bring up several points. One of them is "contradictions" which is correct. However, I have found that when you go to the oldest texts, there are far less contradictions. I use the Septuagint. I wish the Samaritan Pentateuch (even older) was printed in English because I know a a few examples where it is more accurate than both the LXX and the Late Massoretic Text. It also agrees with the LXX far more than the Massoretic Text. Here is my site with some answers. I have found many many more but have not placed them up yet.
see: http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... rum-2.html
2. You also mention the Gospels. You seem to be going by the assumption that the Gospels were late date when I believe there is evidence of an early date for each. For instance. Not only does the finding of the Magdalyn Papyri support the early date for Matthew (see: http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... um-19.html ) but the Talmud has a story dated close to 72 A.D. in which Gamaliel (mentioned in the New Testament) tells a story of a Christian judge and quotes from the book of Matthew. (see: http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... ut177.html) It will help to read the article to better understand what I am saying.
Furthermore, Luke has proven to be very accurate: see: http://www.biblicalarcheology.net/Bibli ... racy1.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew:
As mentioned before, it was once thought that Matthew was written after the destruction of Jerusalem until the Magdalene Jesus Papyri were found (also known as 17P64). It is a segment of Greek text of Matthew's Gospel, Matthew 26:23 and 31, which has been dated before A.D 66. In 1994, using a scanning laser microscope, Dr. Carsten Thiede compared this fragment with four other manuscripts and concluded that either this is an original of Matthew's Gospel, or an immediate copy written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses were still alive. This was a big shock to the skeptics who have always maintained that Matthew was written in the second century. Technology has disproved that opinion. Incidentally, the Matthew segment corresponds to Textus Receptus, the traditional source documents. see: http://dejnarde.ms11.net//magda.htm
(Learn the Bible in 24 Hours by Dr. Chuck Missler)
John:
Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in 70 A.D.
Mark:
Clement of Alexandria (apx. 185 A.D.) mentions “Jesus”, and refers to the Gospel of Mark as opposed to the corrupted “secret gospel of Mark” which had been passed throughout the region. Clement also actually quotes verses from the true Gospel of Mark and when he refers to the gospel of Mark, he says “the inspired Gospel according to Mark.”
What about the last part of Mark 16?
Around 177 AD, Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19
Hippolatus, also in the second century, quoted it.
Papias (125-150 A.D.) and
The Diatessaron (written by Tatian close to 200 A.D.) contained it. The Diatessaron was a compilation of earlier Syriac translations of the four gospels, including Mark.
As for your comment on the Secret Gospel of Mark, I don't think you worded it correctly. You said:
EDITION:
A letter allegedly writen by Clement of Alexandria in which he mentioned about the Secret Gospel of Mark and claimed that it is right that they have edited the Gospel of Mark editing off the Lazarus experience.
The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.
The Secret Gospel of Mark reads: You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocrations....Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truely. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified , so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor.
and lastly regarding Lazurus: To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:
"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, "son of David, have mercy on me". But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered , went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus thaught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."
And these words follow the text, "And James and John come to him" and all that section. But "naked man with naked man" and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.
And after the words,"And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.