Josh McDowell in "More Than a Carpenter" addressed these tests for historicity (Ch. 4 I believe - need to find my copy), and by them the New Testament is more reliable than any other ancient document in antiquity.
I would hardly call the NT a reliable document. Scholars are not even sure of the authors of some of the books. Matthew, Mark and Luke practically copy each other with a few word changes here and there. McDowell as a biased opinion no doubt.
By checking McDowell's sources and consulting works of NT scholars, I was eventually able to discover that much of what McDowell presents is untrustworthy, misleading or simply incorrect.
Bob,
The above is from a rebuttal on his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" Quite frankly christian apologists will say or do anything to prove it true and McDowell is no different.
I believe in order to establish its superiority as you say I think one would have to prove that the very person it was written about ever existed.
Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : Add something.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
™ Version 4.2