#1 = the Bible Canon
This question is addressed to Protestants.
How do you [Protestants] justify the size of your Bible? All of the famously original translations of the Bible (including the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the first copies of the King James Version) contained a series of books known as the "Deuterocanon" or "Apocrypha." Protestant Bibles no longer contain these books. Catholic Bibles, on the other hand, still contain them, and to Catholics they are still considered the Word of God. How can Protestants all of a sudden up and decide which books of the Bible are True, and which aren't? Also, what keeps me from arbitrarily taking out, say, Genesis through Ezra, and calling what's left over the Real Word of God?

#2 = Apocryphal Esther
Catholic bibles contain 2 books called Esther; the "normal" one (found in Protestant Bibles), and the "Greek" version of Esther found in the Deuterocanon (Apocrypha). Of all the Apocryphal books, I think I know why this one was cut out...

In the original Esther, the word "God" is not to be found. In the greek Esther, it's sprinkled into the text in random places. In the original Esther, there were no prophesies of any kind. In the greek Esther, a special scene is added before the story of Esther unfolds. In this added fragment, one of the main characters (Mordecai) has a dream/prophesy which miraculously predicts all the events of the story of Esther. Isn't that amazing? But there's another added fragment at the end of the Greek version which--you guessed it--glorifies God for a job well done in predicting the dream of Mordecai. I'm guessing that the "copy and add things" method of writing was common back then, and that this is how the majority of biblical "predictions" came true in the Old Testament. The only difference is, for those other stories, the original manuscript wasn't preserved alongside the embellished one!

#3 = anonymous Gospels & the Synoptic Problem
Lastly, I'm wondering how Christians of all denominations handle this one. I'm guessing most people aren't familiar with the problem.

We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels. Mark's gospel was anonymous until a second-century tradition eventually linked a "Mark" mentioned by Paul (1 Pet. 5:13) as the author of the gospel and so that name has been conveniently used since. The gospels of Luke and Matthew were written with Mark's in hand. They copied Mark and added stuff. This knowledge alone doesn't sound too extraneous (even though it almost never gets public attention). The amazing part to me is: the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not have a post-resurrection account. That is: the original Gospel of Mark did not include lines 16:9-20. This piece of information combined with the "copying" thing does demand some explanation.
The ending is omitted in two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and Sinaiticus (375 AD). Additionally, there is another ending to Mark in some old manuscripts that is substituted for 9-20. The alternate ending reads as follows: "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

3.1. no ending!!?!?!?
If Jesus never "came back from the dead" in the original story, and the other 2 bible writers "made up their own [contradictory] ending" ... then the whole idea of the Resurrection looks incredibly shotty and unhistorical.

3.2. no nativity
The Gospel of Mark doesn't have a nativity scene either (and Matthew and Luke's [contradictory] nativity scenes make a lot more sense once we put those 2 pieces of information together). Note: I also include all the "early stuff" in Matthew and Luke in this section here (which would include their [contradictory] genealogies of Jesus).

3.3. no death of Judas
Mark also doesn't kill Judas off. But Matthew and Luke kill him off in [contradictory] ways. According to Matthew, Judas hangs himself, and the chief priests take the 30 coins Judas owned and buy "Potter's Field" (Matt 27:5). According to Luke, Judas buys the field first, and then falls in it and explodes (Acts 1:18).

Other contradictions between Matthew and Luke can be explained in a similar fashion (cause the material wasn't in Mark so there was no solid base to copy from). But the contradictions themselves are somewhat irrelevant to me. What I'm wondering--the main summary of this whole post--is how do Christians cope with this knowledge of the Gospel? How do you respond to it? It looks very much like the stories of Jesus "coming back from the dead" were tacked on in the same way that the dream story of Esther was tacked on. Knowing this, how can you possibly believe the stories are true?

Any of your bible scholars willing to help me help this guy get some answers? (I am sure it is not going to change his atheistic prespective, but what the hey!)

Blessings,

Paul




"Remember, education is MORE about confronting views you don't hold than absorbing views you already hold.
"~Gregory A Boyd