Most of the Jesus-biographical content reported in the gospels faithfully falls within what the relevant witnesses were themselves saying and approving.
This page analyzes 6 arguments:
This is relevant because—barring special circumstances—true witness-based testimony would be generally reliable (confidence inspiring) on the relevant points.1 so the Gospel traditions we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John will be quite accurate.
But no… [All forthcoming]
All things considered, there are relatively few candidate inaccuracies in the Gospels.1
This is relevant precisely because of the incredible amount of information contained within the Gospels. There is a super-abundance of opportunities for the Gospels to have made demonstrable errors, but instead we find a super-abundance of plausible or confirmed information.
But so what? Plausibly…
The gospels are rich in observed inaccuracies.
A full page will cover these 5 arguments:
This is relevant because they do not spew a relevantly high number of accuracies; the ratio then suggests the Gospels are not usually accurate.
A full page will debate these 5 arguments:
This is relevant because they do not spew a large number of accuracies; the ratio then suggests the Gospels are not usually accurate (for whatever reason).