Specialists in onomastic studies have catalogued over 3,000 names from tomb inscriptions and similar writings around 1st century Palestine. That's a lot. And as a result, we now know that the very specific Jewish names and name-ratios of in 1st century Palestine precisely matches the combined names and name-ratios in the four Gospels and the book of Acts (a robust sample size).
This page looks at 4 arguments:
This is relevant because the name-ratio correspondance to onomastic studies is easy to explain if the material in the Gospels and Acts is witness-based, that is to say, if the witness-sources were simply recounting the genuinely random names of people involved in authentic historical episodes. By contrast, no other explanation can easily explain this correspondence. (For example, even liars perfectly located in AD 30 Palestine would be unlikely to conjure up a genuine random sampling of names that gets the ratios right, and for legend-makers outside of Palestine it would be straightforwardly impossible [for example the name-ratios in Egypt at this time are completely different]).1 Moreover, since Jewish names pervade the Gospels and Acts, this correspondence is a statement on the Gospels and Acts as a whole, so if any real number of fabricated stories were even mixed in with the Gospels and Acts, this correspondence could be put in jeopardy.
The Gospels abound in stories which we can—for reasons internal to the story itself— conclude came ultimately from the testimony of one or more witnesses.
This page analyzes 6 arguments:
This is relevant because it means mechanisms were in place which resulted in authentic witness-testimony abounding in the Gospels. By contrast, while there may be evidence of some flexibility in story-telling side-details, there is no example-based evidence of mechanisms operating in Gospel construction which would lead us to think seriously fabricated Jesus-biography was incorporated. Extrapolating from these two results, we can infer that probably most or all of the Gospel material is witness-based and not fabricated.
Rather than deviating from what the relevant witnesses themselves would’ve said, did the Jesus biography circulated by early Christians align with what eyewitnesses remembered and testified to?
On this page we can debate these 4 arguments:
This is relevant because the Gospels depended on sources for virtually all of their content, and if witness-based Jesus-bio predominated in this era, then that means the Gospel authors would’ve likely included witness-based stories even without putting in any work to check; i.e. it would have been harder for them to find and relay a false legend, even if they tried.
Rather than just writing down willy-nilly whatever the heart, the gospel authors tended to diligently ground or confirm their material in the testimony of witnesses, either interviewing them directly or taking extra steps to ensure their content properly traces back to a witness (for example, by interviewing and running content by friends or relatives who would know the truth).
This page analyzes 9 arguments:
This is relevant because it essentially entails that the Gospel traditions (i.e. the Jesus-bio which the Gospel authors ultimately incorporated into the gospels) echoed what witnesses said and/or were saying.
But no... [All forthcoming]
Whether the Gospel stories originated prior to the Gospels being written or not, when they did form, they formed in an honest way, rather than as the result of someone inventing them; the content is not legendary.
This page analyzes 5 branches of evidences…
This is relevant because, if the content is not legendary, then that leaves few or no other ways the Gospel traditions could have entered into circulation. The hypothesis that the content simply formed from witnesses remembering Jesus and talking about it stands strongest.
Most Jesus biography that was reported in the gospels faithfully falls within what the Jerusalem church was saying and circulating.
A coming page debates 6 arguments…
This is relevant if the Jerusalem church’s Jesus-bio is a subset of witness testimony (e.g. it is where the apostles and major witnesses resided). So, there is a transitive relation here: if the Gospels' content is a subset of the Jerusalem church's, and the Jerusalem church's teachings on Jesus is a subset of what witnesses were saying, then by transitivity the Gospels content is a subset of what witnesses were saying.
But so what? Plausibly…
The historical claims in the Gospels are usually or always historically accurate.
A full page will discuss 6 arguments:
This is relevant because it is best explained by its having conformed to witness testimony rather than chance or any other competing explanation.
The Gospels are regularly inaccurate; they are not historically relaible.
This is relevant because if the Gospels were witness-based, then we would expect them to be generally reliable.
Many/most Gospel accounts are in fact dishonest fabrications—created lies drawn up from human minds.
[This content is forthcoming]
This is relevant given that legendary content obviously does not trace back to witness testimony (and if a story is a partial legend, then the legendary part doesn’t trace back to witness testimony).
The Gospels were meant to be read as fictional histories (i.e. myths), not as literal truths.
[The evidences for this are forthcoming]
This is relevant because if the Gospel stories are not intended to be historical recountings, then obvious they are not rooted in witness testimony.
But no, they intended their works to be read as non-fictional histories...