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 names and name-ratios of Jewish names in 1st century Palestine closely matches the names and name-ratios of Jewish/Palestinian names in the four Gospels and the book of Acts.
• AD 30 Palestine’s commonest names are equally so in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s nine commonest names are equally so in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s rarer names are equally rare in Gospels.
• AD 30 Palestine’s Greek names (12%) are also ~12% in Gospels.
The Gospels abound in stories which we can—for reasons internal to the story itself— conclude came ultimately from the testimony of one of one or more witnesses.
• Gospel stories spew undisputed accuracies.
• Gospel stories spew vivid realism (30+).
• Gospels spew complex internal coherences.
• Gospel stories are oft provably early.
• ECs swam in witness-based Jesus traditions.
• Gospel stories are a subset of what witnesses say.
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.
• The Gospels abound in local Palestinian content.
• The Gospels spew confirmed non-legendary content.
• The Gospels lack anatopisms.
• The Gospels lack anachronisms.
• In general, early Christian Jesus-bio was honest.
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?
• Witness-based truth always beats legend for 50+ years.
• Warranted Jesus-bio thrived in the AD 30-70 Mediterranean.
• False Jesus-bio did not thrive.
• Gospel content is a subset of what witnesses say.
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).
• Justin Martyr calls the gospels “memoirs.”
• The Gospels claimed to be from or use witnesses.
• 60+ year old events didn’t elude historians.
• In AD 70 witness-based Jesus facts pervaded Christendom.
• In general, AD 70 historiographers got witness-approval or close.
• E.g. Mk was judged as witness-based.
• The Gospel authors didn't lie-invent Jesus-bio.
• Gospel content is a subset of what witnesses say.
• Gospels were written because witnesses were dying.
But no... [All forthcoming]
• The Gospels in large part invented their Jesus-bio.
• The Gospels spew errors.
• Mk was not witness testimony nor close.
• Q was not based in witness testimony nor close.
• Stylized oral tradition can't be 1st hand memory.
Most Jesus biography that was reported in the gospels faithfully falls within what the Jerusalem church was saying and circulating.
• Gospel Jesus-bio pre-dates the Gospels.
• Gospel-recorded events are multi-attested.
• ECs relayed the gospel’s Jesus-bio.
• Gospels relayed oral tradition (pre-markan).
• Gospels strove to be witness-warranted.
• Gospels are a subset of witness testimony.
But so what? Plausibly…
• The 1st church’s Jesus-bio wasn’t as subset of witnesses’
The historical claims in the Gospels are usually or always historically accurate.
• Gospel Jesus-bio is a subset of what witnesses said.
• Gospel Jesus-bio spews uncoincidental accuracies.
• The Jesus-bio Christians used has a trend of accuracy.
• The Gospel/NT content seems honest.
• The Gospels strove to be accurate.
• Gospels were endorsed by good sources.
The Gospels are regularly inaccurate; they are not historically relaible.
• The Gospels spew verified inaccuracies.1
Many/most Gospel accounts are in fact dishonest fabrications—created lies drawn up from human minds.
But no,
• See Green evidence above for “they are not lies or legends.”
The Gospels were meant to be read as fictional histories (i.e. myths), not as literal truths.
But no, they intended their works to be read as non-fictional histories...
• Gospel authors strove for witness-based Jesus-bio.
• Gospel authors aimed to fit respected oral tradition.
• The Gospels faithfully relay their text-sources.
• The Gospels self-identify as biography/history.
• Gospel authors would strive for accuracy.
• The Gospels were usually accurate.