Hot take: We don't have to use "ancient standards of reliability" to evaluate the Gospels

"We have to use ancient standards of reliability when studying the Gospels" is the kind of thing you'll hear pretty frequently. At first it sounds obviously true, even profound. The initial instinct is to agree with this statement, because to disagree sounds like endorsing ignorance and unfairness. In this first of (probably) two videos, I examine the inherent contradiction in this claim. If the alleged "standards of reliability" are so different that we have to make a big effort to know and apply them, then why is the modern English term "reliability" the right word? I discuss how the application of the phrase "ancient standards of reliability" to fact-changing literary device confuses *information* with *evaluation* and amounts to a kind of illicit pressure to say that something is unimportant even when it is entirely legitimate to think that it's important. Part of what I bring to New Testament that is fresh and different is an analytic philosopher's willing to ask, "What do you mean?" and "If that's what you mean, is that really true?"