I should be more explicit about why some passages I rely on as truthful (more or less, I rarely take anything literally) and what I think of as exaggeration or some other form of untruth.  I rely on criteria Prof. Ehrman describes, independent attestation, dissimilarity, and contextual credibility, with some of my own twists.

Independent attestation (multiple sources) is always a good one, that is why it is a standard for credible journalism.  One source can be enough to make something believable if other criteria fit, but multiple sources are better.  Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus after the crucifixion is from multiple sources, making it not necessarily verified but at least more credible than if there were only one source. But dissimilarities in detail (happens all the time with multiple sources) makes it problematic.  In these cases I think the most credible details are the most likely.  In Matthew there is no mention of Mary not recognizing Jesus, in John she does not recognize him at first.  Which is most credible?  Of course Mary would recognize Jesus, unless they were some distance apart at first and she could not see his face.  So the truth may be somewhere in between Matthew and John.

Dissimilarity is an interesting one.  I tend to look at the flip-side of this (similarity) as a reason to not believe a specific passage. Matthew contains many believable passages but whenever he talks about an event that fulfills a prophesy, I immediately assume that the particular passage is not true.  The concept is similar to the modern legal concept of “against penal interest”.  A witness in a legal case is making a believable statement if it may get him into trouble.  If a witness is making a self-serving statement (“I didn’t mean to shoot that guy”), he is pretty hard to believe.

Contextual credibility is also an interesting one.  Of course there is historic context.  If something never happened, like Luke’s “everyone to his own city”, then it is pretty safe to assume that the rest of the story is not true.  But some aspects of contextual credibility are more difficult to assess. It is said that Romans would never let someone off a cross until the birds have been picking at his dead flesh, and definitely would not let someone off who is still alive. Really? We know this for sure? I look at contextual credibility with a thought toward human nature. People can be many things, including compassionate and lazy and imperfect. A Roman centurion mistakenly thinking a crucified person has died and letting him be taken down is not that unbelievable.

Contextual credibility, to me, also applies to different parts of the same book.  Not necessarily contradictions but other things that don’t make sense. In John, Jesus visits the disciples in the locked room after the crucifixion. Okay, but weren’t they all on their way back to Galilee? And when Jesus visits them again on the shore of the sea, they seem surprised to see him. Why would they be surprised? Didn’t they just see him a few days ago? I tend to see the locked room visit as a made-up story because of its contextual problems.

Another contextual problem: Why are so few of “the 12” mentioned in Acts? Seems to me Jesus selected “the 12” for his own reason, namely to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. But just how fluid was this group of 12?  I find it hard to imagine that all twelve were a consistent bunch throughout Jesus’s ministry.  It is especially hard to imagine all 12 being equally dedicated to Jesus and his message, and sticking together after the crucifixion. Peter and some of his companions went back to their normal lives as fisherman when Jesus appeared to them. What about the rest? Probably back to their normal lives, and therefore no longer part of the Christian story.

I also toss out the fantastical parts of any Gospel.  The sky did not go dark from the sixth hour to the ninth hour (unless it got cloudy that day), the veil of the temple was not rent, etc., etc.  Jesus may have met and walked with a couple men on the road to Emmaus, this incident is mentioned in Mark as well as Luke, but he certainly did not vanish before their eyes (unless the whole thing was a vision). Sounds like a simple story of meeting Jesus on the road that got embellished with the eating together and the vanishing incident.

Of course, just like with jury duty where the jury tries to determine “the facts”, differences of opinion are likely to occur, especially with regard to what testimony to believe and what not to believe. There is no simple answer to that except to have an honest discussion and try to come to some consensus. Is it worth it with something that may be completely legendary? I think so, mostly because I don’t think that the resurrection stories are completely legendary. Something like the fall of Troy in the Illiad, maybe mostly legendary but I would still like to know, the best we can, what really happened to Troy. And with something so fundamental to Christianity as the resurrection (and so many believing Christians in the world), it sure would be nice to have an alternate, believable story to counterbalance standard Christian orthodoxy.