Another proof for the Gospels being accurate is all the things that the Gospels included that they didn’t have to things that were hard to explain things that didn’t look good for them. This would include things like Jesus saying that he could do few miracles and Nazareth because the people there have little faith. He says that in Mark. It would include him saying my God my God why have you forsaken me. And it would include the disciples consistently looking like a bunch of self-serving self-seeking door witted people a lot of the time who all want places at Jesus is right and left hand and Jesus has to rebuke them and teach them very hard lessons. And of course Peter looks very bad and most of the Gospels
early dating
extra
Craig Bloomberg in case for Christ says it if the dating of the Gospels is correct in the 70s 80s and 90s that still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus including hostile eyewitnesses that would have served as a corrective if false teachings about Jesus we’re going around. I think this is always overstated in Christian apologetics that people would have served as a corrective. How?
Bart Ehrman says the stories were circulating all over the world about Jesus in different languages. How could they have known what was being said or be able to “correct”it?
Reasons I doubt:
contradictions
Difference between the synoptic gospels and John