Well, we can start a historical reliability discussion, but you've already agreed that "they convey accurate historical, cultural, geographical, and religious information." But let's start and we'll see if this is what you mean. Let's start in Luke, just to pick one.
- 1.1 It's true that we have a plurality of records about Jesus' life.
- 1.5 It's true that Herod was king of Judea from 40-4 BC, as recorded by Josephus and acknowledge by scholars. "King" was a title decreed to Herod by the Roman Senate in 40 BC on the recommendation of Antony and Octavius. So the title is true also.
- 1.5 There were priests in Judea at the time, so this notation is true.
- 1.5, 8 There was a priestly division of Abijah (1 Chr. 24.10). The college of priests was divided into 24 courses. Each of these did duty for 8 days, from one Sabbath to another, once every 6 months. The service of the week was subdivided among the various families, which constituted a course. On Sabbaths the whole course was on duty. On feast days any priest might come up and join in the ministrations of the sanctuary, and at the Feast of Tabernacles all the 24 courses were bound to be present and officiate. The course of Abijah was the 8th of the 24. So this is historical.
- 1.8 "Once when Zechariah's division was on duty..." Daily service (Neh. 13.30; 1 Chr. 25.8) and then a course of priests who were on duty for a week (1 Chr. 23.6; 28.13). There were 24 such courses and that of Abijah was the 8th (1 Chr. 24.10; 2 Chr. 8.14). Only 4 of these courses (Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, Harim) returned from Babylon, but these four were divided into 24 with the old names. Each of these courses did duty for 8 days, Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. On Sabbaths the whole course did duty. At the feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were present. So this is historical.
- 1.9 "he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood..." The regulations for the lot are given in *m. Tamid* 5.2-6.3. So this is historical. Four lots were drawn to determine the order of the ministry of the day: the first, before daybreak, to designate the priests who were to cleanse the altar and prepare its fires; the second for the priest who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense; the third for the priest who should burn incense; and the fourth appointing those who were to lay the sacrifice and meat offering on the altar and pour out the drink offering. There are said to have been 20,000 priests in Christ's time, so that no priest would ever offer incense more than once.
- 1.9 Of course the 2nd temple was in existence at this time, so this is historical.
- 1.9 Incense offerings (Ex. 30.7-8) has been standard in ancient Near Eastern temples, and also in the Herod's temple, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "And when the time for the burning of incense came..." According to Exodus 30.7-8 and the parallels with Daniel 9.21m it is the time of the evening offering that is understood here. It's about 3 in the afternoon, so this is historical.
- 1.10 "All the assembled worshippers were praying outside." The hours of morning and evening sacrifices were also the major public hours of prayer in the temple (cf. Acts 3.1). Except during a feast, most of the people praying there would be from Jerusalem; unable to enter the priestly sanctuary, they were presumably men in the Court of Israel, and some women outside that in the Court of the Women.
- 1.11 The angel stood on the right side of the altar. This makes sense, since the right side is the favorable side. It shows the angel wasn't bringing bad news or judgment. We can't prove this, of course, but it makes sense given their traditions and understandings.
- 1.15. It's true that not taking wine or other fermented drink was a sign of special dedication to the Lord (Num. 6.3). So this makes sense.
Of course we can't verify Zechariah, Elizabeth, or the angel of the Lord from corroborating records. Nor can we discredit these accounts from corroborating records.
Is this what you want to do? There are REAMS of evidences about the reliability of the Gospel accounts from history, geography, archaeology, and extra-biblical documents. So that's what I mean by reliability. And, as I said before, "we haven't found anything that proves anything in the New Testament is incorrect." Soooo, what would you like to talk about?