the case for christ

i recently just started the book, but im growing a liking to it.

im only on the third chapter, so ive only read about the gospels and their history. but the journalist interviews multiple bible scholars to figure out and prove that the bible is actually the bible. and its pretty good.
in the second chapter, he makes eight tests to question the reliability of the gospels: the intention test (why matthew, mark, luke, and john wrote the gospels), the ability test (whether or not the history was preserved accurately for 30 years), the character test (there is no proof that the authors were horrible people, because they were willing to keep track of everything Jesus did), the consistency test (if you notice, there are similar writing in each gospel, but they always differ in a bit; there is no proof that they are totally different, but it is possible for different writings to be the same because of lack of details), the bias test (if the authors would write lies to make Jesus seem even better than he is, but they would rather tell the truth to show how great he is without lies), the coverup test (whether or not the authors would leave out embarssing details; but they kept it in which shows how great the Lord is by saving them and such), the corroboration test (how historians/archaeologists have dug up some discoveries that confirm the happenings), and the adverse witness test (if other witnesses would correct the writings if they were wrong, but because there is no proof that someone has-it is assumed to be true).