Part 2: No, we don't have to use "ancient standards of reliability"

This is the second part of my discussion of the statement, "We have to use ancient standards of reliability to interpret and evaluate the Gospels." Last time we saw that this is false both because it is internally inconsistent and because it conflates seeking information with being pressed into evaluating a practice in one particular way. Saying, "The ancients accepted this," even if it were true (and it often isn't) shouldn't automatically mean, "You have to think it's no big deal."  In this part I discuss uncontroversial things like simple figures of speech, achronological narration, and rounding and explain why even for these we shouldn't refer to "ancient standards of reliability." Paradoxically, the use of such phrases leads to our being less well-informed.  If you want to know more about achronological narration, see this video which is part of my series on the Temple cleansing, or see Chapter II of The Mirror or the Mask or Chapter II of The Eye of the Beholder.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4TzGiFCeLE&t=6s