For example, the "evidence" shows that there is a tendency in the Gospel tradition to implicate the Jewish population more and more broadly for the demand for Jesus' death as you read from Mark to Matthew/Luke and then John. Furthermore, the writer shows that the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus is an independent source for the same thing, namely, that in the original situation, the push for Jesus' execution was led by the priestly class that was closely in league with the Roman occupiers.
So, my point is that this writer lays out that "evidence." What he says there reflects the mainstream approach of NT scholars towards the New Testament. If you do not agree with his "evidence" and reasoning and conclusions, then the onus is on you to make the best case for your position, in light of all the "evidence."
It is far too easy to dismiss another's argument by saying that it is only "conjecture." Well, of course, yes it is--conjecture based on reasonable assessment of the evidence and drawing logical conclusions from it.
Witness this line from the article, which seems to be the core of the evidence implicating the gospels' historical accuracy:
In arguing that the biblical accounts shouldn't be taken as history, liberal scholar John Dominic Crossan focuses on details found in Luke, Matthew, and John that are not found in the source document, Mark.
The picture here is that Mark was the original, and any other accounts must just be making stuff up if they're not verbatim. That is certainly not the opinion of Bible scholars, who see Mark as one of several sources for Mathew and Luke (though not John). In other words Mark in not THE source document. It might be A source document for 2 of the other 3 accounts. Mr. Crossan's notion that Mark is the only account a historian need take seriously suggests a scholar ignoring evidence contrary to his pre-formed conclusion.
Watch how approaching the texts from this pre-formed conclusion confuses conclusion with premise: "The Jewish leaders of the time may not have had entirely clean hands, but, at least in terms of historical accuracy, neither did the writers of the Gospels."
Let's summarize. The article, in search of a middle path, cites the historical case of Mr. Crossan to demostrate error in the Gospels. Yet all Mr. Crossan demonstrates is that the four Gospel accounts contain slightly different, yet non-conflicting, details. Biblical scholars throughout history have explained this by the Gospel authors drawing from different sources, and writing for different audiences. The author, not Mr. Crossan himself, then concludes that the Gospels are not historically accurate without even passing acknowledgement of the well established explanations for the same information Crossan finds damning.
Look, I appreciate the article's overall effort, which seems to be to tell Jews to stop insulting Christians, and Christians to stop insulting Jews. But in his effort to do this he has set up a false "believers versus facts" dichotomy. In this case, the believers have evidence and facts that build a stronger case than their counterparts. It isn't good scholarship to ignore this simply because it helps your rhetorical thrust.