Thus when the Gospels offer me what appears to be historical information, I accept it at face value, unless I have proof to the contrary. Thus Mason rejects Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus because he can find no reason to accept it, but I accept that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because I find no reason to reject it. Mine is simply the application to the Gospels of the method human beings use in dealing with all sources of information, both ancient and modern. We believe what we are told, or read, unless we have reason to be suspicious about it. We do not automatically ask for proof of truth, but we are instinctively alert for false notes.
Information flows in unless it is blocked by a critical sieve.
I doubt very much that this is in fact the case. Life would be impossible. Which means, of course, that he singles out the Gospels for uniquely harsh treatment as sources of historical knowledge. This is unjustifiable. The Gospels must be treated as all other documents.