I think it's helpful, when considering historicity as it relates to the stories in the Gospels, to think about what a believer or outsider view of, say, Mormonism might be if our only sources were written 2nd or 3rd hand, mostly by a very small number of believers, years to decades after the actual events.

In the case of Mormonism, we have tons of other sources from outside the faith, and the claims made by the faithful were largely recorded more-or-less as the supposed events were happening. Our view, and the religion itself, would likely be a ton different if our sources for all that were more like what we have for Jesus and the events of the Gospels. Plausibly, what survived might hardly have any basis in reality whatsoever.

I know, but I shouldn't have said 'written'. The early christians mostly use mouth-to-mouth to transmit the gospels. I agree that most of it are sus, but there are some couple elements that remains consistent, like the last supper, or the baptism of jesus, or his death and rise.

At least those elements of the lore, I believe are constant from the very first followers. A story must have a connecting thread, even though it may have many modifications.

I'm just saying this from a storytelling perspective of the early christians, not that I believe it really. I shouldn't even probably attend mass at this point.