I had to post this from Scot McKnight:
Christianity is based on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, not whether or not its chroniclers messed up on a detail or two. All biographers and writers of history err, but this does not mean that we discount their value or discredit their entire testimony. The classic illustration of this is the sinking of the Titanic. When we look to the historical records, we find that the eyewitnesses who survived that night were divided as to how the Titanic went down. Half said it broke in two and went down, while the other half said it went down intact. Someone is wrong. However, no historian would say that the Titanic must not have gone down at all simply because there is a discrepancy in the details.
For the record, I believe in the inerrency of Scripture and that most of the ‘contradictions’ and ‘inaccuracies’ can be reconciled. I think McKnight is mounting an apology for the resurrection here, not arguing against Scripture.