Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The corollary is that mundane claims require mundane evidence. But all claims require their own evidence.
The claim that some city existed, or that some man was mayor of some village, or that Asrahim had seven goats and lived on some hill aren’t extraordinacy claims, because they’re all consistent with our background knowledge. There’s nothing unusual or extraordinary about the existence of a town or city, a man being mayor of a village, or a goat herder owning goats. For claims like that, it takes little more than someone’s say-so. But they don’t support each other. The fact that the book is right about Adnan being mayor of the village isn’t evidence that Asrahim had seven goats.
There’s nothing about the miracle accounts that sets then apart in that regard, except that they report miracles.
Yes, and it is the miracle claims which are extraordinary, and therefor those for which the evidential burden is extraordinary.
And (see for example the article by the McGrews that @dga471 references) the reliability of just the non-miraculous details goes a significant way towards demonstrating the Resurrection as the best explanation.
No, it really doesn’t. The fact that Babylon really existed, and the Bible refers to Babylon, does not constitute evidence that the Bible is also correct about a man being born of a virgin, or resurrecting himself. Each individual claim requires it’s own evidence. Evidence for one is not evidence for the other.