Evidence: The Gathering

[Esquilax]

There are only two categories of evidence, and Christians use both types of evidence when making a case for Christianity:

But they don't, really? They use category two and then, as your source neatly shows, then attempt to special plead the bible into the first category when it's little more than hearsay.

Category One: Direct Evidence

Eyewitness testimony. We must recognize that cross-examination of historical witnesses is not commonly possible.

So I took a look at your source. Wallace asserts that the gospels count as eyewitness testimony, despite fitting all the criteria of hearsay, and to support this he links to another article of his that is, at best, self serving in its omissions. I mean, for starters it's pretty interesting that a guy so intent on using his a forensic approach on the case for christianity as Wallace is would so easily dismiss the efficacy of that same approach when its application wouldn't lead one to accept the gospels as evidence, but even if we take his demand that we use a different standard for the gospels while still considering them eyewitness testimony, he's still in the wrong.

Wallace's second standard, the one for establishing the truth of historical accounts, is flat out incorrect, and presents a ridiculous dichotomy to get there. He claims that "history is established on the written testimony of eyewitnesses," and that's not entirely true; in actuality, the probability of historical events being true are established by research into the provenance of the testimony and additional investigation of its claims. That's why we have fields like archaeology and so on, so that we don't have to rely on the say-so of testimony, and in many cases, so we can discount testimony when the balance of evidence shows otherwise. Wallace says that we can't reject every claim about the past that cannot be supported by living testimony, either unaware or ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're asking when we say that the gospels are hearsay. Thus far I've ignored the obvious issue (and Wallace seems happy to do likewise) that the authorship of the gospels is a contentious issue with no clear answer, making the claim that they are written accounts by eyewitnesses dubious to begin with. But given that Wallace constructs a strawman of his opposition to begin with, well...

Category Two: Indirect (Circumstantial) Evidence

Everything else. This includes:

• the internal evidence of language, pronoun use, and frequency of names relative to the population at large
  
• the internal descriptions of geography, culture and politics
  
• the evidence of archaeology
  
• the early reluctant parallel descriptions offered by non-Christians and Jewish believers
  
• the early dating of the Gospels established indirectly
  
• the transmission of the Gospels found in the writings of the early Church Fathers
  

Source.

So, I have a question: Keeping in mind that I disagree with Wallace's views on hearsay and historical texts, do you really think that circumstantial evidence is enough to fully establish the biblical claims? Including the supernatural stuff, for which none of what you list would directly point?

More broadly, do you think that the sort of evidence we would accept for ordinary claims is sufficient to justify extraordinary ones, that again, we haven't even established are possible?