How did the writings of the NT come to be?

[pocaracas]

yes, but who made sure they were themselves accurate?
No peer review in that process, as far as I see it.

If you hold to Marcan priority:
Mark, a follower of Peter, writes the first and shortest account. Matthew, a witness, uses much of Mark verbatim and adds to it. Luke then carefully investigates the issues and writes his own account, borrowing much from Mark and/or Matthew. So, we have review by a witness and by a historian. What were you looking for in the way of peer review? This seems pretty good to me.

Strange...
A follower of a witness writes the first thing.
Then another witness writes another, heavily based on the first account... why didn't he write something new? Why did he base it on the other guy?
Then, years later, comes a scholar putting down hearsay and building further on top of what was already written.

This is not peer review: this is copy and add some bits.

He who tells a tale... adds a tail

So show us what you read so we can consider that argument.

It's right up there on the OP. Link and quote for the lazy!