The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Jenny A]

Now you are just being silly.

Eyewitness testimony is indeed a very weak form of evidence in comparison with physical or circumstantial evidence.  But it is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers.  That ought to be obvious.   And that is what we have in the gospels.

I'm guessing you didn't read the OP very carefully - or my follow-up regarding the traditional authorship.  

You would be guessing wrong.  Even most Christian scholars have long since admitted the the traditional authorship has no basis in fact.  Your posts have not been remotely persuasive as the to authorship of the gospels.

But and I repeat what ought to be obvious to you is that eyewitness testimony "is much better evidence than stories recorded thirty years later after having been been passed by word of mouth and translated into multiple languages by many, many anonymous tellers."