Adam

And I should clarify as well that I don't present seven written gospel eyewitnesses as proof that all the miracles occurred. It's the other way around--that miracles are described does not mean that the teller was not an eyewitness. In the first place, some "miracles" can be explained naturalistically. In any case, eyewitnesses can lie or confabulate. I believe, however, that I have established so many eyewitnesses that it becomes very difficult to explain how the texts arose without there being a lot of truth behind it. I am not aware of anyone who has developed anything at all like the sources, process, and redactions we see while dismissing it all as lies of the first generation.

Vorkosigan

You keep using that word, established. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Adam

Agreed, "established" is a little strong. But see my new post in Gospel Eyewitnesses about what Bauckham has to say about eyewitnesses in gMark, your specialty.