No - I claim that for matters where the text coincides so strongly the sensible explanation is that they all drew from the same WITNESS or source.

Which makes them not witnesses themselves to great parts of their narratives. Which returns to my original point about there not actually being that many witnesses.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses . . . have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account . . . " (Luke 1).

them/us. its a clear distinction, in this translation and in most of the translations, and translation is also an issue here.

The beloved disciple is a deliberate ploy to hide the authorship of Johns. Someone else tells me its Lazarus. Who do I believe, and why?

And we know all the problems with Papias, namely his work is gone, and only exists in quotes in other reconstructed or retranslated works.

Which are largely contentious dates.

So, even if it were "the oldest" -- which it may not be -- you still have eyewitness testimony from the others regarding the Resurrection.

as you point out yourself, the dates are contentious.

Yes, the ending of Mark and the account of the woman caught in adultery do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts we possess, so they should not have been included.

None of which means they are necessarily fabrications, for John writes that "there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).

Yes, the bible doesn't disprove many thesis's. Otherwise it would be non contentious, and we'd all be Christians via deductive reasoning.

And the point I was making is that demonstrable error is far larger than typo's. Which can alter meaning.

First, Romans knew how to crucify a person.

Which oddly enough, according to gospels, the procedure was much abridged in this case - 6 hours, no leg breaking to ensure suffocation, and both men alongside Jesus were apparently not dead, and needed leg breaking.

You're not the first with this fiction:

"some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place [the Resurrection]. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, 'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day" (Matthew 28:11-15).

So the guards are reliable witnesses, but on the take at the same time?

You're two thousand years too late.

You mean it was obvious even to the author at the time ?

You only need one part -- the living Christ -- and on numerous occasions He appeared to His followers, including 500 at one time.

and how many of those 500 people were sufficiently close, wrote down what they saw, or could tell Jesus from a superficially similar person ?

In other words this could be interpreted as "Luke wrote that Peter said that he witnessed 500 people saw floating animated Jesus at the same time". (insert suitable authors/figures to taste). Realistically we probably come back down to 1 witness account, written 25 years+ afterwards.

We've already gone over why this is not many eye-witness accounts

you've even quoted where Luke makes the distinction, and Luke was a companion of Paul, and Paul is only clearly an eyewitness to Jesus after the death, which means nobody is sure if he could actually identify a voice as belonging to Jesus other than by accepting the words as he heard them as true.

Round and round we go. The gospels won't prove your assumptions about authors anymore than it will mine, which remains my fundamental point.

Complete fabrication.

"and it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance"