Historical Methods And The New Testament (Summary)

Christian apologists continue to support the New Testament as a trustworthy historical document, in spite of the following:

• The uncorroborated (* by contemporary extra-biblical sources) stories in the New Testament were written decades after the supposed events by unknown authors who did not claim to be eyewitnesses (Paul had "visions" only). In other words, they are not Primary Sources, which is the "Gold Standard" in historical methods:  "Primary sources are the evidence of history, original records or objects created by participants or observers at the time historical events occurred or even well after events, as in memoirs and oral histories. Primary sources may include but are not limited to: letters, manuscripts, diaries, journals, newspapers, maps, speeches, interviews, documents produced by government agencies, photographs, audio or video recordings, born-digital items (e.g. emails), research data, and objects or artifacts (such as works of art or ancient roads, buildings, tools, and weapons). These sources serve as the raw materials historians use to interpret and analyze the past."
• The stories contain magic, miracles, ghosts, angels, and demons (link). They are implausible, incoherent, and inconsistent (link). Extraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence (link).

(*NOTE: ALL extra-biblical sources were written several decades after the supposed Jesus and only talk about Christians and what THEY said about Jesus. They do not testify to a historical Jesus of the New Testament.)

Why accept it as historical?