Actually, in my opinion, it does.
Oberon, for example, believes that the Gospels as we have them have some kernel of eyewitness truth in them - that existed in oral form and then was written down. This puts him in the precarious position of assuming that (1) the early Christians were able to pass down somewhat reliable information preserved in a relatively unchanged form and (2) conveniently some of the eyewitnesses were incorrect in their interpretation of what they saw.
I agree with the first assertion (minus the "precarious" bit), but don't quite understand what you mean by the second.
So the eyewitnesses and the community were able to preserve the witness but the witness itself is incorrect. Of course this is probable, but I find it very difficult to accept. They were very competent in one respect and completely incompetent in another... and we're not talking mistaking epilepsy for demon possession. We're talking the resurrection from the dead, the blind seeing, and a huge feeding miracle.
Most of the miracles performed are not unkown to the modern era, where there are still eyewitness accounts and personal testimony of miraculous healings. I don't find it hard to believe that Jesus was a healer in this way. And I don't find it hard to believe that even more impossible feats were added into the tradition despite the level of control I posit existed in the oral tradition.
What I will admit is difficult for me to explain is how the resurrection myth got in there.
because he believes his method gets him so close to the witness.
The bane of most historians- the desire to know that we can know what we want to know...