Sources can't be hundreds of years later. We've got manuscripts a lot earlier than that. And some details are recognizably first century.

IIRC there are copies around 300 CE and possibly tiny fragments earlier. Regardless it doesn't add much credence IMO.

Book of Mormon was written during Smith's lifetime. I still don't believe he talked to angels or actually got divine revelation from golden plates.

So I went looking at Wikipedia's summary of New Testament papyri. The earliest were dated AD 100-200 (2 papyri), then 150-250 (one), then 200-225 (two). Yes, they're fragments. But they're consistent with what we have later for the same material. So, "hundreds of years later" is overstating the reality.

As for the rest of your complaint: Luke is demonstrably a good historian. He is also very careful. (One thing I notice that amuses me: In Acts, sometimes Luke is traveling with Paul. When he is, the level of detail goes up. Not "Then Paul departed from X, and went to Y", but "Then we got on a ship, and sailed to A. On the next day we sailed to off of B. Then we passed on side C of island D..." Luke knows what he knows, and he's not filling in detail when he doesn't know it.)

I'm not going to defend Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon at all. I also don't know why you brought them up.

These testimonies describe outlandish things that have never been proven with physical evidence or reproduced in experiments over the centuries. And not for lack of trying. Conveniently they even claim the deity they describe is beyond testing--except of course giving its proponents a significant portion of your income for life. They are as much evidence as the Book of Mormon and testimonies of John Smith by his followers.

Just because an account is detailed doesn't mean everything it describes happened.

Jesus supposedly even claims prophets get no respect in their own town. Which is entirely consistent with how conmen are treated.

You want miracles to be reproduced in experiments? That's kind of the opposite of what a miracle is. A miracle is something that can't be reproduced in an experiment, but which actually happened. (There's a bit more to it than that - it's not just random chance - but a miracle isn't just "science that wasn't known at the time".)

> A miracle is something that can't be reproduced in an experiment, but which actually happened.

Which is why they are fantasy. In order to "actually happen" there must be observable change. And despite mighty efforts there is no physical evidence that defies simpler and more reproduceable explanations.