It does. What is more key is that said witnesses were alive while the message was being delivered and could have easily been disproved by simply going to the named witness and cross examining them.
I might find it more credible than if it's simply the telling of a story that claims a plethora of witnesses, even if said story is repeated four times.
There are multiple witnesses telling the same story multiple ways.
Of course, witness accounts across multiple sources would be even better than a single compliation that was edited after the fact.
The bible is hardly a single compilation that was edited after the fact. There are just enough slight differences between reports of events to raise questions ---just like real life. There are also events which are down right embarrassing to those telling the story that make editing improbable. Why for example would Peter want to let the story stand about his denial of Christ if he was probably the only one to know what happened after ? Why would the men let it be reported that Jesus first appeared to women rather than to his disciples. There are way too many similar questions along the same lines to make one very skeptical it was edited for a single purpose.