You are absolutely right. It is proper to say that there is not sufficient evidence. I don’t think that any number of eyewitness accounts alone particularly in an ancient text is evidence of anything. I also agree with you that different people have different ideas about what constitutes evidence. If someone is an eyewitness then it is rational for them and them alone to believe but it is also rational for someone who hasn’t had that first hand experience not to believe.
Virtually all of us accept who our mother is with second hand witnesses. why does age affect witness testimony? Wouldn’t other factors like corroboration be of greater importance? For example, the OT required 3 witnesses for death penalty. Personally I would be more impressed with multiple witnesses from ancient time than a single present witness.
However, historians have methods to analyze ancient texts, weeding out poetic license and ‘legendary’ accounts. This is why most historians affirm the events surrounding Jesus Christ, even if they may come up blank on the explanation for the resurrection, and their trust has been proven well placed. I remember when many denied that Pontius Pilate had ever existed, but the Pilate Stone late confirmed his position as prefect of Judea.