Dear script-developer, I work in research. While Truth (capital T) is beyond man's ability to ascertain, we can approach it (truth with a small t) through careful analysis. As you observe, anachronism and conflicting evidence defeat both the script-writer's and scientist's best efforts. However, credible assertions and evidence (the "what happens next") corroborated by multiple sources can allow us to "tell" whether something is "true" as long as we retain the qualification that (to our knowledge and in this moment) there is no stronger opposing evidence. Though issues of religion and faith are extremely personal and often more emotion than fact-based, one must consider the full range of sources that speak to the miracles described in the Gospels. One author's writings may be compelling, but multiple voices, especially when entirely separate and free of cross-influencing, gain the power of credibility. Some accounts (of miracles or any event) are more credible than others. Some have been artificially selected as the official doctrine, while others have been rejected for ulterior motives. However, taken as a whole, fact-checked, and distilled to their commonalities, we can assemble a screenplay that does not rely on excessive suspension of disbelief as well as historical conclusions we can rely on as we continue seeking insights, wisdom, and understanding. Fictional stories, faith and science are all journeys we undertake as rational people whose brains find puzzles and the unknown fascinating. In a movie, the pieces must all fit together before the lights come up. In everything else, the plot continues to unfold. In your script development and in answering your overarching question about miracles, you must continue researching until you are comfortable that your accepted evidence all fit the overall picture you personally consider to represent truth.