Also you have negated the fact that mishnaic literature is our only source for what happened within Judaism at certain periods of time, such as the establishment of the academy at Yavnah and what happened within it. You also seem to have concluded that the Mishnah had one author, as this is untrue, and each reference must be very carefully evaluated in terms of content as an independant source. I have more to say, but too much is being said, but my conclusion is that there is a very big double standard in the use of traditional Jewish sources. People have jumped to the conclusion that it is fiction. But this is typical of the ethnocentric nature of the Revisionist approach, in that we are more capable of understanding and writing history that those who directly inherited that history and wrote about it in the ancient past.
Revisionism is by definition ethnocentric and also very unscientific.
If this was a forum of Cross-Cultural psychology and Anthropology many of you would have been laughed off the list for concluding that a peoples' historical traditions are not valid in understanding their more ancient past. And that they were falsified works of total fiction. It would be one thing if we were dealing with mythology or cosmology of a tribal society. But if we are dealing with the genaeology of that society of its past chiefs and what they did a revisionistic conclusion would be problematic, even unacceptable. But we are not dealing with a primative tribal society, we are dealing with a literate society with a strong cultural sence of history and its preservation.