Well, actually I have not spun anything. I presented my evidence and the conclusion based on that evidence. Contrast what I have done with your statement quoted above. In it you make an assertion with no backing premises.
Well, actually, what you presented is not evidence. Evidence would be something offered beyond a reasonable doubt and quoting scholars that lean a certain way is not evidence. It reminds me somewhat of the way the HoHo's explain "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise" vs. "Truly I tell you...today you will be with me in paradise." Nobody really knows what he said, really, now do they?
Whether Jesus wrote anything is not the issue. The issue is whether or not what we do have can be considered reliable. Having read many scholars from both sides of the issue, I believe that the evidence clearly sides with the manuscripts being an accurate account of either direct eyewitnesses or the testimony of eyewitnesses.
There is no whether, because he didn't write anything, at least anything that is recorded in scripture and nothing has showed up in manuscripts. It absolutely is the issue. We don't know what Jesus' thoughts were (unless it has been spelled out in scriptural accounts), why he chose certain parables, or what he meant by "turn the other cheek" (other than the literal interpretation that StoneWall pointed out).
exjdub