The witness's argument

I read your response to Yom's argument against the witness' argument, but I was not convinced. I'm afraid you ignored part of his argument.
In the fifth notebook you wrote:
"So, according to David Hume, no report of revelation can be accepted by us. So now come and think about it: is it any wonder that in our experience we do not know of revelations? Revelations can occur thousands of times to thousands of people, and yet for us there are no revelations. Any report of revelation would be rejected out of hand because of Hume's argument of criticism. Moreover, even if revelation had occurred to us ourselves, we would prefer the interpretation that it was a hallucination to the possibility that it did happen. So Hume's argument of criticism builds itself up. It is no more well-founded than the traditional alternative."

But Yom clearly explained why this is unlikely. He explained that these supernatural stories always occur in ignorant and ancient societies. Never among educated people, while we have the opportunity to check whether it really happened. The situation of Mount Sinai is no exception. No one has any idea where Mount Sinai is located today for sure, it occurred at a time when very similar myths abounded among other peoples, and Yom also found a place to insult the people of Israel as an ignorant nomadic people. He clearly explained why it is unlikely that one specific miracle actually happened. Indeed, according to this approach, we would not accept any revelation that happened in the past. But it is very logical, since we know with absolute certainty that people invented countless other stories at that time, meaning there is a motive for inventing myths. Hume explains (from what I understood at least) why the most rational and informed approach is to reject the witness' argument, and to recognize that supernatural events are clearly improbable in light of the tendencies of the human race, the fact that countless such have been invented, and the other points he mentioned.