Yes, they are primary source documents and you can deny it, hold your breath until you turn blue and go out into the backyard and eat worms. It won't make the slightest difference. The scholarly world will continue to engage with those documents as it has for the last 2000 years.
Who said that historians accept the supernatural elements? Who? Do you really not get that the New Testament documents quite thoroughly a particular moment in human history? Do you really not get that it describes the birth of Christianity? Or is Christianity a myth, too?
No, not every historian is a Christian. Not every New Testament scholar is either. What they all have in common is their ability to recognize historical source documents, primary sources, when they see them.
And round and round we go.
Jane, several pages back it had been said to you that it is not in doubt that the Christian myth might be grounded on an actual itinerant rabbi (or more than one) but that the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible
is unsupported by evidence. You denied that vehemently and said that, apparently, all of us are just lacking in knowledge of historic research to claim this because the scientific world of historians and scholars would not doubt a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible
Now here you go and say that not all historians (and not even all scholars) accept a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible
What is it, Jane? Please take note of the "divine" and the "as described in the bible" I stress so much. Either the evidence for a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible
is there or it is not there. If it was there and it was, as you told us more than once by now, as obvious as the light of day to anyone with even a speck of knowledge in historical or scholarly methodology and science, then why exactly are there these historians and scholars that do doubt the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible?
You say Jesus' "life is just about the best attested of any figure in the ancient world" yet historians and scholars themselves don't seem to know that as the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible
is far far away from being as accepted as you claim it is.
If it was as strong a piece of evidence as you claim it is for historians and scholars, why does the acceptance of the supposed evidence for Jesus existence hinge on the historian or NT scholar being a Christian (per your own words)?
Which brings me right to the next point:
Yes, they [the gospels] are primary source documents
Again, a few pages back you argued that the gospels are primary sources for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible (and I suppose you still do).
As I and others have said repeatedly back then, we do not see the gospels as primary sources giving evidence for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible. To add to that, we did not just say it, the reasoning for this was shown, too (repeatedly).
Once again, you contested that.
Now you come around again with your argument that the gospels are primary sources, so I think it's actually time to bring some meat to the table.
Back then you yourself quoted what the university of Yale had to say about what a primary source is [quoted as you wrote it in your own post):
Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.
So, to settle matters and since a large number of members have already brought forth their arguments why the gospels do not qualify as primary sources, I think it's about time you do the same.
I would ask you to take the above definition of what a primary source is and apply it to the gospels. That should not be a big task in any kind of way.
To clear things up for this discussion you should state:
- for what exactly the gospels are supposed to be a primary source (like for the existence of a historical divine Jesus as described in the bible, for the existence of people holding such beliefs, for the existence of diverging Jewish cults at that time, etc.)
- in what way they are first hand testimony or direct evidence from witnesses present at the events (that again depends on what your answer was to the point above)