Yes, that does make sense. Sorry I misunderstood. I'm not doing the judging; academics are. The word I used may be imprecise or even anachronistic, but the thr

Yes, that does make sense. Sorry I misunderstood. I'm not doing the judging; academics are. The word I used may be imprecise or even anachronistic, but the thrust is the same, and validated by academic judgement of the texts. Genre criticism is an aspect of theology, and it crosses over with historiography. In the evaluation of practitioners in both disciplines, these are works that are not intended as historical accounts. While, as you say, this does not invalidate them as historical sources, it doesn't mean that every event recounted and every argument made therein is one that can be considered a valid historical occurrence. Many of them aren't even approachable by the historical method.