2 ms·

> a historical text claiming X is evidence for X Gospels are not historical texts. They are religious literature. They present zero evidence of the facts they

• skissane 4y ago
  When I said "historical text", I meant "text from history", not "text of history". And, a text (religious or not) which makes factual claims, is itself evidence for those factual claims, although how strong evidence it is depends on factors such as the inherent plausibility of those claims, whether they contradict any other evidence we may have, etc. Religious literature is a form of historical evidence. The LDS scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) is historical evidence for the thinking of Joseph Smith and the early Mormons. The Quran and Hadith are historical evidence for early Islam and the life of Muhammad. The Scientology scriptures are historical evidence for L. Ron Hubbard. And, in the exact same way, Christian religious literature is historical evidence for the history of Christianity. Accepting all of this as historical evidence, doesn't mean we have to uncritically accept all of their claims – we can compare them to other sources (when they exist, they don't always do); we can judge the inherent plausibility of each claim, and justifiably be open to accepting the more historically probable claims of these texts while rejecting the miraculous elements of them. Of course, if one has a faith commitment to one of these religions, that might predispose one to accept rather than reject some of those miraculous claims, but then one isn't playing the language-game (Sprachspiel) of "secular history of religions" any more, one is playing a different language-game instead.