-*----

Far from being "tossed out," the gospels are taken, almost
universally, as the primary source of information about Jesus.
I am curious as to whom Mike Cobb is referring.  Who "tosses out"
the New Testament?  Undoubtedly a few *naive* atheists do this,
but the phrasing of the question above seems to suggest that Cobb
ascribes this more broadly.

Perhaps the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is
why, except for some *naive* believers (who, unfortunately, far
outnumber nonbelievers, both naive and critical), are the gospels
*not* taken as "gospel truth" that faithfully records just what
happened two thousand years ago?  This has an easy answer, and
the answer has *nothing* to do with miracles: no text is taken
this way by a critical reader.

There is a myth among some naive believers that one takes a text,
measures it by some set of criteria, and then either confirms the
text as "historically valid" or "tosses out" the text.  I suspect
this myth comes from the way history is presented in primary and
secondary school, where certain texts are vested with authority,
and from writers such as Josh McDowell who pretend to present
historical arguments along these lines for their religious
program.  In fact, most texts used in primary and secondary
school history classes ought to be tossed out, even the better
such texts should not be treated as authoritatively as descibed
above, and Josh McDowell would not know a historical argument if
it bit him on the keister twice.

Let me present the barest outlines of a different view of texts
and their use in studying history.  First, all texts are
historically valid.  ALL texts.  Or to put this another way, I
have never seen a notion of "historical validity" that makes any
sense when applied to a text.  Second, no text should be read as
telling the "gospel truth" about historical events, in the way
that many students are wont to read history texts in primary and
secondary school.  NO text.  (This includes your favorite
author's history of whatever.)

Every text is a historical fact.  Every text was written by some
person (or some group of people) for some purpose.  Hence, every
text can serve as historical evidence.  The question is: what can
we learn from a text?  Of what interesting things (if any) does
the text provide evidence?

The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of
Oregon, are historical evidence.  The gospels are historical
evidence.  The letters of the officers who participated in the 
vampire inquests in Eastern Europe are historical evidence.  The
modern American history textbooks that whitewash "great American
figures" are historical evidence.  These are all historical
evidence of various things.  They are *not* much evidence at all
that the Maharishi, formerly of Oregon, could levitate; that
Jesus was resurrected; that vampires exist; or that "great
American figures" are as squeaky clean as we learned in school.
They are better evidence that some people "saw" the Maharishi,
late of Oregon, levitate; that some of the early Christians
thought Jesus was resurrected; that many people in Eastern Europe
"saw" vampires return from the grave; and that we still have an
educational system that largely prefers to spread myth rather
than teach history.

How does one draw causal connections and infer what a piece of
historical evidence -- text or otherwise -- evinces?  This is a
very complex question that has no easily summarized answer.
There are many books on the subject or various parts of the
subject.  I enjoy David Hackett Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies"
as a good antidote to the uncritical way in which it is so easy
to read texts present history.  It's relatively cheap.  It's easy
to read.  Give it a try.