The Gospels - Historical Record or Mythology?

It often seems that when people talk about the gospels, exemplified by Cameron Reilly’s recent interviews with Robert Price and Ben Witherington III, there are only two conclusions we're given to chose from. 1. That they are a historical record of Jesus life or 2. That they are mythology and fantasy like the stories of Zeus. This I think is an unsatisfactory and false dichotomy.

The gospels are neither history nor mythology but theology* and theology can come from both fiction (Jesus parables are an example) and non fiction (like a historical record).

Reading the gospels we read the authors theological ideas about the nature of Jesus, God and life. Understanding this, I think this needs to be the first step. Once we've understood the theology we can then go back and ask does the gospels need to be historical for my theology to hold? Or, can they be just loosely based on events if at all?

History is a matter of probabilities. For example, for the historian faced with the question did Jesus rise from the dead they would have to say no (I assume) because it’s something that has never happened before or since and there are no eye witness accounts, particularly from people who do not have a stake in the claim being true.

I believe that the gospel writers were neither eye witnesses or people who didn't care what actually happened. They were writers of theology. Once we understand the theology of the gospels we can then ask does this need to be historically true or could it just be mythology.

For this reason I have enjoyed reading both John Spong and Tom Wright. Two theologians who take history and scholarship seriously and two people with very different (perhaps even diametrically opposed) theologies. In Spong's theological understanding of the gospel the resurrection experience need not be a literal resurrection, Tom Wright on the other hand argues that it does.

I don’t think that historicity of the gospels can be talked about outside of the theology of the gospels. If you do the elephant in the room will be asking “So why do the gospel writers write what they do?”

I think the reason that most Xns don’t talk about the historicity of the gospels is because they are try to understand the theology and what it means to be human. Extreme liberal Xns may just assume that it is all mythology and extreme fundamentalist Xns may just assume that it is all exact historical record.

Personally I think the reality is far more complex. There is enough contradiction in the order of gospel events and other details to show it is not just a historical record and for me I cannot understand how Xy developed as it did if it was purely mythology.

So what do I think? Well I’m closer to Tom Wright than John Spong but my ideas are always subject to change and I prefer to spend more time trying to understand the theology of the gospels.

*all though depending on your definition theology & mythology may be very close I’ve chosen not to use mythology as it carries to many negative connotations for many Xns, people assume that mythology is only based on fiction and theology as description of what is happening in the gospels is something most people can agree on.