text: Part 1:
  
  Eric, you have left my head spinning. (1) First you reject my carefully expressed proposition that the genre of the Gospels is not what we today would call history; and then when I back up my proposition with perhaps the most widely accepted example on non-historicity, (2) you reply with a disconnected set of statements which appear to say that my view is correct but some how self-evidently trivial?; and then (3) you provided a second reply to my first comment in the form of a citation that purports to say that a newly discovered remnant of a palace of Sennacherib in Neneeh/Mosul is another proof of the historicity of the Bible. 
  
  Eric, the historicity of the Bible in general is a much broader topic that the historicity (in our modern sense) of the Gospels. 
  
  Re Gospels: Which is it: Do you hold that the gospels are history IN OUR MODERN SENSE OF THAT TERM of that term or not?
  
  Re: Mathew Archbold's view on significance of the palace below Jonah tomb Mosul.