Geaux, Tiger!

According to Brant Pitre's CV, he graduated a year behind me in the same college at LSU. I'm not sure if I ever met Brant back then, but I'd love to see more blogging from him over at Singing in the Reign. I say this especially because his post today has me cheering out loud. It concludes:

What if Vermes is wrong? What if the Gospels look like historical biographies because that's what they are? That is, after all, how genre usually works. What if, for example, when Luke says he intends to give an "accurate" account of what Jesus did and said, based on the testimony of "eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1-4), he actually means it?

Geaux, Brant! So now I must ask - if your answer to these rhetorical questions is "Yes", then what does a faith based historiography of the Gospels actually look like? I mean, after asserting that their accounts are historical, how do we study them historically? What else can we do with the Gospel accounts, in terms of historical analysis and reconstruction?

Dr. Pitre? I'm dying for more here. Come on, Tiger, poush poush poush!