OK now I’m really going to answer the question (I hope)
Here is a brief overview of where I am at in trying to answer the question: does the assertion that humans are necessarily identified by narratives mean these narratives need to be historically accurate in order to function well as the “substance and parameters of human identity”? I ended my last post with the assertion that since we live historically actual lives we do in fact need narratives that are historically accurate (yes this needs loads of qualifications but read my last post, I’m not going to rewrite everything).
The question now becomes what aspects of these narratives need to be historically accurate? It would be non-sense to describe Jesus’ parables or the creation account(s) as historically innacurate, that’s not what is at issue there. They are still hugely important parts of the biblical narrative. If a scene within a narrative need not be historically accurate in order to function as it needs to function for the story to achieve what it claims to achieve then so be it. Something like the resurrection (and a ton of other biblical material), however, has to be historically accurate for the biblical narrative to not be deceptive.
While the details will inevitably get fuzzy with specific biblical scenes (the flood, Joseph, the Davidic monarchy, etc…) one thing becomes clear. The liberal protestant/stereoptypically-Bultmannian way of imaginitively latching onto a faith that is understood to be merely a cultural artifact (and that’s OK) is bullshit. I would rather be an honest non-Christian (or an honestly doubting Christian) than a Christian too afraid to admit I don’t believe in core doctrines anymore (i.e. the resurrection).
