Peter

My argument is that

1. Wright devises a theory of epistemology which allows him to say “there is no such thing as the ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ observer; equally, there is no such thing as the detached observer’

2. Wright wants to be able to say this because if all knowledge and hence all history involves selection, a point of view and interpretation it is unfair to exclude the gospels as reliable history because they do likewise

3. To rebut Wright I argue that

a. his theory of epistemology does not hold water

b. His conclusion that there is no such thing as a ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ ‘detached’ observer seeks to prescribe concepts which we use with complete confidence every day; and as such is to be rejected

I do not disagree with your observation that “historical knowledge is never detached from wider questions etc” but I do not see how it bears on my argument .