The gospels, like much other narrative in the Bible, are history with a figurative slant for a spiritual purpose. They will not yield up their deepest secrets to straightforward analysis (Prov 1:6). After all, we are told that the pure light in which God dwells is swathed in darkness (Ps 97:2). I like to characterize each gospel pithily with a single word: Matthew, “teaching” (5:2); Mark, “mystery” (4:11); Luke, “history” (3:1); John, “testimony” (19:35). And these four elements are contained in various mixtures in the rest of the NT. But to characterize Luke, for example, as “history” is to say it is quasi-historical, not history in the pedestrian sense.
A deep dive into the geographical designations, descriptions, puzzles, etc. in the gospels would be interesting, unless you have already done it. I know it has been touched on.
I like that summary: "history with a figurative slant for a spiritual purpose"! Thank you, a piece on the various puzzles in the gospels is a great shout.
Hi John. This is really an excellent article. I would like to have your opinion on "Doctor Luke". Isn't ture that according to later church tradition, the author of Acts is a companion of Paul named “Luke” (a doctor moonlighting as both a missionary and a historian) but he never makes such claims. This is the Orthodox tradition and there is no multiple attestation to Paul's letters.
The author cleverly switches to the first-person plural (“we”) to indicate that he was some kind of fellow traveler with Paul. But what can we securely conclude from this? It could be a purely literary way to elevate his credibility. He never explains why exactly he switches back and forth from the third to the first person. I think it's a big problem. If he was a companion of Paul, he wouldn't leave it as an open debate. He would have declared his finest quality (being Paul's companion) to the world with a loudspeaker.
Hi Baris, it's a great question – you're right that it is tradition that gives us the figure of Luke, a physician and travelling companion of Paul. Please keep your eyes peeled as I'm writing a post on the authorship of Luke/Acts as we speak!
Hi John, first off I wanted to thank you for writing such a thorough and fair minded piece. I was a fundamentalist for quite some time but over the last 2 years I've gone through quite a period of intense doubt. Partially due to science and faith and partially due to critical scholarship.
I think you have detailed the metaphysical piece component extremely well. I am currently in OCIA to enter the Catholic Church and part of the reason is because at my local parish, my priest told me that he does not lose sleep at night if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or if the gospels have true traditional authorship. Rather the Gospels were written to convey the kerygma and thats what he has faith in. And this is a pretty conservative priest as well.
I found that to be tremendously reassuring in my journey. And as I've studied more I've also realized that skeptics and counter apologists perhaps bring too much scrutiny to the Gospels as well. I think there is a case albeit a minority opinion to be made for the traditional authorship of all 4 Gospels. I'm still working through the virgin birth but I do believe Jesus rose from the dead. And I wanted to thank you for providing such wonderful analysis here :) you have helped rebuild my faith in some ways!
Hi Rishab, thank you for your encouraging words and for sharing some of your journey! It sounds like a really exciting time for you, and I would agree with your priest. We certainly shouldn't be losing sleep over issues of authorship! I'm so glad Behind the Gospels has provided a useful resource for you as you think through these questions!
Great and even-handed summary, thanks for writing it! On the “how the Gospels got their names” question, are you already aware of Matthew Larsen’s chapter “Correcting the Gospel…” in Rethinking ‘Authority in Late Antiquity?
Larsen argues that the κατὰ + accusative (‘according to’) language in the Gospel titles wasn’t typically used to convey authorship at all, but the editor or corrector of a text with multiple versions.
I haven’t decided exactly what to make of this, because I also agree with your point that some Gospel attributions seem inferred. But I think it’s super interesting.
I enjoyed that summary, John. I think when a 21st Century layperson asks if the gospels are historically reliable they usually mean it in a 21st Century sense. If a gospel reports that jesus said or did something or that an event occurred, is the reader justified in believing Jesus actually said or did the thing as reported, or the event occurred as recounted?
There are Christians who are ok with the idea of the Gospels giving a general sense of jesus and his reported teachings and doings, and who nevertheless believe in the resurrection as anywhere from a bodily to a solely spiritual event. But I don't think those Christians are as concerned with asking whether the gospels "are historically reliable"
I think the honest scholar best answers a 21st Century person's question of whether the gospels are historically reliable by saying something like: "Not in the way you probably mean that phrase..." and the scholar can then go on to supply nuance about ancient bioi, explain how the gospels may and probably do contain some historically reliable information though scholars debate just how much. If the scholar is apologetically minded or concerned to protect the person's faith, they can then offer suggestions as to why the gospels' being less historically reliable than we would expect of a 21st Century biography of a historical figure like Winston Churchill or Martin Luther King, etc. might be theologically OK and not necessarily a death knell for faith (though eventually, historical critical scholarship was just that for me).
In contrast to that approach Mike Licona for example frustrates me because while he would acknowledge much of what you wrote he still wants to answer the question of whether the gospels are historically reliable with an emphatic "Yes" and even goes so far as to say he still believes the gospels are "inerrant" because the authors knowingly/intentionally followed the conventions of ancient writing so even if they contain invented dialogue or added non factual information and events presented as if they were factual, nevertheless because this was done intentionally and commonly in ancient writing, it is still "inerrant."
The gospels, like much other narrative in the Bible, are history with a figurative slant for a spiritual purpose. They will not yield up their deepest secrets to straightforward analysis (Prov 1:6). After all, we are told that the pure light in which God dwells is swathed in darkness (Ps 97:2). I like to characterize each gospel pithily with a single word: Matthew, “teaching” (5:2); Mark, “mystery” (4:11); Luke, “history” (3:1); John, “testimony” (19:35). And these four elements are contained in various mixtures in the rest of the NT. But to characterize Luke, for example, as “history” is to say it is quasi-historical, not history in the pedestrian sense.
A deep dive into the geographical designations, descriptions, puzzles, etc. in the gospels would be interesting, unless you have already done it. I know it has been touched on.
I like that summary: "history with a figurative slant for a spiritual purpose"! Thank you, a piece on the various puzzles in the gospels is a great shout.
Hi John. This is really an excellent article. I would like to have your opinion on "Doctor Luke". Isn't ture that according to later church tradition, the author of Acts is a companion of Paul named “Luke” (a doctor moonlighting as both a missionary and a historian) but he never makes such claims. This is the Orthodox tradition and there is no multiple attestation to Paul's letters.
The author cleverly switches to the first-person plural (“we”) to indicate that he was some kind of fellow traveler with Paul. But what can we securely conclude from this? It could be a purely literary way to elevate his credibility. He never explains why exactly he switches back and forth from the third to the first person. I think it's a big problem. If he was a companion of Paul, he wouldn't leave it as an open debate. He would have declared his finest quality (being Paul's companion) to the world with a loudspeaker.
Hi Baris, it's a great question – you're right that it is tradition that gives us the figure of Luke, a physician and travelling companion of Paul. Please keep your eyes peeled as I'm writing a post on the authorship of Luke/Acts as we speak!
Thank you John. I am really looking forward to it.
Hi John, first off I wanted to thank you for writing such a thorough and fair minded piece. I was a fundamentalist for quite some time but over the last 2 years I've gone through quite a period of intense doubt. Partially due to science and faith and partially due to critical scholarship.
I think you have detailed the metaphysical piece component extremely well. I am currently in OCIA to enter the Catholic Church and part of the reason is because at my local parish, my priest told me that he does not lose sleep at night if Moses wrote the Pentateuch or if the gospels have true traditional authorship. Rather the Gospels were written to convey the kerygma and thats what he has faith in. And this is a pretty conservative priest as well.
I found that to be tremendously reassuring in my journey. And as I've studied more I've also realized that skeptics and counter apologists perhaps bring too much scrutiny to the Gospels as well. I think there is a case albeit a minority opinion to be made for the traditional authorship of all 4 Gospels. I'm still working through the virgin birth but I do believe Jesus rose from the dead. And I wanted to thank you for providing such wonderful analysis here :) you have helped rebuild my faith in some ways!
Hi Rishab, thank you for your encouraging words and for sharing some of your journey! It sounds like a really exciting time for you, and I would agree with your priest. We certainly shouldn't be losing sleep over issues of authorship! I'm so glad Behind the Gospels has provided a useful resource for you as you think through these questions!
Thank you John!
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the possibility that Joseph had 2 homes one in Nazareth and one in Bethlehem?
Great and even-handed summary, thanks for writing it! On the “how the Gospels got their names” question, are you already aware of Matthew Larsen’s chapter “Correcting the Gospel…” in Rethinking ‘Authority in Late Antiquity?
Larsen argues that the κατὰ + accusative (‘according to’) language in the Gospel titles wasn’t typically used to convey authorship at all, but the editor or corrector of a text with multiple versions.
I haven’t decided exactly what to make of this, because I also agree with your point that some Gospel attributions seem inferred. But I think it’s super interesting.
Thank you :) I hadn't come across that chapter from Larsen – thank you for bringing it to my attention!
I enjoyed that summary, John. I think when a 21st Century layperson asks if the gospels are historically reliable they usually mean it in a 21st Century sense. If a gospel reports that jesus said or did something or that an event occurred, is the reader justified in believing Jesus actually said or did the thing as reported, or the event occurred as recounted?
There are Christians who are ok with the idea of the Gospels giving a general sense of jesus and his reported teachings and doings, and who nevertheless believe in the resurrection as anywhere from a bodily to a solely spiritual event. But I don't think those Christians are as concerned with asking whether the gospels "are historically reliable"
I think the honest scholar best answers a 21st Century person's question of whether the gospels are historically reliable by saying something like: "Not in the way you probably mean that phrase..." and the scholar can then go on to supply nuance about ancient bioi, explain how the gospels may and probably do contain some historically reliable information though scholars debate just how much. If the scholar is apologetically minded or concerned to protect the person's faith, they can then offer suggestions as to why the gospels' being less historically reliable than we would expect of a 21st Century biography of a historical figure like Winston Churchill or Martin Luther King, etc. might be theologically OK and not necessarily a death knell for faith (though eventually, historical critical scholarship was just that for me).
In contrast to that approach Mike Licona for example frustrates me because while he would acknowledge much of what you wrote he still wants to answer the question of whether the gospels are historically reliable with an emphatic "Yes" and even goes so far as to say he still believes the gospels are "inerrant" because the authors knowingly/intentionally followed the conventions of ancient writing so even if they contain invented dialogue or added non factual information and events presented as if they were factual, nevertheless because this was done intentionally and commonly in ancient writing, it is still "inerrant."