However, what does the internal evidence of the gospel themselves suggest? New Testament scholar Brant Pitre asks us to consider the prologue of the Gospel of Luke for an example:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write carefully in order for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the facts concerning the things of which you have been informed." (Luke 1:1-4)2
He then goes on to share four points that help us understand the importance of Luke's prologue:
"First, as many scholars point out, Luke's prologue is strikingly similar to the prologues found in ancient Greco-Roman histories, by authors such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Josephus. Like the prologues of other ancient histories, Luke's prologue is intended to signal to the reader that the Gospel is historical in character. Second, Luke uses the word "narrative" (Greek diegesis) to describe his book. As Joseph Fitzmeyer has shown, ancient Greco-Roman authors often use this word specifically for 'the writing of history' (see Josephus, Like, 336; Lucian, How to Write History, 55). Third, Luke insists that his historical narrative is based on the testimony of 'eyewitnesses (Greek autoptai) from the beginning' of Jesus's public ministry. Now, why would Luke emphasize the eyewitness nature of his sources if he were just telling folktales? Clearly, Luke wants his readers to know that what he says about Jesus can be corroborated by those who knew him. Fourth and finally, Luke explicitly states that he is writing so that his audience might know 'the facts' (Greek asphaleian). Although some English Bibles translate the Greek word asphaleia as 'truth,' elsewhere Luke consistently uses it to refer to secure and verifiable facts (see Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26).3
Pitre concludes:
"In other words, the Gospel of Luke begins by insisting that it is an accurate, factual account, based directy on eyewitness testimony of what Jesus did and said. In support of this, in the book of Acts, Luke refers back to his own Gospel as an account of 'all that Jesus began to do and teach' (Acts 1:1). So much for the idea that the writers of the Gospels did not intend to tell us 'what Jesus really did and said!' According to Luke, this is exactly what he did in writing his Gospel."4
To learn more about why we can be confident that the gospels do fall within the genre of historical biographies, I encourage you to pick-up a copy of Brant Pitre's excellent book, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus, p. 69.
2. RSVCE, slightly adapted by Brant Pitre, p. 79.
3. Ibid., p. 2-3.
4. Ibid., p. 3.
Related Posts
84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Common Objection #14- "Jesus' Disciples were Uneducated and Illiterate."
Series: Who Wrote the Gospels?, Pt. 1 - The Theory of the Anonymous Gospels
Comments