Were the Gospels Written as Mythology or History?
How the Gospels compare to other ancient books
The Gospel accounts receive criticism for being works of mythology and imagination. Skeptics attempt to separate the ‘Jesus of history’ (what they think the real Jesus was like) from the ‘Jesus of faith’ (the legendary Jesus who became a savior). The Gospels are seen as exaggerated accounts, full of fairy tales, with only small nuggets of truth. Are these accusations tenable?
The historicity of Jesus has been covered a few times in my blog, but today I wanted to zoom in on how the Gospels were written. Of course, the authors of the Gospels were inspired (Jn. 14:26, 2 Peter 1, etc), but how do their Books compare to other works of antiquity?
Richard Bauckham, a heavyweight NT scholar, provides a list that can help us understand the Gospels as historical accounts. He walks through the common writing practices and methods of ancient authors and compares them to the Gospel accounts. Here is a brief analysis of Bauckham’s research and a few similarities found in the Gospels.
Topography: ancient historians were expected to have full knowledge of the places where the events of their history took place. For example, in Xenophon’s Anabasis, he gives detailed information about the geography and terrain of the Greek army’s journey. Julius Cæsar provided specific descriptions of modern-day France, Germany, and Britain in his Gallic Wars. Now, recall how often the Gospel authors speak of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee. They consistently portray cities and regions correctly. For example, sometimes Jesus moved south but is reported as going ‘up to Jerusalem’ because of the elevation gain.
Chronology: historians needed reference points (like dates on a calendar, or seasons of the year) to build a clear history and chronology of events. In Roman times, dates could be connected to the consuls’ office, an emperor’s reign, or the founding of Rome itself. In the Gospels (and Acts), Luke records events tied to emperors (2:1, 3:1, & Acts 11:28, 18:2), and John mentions three distinct Passover festivals (2:13, 6:4, & 11:55), which suggests a timeline of around three years for Jesus’ earthly ministry.
Selectivity: biographers were expected to tell the important details of their history but skip over unneeded information. Facts were not given to build an exhaustive story, but information was often used to teach a lesson or principle. The Gospels are no different: Jesus’ life, from His birth to age 30, is covered briefly. (Only two accounts even record His birth). Although more ink was given to His three years of ministry, even more emphasis was on His Passion Week. Again, the facts recorded were intended to teach important truths, and what could be more important than to emphasize what the death, burial, and resurrection had accomplished in God’s salvation plan? It is the Good News, the Gospel!
Eyewitness testimony: Just as today, one may author a biography of a historical individual if they have accurate and reliable sources. It was of vital importance for ancient authors to obtain eyewitness testimonies. The historian could have been the witness himself, or he could have interviewed the witness, but firsthand testimony was critical. Firsthand reports could also be studied from written sources. Thucydides wrote his history of the Peloponnesian War from his position as a general within the army. Polybius used written sources for his history of the Punic Wars, as well as personally witnessing events from the final War. In comparison to the Gospels, Bauckham has written an entire book on the Gospels as eyewitness testimonies.
John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
In Luke 1:1-4, Luke states that eyewitness accounts had already been written and preached (He is probably referring to Matthew and Mark’s gospels), and Luke himself is writing to bring further certainty to what has already been declared.
Peter states that he and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ glory (2 Peter 1). Church history records that Mark was connected to Peter and that the Gospel of Mark included Peter’s firsthand reports.
Matthew is understood to be one of the original 12 disciples, and as a tax collector, he knew how to take careful notes of what he experienced while traveling with Jesus.
Much more could be written here, but the claims and evidence depict the Gospel authors as writing history derived from eyewitness testimonies. This assertion can be ignored, but the evidence must be taken seriously if one is honestly trying to investigate the records.
Discourse and dialogue: ancient cultures greatly valued philosophy, teaching, and politics. It was important to record the speeches of famous generals, rulers, and teachers, as speeches were sometimes just as significant as battles or other events. The Gospels and Acts are careful to record sermons and speeches by Jesus and the apostles. For example, the Sermon on the Mount, the Olivet Discourse, Jesus’ many parables, Peter’s Acts 2 sermon, and Paul’s witness before Roman leaders teach important elements to their respected audiences. We know these discourses were recorded accurately as Jesus promised that the Holy Ghost would “teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26).1
In conclusion, the Gospels are similar to other ancient biographies, as they record facts about the life and work of Jesus. Readers of that time would not have been surprised by the layout or methods of the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John paid attention to the small, seemingly insignificant details, many of which have been verified and confirmed through archaeology and manuscript evidence. The authors were concerned about accurately recording the works of Jesus, to show the ramifications and history of the Church and God’s salvation plan. If the history could be disproven then so too could the movement.2
The next time you are reading a Gospel, look for specific historical elements and count how many you can find!
There was a wide range of practices regarding citing and recording of ancient speeches. Some critics claim that Thucydides made up the speeches within his books, and therefore, Luke must have followed Thucydides’ example and invented the Luke-Acts sermons.
We must remember that, yes, some historians were more liberal in their documentation, but others were more careful. It appears that Julius Cæsar learned reports of enemy speeches from the enemy prisoners he interrogated. Polybius wrote that careful attention to detail was essential for historians, anything less should be condemned. Seneca dictated his farewell address for publication (Tacitus, Annals 15:63) and it was still circulating one hundred years later. Also, Thucydides himself did not merely say he made everything up but attempted to be as careful and accurate as possible when he could. Therefore, it is weak argumentation to highlight Thucydides’s supposed concocted speeches while ignoring all other ancient historians. The Biblical evidence should speak first when analyzing the sermons of Jesus and the apostles, and Jesus said they would receive supernatural memory from the Holy Ghost. Thus, we can and should trust that ‘Then Peter said unto them…’ is actually what Peter said, not what Luke wanted Peter to say.