Rather than inventing Jesus-biography, the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as editors/redactors—were honest in writing their Gospel reports.
This page analyzes 8 arguments:
If true, it is relevant because the perceived lack of freedom of the authors to significantly tamper with their source material, and the lack of freedom to invent wholesale, is hard to explain absent their reverence for that source material being true and wanting to preserve that truth in their own works.
The Gospels deliberately portray themselves as historical works, specifically ones aiming to accurately relay facts grounded in eyewitness testimony.
This page analyzes 6 arguments:
The Gospels implicitly self-identify as information-based biographies, comparable to Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars etc.
This page analyzes 5 arguments:
This is relevant if Greco-Roman histories overtly aim to report truth.
- David Aune: “…the very fact that [the Gospels] chose to adapt Greco-Roman biographical conventions to tell us the story of Jesus indicates that they were centrally concerned to communicate what they thought really happened”. [“Greco-Roman Biography.” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament. Ed. Aune, SBLSBC 21. (Scholars Press, 1988), 125.]
The Gospel authors strive to learn and relay all and only true Jesus-biography.
A full page will analyze 6 arguments:
This is relevant because this goal is irrelevant unless one’s wider goal is to report the truth.
AD 30-70 Christians prized the proliferation and personal acquirement of true biographical knowledge of Jesus.
A full page will analyze these 10 arguments: