Part 3. Testing the Range of Deviation
Testing the Range of Deviation
So far, we have observed that the Gospels fit the genre of ancient biography. Granted, the Gospels differ among themselves: for example, Mark’s level is more popular, and Luke’s interest is more historiographic (ch. 8), than the others. Each of the Gospels, however, falls within the range of biographic works (for the Fourth Gospel, see ch. 13). We have further observed (esp. in chs. 6–7) that biographies in the early empire overlapped considerably with historical monographs, and that they normally depended on substantial historical information. We have also noted that such biographies recounted their historical material in flexible ways (chs. 7 and esp. 5). Some took more liberties than others with filling in details, but any could fit anecdotes into their framework without concern for precise chronology.
We have not, however, explored specific case studies at greater length. In this section, therefore, I turn to some case studies that show the significant dependence on prior information of early imperial-era biographies about recent characters (ch. 10). I also note some specific literary techniques identified by other scholars that help quantify some of the sorts of liberties that biographers regularly took (ch. 11).
Such observations help us to recognize the sorts of expectations that ancient audiences would have brought to the Gospels. They would expect the essential story to be true or, if they regarded the Evangelists as charlatans, would at least expect that they were claiming the story to be true. “True” meant that they were recounting true events and fairly depicting the various characters involved (although human biases being what they are, various observers define fairness in different ways). “True” did not mean that audiences would expect chronological precision, verbatim recall, or precision on minor points.
Biographers differed among themselves in how much flexibility they displayed, and this factor must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, studying biographies of then-recent figures from the early empire provides us with a default expectation for the range of variations ancient audiences would ordinarily expect. Significantly, the quantity of historical substance encountered in these case studies of ancient biographies proves to be considerably greater than what more skeptical approaches to the Gospels would lead us to expect, as well as greater than what we might expect for protobiographies or for biographies composed centuries after their subjects.