Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a h

Gospel of John

The Gospel of John has a number of personal eyewitness touches such as recalling the fragrance of Mary's pure nard perfume which she poured on Jesus' feet in the house at Bethany. And then there is the episode of Jesus writing in the dust with his finger when they brought him the woman caught in adultery. Those realistic accounts go hand in hand with the natural sounding conversations John sprinkles throughout his narrative.

Here is a challenge: Read the Gospel. That's right, get a Bible, preferably a modern translation, and check out John's method of writing for yourself. Pay close attention to the dialogues. See how the conversation went on between Jesus and the woman at the well. (John 4:4-26) Next take a look at what follows the healing of the man born blind. (John 9:1-41) Then read the understated drama following Jesus' pronouncement: "One of you is going to betray me." (John 13:21-30)

What do we have here? In his essay Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, C.S. Lewis muses over the possibility that " . . . some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative."

Probably not. But then, the only reasonable alternative is that John is recording what he saw and heard. Conceivably it could still contain errors, but as Lewis points out, John is close to the facts, about as close as Boswell was to Johnson. John's realism leads us to believe his Gospel is by and large a written report on events and conversations he witnessed himself.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a hi

Here is a challenge: Read the Gospel. That's right, get a Bible, preferably a modern translation, and check out John's method of writing for yourself. Pay close attention to the dialogues. See how the conversation went on between Jesus and the woman at the well. (John 4:4-26) Next take a look at what follows the healing of the man born blind. (John 9:1-41) Then read the understated drama following Jesus' pronouncement: "One of you is going to betray me." (John 13:21-30)

What do we have here? In his essay Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, C.S. Lewis muses over the possibility that " . . . some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative."

Probably not. But then, the only reasonable alternative is that John is recording what he saw and heard. Conceivably it could still contain errors, but as Lewis points out, John is close to the facts, about as close as Boswell was to Johnson. John's realism leads us to believe his Gospel is by and large a written report on events and conversations he witnessed himself.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a h

What do we have here? In his essay Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, C.S. Lewis muses over the possibility that " . . . some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative."

Probably not. But then, the only reasonable alternative is that John is recording what he saw and heard. Conceivably it could still contain errors, but as Lewis points out, John is close to the facts, about as close as Boswell was to Johnson. John's realism leads us to believe his Gospel is by and large a written report on events and conversations he witnessed himself.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a h

What do we have here? In his essay Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism, C.S. Lewis muses over the possibility that " . . . some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative."

Probably not. But then, the only reasonable alternative is that John is recording what he saw and heard. Conceivably it could still contain errors, but as Lewis points out, John is close to the facts, about as close as Boswell was to Johnson. John's realism leads us to believe his Gospel is by and large a written report on events and conversations he witnessed himself.

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a h

Gospel of Luke

Luke writes his account like a historian. In his two books, the Gospel of Luke and Acts, we find some of the most powerful descriptive writing in the New Testament. This doctor turned historian left modern historians and archaeologists a bonanza of first century details to investigate.

From Luke's Gospel we know the approximate date of Jesus' birth (5 or 6 B.C.) and when John the Baptist began his mission (A.D. 25 or 26). Luke provides us with names and titles of numerous public officials. He identifies first century cities and villages and tells us where they are located. And he informs us of major events of the period such as Augustus' census and the riot in Ephesus. These were well-known episodes. If Luke didn't get his facts straight, he would have lost all credibility with his readers.

Legends and myths of ancient civilizations tend to have vague and somewhat hazy settings. Whoever composed them didn't consider such details relevant. The important thing was the story and that alone. Luke, on the other hand, knows details are important.

He takes an historian's interest in getting all his facts straight. That should inspire confidence. All the more so because the historical novel (a blending of historical personalities and settings with fictitious events) was an unknown form of literature until the eighteenth century. To paraphrase Lewis: "Did some unknown second century writer, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipate the whole technique of the modern historical novel?"