the intention test ...
this test seeks to determine whether it was the stated or implied intention of the writers to accurately preserve history, were these first century writers even interested in recording what actually happened? Luke clearly says he intended to write accurately about the things he investigated and found to be well supported by witnesses ...
(the opening of Luke's gospel)
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught ...
what about the other gospels? they are close to Luke in terms of genre, and it seems reasonable that Luke's historical intent would closely mirror theirs, and John? the only other statement of purpose in the gospels comes in John 20:31: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" ... that sounds more like a theological statement than a historical one, but if you're going to be convinced enough to believe, the theology has to flow from accurate history, besides, there's an important piece of implicit evidence that can't be overlooked, consider the way the gospels are written, in a sober and responsible fashion, with accurate incidental details, with obvious care and exactitude, you don't find the outlandish flourishes and blatant mythologizing that you see in alot of other ancient writings, what does that all add up to? it seems quite apparent that the goal of the gospel writers was to attempt to record what had actually occurred
|