Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels

by Craig S. Keener

Demonstrates the reliability of the canonical gospels by exploring the genre of ancient biography The canonical gospels are ancient biographies, narratives of Jesus’s life. The authors of these gospels were intentional in how they handled historical information and sources. Building on recent work in the study of ancient biographies, Craig Keener argues that the writers of the canonical gospels followed the literary practices of other biographers in their day. In  Christobiography  he explores the character of ancient biography and urges students and scholars to appreciate the gospel writers’ method and degree of accuracy in recounting the ministry of Jesus. Keener’s  Christobiography  has far-reaching implications for the study of the canonical gospels and historical-Jesus research.

Table of Introduction
Part 1. Biographies about Jesus
            2. Not a Novel Proposal
            3. Examples and Development of Ancient Biography
            4. What Sort of Biographies Are the Gospels?
            5. What Did First-Century Audiences Expect of Biographies?
Part 2 Biographies and History
            6. Biographies and Historical Information
            7. What Historical Interests Meant in Antiquity
            8. Luke-Acts as Biohistory
            9. Sources Close to the Events
Part 3. Testing the Range of Deviation
            10. Case Biographies of Recent Characters Use Prior Information
            11. Flex Literary Techniques in Ancient Biographies
Part 4. Two Objections to Gospels as Historical Biographies
            12. What about Miracles?
            13. What about John?
Part 5. Memories about Memories before Memoirs
            14. Memory Studies
            15. Jesus Was a Teacher
            16. Oral Tradition, Oral History
            17. The Implications of This Study

Genres: Christian, Theology, History, New Testament, Biblical Studies, Nonfiction, Religion

743 pages, Hardcover

Published August 27, 2019

About the author

Craig S. Keener (PhD, Duke University) is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. He is the author of many books, including Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, the bestseller The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, Gift and Giver, and commentaries on Matthew, John, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, and Revelation.

Reviews

[G0thamite · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really don't understand how Dr. Keener continues to produce such lengthy and scholarly works (unless he doesn't sleep). For accomplishing another 500+ volume I give this book Five Stars LOL. To summarize his argument he pushes back on the radical scholars who see the Gospels as mostly unreliable sources for the life and teachings of Jesus. I think he has done this convincingly. He is careful not to overstate his case and claim verbatim recollections of Jesus' teachings and speeches. In the 501 pages of his work I see three primary points:

1. The Gospels are definitely situated in the genre of classical bioi (historical biography).
2. Classical bioi were expected to recount true history.
3. The authors of these works, the Gospels included, were free to tell their story with a bounded-flexibility. That is, they could employ a reasonable degree of rearranging chronology, adapt wording and detail to their narrative without violating the essential historicity of their subject.

All this was done with the happy reception of their audience. Our lesson is that we should not apply narrow Enlightenment historiographical constrictions to a first century context. He names names of these offenders.

I think Dr. Keener possibly "Over-Footnotes" his material - perhaps because his conservative leanings require him to be particularly careful? (Is this a fault?) In any event, there's a wealth of summaries of newer material on memory studies, comparisons of ancient histories and biographies that will keep you tracking down authors and studies for months to come. One particularly useful comparison is the three biographies of Otho we find in Suetonius, Tacitus and Plutarch. Dr. Keener lays out a synoptic-like parallel of the texts in three parallel vertical columns to show how each author treats Otho's life in various stages. In addition, he states his case for the essential historicity of John among the synoptics.

His "Bibliography of Secondary Sources" runs 127 pages and his Index of Ancient Sources runs 34 pages. You'll be dizzy chasing it all down, but it is there for you should you need to consult a reference.

I'm eagerly anticipating reviews of this book by those who differ with him on his conclusions. Keep the popcorn handy!

Philip Murray

[Geoffrey Sutton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Briefly, I got this book to review for a psychology journal. What got my attention were the words “memory” and “reliability.” As expected, Keener demonstrated a high degree of scholarship in documenting how the gospels are like extant ancient biographies. He also demonstrated an awareness of the problems with eyewitness testimony and various aspects of memory, which may affect the confidence a reader can have in the gospel stories. He provides a reasonable case for confidence in the gist of the stories and aphorisms. He argues that readers ought not to expect a verbatim record of dialogues or precise chronologies and readers ought to be flexible regarding details.
He may be a bit generous with his level of confidence in the quality of eyewitness reports, but it is refreshing to see a conservative scholar take a serious look at memory research related to the gospels.

[Drake · Rating 4 out of 5]

This volume was definitely worth working through.

Didn’t agree with every point or conclusion, but his case for the historicity and reliability of the four Gospels is weighty.

Also, the 128 page bibliography in the back is pretty impressive.

[Chris Slayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Keener takes a rather unique approach to the historical reliability of the Gospels. Instead of examining the historicity of the people, places, and events mentioned in the narratives, Keener analyzes the literary structure and genre of the Gospels as evidence for their historical reliability. How does genre impact our confidence in the reliability of the Gospels? Keener demonstrates that the Gospels were written as ancient biographies, and as such, their first century audiences would have expected them to remain true to the historical record without deviating into speculation and invention as might be expected of other genres. By comparing the Gospels to other ancient biographies from the first century, Keener makes a convincing case that we should read the Gospels as historical presentations of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.

Keener’s book is divided into five parts. In Part 1, Keener examines the literary genres of the first century and identifies the Gospels as most closely resembling the genre of ancient biography. Among the reasons for identifying the Gospels as ancient biography is that such works tended to focus on a single individual from recent history as opposed to novels which typically focused on several characters (some fictitious) and were composed long after the living memory of their subjects. Moreover, the Gospels closely resemble other early Greek and Roman biographies, such as those by Josephus, Tacitus, Plutarch, and Suetonius.

Having established the Gospels as ancient biographies, Keener then examines the implications of such genre, asking what a first century audience would have expected of biographies in terms of historical reliability. What sort of liberties would ancient biographers be expected to take in presenting historical content? Keener notes that while biographers would have been allowed some rhetorical license to tell the story from their own perspective, responsible biographers stayed true to the history that came to them from their sources. Particularly interesting was Keener’s conclusion that expectations for reliable historical content seem to have been the highest during the period from the first century BC to the early third century AD, the time during which the Gospels were likely composed. From this evidence, we can be confident that the Gospel writers would have likely reported accurate historical information.

In Part 2, Keener continues the discussion regarding the expectations of ancient biographies. While biographers were expected to tell a good story, they were also expected to base their historical information on reliable sources. Audiences would recognize that works covering material from long ago might contain legend, but greater confidence was placed in biographies covering recent events, especially those within the living memory of the historical figure. In that case, biographers often interviewed eyewitnesses in order to preserve the historical content of their writings. Keener specifically considers the work of Luke-Acts and notes the clear intention of the author to write an accurate historical account. Indeed, Keener views the Gospel of Luke as a biographic work contained within a larger, two-volume history.

In Part 3, Keener discusses the flexibility that the Gospel writers would have had in presenting the historical information while staying true to the genre of ancient biography. Consistent with other works of their genre and time period, the Gospels were free to focus on certain details while omitting others, rearrange the chronology of events, and simplify the narratives in order to serve their literary purpose. In Chapter 10, Keener provides a case study, a side-by-side comparison of three separate biographies of Otho written by Suetonius, Tacitus and Plutarch to demonstrate how the same historical account could be arranged and edited while still remaining true to what really happened. This case study is a tremendous help in understanding the “apparent contradictions” in the Gospel accounts.

In Part 4, Keener responds to two common objections to the Gospels as historical biographies – the report of miracles in the narratives and the striking differences between John’s Gospel and the Synoptics. Keener explains that miracle claims do not automatically undermine the credibility of the Gospels as biographies because the reports of miracles are based on eyewitness testimony, and Jesus was known by his contemporaries as a healer and exorcist. Further, even though John’s Gospel is quite different from the Synoptics, it is still closer in genre to ancient biography than novel or any other genre of ancient literature. John simply used more flexibility within the genre to meet his purpose of providing a theological presentation of the historical events.

For additional insight on the value of John’s Gospel in establishing the historical Jesus, I would recommend the chapter by Paul N. Anderson entitled “The John, Jesus, and History Project and a Fourth Quest for Jesus” in Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History, ed. by Bock and Komoszewski. In his article, Anderson argues that John has been treated unfairly in historical Jesus research, excluded on the basis of its theological presentation of Jesus, but John actually contains more archaeologically attested material than the Synoptics combined. Thus, Anderson argues, the Gospel of John should be considered an independent, historical account of the life of Jesus alongside the Gospel of Mark. Now back to the Keener book.

In Part 5, Keener tackles the question of memory. How much we should expect the Gospels’ sources to remember about the events narrated in the Gospels? Would the memories relied upon by the Gospel writers be reliable several decades later when the Gospels were written? While it is true that memories tend to fade quickly, studies show that detailed memories of unusual or emotional experiences can remain for years, particularly those that are narrated over and over again. Furthermore, while Jesus’ disciples may not have remembered his words verbatim, they would have recalled the gist of his teachings, and as disciples of a teacher, they would have been expected to pass along his teachings accurately. Keener demonstrates that oral history may be condensed and adapted, but transmitted over the course of one generation, it remains faithful to the historical core. Thus, Keener concludes, there is little reason to doubt the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts due to failure of memory.

In the concluding chapter, Keener notes that while an examination of the Gospels as ancient biography does not necessarily prove the historical information therein, it does raise the probability of the Gospels as historically reliable.

Keener’s book is unlike any other book that I have read on the subject of the historical reliability of the Gospels. Keener makes a compelling argument for the Gospels as ancient biographies and then demonstrates the implications of that genre on their historical reliability. Modern readers, particularly skeptics, tend to impose modern literary standards on the Gospels. However, Keener reminds us that the Gospels were written during a specific place and time, and our expectations of the Gospels must be consistent with those of first century audiences. More importantly, the Gospels were written in a specific genre, one which demonstrates the authors’ intent to communicate accurate and reliable history.

Personally, Keener’s book brought new insight and clarification on the “apparent contradictions” in the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Keener does an excellent job of explaining that while each of the Gospel writers had flexibility to rearrange and adapt the material to suit their purposes, they each stayed true to what actually happened. Modern readers must understand the flexibility awarded to these biographers in telling the story from their own perspective and to suit their own purposes.

At just over 700 pages, the length of this book can be somewhat intimidating at first glance. However, the reader quickly realizes that the book contains only 500 pages of actual text with over 80 pages of helpful indexes (separate indexes for authors, subjects, Scriptures references, and ancient sources) and over 100 pages of secondary sources cited by Keener. I found the book a rather easy read and accessible even for those without a Ph.D. in theology or New Testament studies. Yet, this book can also be a comprehensive resource for scholarly historical Jesus research given how well-researched and footnoted it is. This book is a valuable resource for any library.

I found Keener’s arguments fairly objective and free of presupposition, and he did not attempt to go beyond the evidence presented. Thus, I believe this book would be helpful for the believer as well as the skeptic. I will say that the discussion of oral tradition left me wishing for a bit more, particularly the oral tradition in Paul’s letters. Keener mentions that Paul’s letters likely predate the Gospels, so perhaps a discussion of the historical reliability of Paul’s letters and how those corroborate the Gospels would be helpful. That being said, such analysis was admittedly outside the realm of Keener’s focus in this book. Further, Keener does mention that Paul was not an eyewitness and wrote pastoral letters rather than biographies, so consideration of the historicity of his works may not be helpful in Keener’s analysis. Lastly, some may find Keener’s book a bit repetitive at times, but I actually found the repetition helpful in understanding and driving home what Keener was attempting to convey.

[Lauren K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary

In Christobiography, Craig Keener defends the reliability of the Gospels by examining them as ancient historical biographies composed within living memory of eyewitnesses. In Part 1, Keener classifies the Gospels in the genre of ancient biographies, which sought to preserve historical information about a single subject. Although Greek and Roman biographical conventions varied and developed, biographers sought the most historical accuracy from the century before Jesus to the century after Him, demonstrating that the Gospels emerged from the most historically conscious era. The Gospels read as biographies of a public figure or sage, written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. Although ancient biographers in this category could format material to teach moral lessons, they strove for historical accuracy.

Next, in Part 2, Keener dives deeper into the historical character of biographies. While ancient biographers shaped material rhetorically and even created likely summaries of speeches, they did not invent events. They used sources, especially eyewitness testimony, to create accurate accounts; they preferred sources that emerged within a generation after a subject’s death, thus avoiding sources’ temptation to please a living subject. However, by writing within living memory, biographers allowed eyewitnesses to confirm or correct details. Among the Gospels, Luke is unique in that his two-volume work of Luke and Acts follows stringent historiographical methods, not just biographical conventions like the other three Gospels.

Part 3 offers a comparison of other ancient biographies of historical figures as case studies to determine their degrees of literary flexibility and historical preservation. Keener observes that ancient biographers possessed flexibility to adapt their sources: for example, they could rearrange or reorder stories for literary emphasis, they could omit or supply minor details as needed for rhetorical purposes, and they could invent summaries of speeches that accurately reflected the speeches’ core message. Nevertheless, this adaptation did not allow biographers to invent historical events or change key details; biographers adhered to historical facts and even criticized peers who adapted their stories too much.

In Part 4, Keener considers objections to the Gospels’ historicity. While some skeptics disparage the Gospels for recounting miracle tales, Keener argues that Jesus’ contemporaries saw him as a healer and exorcist, regardless of whether his healings were truly miraculous or not. Consequently, regardless of their metaphysical presuppositions, critics cannot question the Gospels’ historicity simply for their inclusion of miracles. Skeptics also question John’s historicity. Admitting that John takes more liberties in adapting material and developing Jesus’ theological character, Keener affirms that John still falls within the range of ancient historical biographies rather than novels, and it still coheres with the other Gospels’ historical content.

Finally, in Part 5, Keener studies the reliability of memory and eyewitness testimony. Typically, memories are not verbatim records, and people may inadvertently adjust or conflate memories. However, humans’ memories accurately preserve the gist of events; if eyewitnesses rehearse their memories of significant events, they may reliably recount information decades after the events occurred. Moreover, ancient Mediterranean cultures developed skills in memorization; in particular, students committed their teacher’s lessons to memory. Thus, Jesus’ disciples must have committed the substance of His teachings to memory, even if they did not memorize them verbatim. Furthermore, while information can be transmitted orally for centuries, the most reliable transmission occurs within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, who can correct the message as needed. The Gospels meet this criterion of arising during living memory. Therefore, given their biographic genre and the reliability of eyewitness recollections in the ancient world, the Gospels are reliable historical sources that accurately report the substance of Jesus’ ministry.  

Analysis

Overall, Keener offers an excellent defense of the Gospels’ historical reliability by examining them in light of the genre of ancient biography. He offers an insightful approach by reviewing biographical standards from the time when the Gospels were written: he painstakingly analyzes numerous biographies from the time of the Gospels in order to determine the flexibility and limitations of their genre. Consequently, Keener’s approach avoids anachronistic tendencies to judge the Gospels by modern biographical standards. Instead, he demonstrates that ancient biographers of figures such as Jesus sought to preserve the core historical message and refrained from inventing events, even though they tended to shape their narrative to bring out specific lessons. Since the Gospels possess other characteristics of ancient biographies, it seems logical that they would follow the ancient biographical standards of accuracy as well.

Another strength of Keener’s approach is his discussion of the reliability of memories and eyewitness testimony. Rather than assuming the reliability or unreliability of memory, Keener offers a detailed examination of the depth and accuracy of people’s memories in different circumstances. Despite the scholarly nature of his examination, however, Keener frequently provides simple illustrations of the power of memories. For example, he lists and describes his own personal memories to provide concrete examples of the abilities and limitations of memory. Keener’s personal examples provide insightful support for his argument that eyewitnesses would have remembered the substantial gist of Jesus’ words and deeds.

Despite his strengths, Keener could have improved his argument by discussing the Gospels’ authors and dates. Keener asserts that the Gospels emerged 40-65 years after Jesus’ death; however, he does not defend those dates in this particular work (Keener, p. 482). Meanwhile, although he affirms the Gospels’ dependence on eyewitness testimony, he does not defend the Gospels’ authors and their relationships to eyewitnesses. The Gospels’ authors and dates certainly affect their reliability: books (and memories) are generally more reliable when they derive from close sources, in both proximity and chronology. Thus, Keener could have strengthened his argument by examining and defending the Gospels’ dates and authors.

Perhaps Keener’s greatest weakness is his failure to adequately discuss John. By his own admission, Keener primarily focuses on Luke and Mark: he rarely mentions Matthew, and most of his discussion omits John altogether. To remedy this omission, Keener devotes one chapter to considering John’s biographical nature: he concludes that although John is a biography, it is a different, more flexible type of biography than the other Gospels. However, Johannine scholar Paul N. Anderson offers a better assessment of John’s historical value, defending John in his article “The John, Jesus, and History Project and a Fourth Quest for Jesus.” Anderson argues that John is a reliable historical source with accurate information about Jesus; John makes numerous historical claims, including some not included in the synoptic Gospels. Consequently, Keener should have devoted more effort to understanding and defending John’s historical reliability.

Not only is the Gospel of John a valid historical source, but it also presents information that must be considered in conjunction with the synoptic Gospels. According to Anderson, John does not simply elaborate on the synoptic tradition; instead, it supplements Mark by providing information from independent sources. Consequently, John corroborates details in the synoptics and presents complementary information to provide a fuller picture of Jesus. Thus, not only should Keener have devoted more attention to John, but he should have also discussed John in conjunction with the other Gospels, rather than secluding it to a separate chapter. Nevertheless, although Keener failed to examine and integrate John into his discussion, he still provides a compelling defense of the historical reliability of the Gospels, especially Mark and Luke.

[Aaron Carlberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Been waiting for this book for awhile. Keener is excellent in his study and attention to detail.

[Paul O · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his book, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels, Dr. Craig S. Keener makes the case that the Gospels should be considered ancient biographies, written by compiling information from communal memory, reflect the standards for the genre at the time, and are known to be historically reliable. The book is broken down into five parts, which I will summarize below.
First, Keener points out that the Gospels are readily recognized belonging to the bios genre and discusses the attributes of this genre.
Second, Keener explains the qualities of ancient biographies as works based on historical information. Early empire biographers were bound to their sources and though they reshaped them rhetorically, the genre did not permit unrestrained literary creativity. Ancient biographers achieved their agendas by using available historical information. Despite the proclamatory function of the Gospels, we can expect them to have preserved substantial genuine information about Jesus. In contrast to modern assumptions about ancient historiography, historians could not easily make up events, and had to critically use sources.
Third, Keener explores the flexibility that ancient biographers used. The flexibility the Gospel writers used resembled their contemporaries, with the biographers shaping the stories they inherited, but not inventing new stories not in their sources. Ancient audiences expected and anticipated such variation in the genre, such as chronological displacement, conflation of material, and narrative simplification to recount it in a more appealing way.
Fourth, Keener responds to two common objections to the Gospels as historical biographies: miracles being a key feature in them and John’s Gospel seeming being more theological than historical. These objections are also addressed in Paul Anderson’s “The John, Jesus, and History Project and a Fourth Quest for Jesus”, where he explains the fourth quest for Jesus: a sustained, focused inquiry into the historicity of John’s Gospel which concluded that the Gospel of John represents an authentic and self-standing Jesus tradition.
Fifth, Keener examines how despite the limitation of memory, studies reveal that personal significance and rehearsal can make some memories more reliable. Jesus’ disciples would not have remembered everything that He said, nor recalled his teachings verbatim. Nevertheless, we should expect the substance of key teachings to remain. Ancient Mediterranean culture also valued and trained memory more than modern Western culture, making them more highly developed. Furthermore, the Gospels were written within living memory, improving their reliability. Keener concludes that we cannot escape the likelihood that the testimonies offered in the first Gospels reveal many key features of what Jesus’ first disciples experienced.
First and foremost, Dr. Keener needs to be commended for the scholarship that he has put into this book. This volume boasts a near 130 page bibliography and a 50 page index of authors, subjects, scripture references, and ancient sources, which is impressive by any standard. Overall, this book was well researched, structured, and surprisingly easy to read despite the scholarship.
A strength in this analysis of the historicity of the Gospels is the extensive explanation of the genre they belong to and how the Gospels compare to other ancient biographies. By explaining the bios genre as an ancient biography which are premeditated foundation documents drawn from historical tradition, exploring the subjects’ character and moral value, with responsible biographers shaping information that came to them, rather than freely inventing new stories, Keener clears up many of the misconceptions modern readers have about ancient biographies and questions about their accuracy. Mentioning the development in bios historical sensitivity, with reliability peaking in the second century, also supports his case. By clarifying to the reader what one should expect when approaching the bios genre, Keener creates a common understanding between himself and the reader through which he builds his case.
Another strength in Dr. Keener’s analysis is his response to objections that are raised against the Gospels as historical biographies. The first objection Keener addresses is the argument that the Gospels are not historical because they report miracles— that this indicates widespread corruption in the gospel tradition. It is true that the vast majority of historical sources indicate that Jesus’ contemporaries experienced Him as a healer and exorcist, however one wants to explain that fact today. And if Jesus’ contemporaries experienced Him as a healer and exorcist, one would expect this element to be featured in biographies of Him. Furthermore, this focus does not count against the biographic character of the Gospels. Furthermore, as Anderson points out, dogmatic supranaturalism is an affront to historical inquiry, but so is dogmatic naturalism, especially when it functions to exclude anything that does not align with a naturalistic worldview. Anderson points out that it is better to evaluate a document’s historicity through the lenses of critical realism to evaluate perceptions of the wondrous.
The second objection Keener addresses is the argument that John’s Gospel cannot be considered historical because he seems to be more interested in theology and less in traditional idiographic conventions than his predecessors. However, this sentiment, as pointed out by Anderson, comes from the first three quests for Jesus, where scholarship programmatically excluded John’s gospel from Jesus research by critical scholars who used criteria designed to favor Synoptic features over Johannine ones. Based on the criteria proposed by the fourth quest for Jesus, John’s Gospel represents an eyewitness memory of Jesus and his ministry, different from the Markean tradition, but contributing a fuller understanding of Jesus and his ministry. Furthermore, despite the differences between John’s Gospel and the Synoptics, it is still comparable to earlier empire biographic models, such as Xenophon, making it more a historical biography than a novel.
If I could make one suggestion to Dr. Keener’s work, it would be that I would have liked to have seen him use John a bit more throughout the book, as most of the work is focused on the Synoptic Gospels. Anderson contends that because Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, Mark and John are the two distinct perspectives on Jesus. Furthermore, since the historicity of John’s Gospel is a contentious topic (which is why Keener spent a chapter responding to objections raised against John) I would have liked to see how Keener fits John into his points.

[Makailynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my New Testament studies, I have yet to come across a scholar who has so uniquely and thoroughly provided historical credibility quite like Craig Keener. He trots where few scholars have trot before with his deep analysis of ancient 1st-century biographies and the comparisons with the Gospels. Within the introduction of Christobiogtaphy: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels, Keener shares that scholars and skeptics set the bar of admissibility so high that it becomes impossible to accept less than perfect evidence. However, Keener meets them at their absurd bar and provides such a slew of evidence that it would be impossible not to accept his argument. A compelling case for the Gospels as a biography presents itself through an investigation into the biographies about Jesus, a deep study of historical biographies, a range of deviation tests, well-answered counterarguments regarding objections to the Gospels as historical biographies, and a well-dissected psychological look into memory.

Despite popular belief that the Gospels fit the genre of mythography, novels, or poetic drama. Keener shares thorough evidence that the Gospels realistically should be recognized as an ancient biography due to their focus on a single historical character that draws on significant amounts of historical tradition. Keener flawlessly uses a range of early Greek, Empire, Prophet, and Sage biographies to demonstrate that the biographies of the 1st century offer the best standard for exploring the expectations of the Gospels’ contemporaries for historiographic content in ancient biography.

After providing more evidence on ancient biographies than one could ask for, Keener explores what first-century audiences expect of biographies. For example, Keener argues that ancient audiences recognized that biographers exercised some flexibility in how they recounted their stories; however, this flexibility did not mean authors falsely created events. Through comprehensive research, Keener proves that ancient historians were bound to their sources and were not known for making up events. Though every ancient historian had some agenda, Keener illustrates that ancient historic biographies affirm the strive for recording accurate information and interviewing surviving sources close to the narrated events (like we see in Luke’s writing).

Keener transitions his argument into the significant objections to the Gospels as historical biographies. First, Keener answers the objection of miracles in arguably the most straightforward assertion of his book: If Jesus’ generation experienced Him as a healer and exorcist, one should expect to find this in his biography, just as it is with modern healers in modern biographies. Thus, miracles should not be automatically ruled out.

Additionally, instead of ignoring the Gospel of John as the odd stepchild to the Synoptics, Keener emphasizes the bulk of similarities between John and the Synoptics and suggests that John perhaps was less constrained by the usual Greco-Roman biographic tradition of the early empire. Keener keeps his section on John short. But he quotes enough sources to guide readers into a deeper study of John. One of the cited sources is Jesus, Skepticism, and the Problem of History. In the chapter titled “The John, Jesus, and History Project and a Fourth Quest for Jesus,” Paul Anderson presents a deeper and more compelling case for the historicity embedded in the Gospel of John. The chapter sets up the argument by illustrating that the last half-century went in the direction of recovering the history of gospel traditions and their relations to each other rather than the historical quest of Jesus. However if we “let John be John” and begin to depolarize him from the other gospels, we will quickly find that through the mundane details, archeology, and topography of John we are presented with more historical proof than we originally thought.

Lastly, in the book's grand finale, Keener not only cites various memory studies but he also impressively dives into memory in Ancient Mediterranean culture! Through examples of oral tradition, an analysis of gist vs. verbatim, and studies of Middle Eastern memory, Keener reveals that the disciples, whether literate or not, could preserve the substance of Jesus’ teachings and ministry events.

Overall, Christobiogtaphy: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels is an exceptionally well-researched book. As a Christian Apologetics student, I was pleasantly surprised at the angles Keener explored. His research is an excellent reminder that apologists need not fear searching the depths of history, secular science, and literature to corroborate the Bible.

Admittedly, before reading Keener’s research, I viewed the Gospels as a narrative rather than a biography. However, Keener has skillfully taught readers that defending the Gospels becomes a much easier feat if they classify it as a collection of Jesus biographies.

Not only did I appreciate Keener’s unique research approach to Middle Eastern memory studies, but I also appreciated Keener’s counterargument to Bart Ehrman’s comparison of oral tradition to the telephone game. I’ve heard Ehrman’s argument for quite some time, which always left me paralyzed because I am terrible at the telephone game myself. But Keener came to the rescue by offering a collection of memory studies and the simple argument that the comparison does not work because the Gospels involved a group of witnesses rather than a single line of transmission.

Though I enjoyed Keener’s fresh apologetic research, I would caveat to interested readers that this text may be more suited to scholars and students of the New Testament. The text requires substantial focus to digest the mountain of evidence. I would hesitate to recommend it to a friend who is generally interested in apologetics due to the dense subject matter. However, the richness of the text makes it a must-have for any New Testament scholar or student. Keener’s 100+ page bibliography is a treasure trove of resources that I will continue to reference frequently.

In conclusion, Keener succeeds at his purpose of encouraging historical-Jesus researchers to speculate less about what might have happened and to focus more on what the Gospels suggest did happen.

[Casey Sudduth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christobiography: Summary

In Christobiography, Craig Keener sets out to establish common ground regarding the genre and reliability of the Gospels that scholars across the ideological spectrum should be able to agree upon. This work is not intended to be a study on evidence for the reliability of the Gospels, but instead seeks to establish the genre of the Gospels properly on the spectrum of ancient biographies in general, to highlight the typical practices of this genre, and to offer insights on how the Gospels compare to other works that might be classified similarly.

According to Keener, the Gospels are more like ancient biographies, or bios, than they are like any other genre. Keener does discuss different types of ancient biography, but he focuses most heavily on works from the early empire, of similar lengths, written within living memory of the real historical figures that they are about.

Keener argues that even if some works are better than others, and acceptable literary conventions for writing ancient biography were quite different then from what our standard practices are now, these works undoubtedly dealt with and revolved around historical information, rather than fictions or fabrications. He makes this case through an extensive evaluation of the other relevant biographers of the time, such as Josephus, Plutarch, Suetonius, Lucian, and others, who sometimes cite their sources and even criticize other historians for sharing inaccurate history. Keener concludes, on the basis of these evaluations, that expectations for historical reliability were highest from the first century BCE to the early third century CE, a timeframe in which the Gospels are comfortably situated.

Keener also looks at audience expectations regarding the genre in general, and the Gospels in particular. For example, Keener notes how biographers were concerned with and known to comment on their subjects as either positive or negative moral examples, but that these character evaluations were based on genuine historical information. Keener argues that Luke intended his work to be historical, based on material that goes back to eyewitness testimony, and arranged (not elaborated) in a way that would make the most sense for his audience. The Gospel of John is built a bit differently, but it still fits well into the category of ancient biography, and is much closer to biography than novel.

Keener emphasizes a wide variety of other points that might be used to establish the historically accurate nature of the Gospels. For instance, he notes how the Gospels were written after Jesus’ death, so they were not subject to the biases of writing about their subject while he was still alive, but they were still written within living memory, so there was minimal time for distortion of details. Furthermore, ancient memory techniques were much more developed and accurate than our own memories are today, especially regarding important teachings from a leader. The communities that passed on these traditions would hold members accountable if they deviated from the tradition outside the bounds of usual storytelling.

According to literary genre conventions, audience expectations, historical information transmission practices, and more, Keener makes a broad case that the Gospels are indeed largely concerned with and based on legitimately historical information.

Christobiography: Analysis

While Keener does knowingly and intentionally leave out contentious topics — he mentions specifically the “we” passages in Acts — his overall goal of establishing common ground is admirable. His awareness of contemporary scholarship and ancient sources allows him to speak uniquely to areas where scholarship has shifted towards agreement, and also areas where agreement about other ancient sources should apply to the Gospels as well.

The sheer volume of discussion about other ancient texts in the biographical genre makes it quite difficult to disagree with Keener’s claims about the contours and usual practices of the genre. He very carefully supports his claims on this front with numerous readings and comparisons between ancient sources, such that I can’t help but agree that this genre is largely concerned with truly historical events and information.

I had not considered the value of writing within living memory, but also after the death of the main subject. This is a powerful discussion that might be shared with people who object that the material about Jesus would have been more trustworthy if it had been finalized during his lifetime. Furthermore, Keener notes that only after the facts can one see retroactively which details best explain the causes and the contours of the story the best, so it might be argued that the most useful histories come from the generation after the events once all of the facts have been gathered and the events have played out.

Keener establishes persuasively that the Gospels (at least the Synoptics) were concerned with historical information. Matthew and Luke were relying on Mark, so they clearly weren’t inventing material from thin air. The authors also wouldn’t have known where we would be able to test them, so their reliance on historical sources in testable cases should be seen as evidence for trustworthiness where we can’t test them as well.

In terms of literary conventions, Keener argues forcefully that the Gospels fit well within the biographical genre that is undoubtedly concerned with history. Even if one is not convinced that the Gospels are fully and completely historical, Keener’s work establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospels were seriously concerned with history and largely rooted in historical information. It would’ve been nice see Keener’s thoughts on the more contentious issues, like the “we” passages in Acts, in an appendix, so that we might have a more full perspective on the relevant genre considerations. Even as it stands, this is an impressively comprehensive work on the reliability of ancient biographies and the Gospels.

[Drake Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

A significant book in Gospel studies. The final section even has something on memory. Highly recommended!

[Ayame Crosley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Christobiography, Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener is a thorough book showing how the Gospels are true biographies of the Evangelists who wrote these books. The first half of the book is broken down to show what different types of biographies look like and how different biographers write. It is an extremely long book and I was surprised by how much one could write about the details of biographies.
In the first part of the book, Keener writes about what types of biographies are Synoptics. Are they novels, ancient biographies, or something else? He concludes that they are not novels and explains why in his writings. He uses examples of secular biographers and Jewish biographers to compare the Synoptics to their writings to see where the Synoptics fit in. This is so important to compare so he can establish that the Synoptics are reliable documents because they line up with what a biography is supposed to look like during the time of its writing. He even establishes what type of biography the Gospels are. Compared to today, the First-Century audience expected different things from biographies then today. Ancient biographers and historians wrote different than those that write today. There were more biases in their writings and if the biographer favored their character there would be praise for their subject and it was not expected to have chronological structure.
In part two of this book, Keener writes about not just biographies but the historiography and what that looks like compared to the Gospels. He asks, can biographies be historical writings? In this section, he looks specifically at Luke and Acts. He looks at it as bio-history and breaks it down to see if it is historical biography. He also looks closely to how the sources close to the events help with writing a biography. Having witnesses so close to when the Gospels were written really helps the reliability of the Gospels.
In part three, Keener uses a Case Study of Otho to show how to test biographies. This is so helpful to see and understand other contemporary sources.
In part four, Keener dives into the details of the Gospels talking about the miracles that were written about in the Gospels. This is a big difference that stands out from the Gospels than other writings. Most biographers would not write about the miracles like the Evangelists did in the Gospels. Miracle-working sages were not common to write about. This is a big difference between the authors of the Gospels. Keener then specifically writes about the book of John. He compares it to Mark and shows the similarities and differences between them.
Part five and six, Keener writes about the memories of Jesus and who he was as a teacher, and how important Oral Tradition was. He breaks down how memory works with events that are important to us and how it relates to the writings of the Gospels. He continues talking about memory relating to the eyewitnesses of Jesus and how their memory of these extraordinary events can be reliable about Jesus. Memory during ancient times was very different and more important than today, especially oral tradition. Many teachers had their teachings passed down orally to others and it was not just one person passing it along but the teacher speaking to many so many passed the teachings along. Jesus always spoke to many so his words would go out to the masses than just one person at a time.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book. It covers so much information in so much detail. I felt parts of it was too long. The author could have expressed what he wanted to say with fewer pages. I understand that more information is better than not enough. He gave so much detail about biographies, that I wonder if he needed so much to prove his point. I started to get a little bored in the beginning because of so much detail. I understand his passion to prove his point and detail is good when proving the reliability of something, especially important documents. I really appreciate that.
I really loved the second half of the book more than the first. The second half dove into more about the Gospels and Jesus and related the first half to the second. I saw how the book eventually flowed together to prove its reliability. I liked the last chapter of Oral Tradition. I learned a lot about the culture during the first century and how people learned about different teachings and about their leaders. I did not realize that oral tradition was extremely important back in the first century and they relied on it. They also relied so much on their memory too. In the Jewish culture, it was expected to memorize many documents and to remember your leaders’ words to tell others. It is easy not to know this info and understand it with our culture today and the access to everything at our fingertips.

[Stephen Sun · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels by Craig S. Keener provides a unique angle to the discussion of the Reliability of the Gospels by focusing on the genre of biography. He argues that applying a modern framework of what constitutes a biography is insufficient when analyzing the Gospel narratives. It is essential to understand what contemporary styles of writing were and how the Gospels compared to biographies of the day. On top of that, one must understand what Jesus’s audiences were expecting to receive and what they did with that information. And lastly he provides a unique angle in his understanding of oral tradition and how that played a part in passing on the stories that make up the Gospels. This is not entirely comprehensive of all the topics the book covers, but these are some of the topics that I think makes this book unique.
One important part to this book was how Keener thoroughly establishes what made a biography a biography in ancient times. The genre was not so clearly defined back then, and it certainly allowed room for there to be narrative shaping and styling to the writing of the authors. He delves deeply into different examples of Jewish, Greek, and Roman biography to help establish that in those times, biographies had strong historical interests and were focused on providing an accurate and factual recollection of a subject’s life.
Another unique angle Keener offers is the analysis of the teacher-student relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The fact that Jesus was a teacher means that he would have used many techniques when teaching in order to make his lessons memorable, and his intent would have been for his listeners to internalize and even pass on his teachings. From the perspectives of the disciples, they came to him with the expectation that they were meant to memorize the things that Jesus taught them. So the dynamic of this relationship gives strong reason to believe that the disciples accurately passed on the things they learned. I think this is an angle that is often overlooked – the disciples are often painted as common, uneducated men. That may have been true, but they still entered this relationship with Jesus with the intent of being trained in the rabbinic system, where memorization and learning techniques were highly utilized.
To me, almost equally important and unique is Keener’s analysis of ancient oral traditions. Again, from a modern perspective we often make assumptions about what oral tradition was like. Most often there is an assumption that oral tradition, compared to writing and the recording tools we have today, would have been so primitive and unreliable. But Keener demonstrates that there is much reason to believe that oral tradition was a strongly reliable way of passing down information back then, especially as it was the main way of communicating. And perhaps one of the strongest reasons for its reliability is that the Gospels were written within the period of living memory, when eyewitnesses to Jesus would have been able to pass on directly their information to the Gospel writers.
Overall I found this book very compelling and valuable for the unique angles that it offers to the discussion of the reliability of the Gospels. Keener’s work is thorough as he leads the reader through a survey of many outside sources to immerse the reader in the Gospel’s contemporaries of ancient biography. By bringing the reader into the past, they are able to better understand how the Gospels actually fit into the existing strong tradition of biography.

[Evan Þ. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Scholar and theologian Craig Keener looks into classical-era biographies and analyzes the New Testament Gospels in light of that genre.

Ancient biographies, in many respects, were expected to be similar to those of today: historically accurate, without distorting their subject's life or teaching, according to the conclusions of the author's research but expecting the author to have a thesis through which he viewed the subject. However, they were different in some important ways, in part given the limitations of ancient resources: it was expected for authors to make up plausible details for scenes and build out the substance of speeches (though not completely make them up, unlike Thucydides) and rearrange events to some degree.

Because of this, Keener argues - and I agree - we can trust the Gospels to be reasonably historically accurate. They in themselves are reliable historical documents. However, we can give up the quest to harmonize every detail of every scene, such as the Cleansing of the Temple in John v. the Synoptics - one or both of them simply moved it; that was expected in ancient biographies and not considered inaccurate.

As an amateur historian, I see no reason to doubt Keener's conclusions. As a Christian, I read this eagerly, and the conclusions seem inescapable. I'll need to chew on all the implications of this.

[Braeden Petersen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don’t understand how Keener is able to consistently publish such well-researched material( unless he doesn’t sleep!). Seriously, Keener has a work-ethic that we should all aspire to. He has published a commentary on Matthew, a two-volume commentary on John, a commentary on Galatians, books on the Historical Jesus, and a four-volume Acts commentary! I simply don’t know how he does it!

That aside, this is one of the most well-researched books I have read in Historical-Jesus research, the genre of the Gospels and Acts, and the historical reliability of the Gospels. Essentially, Keener argues that the Gospels are situated in the genre of Greco-Roman biography, and Acts is a historical monograph. He does this, I think, convincingly. He argues against claims that the Gospels are ancient novels, historiography, or a unique genre.

From this, Keener believes the biographic genre of the Gospels to have radical historiographic implications. Keener is quite modest in his claims and is cautious in approaching this topic. He argues that, at the very least, the Gospels can tell us something about the Historical Jesus- in fact, quite a lot. This book will be a useful treasure trove of information for generations to come.

[Daniel MacDonald · Rating 5 out of 5]

Keener delivers excellent historiography for the genre of the Gospels and the memory behind them. His focus is the Synoptics, but doesnt forget John. Keener writes that four Gospels we have today were believed to be historical by the Evangelists, and there are plenty of modern memory studies available today which tell us that we should expect the Gospels to relay accurate memories of Jesus.

Christobiography shines with the studies on first century memory practices. I was not aware of the magnitude of data we have for this specific topic, and Keener presents this data well. Before reading this, I was skeptical on how many of the parables could go back to Jesus. Keener has successfully convinced this reader that we can expect basically all of Jesus’ sayings to be authentic (though not verbatim).

This book is necessary for any student who is interested in the potential for authenticity within the Gospel traditions.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A balanced scholarly work by a conservative Christian author. Keener makes it a point to avoid begging questions about whether everything in the Gospels is historical. Keener is one of those many scholars who supports the idea that the evangelists recorded the gist of what happened, rather than a word for word retelling of Jesus's deeds and teachings. Which got me to wondering: can there be such a thing as infallible gist? Keener also seems to think that the only two options for the events recorded in the Gospels is that they are either historical or created whole cloth. But surely he is ignoring that they could at least in some cases be based on the miracle accounts of the Old Testament?

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and painstakingly-researched. With the inclusion of memory studies and extensive discussion of ancient biographies, this is a valuable and unique contribution to the historical study of the Gospel accounts.

See full review here: http://englewoodreview.org/craig-keen...

[Carmen Imes · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book for establishing the historic conventions of the biography genre in the first century. Keener does not examine the gospels themselves in detail in this work, but rather surveys other first-century biographies in order to offer a portrait of the expectations early readers would have had for this genre. Thorough and convincing.

[Sierra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worth the read if you have the time, but probably more appropriate for pastors and academics. I was impressed with how well framed, reviewed, and edited it was.

[David Diaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is mostly aimed at scholars of the New Testament. The author has researched this topic as well as anyone could possibly do so. It was surprisingly easy to read for a scholarly tome. There was not so much information on the "reliability of the gospels," but the author dove neck-deep into the subject of memory studies. Lots of good information there.