What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices
In recent years a number of evangelical scholars have claimed that the Gospel authors felt free to present events in one way even though they knew that the reality was different. Analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew brings her training in the evaluation of evidence to bear, investigates these theories about the evangelists’ literary standards in detail, and finds them wanting. At the same time she provides a nuanced, positive view of the Gospels that she dubs the reportage model. Clearing away misconceptions of this model, McGrew amasses objective evidence that the evangelists are honest, careful reporters who tell it like it is. Meticulous, well-informed, and accessible, The Mirror or the Mask is an important addition to the libraries of laymen, pastors, apologists, and scholars who want to know whether the Gospels are reliable.
582 pages, Paperback
Published December 10, 2019
26 people are currently reading
149 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 25, 2019
A fashionable trend in contemporary historical Jesus studies is to resolve alleged contradictions in the New Testament by claiming that the Gospels belong to the genre of ‘Greco-Roman biography’; a genre that allegedly allowed the biographer to play fast and loose with the facts by using fictionalizing literary devices if they thought it would help make a ‘larger point’—in the case of the Gospels, ‘larger theological points’. Some, like Craig Evans, have even gone on to claim that Jesus *encouraged* his disciples to alter his words in this fashion—a bizarre claim to most, but also the sort of claim that is gaining traction among evangelical scholars.
In her new ‘The Mirror or the Mask’, Lydia McGrew launches a frontal attack on this ‘fictionalizing device view’, pointing out its key weaknesses and the unwarranted assumptions made by its adherents, while also presenting a viable alternative, namely her own ‘reportage model’, which she claims is useful in understanding the Gospels as the robust and reliable historical sources that they are.
In the first section, McGrew outlines certain preliminaries that are essential to the rest of her discussion. She highlights *why* it is so important that we pay attention to the views of the literary device theorists—what is at stake is whether the Gospels give us a historical, factual, and reliable picture of Jesus, or whether we are presented with a hodge-podge of the historical Jesus and a fictional Jesus of the authors’ own making. The latter, she says, is equivalent to hiding the historical Jesus behind a mask—not a very enticing prospect for those of us who take the reliability of the Scriptures seriously. She also sets out a probable reason why the fictionalizing view has taken such a strong hold in evangelical circles today—its salesmen have engaged in a bit of linguistic hijacking: conflating the non-fictionalizing use of commonplace words like ‘paraphrase’ and ‘transferral’, conflating ‘achronological’ with ‘dyschronological narration’ (a valuable distinction that McGrew makes and uses throughout the text), and tossing out the strong sense of the word ‘reliability’ for a much weaker sense, without explicitly conveying the switch to their audience, of course. She also devotes an entire chapter to the issue of inerrancy, pointing out that while she is not an inerrantist herself, the fictionalizing device view does no service to inerrancy. And while its adherents claim to be inerrantists, this is ‘inerrancy’ in a qualified, almost meaningless, sense. In fact, the inerrantist can no longer hold to his views if he concedes that the Gospels contain information that are contrary to fact, regardless of whether they exist there with or without the original author’s intent.
In the second section, McGrew takes the literary device theorists to task on their own claims. First, she dismantles the case for reading the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies *in any meaningful sense*. Then, she takes apart the view that it was commonplace among both Greco-Roman biographers and ancient Christians to play fast and loose with the facts, opting to intentionally change factual details or fabricate entire events to make larger points. Third, while affirming that ancient writers did put words into a speaker’s mouth while documenting speeches made, McGrew argues effectively that it is unlikely that the Gospel writers did so for Jesus’ own discourses. She then attacks the aforementioned point made by Craig Evans and others, namely that Jesus instructed his disciples to add to and extrapolate on his words, and that the Gospel writers were influenced by Greek pedagogic methods in which students were encouraged to alter the words of their teachers. Finally, using a large number of examples from their texts, McGrew casts doubt on claims that Plutarch and others actively engaged in the use of fictionalizing devices while writing their literary works. Allow me to warn you that this is a *heavy* section to read—McGrew says as much and allows her reader to skip to the next section and return at their convenience. What I must add, however, is that this section is a clear demonstration of the hard work that McGrew has put into this volume, and a reason why it needs to be taken seriously (rather than dismissed, as it has been by some of those she is criticizing.) Here, she delves deep into the sources that her opponents often carelessly cite, meticulously walking us through each one and showing us how the case constructed by the literary device theorists is not as strong as they would like you to think.
In the third section, McGrew turns to a positive project—setting out her ‘reportage model’, which she claims gives us a far *clearer*, more reliable picture of Christ in the Gospels when compared to the fictionalizing device view. The evidence from ‘undesigned coincidences’, ‘unexplained allusions’, and ‘unnecessary details’, all supporting the reportage view, give us a renewed confidence in the historicity of the Gospel accounts. In addition, most of the alleged discrepancies, as she points out, can be solved by simple harmonization; there is no need to multiply entities without necessity, which happens to be something the literary device theorists find great pleasure in doing. The thing that struck me the most was the pains that she went to in order to demonstrate how her model says something as commonsensical (and widely-accepted) as “The Gospel writers are just trying to relay to us what they saw and heard in those days, as they saw, heard, and remembered it”. This is in opposition to the gymnastics that we find some of the literary device theorists putting themselves through when they say things like, “The writer said incident x happened, *but what he really meant* was to make a larger theological point y using the entirely-made-up incident x.” Perhaps this goes to show how out of touch some of the folks on the ivory towers of academia happen to be, or how desperate they are to come up with a ‘fresh’ perspective on how laypeople ought to read the Gospels. And if you want to see how out of touch they are, you should go on to read the fourth section, where McGrew lays out the various ways in which literary device theorists foist fictionalization when they aren’t even close to warranted.
You might wonder whether you need to be well-versed in the works of Evans, Licona, Keener, and the others whose literary device theories McGrew takes aim at in this book. While she encourages her readers to pick up their books, doing so is not a prerequisite for one to keep up with McGrew’s own book. In fact, ‘The Mirror or the Mask’ quotes Licona, Evans, and Keener extensively and *in context*, before responding to the points they make.
So, regardless of what her critics might tell you, Lydia McGrew has done her homework and produced a piece of top-notch scholarship that is worth paying attention to. ‘The Mirror or the Mask’ is a book I highly and wholeheartedly recommend. Most importantly, it reminds us that the Gospels do give us an image of what Jesus was *really* like, as opposed to a mask that hides his true face from us. And this is good news.
In her new ‘The Mirror or the Mask’, Lydia McGrew launches a frontal attack on this ‘fictionalizing device view’, pointing out its key weaknesses and the unwarranted assumptions made by its adherents, while also presenting a viable alternative, namely her own ‘reportage model’, which she claims is useful in understanding the Gospels as the robust and reliable historical sources that they are.
In the first section, McGrew outlines certain preliminaries that are essential to the rest of her discussion. She highlights *why* it is so important that we pay attention to the views of the literary device theorists—what is at stake is whether the Gospels give us a historical, factual, and reliable picture of Jesus, or whether we are presented with a hodge-podge of the historical Jesus and a fictional Jesus of the authors’ own making. The latter, she says, is equivalent to hiding the historical Jesus behind a mask—not a very enticing prospect for those of us who take the reliability of the Scriptures seriously. She also sets out a probable reason why the fictionalizing view has taken such a strong hold in evangelical circles today—its salesmen have engaged in a bit of linguistic hijacking: conflating the non-fictionalizing use of commonplace words like ‘paraphrase’ and ‘transferral’, conflating ‘achronological’ with ‘dyschronological narration’ (a valuable distinction that McGrew makes and uses throughout the text), and tossing out the strong sense of the word ‘reliability’ for a much weaker sense, without explicitly conveying the switch to their audience, of course. She also devotes an entire chapter to the issue of inerrancy, pointing out that while she is not an inerrantist herself, the fictionalizing device view does no service to inerrancy. And while its adherents claim to be inerrantists, this is ‘inerrancy’ in a qualified, almost meaningless, sense. In fact, the inerrantist can no longer hold to his views if he concedes that the Gospels contain information that are contrary to fact, regardless of whether they exist there with or without the original author’s intent.
In the second section, McGrew takes the literary device theorists to task on their own claims. First, she dismantles the case for reading the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies *in any meaningful sense*. Then, she takes apart the view that it was commonplace among both Greco-Roman biographers and ancient Christians to play fast and loose with the facts, opting to intentionally change factual details or fabricate entire events to make larger points. Third, while affirming that ancient writers did put words into a speaker’s mouth while documenting speeches made, McGrew argues effectively that it is unlikely that the Gospel writers did so for Jesus’ own discourses. She then attacks the aforementioned point made by Craig Evans and others, namely that Jesus instructed his disciples to add to and extrapolate on his words, and that the Gospel writers were influenced by Greek pedagogic methods in which students were encouraged to alter the words of their teachers. Finally, using a large number of examples from their texts, McGrew casts doubt on claims that Plutarch and others actively engaged in the use of fictionalizing devices while writing their literary works. Allow me to warn you that this is a *heavy* section to read—McGrew says as much and allows her reader to skip to the next section and return at their convenience. What I must add, however, is that this section is a clear demonstration of the hard work that McGrew has put into this volume, and a reason why it needs to be taken seriously (rather than dismissed, as it has been by some of those she is criticizing.) Here, she delves deep into the sources that her opponents often carelessly cite, meticulously walking us through each one and showing us how the case constructed by the literary device theorists is not as strong as they would like you to think.
In the third section, McGrew turns to a positive project—setting out her ‘reportage model’, which she claims gives us a far *clearer*, more reliable picture of Christ in the Gospels when compared to the fictionalizing device view. The evidence from ‘undesigned coincidences’, ‘unexplained allusions’, and ‘unnecessary details’, all supporting the reportage view, give us a renewed confidence in the historicity of the Gospel accounts. In addition, most of the alleged discrepancies, as she points out, can be solved by simple harmonization; there is no need to multiply entities without necessity, which happens to be something the literary device theorists find great pleasure in doing. The thing that struck me the most was the pains that she went to in order to demonstrate how her model says something as commonsensical (and widely-accepted) as “The Gospel writers are just trying to relay to us what they saw and heard in those days, as they saw, heard, and remembered it”. This is in opposition to the gymnastics that we find some of the literary device theorists putting themselves through when they say things like, “The writer said incident x happened, *but what he really meant* was to make a larger theological point y using the entirely-made-up incident x.” Perhaps this goes to show how out of touch some of the folks on the ivory towers of academia happen to be, or how desperate they are to come up with a ‘fresh’ perspective on how laypeople ought to read the Gospels. And if you want to see how out of touch they are, you should go on to read the fourth section, where McGrew lays out the various ways in which literary device theorists foist fictionalization when they aren’t even close to warranted.
You might wonder whether you need to be well-versed in the works of Evans, Licona, Keener, and the others whose literary device theories McGrew takes aim at in this book. While she encourages her readers to pick up their books, doing so is not a prerequisite for one to keep up with McGrew’s own book. In fact, ‘The Mirror or the Mask’ quotes Licona, Evans, and Keener extensively and *in context*, before responding to the points they make.
So, regardless of what her critics might tell you, Lydia McGrew has done her homework and produced a piece of top-notch scholarship that is worth paying attention to. ‘The Mirror or the Mask’ is a book I highly and wholeheartedly recommend. Most importantly, it reminds us that the Gospels do give us an image of what Jesus was *really* like, as opposed to a mask that hides his true face from us. And this is good news.
February 27, 2025
I bought this book as a counterbalance to Mike Licona's work. Where Licona seeks to show that the Gospels were in the genre of ancient biography, and thus the writers were allowed some leeway with the facts, McGrew contends that they should be taken as reportage. I'm more sympathetic with McGrew. She makes a great case. I would like to see Licona interact with some of her ideas, such as her "undesigned coincidences". My instinct is to err on the side of inerrancy. I want to give Scripture every benefit of the doubt, while I must acknowledge that there are doubts to be found. To be clear, I've been a student of the Bible for almost 30 years. The better I know it, the more I believe it. Still, the academics have their say, and sometimes they have points. I want to be open to those points if for no other reason than I want people to be open to my points. If someone feels they have an insuperable issue with Scripture, I'm willing to wrestle with it.
December 20, 2021
Why are there seeming discrepancies in the four gospels of the NT? A new approach to explain them has been put forward by several evangelical scholars. They argue that the gospel writers used accepted literary devices of the time period that allowed them to craft their biographies of Jesus in ways that are not always historically accurate. McGrew masterfully dismantles this theory. McGrew is not opposed to literary devices such as repetition, simile, metaphor, etc. She does oppose the theory that, concerning historical writings in the ancient world, it was a commonly accepted convention for an author to change historical events to serve a literary purpose. These would be changes that the authors would know to false, such as changing when something occurs such as the moving the cleansing of the temple from the end of Jesus' ministry to the beginning in John 2. Or, even inventing whole stories such as the doubting Thomas scene in John.
McGrew does a thorough job of demonstrating that these methods were not accepted in the ancient world. Further, she shows that traditional harmonies of the gospels adequately answer many of the alleged discrepancies even if a few remain difficult. She believes and demonstrates that the gospel authors are reporting actual events and are endeavoring to do so truthfully.
The book is long and can be tedious at times. This is only because she is very thorough and specifically refutes each point. This is actually a strength of the book. She does not engage in generalizations but gets to the actual passages or ancient sources. She also reasons very carefully and acknowledges when we just don't know the answer. Highly recommend if you want to read about the gospels and the issues around harmonizing them.
McGrew does a thorough job of demonstrating that these methods were not accepted in the ancient world. Further, she shows that traditional harmonies of the gospels adequately answer many of the alleged discrepancies even if a few remain difficult. She believes and demonstrates that the gospel authors are reporting actual events and are endeavoring to do so truthfully.
The book is long and can be tedious at times. This is only because she is very thorough and specifically refutes each point. This is actually a strength of the book. She does not engage in generalizations but gets to the actual passages or ancient sources. She also reasons very carefully and acknowledges when we just don't know the answer. Highly recommend if you want to read about the gospels and the issues around harmonizing them.
August 8, 2021
I found The Mirror or the Mask to be a work of extraordinary depth and detail as well as being clearly argued and well organized. Lydia McGrew is nothing if not thorough, and leaves almost no stone unturned in her quest to take the literary device hypothesis and its proponents to task. Despite the extraordinary detail of her analysis, not to mention the complexity of the subject matter to begin with, one of the most refreshing things about McGrew’s writing is actually how down-to-earth she remains throughout — both in her commitments to clarity and transparency and in her concern with what, for most people, is at stake in all of this. Indeed, one of her explicit goals in the book is to cut through the sometimes muddied waters of scholarly theorizing and to provide readers with more-or-less direct access to the evidence in order to judge things for themselves.
McGrew comes to this project with all the precision and rigor of an analytic philosopher and ultimately finds several New Testament scholars guilty of too often lacking precision and rigor in their work. A recurring theme in her analysis is that statements from theorists are too often ambiguous with respect to both what exactly they are claiming about the composition of the Gospels and what these claims mean for the reliability of the texts.
I find this perspective refreshing. Many of McGrew’s points I believe to be valid, insightful, and a much-needed counterbalance to the apparent scholarly consensus. Specifically, I think she is spot-on in drawing some of the distinctions that others fail to acknowledge or recognize (e.g. between “dyschronological” and “achronological” narration, or between the overall purpose of a literary genre and its accepted conventions) and in recognizing the deeply important implications that literary device theory holds for the basic historicity of the Gospels and, by extension, their theological/religious significance. Whether one ends up agreeing on all points with McGrew or not, her meticulous cross-examination and analysis of the evidence concerning Gospel composition is an invaluable contribution to the debate.
This brings us to the central argument of the book — or, I should say, the central arguments because, as mentioned above, there are really two parts to McGrew’s thesis: the first part being an argument against literary device theory, the second being an argument for the reportage model. In what follows, I’ll consider each of these arguments in turn.
Does McGrew succeed in her arguments against literary device theory?
In my view, by and large, the answer is “yes.” At least, she succeeds in laying bare some major weaknesses in both its foundations and its application.
I think McGrew succeeds in showing that the Gospels don’t fit neatly or unproblematically into the genre of Greco-Roman biography. In fact, in doing so, she shows that this genre itself (like all genres) isn’t so well-defined or standardized as to necessarily tell us much about the composition or reliability of particular texts within it. In other words, “genre” itself is a rather fuzzy category, and in the case of the Gospels in particular, they likely don’t fit into any one identifiable genre.
I think she also succeeds in showing that certain compositional devices have been given a rather technical air by modern theorists, which is not warranted by their actual use in ancient literature. The picture she reveals in her research is rather more variegated. It seems that for ancient biography and history (much like modern biography and history) the amount of creative license and commitment to veracity varied by author just as much as by genre.
When it comes to the second half of McGrew’s thesis — her argument for the reportage model — I think she builds a fairly strong case, but I’m not convinced it goes quite so far as she concludes. Many of the undesigned coincidences and similar pieces of evidence she reveals are indeed compelling, Some, not as much, but taken together, they serve to demonstrate that if we take the Gospels seriously as historical documents, we can find these sorts of confirmations sprinkled throughout.
However, finding confirmations sprinkled throughout the Gospels is different from confirming each of the Gospel accounts in their entirety. It is one thing to acknowledge that the Gospels are based on true events and quite another to conclude from this that they are entirely or mostly true. The question is always one of degree: just how reliable are they? This is one reason I am not entirely convinced of the ultimate conclusions McGrew draws — that the Gospel authors were highly reliable straightforward reporters of true events, even regarding details — but there is one other main reason I say this.
The second reason has to do with the evidence itself. As compelling as much of it is, when I consider it carefully, I think it works best only if we assume the Gospel authors to be close reporters of events with access to independent sources. If we change our perspective a bit and consider that the authors may have been a bit more removed, I think it becomes apparent just how conjectural some of this evidence can be. As I recall now in writing this, even the most striking of the examples she unpacks involve some speculation and don’t always warrant the type of explanations she offers. Furthermore, when it comes to analyzing and explaining individual Gospel differences, I don’t believe the reportage model is invariably more convincing than the alternatives on offer from literary device theorists.
In sum, I think that The Mirror or the Mask rightly problematizes literary device theory regarding the Gospels, but the reportage model that it sets up as an alternative is too simple to be the whole story. The truth is likely more complicated and lies somewhere in the middle of these two theories.
The Bottom Line
The Mirror or the Mask is a meticulously researched and thorough analysis of some key considerations concerning the reliability of the Gospels. Lydia McGrew provides a much-needed counterbalance to the apparent scholarly consensus view and makes a compelling case for a more straightforward view of the Gospels as reliable historical reports. Wherever one lands on these issues, the arguments raised in this book are important to consider. Although the depth and detail can make it a challenge, McGrew has done much to make the book accessible to a lay audience. As such, I would recommend The Mirror or the Mask to anyone who is seriously interested in pursuing questions of Gospel reliability for themselves.
For a more extensive synopsis and review:
https://www.allthingsmatter.net/revie...
McGrew comes to this project with all the precision and rigor of an analytic philosopher and ultimately finds several New Testament scholars guilty of too often lacking precision and rigor in their work. A recurring theme in her analysis is that statements from theorists are too often ambiguous with respect to both what exactly they are claiming about the composition of the Gospels and what these claims mean for the reliability of the texts.
I find this perspective refreshing. Many of McGrew’s points I believe to be valid, insightful, and a much-needed counterbalance to the apparent scholarly consensus. Specifically, I think she is spot-on in drawing some of the distinctions that others fail to acknowledge or recognize (e.g. between “dyschronological” and “achronological” narration, or between the overall purpose of a literary genre and its accepted conventions) and in recognizing the deeply important implications that literary device theory holds for the basic historicity of the Gospels and, by extension, their theological/religious significance. Whether one ends up agreeing on all points with McGrew or not, her meticulous cross-examination and analysis of the evidence concerning Gospel composition is an invaluable contribution to the debate.
This brings us to the central argument of the book — or, I should say, the central arguments because, as mentioned above, there are really two parts to McGrew’s thesis: the first part being an argument against literary device theory, the second being an argument for the reportage model. In what follows, I’ll consider each of these arguments in turn.
Does McGrew succeed in her arguments against literary device theory?
In my view, by and large, the answer is “yes.” At least, she succeeds in laying bare some major weaknesses in both its foundations and its application.
I think McGrew succeeds in showing that the Gospels don’t fit neatly or unproblematically into the genre of Greco-Roman biography. In fact, in doing so, she shows that this genre itself (like all genres) isn’t so well-defined or standardized as to necessarily tell us much about the composition or reliability of particular texts within it. In other words, “genre” itself is a rather fuzzy category, and in the case of the Gospels in particular, they likely don’t fit into any one identifiable genre.
I think she also succeeds in showing that certain compositional devices have been given a rather technical air by modern theorists, which is not warranted by their actual use in ancient literature. The picture she reveals in her research is rather more variegated. It seems that for ancient biography and history (much like modern biography and history) the amount of creative license and commitment to veracity varied by author just as much as by genre.
When it comes to the second half of McGrew’s thesis — her argument for the reportage model — I think she builds a fairly strong case, but I’m not convinced it goes quite so far as she concludes. Many of the undesigned coincidences and similar pieces of evidence she reveals are indeed compelling, Some, not as much, but taken together, they serve to demonstrate that if we take the Gospels seriously as historical documents, we can find these sorts of confirmations sprinkled throughout.
However, finding confirmations sprinkled throughout the Gospels is different from confirming each of the Gospel accounts in their entirety. It is one thing to acknowledge that the Gospels are based on true events and quite another to conclude from this that they are entirely or mostly true. The question is always one of degree: just how reliable are they? This is one reason I am not entirely convinced of the ultimate conclusions McGrew draws — that the Gospel authors were highly reliable straightforward reporters of true events, even regarding details — but there is one other main reason I say this.
The second reason has to do with the evidence itself. As compelling as much of it is, when I consider it carefully, I think it works best only if we assume the Gospel authors to be close reporters of events with access to independent sources. If we change our perspective a bit and consider that the authors may have been a bit more removed, I think it becomes apparent just how conjectural some of this evidence can be. As I recall now in writing this, even the most striking of the examples she unpacks involve some speculation and don’t always warrant the type of explanations she offers. Furthermore, when it comes to analyzing and explaining individual Gospel differences, I don’t believe the reportage model is invariably more convincing than the alternatives on offer from literary device theorists.
In sum, I think that The Mirror or the Mask rightly problematizes literary device theory regarding the Gospels, but the reportage model that it sets up as an alternative is too simple to be the whole story. The truth is likely more complicated and lies somewhere in the middle of these two theories.
The Bottom Line
The Mirror or the Mask is a meticulously researched and thorough analysis of some key considerations concerning the reliability of the Gospels. Lydia McGrew provides a much-needed counterbalance to the apparent scholarly consensus view and makes a compelling case for a more straightforward view of the Gospels as reliable historical reports. Wherever one lands on these issues, the arguments raised in this book are important to consider. Although the depth and detail can make it a challenge, McGrew has done much to make the book accessible to a lay audience. As such, I would recommend The Mirror or the Mask to anyone who is seriously interested in pursuing questions of Gospel reliability for themselves.
For a more extensive synopsis and review:
https://www.allthingsmatter.net/revie...
December 27, 2019
Lydia McGrew. The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels from Literary Devices. Tampa: DeWard, 2019.xi + 560 pp., pbk. $25.99.
Nothing has been more contentious in Evangelical New-Testament scholarship over the last decade than the claim that the gospels are examples of Greco-Roman biography, a genre that allowed for its writer to alter or rearrange facts and speeches while still giving a generally reliable impression of its subject. Supporters believe that this recognition allows them to affirm biblical inerrancy while avoiding artificial harmonization, and opponents argue that it renders the very concept of inerrancy meaningless. Analytic epistemologist Lydia McGrew subjects the claims to exhaustive and incisive examination to conclude that readers should be dubious when scholars say, “This does not mean that the Gospels are unreliable, because these things were permitted at the time” (p. 10). That is a non sequitur because “permissible” misrepresentations of facts are still misrepresentations.
Are the Gospels presenting straightforward history or merely accounts “based on” the real events? McGrew concludes that it matters greatly which type of document the Gospels are, and that the case that they share the characteristics of Greco-Roman biographies has not been convincingly made. Significant, timely, and well argued, this book is a must-read for anyone concerned with the historical grounds of our faith in the Jesus the Gospels present.
The Mirror or the Mask is a follow-up to McGrew’s other excellent and fascinating book on the historical reliability of the Gospels, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017).
Donald T. Williams, PhD, is R. A. Forrest Scholar at Toccoa Falls College in the Hills of NE Georgia. His latest books are Deeper Magic: The Theology behind the Writings of C. S. Lewis (Baltimore: Square Halo Books, 2016), An Encouraging Thought: The Christian Worldview in the Writings of J. R. R. Tolkien (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2018), and The Young Christian’s Survival Guide: Common Questions Young Christians are Asked about God, the Bible, and the Christian Faith Answered (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2019).
Nothing has been more contentious in Evangelical New-Testament scholarship over the last decade than the claim that the gospels are examples of Greco-Roman biography, a genre that allowed for its writer to alter or rearrange facts and speeches while still giving a generally reliable impression of its subject. Supporters believe that this recognition allows them to affirm biblical inerrancy while avoiding artificial harmonization, and opponents argue that it renders the very concept of inerrancy meaningless. Analytic epistemologist Lydia McGrew subjects the claims to exhaustive and incisive examination to conclude that readers should be dubious when scholars say, “This does not mean that the Gospels are unreliable, because these things were permitted at the time” (p. 10). That is a non sequitur because “permissible” misrepresentations of facts are still misrepresentations.
Are the Gospels presenting straightforward history or merely accounts “based on” the real events? McGrew concludes that it matters greatly which type of document the Gospels are, and that the case that they share the characteristics of Greco-Roman biographies has not been convincingly made. Significant, timely, and well argued, this book is a must-read for anyone concerned with the historical grounds of our faith in the Jesus the Gospels present.
The Mirror or the Mask is a follow-up to McGrew’s other excellent and fascinating book on the historical reliability of the Gospels, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017).
Donald T. Williams, PhD, is R. A. Forrest Scholar at Toccoa Falls College in the Hills of NE Georgia. His latest books are Deeper Magic: The Theology behind the Writings of C. S. Lewis (Baltimore: Square Halo Books, 2016), An Encouraging Thought: The Christian Worldview in the Writings of J. R. R. Tolkien (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2018), and The Young Christian’s Survival Guide: Common Questions Young Christians are Asked about God, the Bible, and the Christian Faith Answered (Cambridge, OH: Christian Publishing House, 2019).
April 3, 2023
Who Cares?
In this book, Dr Lydia McGrew thoroughly refutes the claim that the Gospels contain historical fabrications which account for many of the supposed inconsistencies. These fabrications are considered legitimate since the Gospels are ancient Graeco-Roman historical narratives which supposedly allowed, and even encouraged, fabrications to make larger philosophical points. Dr McGrew shows, in great detail, that not only are the Gospels not Graeco-Roman historical narratives, but those narratives actually did not allow for fabrications anymore than they do in modern times. She shows the “evangelical scholars” who hold this position have misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused, and misquoted ancient historical sources to arrive at this flawed conclusion. While reading this book, despite their 25-dollar titles, I began to think nobody I know would ever pay attention to the scholars promoting this understanding of the Gospels anyway. So who cares, right? But I discovered these fellows are largely professors at Christian seminaries and, like icebergs, are positioned in such a way as to possibly shipwreck the faith of some young unsuspecting students. Hopefully, somewhere along the line, they will have an encounter with this book and realize the real fabrications are in the minds of these professors. Sadly though, I think this book is indicative of the modern academic enterprise; thousands of hours of effort to produce thousands of pages of papers and books that have little impact on the larger community. To quote, completely out of context, the priests of the Temples of Syrinx from the rock band Rush’s song 2112… “Just think about the average. What use have they for you?”. In that regard, I find it interesting that Jesus, God incarnate, came as a carpenter and not an academic scholar…
In this book, Dr Lydia McGrew thoroughly refutes the claim that the Gospels contain historical fabrications which account for many of the supposed inconsistencies. These fabrications are considered legitimate since the Gospels are ancient Graeco-Roman historical narratives which supposedly allowed, and even encouraged, fabrications to make larger philosophical points. Dr McGrew shows, in great detail, that not only are the Gospels not Graeco-Roman historical narratives, but those narratives actually did not allow for fabrications anymore than they do in modern times. She shows the “evangelical scholars” who hold this position have misunderstood, misinterpreted, misused, and misquoted ancient historical sources to arrive at this flawed conclusion. While reading this book, despite their 25-dollar titles, I began to think nobody I know would ever pay attention to the scholars promoting this understanding of the Gospels anyway. So who cares, right? But I discovered these fellows are largely professors at Christian seminaries and, like icebergs, are positioned in such a way as to possibly shipwreck the faith of some young unsuspecting students. Hopefully, somewhere along the line, they will have an encounter with this book and realize the real fabrications are in the minds of these professors. Sadly though, I think this book is indicative of the modern academic enterprise; thousands of hours of effort to produce thousands of pages of papers and books that have little impact on the larger community. To quote, completely out of context, the priests of the Temples of Syrinx from the rock band Rush’s song 2112… “Just think about the average. What use have they for you?”. In that regard, I find it interesting that Jesus, God incarnate, came as a carpenter and not an academic scholar…
March 8, 2021
Recently, many New Testament scholars have argued that the genre of the Gospels is Greco-Roman biography; that this genre used literary devices such as displacement, transferral, and conflation; that many differences in the Gospels are a result of the use of these literary devices; and that, because these were accepted literary devices of this genre, these differences are therefore not errors. Lydia McGrew challenges this theory. She argues that the Gospels do not match the genre of Greco-Roman biography, that it is not clear that this genre used these literary devices in the first place, that most alleged differences in the Gospels can relatively easily be harmonized, and that even in cases where harmonization is difficult, a slight error on the part of the author is a more likely explanation than appeal to these literary devices.
McGrew's book is thorough and well-researched, while remaining accessible to a non-specialist, and she makes a compelling case for most of her points. Christians committed to biblical inerrancy will take issue with her willingness to concede some errors in the Gospels, while most biblical scholars will take issue with her strong claims about the Gospels (especially John) being simple, accurate historical reportage. But her book is certainly an important contribution to discussions about the genre and historicity of the Gospels that needs to be heard. I would recommend this book to any Christian or New Testament scholar who is interested in these topics.
McGrew's book is thorough and well-researched, while remaining accessible to a non-specialist, and she makes a compelling case for most of her points. Christians committed to biblical inerrancy will take issue with her willingness to concede some errors in the Gospels, while most biblical scholars will take issue with her strong claims about the Gospels (especially John) being simple, accurate historical reportage. But her book is certainly an important contribution to discussions about the genre and historicity of the Gospels that needs to be heard. I would recommend this book to any Christian or New Testament scholar who is interested in these topics.
June 22, 2023
This book was written to push back against scholars who want to argue that differences between various Gospel narratives should be chalked up to literary devices, including intentional changing or inventing of facts, on the part of the four evangelists. In other words, it is a very specific argument (that probably shouldn't take 500 pages to be made). McGrew makes it well, relying on a good dose of both harmonization and common sense, not to mention an eschewal of the hermeneutic of suspicion. It is shocking how quickly many scholars assume that a prima facie issue with the Gospel narratives must be explained by a maneuver that was "common in that day" and "not considered wrong," when McGrew shows quite plainly that ancient history didn't work that way at all.
If you can make your way through this book (and there's another volume of equal weight focused solely on the Gospel of John!) your appreciation of the reliability of the Gospels will be strengthened--as will your reading endurance.
I apologize for the cover. My copy had a library sleeve over the front, so I never had to see it!
If you can make your way through this book (and there's another volume of equal weight focused solely on the Gospel of John!) your appreciation of the reliability of the Gospels will be strengthened--as will your reading endurance.
I apologize for the cover. My copy had a library sleeve over the front, so I never had to see it!
February 27, 2025
This is a scathing rebuttal to the claims made by Michael Licona in his book, "Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently." If you've read that one and think it's good, you must do yourself a favor and read this one and reconsider your position. McGrew has created a tour de force, answering every claim with expert scholarly criticism and undeniable logic.
I'm always troubled when people say things that imply or claim that the gospel writers made things up or crafted a tale out of nothing or that they must have been copying from some other source. What if they just recorded things they saw and heard? McGrew calls this the "reportage model" and makes a compelling argument for the reliability of the gospels as written.
I'm thoroughly impressed with her scholarly approach, so I have two more of her works in my queue. If you've ever wondered why the gospel accounts differ, do yourself a favor and read McGrew. She'll give you things to consider.
I'm always troubled when people say things that imply or claim that the gospel writers made things up or crafted a tale out of nothing or that they must have been copying from some other source. What if they just recorded things they saw and heard? McGrew calls this the "reportage model" and makes a compelling argument for the reliability of the gospels as written.
I'm thoroughly impressed with her scholarly approach, so I have two more of her works in my queue. If you've ever wondered why the gospel accounts differ, do yourself a favor and read McGrew. She'll give you things to consider.
July 3, 2024
Excellent. I went into this book wanting to disagree with her but she wouldn't let me. McGrew mounts a comprehensive and persuasive case against the evangelical literary device theorists such as Mike Licona and Craig Keener (two scholars whom I deeply admire). At times McGrew is too acerbic for her own good; OTOH, this topic is a serious one and the bad arguments on the other side deserve exposure (one would hope that her opponents and critics will look beyond the tone to engage with her arguments and appreciate her contribution). The book is too long for the most readers; OTOH, this needed to be a large book and despite its length it is very accessibly written and well organized. McGrew is not just writing to scholars; she is hoping to reach concerned laypersons with her commonsense approach. This book deserves a wide audience.
December 27, 2019
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Lydia McGrew's conclusions, this is a very rigorously argued and researched book that is definitely worth your time. That fact that she takes all these complex issues and makes it readable is also really nice. I found the section on ancient history and whether or not ancient authors used these compositional devices to be the most fascinating part of the book. This is definitely a must read for anyone interested in this subject.
May 28, 2020
Interesting so far! I really hope Lydia has the opportunity to engage in an irenic debate with Michael Licona over these literary devices. That would be very useful.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews