Read The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament for Free Online

good reason to suppose that the Gospels were written with historiographical intent. In other words, adoption of the biographical genre implies that the evangelists aimed to tell us about the historical life and accomplishments of Jesus. The basis of such a presentation would rest on personal recollections, whether their own or someone else's (see Lk 1: 1-4; Jn 19:35). This being so, the Gospel writers were free to interpret the significance of Jesus for their readers, but they would not have felt free to invent stories and sayings of Jesus out of whole cloth, nor would they have knowingly falsified or distorted the facts about his life as they knew them from experience or had received them through the most ancient channels of tradition. Ancient authors, no less than modern ones, knew the difference between history and historical fiction.
    Finally, in addition to being historiographical works, the Gospels are also evangelical works. That is to say, they also aim to produce faith in their readers. This is made explicit in the Gospel of John, where the evangelist addresses his audience with the words: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (Jn 20:30-31). Most agree that this purpose behind the Gospel of John lies behind the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) as well. If anything is unique about the Gospels in comparison with Greco-Roman biographies, then, it is their aim to make believers out of their readers. Other ancient biographies held up their subjects as objects of admiration and imitation. The Gospels do likewise, but they go beyond this by making Jesus an object of religious faith and by inviting readers into a personal relationship with him.
    Historicity of the Gospels    The Church has always affirmed the historicity of the Gospels. None of the four accounts can be reduced to a form of fictional writing in which realistic narratives serve merely as allegories of the life of the early Church or as vehicles to impart religious teaching in concrete and memorable ways. On the contrary, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John report about real events of the past and about real people who had a part in them. This is not to deny them the theological and spiritual richness that is theirs. It is only to insist, in concert with Vatican II, that the Gospels tell us what Jesus "really did and taught" for our salvation ( Dei Verbum 19 ).
    For the historian, the reliability of the Gospels means that their stories are generally accurate in bearing witness to Jesus and his times. The historian might admit the presence of slight errors and minor misstatements of fact, while concluding that the overall presentation of the main events is a trustworthy description of history. For the Church, however, the historical reliability of the Gospels means something more than this. Since the Bible is inspired by God, it can never be said that its human authors assert as true anything that is untrue, whether the affirmation be made about doctrine, morals, or the events of history. Of course, careful study is needed to ascertain the intention of the author, lest we mistake a non-historical narrative such as a parable for a historical one. And even historical narratives have a theological relevance and purpose behind them. But where an author's intent to record history can be established, the factual accuracy of the account is guaranteed as part of the mystery of divine inspiration. The Pontifical Biblical Commission reaffirmed this point in 1964, when it said that the four Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Spirit, who "preserved their authors immune from all error" ( Sancta Mater Ecclesia 11). By implication, this is also the meaning of Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation when it states that "everything asserted by the