Free Map of the problematique for The correct way to read the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies is therefore to approach them not with a radically suspicious mind-set that assumes that every story or saying is unreliable unless proven otherwise, but rather to approach them with a sensitivity to their historiographical claim to be testimonies, with an appropriate level of trust in the credibility of the witnesses. The judgment of whether particular testimonies are to be trusted or not must be based on internal consistency and coherence, and consistency and coherence with whatever other relevant historical evidence we have and whatever else we know about the historical context. Many stumble over the extraordinary nature of the events described in the Gospels. Many stories in the Gospels are rejected as unhistorical by critics because they have exceptional elements in them. However, as Bauckham writes, We must beware of a historical methodology that prejudices inquiry against exceptionality in history and is biased toward the leveling down of the extraordinary to the ordinary. As for the charge that the fact that those making such extraordinary claims were biased undermines their credibility, in truth their bias should engender confidence in their testimony The testimony of involved participants is especially valuable in the case of exceptional events The degree of commitment to their testimony such witnesses usually have should not in itself arouse our suspicions; in more ordinary cases we usually take such commitment as a reason for taking especially seriously what a witness has to say. It is by no means irrational to take the risk of crediting the testimony of involved and committed participants to the extraordinary and the exceptional in history. Free Map of the problematique 2016.