Unlike the Gospels, which are classified as ancient biography (bios), the Life of Apollonius is likely a novel or hagiographic fiction. It includes fire-breathing dragons on every hill in India, fish-cows, hobgoblins, and other fantastical content not treated as miraculous but as straightforward description of faraway places.

Apollonius: not from eyewitnesses; authored as paid commission; written 125+ years after the fact; probably a novel not biography; parallels Pythagoras not Jesus; opposed animal sacrifice (Jesus was the sacrifice); offered no salvation (Jesus was salvation); healed by skill and wisdom (Jesus by miraculous power); claimed reincarnation of Euphorbus (Jesus is God incarnate); was a vegetarian (Jesus ate meat); did not die and rise bodily.

The Gospels are recognized in New Testament scholarship as ancient biography (bios), a genre focused on carefully portraying a real person's life and character. The Life of Apollonius does not meet this standard — it is more likely a literary novel meant to inspire devotion, as evidenced by its fantastical content, internal contradictions, and the explicit political agenda behind its commissioning.

Earlier 20th-century scholarship (especially the Jesus Seminar) treated the Gospels as myths, but current scholarly consensus has shifted. Graham Stanton (King's College London) and David Aune (Notre Dame) both argue the Gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios), which aimed to faithfully record historical fact even with theological purpose.

Aune's quote is cited to make the point that ancient biographers had obvious biases (encomium) yet were still 'firmly rooted in historical fact rather than literary fiction.' The Gospel writers' theological agenda does not disqualify them as historical sources; their choice of biographical conventions shows concern for what actually happened.

Epistles are not biographies — they don't need to quote Jesus extensively

Before diving into scripture, Mike explains why Paul's letters don't contain extensive biography of Jesus and why that doesn't undermine their historical value.

Paul before his conversion: a counterexample to Barron's 'sincere conscience' argument

Mike uses Paul's pre-conversion biography as a test case

The genre of the Gospels: from assumed mythology to recognized Greco-Roman biography

Historical shift in scholarly understanding of the literary genre of the Gospels.

Charles Talbert (1977) identified the Gospels as ancient biography; Richard Burridge confirmed it

The scholarly turning point on Gospel genre.

Difference between biography and history as genres — and why biography is a historical genre

Clarifying what it means that the Gospels are ancient biography rather than history.

Summary conclusions: multiple lines of evidence converge against community tradition view

Mike draws conclusions from the four major evidence streams.

Much ancient literature is lost: two-thirds of Tacitus's Histories, 12 of Plutarch's 60 biographies — including his life of Caesar Augustus

Contextualizing the argument from silence by noting the loss of ancient literature

Argument from silence illustrated: Josephus omits his own capture by Romans from his autobiography; Grant's memoirs never mention the Emancipation Proclamation

Further examples showing argument from silence is a weak form of evidence

Mike identifies the naked young man fleeing in Mark 14:51-52 as likely the author Mark himself, explaining this was a common ancient biographical convention of embedding the author’s presence discreetly in the narrative.

Response to viewer question about the identity of the young man in Mark 14:51-52

A controversy exists in NT scholarship over whether gospel authors used "literary devices" from Greco-Roman biography that allowed them to change facts. Dr. Lydia McGrew argues against this; Mike Licona argues for it.

Introduction to the literary devices controversy with Dr. Lydia McGrew

The external evidence (compositional textbooks, Plutarch) is far weaker than claimed. The textbooks never explicitly say "it's acceptable to change historical facts." Plutarch's differences may just be mistakes, not intentional literary devices. Licona admits attributing devices to the Gospels that aren't even found in the textbooks or Plutarch.

Critique of the external evidence for literary devices