Customer Reviews

What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Biblical Resource)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

What are the Gospels? Biography? Myth? A unique genre of literature, otherwise unknown to the ancient world?

Richard Burridge begins by discusses genre, how it develops and evolves. He offers a dozen or so characteristics by which we can judge the genre of a book. No one item by itself proves that a given book belongs to a certain genre, he argues.

Following a few longish sections that establish his methods of analysis, Burridge introduces ten works that belong to the category of Graeco-Roman bioi, five from before the time of Christ, five from shortly after. Applying the criteria he mentions earlier to these works, he establishes what an ancient biography was really like. Then he considers the Synoptic Gospels, concluding that they clearly fit into this category. Next he performs the same operation with the Gospel of John, and concludes that it is also an example of ancient biography.

I think Burridge proves his case, that the canonical Gospels do belong to the category of ancient bioi, or biography. (Be prepared for a few words of Greek in the text.) But what does that mean to call the Gospels "biography?" Among the examples of Bioi he considers are Tacitus' Agricola, a sober account of a Roman general written by his son in law a few years after his death, and Apollonius of Tyana, a tall tale loosely based on a New Age guru that talks about various breeds of dragon in India, and was written more than a hundred years after the alleged life it portrays. So the simple fact that a work belongs to the category of bioi, does not prove that it is true.

Burridge notes however that Apollonius is rather on the fringe of the genre. In some ways, the Gospels are closer to Agricola. Having closely compared these two texts with the Gospels on my own, I came to the conclusion that in terms of historical reliability, the Gospels are closer to Agricola, and hardly resemble Apollonius of Tyana at all. In fact,in some ways the Gospels seem more historical than Agricola.

But Burridge does not discuss the historicity of the books he reviews directly. Instead, he conducts a somewhat plodding, but careful, convincing, and I think useful argument that helps one better understand literary genre, ancient literature, the Gospels, and how they all fit together.

I have heard claims that the Gospels are "metaphor" or that they were never meant to be taken as biographical (and therefore don't have much or any historical data). This book ably debunks such claims.

The intent of this book is not to prove the historicity of Gospels, but to prove their genre. By establishing their genre, then we can better understand the intent of the authors.

The well reasoned conclusion in Burridge's book is: the Gospels fit the ancient genre of biography.

In doing so he discusses a lot about genre and analysis (this section was a bit tedious for me, but it was thorough). In all of the discussion and examples we learn how the ancient biographies are much different from modern ones. This is a key point, because I think much of the debates and criticisms of the gospels are done from the perspective of a modern biographical viewpoint. The ancients wrote biographies differently than those that are written today. But this does not make them more or less true. It is a matter of emphasis. Today we want to know the details about dates, eye color, and a year by year accounting of events. The ancients were more selective in their biographies, and often focused on character not a chronological "play by play" of a person's life. The ancient biographers did not just write to catalogue facts about a person, they often wrote to demonstrate why or why not we should emulate their subject. Moderns too have such motives, and even biases, but they are often less up front about them. In many ways the ancients are superior in this regard, because it makes it easier to distinguish between data and commentary.

In the end, Burridge gives several examples of biography from the ancient world, and demonstrates that the Gospels very clearly match their pattern. Though there is variety between each of the biographies and the Gospels, they are clearly demonstrated to be part of the same family of literature. This then establishes how the Gospel writers understood their own works to be - biographies of Jesus.

I wrote to Dr. Burridge recently that I wish I found the volume when I was a seminarian studying the Gospels. I am ministering youth and teens at a local Mennonite church in Indonesia. The volume is extremely enlightening. I prefer to reading Anglo-Saxon scholars to North American who are so often too simplistic and pragmatic (pardon me). Yet many times I find Anglo-Saxon writers are deep in exploring something but dry in nurturing soul. This book is an exception. It helps much in my ministry.

Here is Dr. Burridge's reply: "I'm glad to hear that you feel that the scholarship helps with your ministry - this is indeed the driving force behind most of my writing."

I humbly invite those who are keen on correct doctrinal teachings and preachings to submit once again to the study of the Gospels and grasp the book. He himself was to come back to the Gospels having written a massive monograph: WHAT ARE THE GOSPELS? to help his personal struggle in spiritual life.

The monograph is a groundbreaking study in the study of the Gospels. He is a classicist turned New Testament scholar. His graduate study in classic was done in Oxford, and the doctorate in Nottingham. He aptly demonstrates that the Gospels are a kind of ancient "Bioi." Find what the ancient "Bioi" with contemporary biographies. The technical work has been strongly condensed in FOUR JESUS, ONE GOSPELS?: A SYMBOLIC READING.

I am really happy to find the popular volume, since the explanation are employing the most popular literary and visual art works--as C. S. Lewis' NARNIA and Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS. Recently I wrote a paper for an academic journal on how to read the Bible with imagination, and I was helped by Tolkien's LOTR. And Dr. Burridge aptly provides me with samples.

Come to hear again the roar of the Lion in Mark, to sit under the wise teaching of the Israel Teacher in Matthew, to contemplate on the burden-bearer ox in Luke , and to soar high with the flying eagle in John. You and I will find that our lives are worth living!!!

Thanks so much, Dr. Burridge.

This book was a required text for a course in the gospels at Dallas Seminary.

Strengths: Burridge has clearly done his homework, is well-versed in all the necessary sources, and makes a very strong argument for his central point that the gospels are greco-Roman bioi.

Weaknesses: I am a Ph.D. student and have read a lot of books in my life and this is probably the most boring. It could very easily have been 50% or 30% of the length it is, presenting content in a more concise way, and have been much more effective.

N T Wright has said that anyone, from now on, who wants to tackle the problem of what genre the gospels belong to will have to tackle this book first.

And no wonder. It's exhaustive. Burridge goes through all the long history of scholarship regarding the gospels, from Renan to Bultmann and all the steps inbetween.

In a quick overview he concludes, that, First, "the gospels cannot be described as unique in terms of genre....Second, the gospels must be compared with literature of their own day....Third, the bewildering array of genres proposed in recent years for the gospels arises from a failure to appreciate the proper definition of the genre and the levels at which it functions" (p 53).

One of the major problems with defining the gospels as bios is that the ancients themselves never delineated such a genre. The very word 'biographia' doesn't even appear until the fifth century AD (p 61).

Also, it is useless to try and use modern concepts of biographies and impose our modern ideas back onto ancient forms, as Bultmann did. Indeed, what is most clear now is that the ancients regarded biographies with a much more flexible view than we do. They utilized propaganda, as well as polemics in a way we never would.

Burridge has an interesting chapter which examines all the most recent scholarship on the subject. Burridge's own solution is to tackle, first, the sequence that the gospels follow and compare it to ancient biographies.

Length is important, for "most classical literature was read aloud at a social gathering" (p 118). Here again, the gospels are all of the proper medium length.

"A mixture of literary units make up bios, including anecdotes, sayings, stories, discourses, and speeches" (p 141). They "drew material from a wide range of oral and written sources (p 142). Once again, the gospels appear to fit perfectly into this type.

Burridge has arrayed an impressive set of comparisons, and, in the end, concludes that the gospels, even that of John, appear to fit very well into the general genre of ancient bios.

JW:
Book review ratings should be based on trying to measure the difference between:

1 - What the author was supposed to do

and

2 - What the author did

In rating this book I will divide my evaluation into 5 areas with one star at risk for each rating:

1) In order to determine what the author was supposed to do here, we first have to look at Burridge's stated intention:

Page 3:

"This book attempts to provide a good foundation for the reintroduction of the biographical view of the gospels."

Burridge fails to articulate exactly what this means so my interpretation of it is that Burridge's objective is somewhere in between an Advocate for the genre of Biography (ancient = "Bios") and a Judge who has decided Biography.

What Burridge should do here is make clear whether he is writing as Advocate or Judge. He fails to make this clear. No star here.



2) Burridge's methodology is:

Define (determine qualities of) Bios

General =

On page 76 B (Burridge) writes:

"biography is a type of writing which occurs naturally among groups of people who have formed around a certain charismatic teacher or leader, seeking to follow after him."

This is based on a limited analysis of a few ancient authors discussing Bios.

Specific =

Page 105

1 - Opening Features

Title - Help identify genre

Prologue - Help identify genre

2 - Subject

Significance of subject - genre relative to extent

3 - External Features

Mode of representation

Metre

Size

Structure

Sequence

Scale

Units

Sources

Characterization


4 - Internal Features

Setting

Topics

Style

Tone

Characterization

Social setting

Intent

B presents these criteria for genre determination based on what previous related studies have used. There is little analysis of whether these criteria should still be used or others should be added.

What B should have done here is establish himself objectives which help distinguish genres. What he did was use criteria from previous inquiries. No star here either.


3) Determine a sample of Bios for comparison purposes

B identifies 5 contemporary works for his sample based on the above criteria

Tacitus Agricola, Plutarch's Cato Minor, Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar, Lucian's Demonax, and Philostratus' Appollonius.

What B should have done is identify a contemporary sample with clear and agreed upon characteristics of Bios. While his sample is too small to give an authoritative result, it is quite representative of Bios. One star.


4) Compare the Gospels to the sample for parallels

Here I will only review B as to "Mark" since "Mark" is commonly thought of as the original Gospel and was used as a base by "Matthew" and "Luke" with "John" being written last.

1 - Opening Features

Title = B claims a match based on the name but the use of "Gospel" in the opening sentence is distinct from the sample.

Prologue = B denies that "Mark" has a formal Prologue. "Mark's" Prologue, implying that Jesus' background is in the Jewish Bible, would be
unknown in Bios.

2 - Subject

Significance of subject = B notes that in "Mark" Jesus is the most referred to character. He discusses the issue of whether "Mark" is

primarily about Jesus or the related Mission, failing to conclude that "Mark" is primarily about a Mission which is distinct from the sample.

3 - External Features

Mode of representation = B notes "Mark" is in narrative form but fails to note that it is one continuous connected narrative which is
distinct from the sample

Metre = B claims "Mark" is prose narrative and therefore metre is not apllicable

Size = B notes a match

Structure = B claims a match but "Mark" has a clear Greek Tragedy pivot in the middle that transitions from a Teaching and Healing Minsitry
to a Passion Ministry. This would be unknown in Bios.

Sequence = B notes a match.

Scale = B notes a match.

Units = B claims a match but "Mark's" continuous and connected narrative would be unknown in Bios.

Sources = B claims "Mark" used sources but can not identify any. All sample Bios explicitly identify sources. Also, non-historical sources,
such as the Jewish Bible, parallel very well with "Mark". This phenomena would be unknown in Bios.

Characterization = B notes that Bios should explain how character was created and developed. "Mark" explains how but this explanation of
divine insertion is distinct from the sample


4 - Internal Features

Setting = B claims a match

Topics = By his own list "Mark" does not match but B sidesteps by claiming the Gospels as a whole match

Style = B claims a match because he sees no distinctive style in the Gospels but fails to note "Mark's" irony, intercalations, chiasms
and figurative uses. All look to be unknown to Bios.

Tone = B claims a match due to toned down emotions in the Gospels but the extreme emotions in "Mark" would be unknown to Bios.

Characterization = B claims a match

Social setting = B is defensive here claiming no distinct differences but everything about "Mark's" setting is foreign to the subject
such as language and audience.

Intent = B claims a match.

What B should have done here is establish criteria himself as previously mentioned. His criteria are one-sided as they are generally positive to seek matches to Bios. What should also be considered are negative criteria that would match to other genre. What's noticeable here is that "Mark" especially has major qualities unknown to Bios such as high amount of the impossible, major irony, many styles, connected narrative and tragic ending. The related problem is that "Mark" is not separately evaluated. If "Mark" parallels significantly worse to Bios and is a base for subsequent bios what does that mean as to genre (this using of a base is itself unknown to Bios). Thus the criteria here are flawed and could not lead to any authoritative conclusion. No star.


5) Analyze the comparisons for a conclusion

Page 212

"there is a high degree of correlation between the generic features of Graeco-Roman Bios and those of the synoptic gospels...This is surely a sufficient number of shared features for the genre of the synoptic gospels to be clear:...the synoptic gospels belong within the overall genre of Bios."

Based on his own criteria "Mark" as a whole does not parallel to Bios. So B's conclusion is not supported by his own criteria. Especially misleading is B's claim that Source is a match for the Gospels. A proper establishment of criteria would define source. Source is the major criteria which distinguishes genre. Bios explicitly or implicitly identifies historical sources. All of the sample explicitly identify historical sources. Bios avoids the appearance of non-historical sources such as significant claims of the Impossible, use of other works in non-historical context, extreme style, discrediting of historical witness and anonymity.

This illustrates the related issue of weighing criteria relative to each other, quality versus quantity. Lack of match on a few qualitative criteria will outweigh matching of many quantitative criteria. Substance is more important than form and the source discussion here is a prime example.

No star.

In summary B needs to publicly declare Advocacy or Judge here. If Advocate than the flaws above are understood. The methodology is seriously flawed as criteria need to be expanded to negative criteria which potentially match with other genre and criteria need to be considered for relative weight. The sample size needs to be expanded even though this is the best part of B's book, a sample that is representative of Bios. The biggest problem is B consistently claims matches especially for "Mark" where there isn't one which flips the conclusion based on his own criteria and the related problem that "Mark", the original Gospel, is not evaluated by itself.

Appendix to review:

At FRDB Discussion Board, in the Biblical Criticism & History section I have compared "Mark" to Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar, as representative of Greco Roman Biography and Oedipus the King as representative to Greek Tragedy to see which would parallel better using Burridge's criteria. My result shows that "Mark" parallels better here to Greek Tragedy. Thus Burridge's conclusion that the Gospels are clearly Greco-Roman Biography has been discredited.

For further study I suggest development of criteria which DISTINGUISH between Greco-Roman Biography (GRB) and Greek Tragedy(GT) using contemporary (to "Mark") and representative samples of each and than evaluating "Mark" for parallels. Suggested criteria are:

1) Sources = GRB identifies sources

2) Background = GRB gives background to the writing

3) Theme = GT has a definite theme

4) Literary Form = GT is a connected narrative

5) Structure = GT has a formulaic structure

6) Style = GT has significant style

7) Irony = GT features irony

8) Divine = GT features Divine intervention

9) Impossible = GRB tries to avoid the Impossible

10) Effect = GT has emotional effect

Using proper criteria I predict that "Mark" will parallel much better with GRB than GT. The other serious contender for genre for "Mark" is "Religious" which needs the same type analysis. Finding parallels in "Mark" to multi-genres suggests that "Mark" is a mix of genres but a proper methodology should help determine the relative extent of each.



Joseph