What Are the Gospels A Comparison with Graeco Roman Biography
Based on his dissertation in 1992, Richard Burridge’s book, What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, addresses the issue of the genre of the gospels.[1] After providing a historical survey of the debate and analyzing how literary theorists manage genre, the author then turns to classical literature to make his case. By comparing the generic features of five Graeco-Roman biographies chronologically before and after the gospels, Burridge’s conveys his central thesis: “The gospels are part of the genre of ancient βίος literature.”[2] Importantly, the primary hermeneutical implication of Burridge’s work is that the nature of the gospels supports the centrality of Jesus.
The strengths of Burridge’s work are numerous. First, one of the author’s most significant contributions is the identification of generic detection features, which include opening features, subjects, external features, and internal features.[3] Although Charles Talbert and Philip Shuler laid a certain amount of groundwork for Burridge’s research, neither provided the rigorous approach of Burridge’s work necessary to shift consensus; thus, scholars continued to assume the sui generis view.[4] Burridge not only provided patterns of features to assist in identifying a family resemblance between the gospels and Graeco-Roman βίοι, but he also applied the features in significant detail to ancient sources bookending the time of the Evangelists. For example, in one of his most compelling arguments, Burridge analyzes verbal subjects and notes that a distinguishing feature of βίος from other forms of literature is the statistical concentration on one individual. One might call the feature a detection criterion that assists in detecting the genre of a work. Burridge corroborates the assertion of concentration by analyzing five works prior to and five works subsequent to the gospels and then documents the results of his computer analysis in Appendix I. When the author compares the ancient Graeco-Roman βίοι with the gospels, the latter also have a concentrated focus on one individual, namely Jesus. More specifically, the verbal subjects that pertain to Jesus occur in each of the four gospels between 17-20%.[5] By focusing on both early and late ancient Graeco-Roman βίοι and then comparing the ancient texts with the four canonical gospels, Burridge provides a profoundly convincing argument. In light of his comprehensive analysis, Judith Diehl notes that decades of scholarship have not been able to prove Burridge wrong and then goes as far as to suggest that “it seems unlikely that anyone can improve on Burridge’s definitive words or his hypothesis in terms of identifying the type of literature we have in the Gospels.”[6]
Another important strength of Burridge’s work is his effort to engage in the implications of his conclusions. As Nicholas King explains, the cogency of Burridge’s work is enhanced by the Subject, the person of Jesus, as the interpretive key to the gospels that runs through the entire book.[7] Another important strength is Burridge’s engagement with literary theory to define genre not merely as a method of classification, but instead, through the sharing of “family resemblances” as a constituent feature of genre.[8] Without clearly defining terms, the results could easily have been clouded. Although less important as it relates to the overall argument, other strengths exist such as a chapter on reactions to his research by other authors, recent scholarly debates, and further developments in the study of the gospels, as well as helpful appendices.
Although Burridge certainly proves his thesis, the most significant weakness revolves around the type of criteria or features used for the analysis. In other words, Burridge’s arguments could be enhanced by focusing more attention on what Andrew Pitts calls disambiguating criterion.[9] The point is that Burridge clearly provides detection criteria for identifying Graeco-Roman βίος, but, according to Pitts, detection criteria assist only in identifying related genres while disambiguating criteria assists in identifying specific genres.[10] The issue is that Burridge’s criteria for identifying the genre of βίος also catches several other genres and do not necessarily disambiguate between specific genres. Accordingly, many of the features, such as the mode of representation, size and length of the work, meter, and the use of sources, according to Pitts, exist in other genres including history and philosophy.[11] In sum, the argument would have been stronger if disambiguating criteria showing the distinctiveness of the genre were further explained, explored, and disaggregated.
A second, related weakness has to do with the important feature of verbal subjects, which Burridge identifies as “determinative for βίοι.”[12] Without question, the analysis of verbal subjects is a critical aspect of the evidence supporting the genre of the gospels. However, the verbal subject’s criterion does not always work. For example, Pitts analyzes Appian’s Civil Wars and, upon an investigation of the concentration of verbal subjects, Appian has a high density, but the work is not a biography; instead, it is history.[13] Of the four gospels, the weakness would seem to apply more to the Gospel of Luke than the other three gospels since Luke is intimately connected with the book of Acts and the history of the early church. Although the weaknesses do detract, they are not strong enough to overcome the preponderance of evidence that asserts that the gospels are βίοι when a composite view of the features is analyzed and juxtaposed with the concept of a “family resemblance.”
Personally, I find Burridge’s work quite compelling. If I were to read each account of the gospels to my grandchildren and ask them to tell me what or who the stories were about, they would likely say, “the stories are about Jesus.” In other words, the gospels are not folk tales that might have prompted Rudolph Bultmann to view the gospels as sui generis. They are not simply a historical account of a community of believers. They are also not not history as espoused by certain critical scholars. Instead, the gospels are stories about a real historical individual named Jesus.
_________________________
[1] See Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Baylor University, 2020).
[2] Ibid., 101.
[3] Ibid., 107.
[4] Ibid., 22–23.
[5] Ibid., 319–321.
[6] Judith A Diehl, “What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 82, no. 2 (April 2020): 314.
[7] Nicholas King, “What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography,” Heythrop Journal 61, no. 6 (November 2020): 10500.
[8] Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 40–41.
[9] Andrew W. Pitts, “NT 203: The Literary Context of the Gospels,” 2017, Logos video lecture, segment 37.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 107.
[13] Pitts, “NT 203,” segment 38.
Bibliography
- Burridge, Richard A. What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Baylor University, 2020.
- Diehl, Judith A. “What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 82, no. 2 (April 2020): 312–314.
- King, Nicholas. “What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography.” Heythrop Journal 61, no. 6 (November 2020): 1049–1050.
- Pitts, Andrew W. “NT 203: The Literary Context of the Gospels.” Logos video lecture, 2017.
