What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography

by Richard A. Burridge

In this work Dr Burridge contends that scholarly study of the genre of the Gospels has gone full circle over the last century of critical scholarship. The question of how the Gospels should be categorised is still a vexed one and - surprisingly - there is still no consensus. This book analyses and evaluates the debate over the course of the last century. It shows that while the nineteenth-century assumption that the Gospels could be likened to biographies has been denied by the mainstream scholarship of this century, in recent years a biographical genre has begun to be assumed once more. Dr Burridge provides a good foundation for the re-introduction of this biographical view of the Gospels by comparing the work of the Evangelists to the development of biography in the Graeco-Roman world, and by drawing on insights from literary theory. The author shows that the view that the Gospels are unique, which is still widespread among biblical scholars, is false: a first-century reader would have seen the Gospels as biographies, or 'Lives' of Jesus, and they must therefore be interpreted in this light.

Genres: Christianity, Religion, New Testament, History, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies

306 pages, Paperback

First published February 28, 1992

Reviews

[Clement · Rating 3 out of 5]

The most significant weakness in Burridge’s book What Are the Gospels? is one that he himself acknowledges in Chapter Eleven, “the absence of any proper comparison of the gospels with Jewish literature.” Burridge devotes a mere three pages to the issue and, rapidly agreeing with Philip S. Alexander, concludes that because the Gospels are “difficult to fit into the usual methods and rules of midrash” and because there are no Rabbinic biographies, “we must look elsewhere” and turn to Graeco-Roman literature. However, as Burridge himself writes, “after having demonstrated the generic relationship of the gospels with Graeco-Roman biography, however, the question of why the evangelists used this genre and not a Jewish one still needed to be faced.”
In his chapter of the book Christology, Controversy and Community, which Burridge summarizes briefly in Chapter Eleven of What Are the Gospels?, Burridge argues, after establishing that “literary and generic reasons alone” are insufficient to explain the curious absence of rabbinic biography, that the reason is theological. Burridge writes,

The literary shift from unconnected anecdotes about Jesus as a teacher, which resembles so much of the rabbinic material, to composing them together carefully in the genre of an ancient biography is making an enormous christological and theological claim. In the end, rabbinic biography is not possible, because no rabbi is that unique and is only important as he represents the Torah, which continues to hold the central place. To write a biography is to replace the Torah by putting a human person in the centre of the stage. The literary genre makes a major theological shift which becomes an explicit christological claim–that Jesus of Nazareth is Torah embodied.

Burridge’s argument that the Gospels represent “an explicit christological claim–that Jesus of Nazareth is Torah embodied” is extremely persuasive; however, ironically, it can also be utilized to work against his thesis that the Gospels are the “genre of Graeco-Roman βίος.” Burridge is correct in identifying that “the literary shift from unconnected anecdotes” to a carefully composed composition likely had a theological purpose; however, was the literary shift a shift from the Jewish genre of rabbinical unconnected anecdotes to the Graeco-Roman genre of βίος or was the literary shift a theologically motivated development of the Jewish genre of rabbinical anecdotes to a new genre of “rabbinic biography” that was meant to be read as a climax or fulfillment of the Jewish genre of rabbinical anecdotes? In other words, did a literary and cultural shift occur or simply a literary shift where a new distinctly Jewish genre emerged, one that works as a continuation of the Old Testament? Graham Stanton is likely correct in asserting that “early Christian readers of the gospels did read them,” the Gospels, “as biographies;” however, were they to be read as Graeco-Roman biographies, the genre of Graeco-Roman βίος, or were they intended to be read as a new genre of “rabbinic biography?” Additionally, one must ask, was there only way in which they were read, and what is the primary way in which they were meant to have been read? For example, is it not plausible that the Gospel authors wrote drawing from both the genre of Graeco-Roman βίος and the Jewish genre of rabbinical anecdotes to accomplish multiple goals?
N.T. Wright effectively argues, and as quoted in the previous discussion thread, that the gospel authors appear to “deliberately frame their material in such a way as to make” clear that they are addressing the “unfinished narrative” and “unfinished agenda” of the Old Testament and showing “ that the story of Jesus is the story in which that long history, warts and all, reaches its God-ordained climax.” Arguably, if N.T. Wright's arguments are accepted, developing and transforming the Jewish genre of rabbinical anecdotes into a new genre of “rabbinic biography” that presents Jesus as the fulfillment or embodiment of the Torah better serves the purpose of the Gospel authors than borrowing from the Graeco-Roman genre of βίος. As Judith A. Diehl notes, “for the early Jewish readers of the NT Gospels, the concept of the ‘good news of God’, or the ‘gospel’, would have been a continuation of the OT messages; the new ‘gospel’ is an extension of the old message of God’s redemption and reign on earth.” Furthermore, by treating the Gospel texts as having roots in Jewish literature accounts then for “close connection with the literary forms, vocabulary, and themes of Old Testament historical narratives” that Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard Patterson highlight. Finally, one might argue that if Burridge can take creative liberties with the “genre of Graeco-Roman βίος” to suggest that the Gospel authors adapted the genre to create his proposed essentially new subgenre of βίος Ἰησοῦς, then it is equally plausible to suggest that the Gospel authors took the genre of rabbinical anecdotes and adapted it to create and develop a new genre of “rabbinic biography.”
Interestingly, in considering the development of his proposed genre βίος Ἰησοῦς, Burridge goes as far as to suggest that Matthew and Luke represent a secondary stage where “it seems that they recognize Mark’s genre and bring it closer to other Graeco-Roman βίος: thus the Greek is tidied up, and ancestry, birth and infancy narratives are added.” However, Burridge is not quite able to firmly suggest that Mark was aware that he was writing “in a way which was similar to βίος of philosophers” and even notes that, perhaps, it was done “unconsciously, falling into a βίος pattern simply because it is the natural genre for any text concentrating on the deeds and words of a single person.” However, wouldn’t a more natural genre for Mark be the genre of rabbinical anecdotes? Ultimately, as already stated, Burridge fails to answer his own question of “why the evangelists used this genre,” Graeco-Roman βίος, “and not a Jewish” genre.

[Russell Ince · Rating 3 out of 5]

Richard A. Burridge - What are the Gospels?
A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography

When I began reading ‘What are the Gospels’ I did wonder what, if any, were the ulterior motives for Burridge in arguing that the gospel genre was Βίοι. As an agnostic-atheist I have learned that even the most sober and scholarly Christian academics are sometimes motivated or influenced by their faith rather than by purely honest intellectual curiosity. This is not to say that non-Christian academics have no biases of their own which affect their work but it has been noted that New Testament scholars often have the most difficulty in overcoming their biases because of their various theological commitments. And having read elsewhere about the quest for the historical Jesus I have come to realize just how much historians (and Christians) rely on the gospel material, and so this was very much at the forefront of my mind before I had even picked up the present work.

In reading the book, however, I learned that Burridge actually began with the intention of arguing the exact opposite position to the one he eventually adopted and thus seems unlikely to have had any faith-based objectives here. I very much doubt that Burridge, in arguing that the gospels are a sub-species of Graeco-Roman Βίοι, is serving any wider apologetic purpose whatsoever.

Perhaps this is only my own axe-grinding atheistic agenda coming through but, when it comes to the implications of his work however, Burridge seems completely blind to or disinterested in, at least what I consider to be, the more salient points; namely, the reliability of the gospel stories and sources and also the strong parallels they share with other tales from Graeco-Roman literature. To give just one example from Burridge’s own work, the Last Supper of Jesus is eerily mirrored in Plutarch’s Life of Mark Antony: “Another extended death scene occurs in Plutarch’s Antony where we have a ‘last supper’ with friends, with discourse and instruction, on the night before the subject’s death...” (p.166) And a similar story is also described in Plutarch’s Cato Minor. Did both Jesus and Mark Antony or even Cato have a last supper as described or are these stories merely works of apophthegmatic fiction, or did the one happen and not the other? The answer of course is that (unless we regard faith as epistemologically sound) we can never be sure. However, given that Plutarch himself distinguished Βίοι from history, I would guess that many of these stories represent plausible yet unhistorical works of literary art rather than historical reportage.

Burridge amply succeeds in demonstrating the many parallels between the gospels and other Βίοι with regards to both form and content but seems to shy away from the implication that the life of Jesus, whether itself real or imagined, was presented by the evangelists in a way reminiscent of other stories which deal with other figures from history and legend. Another example is seen in Evagoras’ birth, which was said to have been accompanied by omens or portents, his ancestry was traced back to Zeus and his precocious nature as a boy is described. By demonstrating that the Life of Jesus shares similarities with other figures from Βίοι, Burridge is effectively demonstrating where the Christians may have got their ideas from.

These parallels have been noted by a variety of authors whose efforts have long been derided as the proverbial and pejorative ‘cottage industry’ and whose scholarly grounding and authority has also been mocked. The accusation of ‘parallel-omania’ has been made and a concerted effort is now underway to systematically ignore these questions. If there is blame to be laid however, at least some must rest on New Testament scholars themselves for failing to satisfactorily recognise and address these subjects.

To give Burridge his due, he does discuss the syncretistic nature of Christianity, especially that of John’s community: “A social setting is needed in which ideas of traditional Greek philosophy, Platonism and Stoicism, could be coupled at a popular level with those of new cults and sects, including the proto-Gnostics; links are also to be made with the Jewish world of the Old Testament, Rabbinic arguments and the ideas of heterodox or ‘non-conformist’ Judaism. The work of Philo of Alexandria demonstrates that this heady mixture was available at a sophisticated level; however, such a syncretistic culture spread all the way down the social scale and was thus capable of influencing the early Christian communities.” (p.233) Burridge continues: “Finally, it would be strange if the author/editor (s) of the Fourth Gospel did not realize the parallels with Βίοι, given the many other links to Graeco-Roman and Jewish philosophical and religious ideas and literature which are found in John.” (p.254)

This kind of language may shock the more conservative biblical scholar whom prefers to see the gospels as a unique gift from God but Burridge, as a liberal scholar of the classics as well as the New Testament, recognises the context within which the gospels were produced, namely the Graeco-Roman literary milieu of the 1st century eastern Mediterranean. Burridge states that a link between the gospels and Hellenistic literary culture “...is demanded both by the generic features of the texts themselves and also by the social setting of early Christianity within the eastern Roman empire of the first century AD.” (p.255)

But there is no deeper consideration of the implications of this realization for the nature of the gospel stories. This, from my perspective at least, was the elephant in the room throughout the course of the entire book and it is largely ignored in the concluding chapter. Perhaps Burridge does not see these problems or, alternatively, simply does not regard them as either problematic or even interesting. Whatever the case may be, he does not directly address these questions. Or so it would seem.

At the very end of the book Burridge, in considering the hermeneutical implications, dons his religious hat: ‘If the gospels are indeed Βίοι then this demonstrates that the early church was interested in the life and teachings of Christ and this, in turn, should spur today’s evangelicals to re-focus on the same.’ Is this it? In fact, it is not. Mingled in with this religious instruction are a few fleeting lines which betray what is really at the back of Burridge’s mind in his concluding chapter. He cites Kysar’s argument that if Jesus did not appear in the flesh then why did the evangelists depict him as having done so? Why Burridge would conclude an otherwise intelligent and scholarly work, which largely succeeds in arguing that the gospels do in fact share many parallels with Graeco-Roman Βίοι, with such a bone-headed and defensive apologetic remark is beyond me. There can be little doubt that the evangelists, or at least the editors of their work as it has come down to us, thought that Jesus waked and talked; they had faith that he had appeared in the flesh and so they wrote the narrative of his life, perhaps as a direct polemical response to doubters, Docetists or Gnostics. Burridge himself identifies the many similarities that the gospels share with polemical and didactic works of Graeco-Roman Βίοι: “... we have seen that a major purpose and function of βίοι is in a context of didactic or philosophical polemic and conflict.” (p.80) But Burridge (rather predictably for a Christian academic) seems reluctant to discuss the consequent reliability of the gospel material as works which incorporate apology and polemic.

That Burridge has something more serious at the back of his mind here is made even more apparent by his insistence on the historical reliability of the gospel stories. Despite each gospel’s unique portrayal of Christ, something long recognised and celebrated by Christians as a variety of interpretations rather than as a mass of contradictions, they must nonetheless have a historically reliable kernel of truth: “...because this is a Life of an historical person written within the lifetime of his contemporaries, there are limits on free composition...” Kingsbury uses the phrase ‘variety with limits’ and Burridge is very keen to emphasise the ancient pedigree of the gospels by equating the evangelists to the early church. Whatever the age of the gospels, they are ultimately second or third generation post-Paul Christian texts.

After having demonstrated the commonalities the gospels share with other works of literature whose historical nature is often dubious, as noted by Plutarch himself, Burridge clearly struggles to reconcile this insight with his faith. Even if we assume that Christ walked and talked in early 1st century Palestine, a fact not as apparent in the earlier Christian texts as it becomes in the gospels, a great deal of literary invention (especially for a man as ill-attested as Jesus) would not be impossible. Certainly, Plutarch would have been constrained in what he could say of infamous statesmen such as Mark Antony or Cato, but the same does not apply to an obscure Jewish preacher from Galilee, of whom there are no sources either non-Christian or even Christian contemporary to his supposed lifetime.

[Spencer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Burridge effectively makes the case that the proper genre of the Gospels is ancient, Greco-Roman βίοι. The views of the last centuries supposed Gospels were some kind of new literature sui generis composed of various forms (sayings, myths, etc). Burridge shows that the content, structure, and form of the Gospels demonstrates that it is instead a type of biography — albeit one with theological interest — intended to communicate to an audience about the subject (Jesus Christ) for various purposes. Burridge's taxonomy of βίοι/Gospels is quite effective and provides a good model for analyzing literature in general. Any attempts to negate his findings will need to be able to create an alternative literature taxonomy.

[Kevin Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the fact that I skimmed large chunks of this book, it had really good information. Burridge’s study of ancient βίοι was thorough and conclusive. Like many other reviews have said, it cannot be tenably held that the Gospels are not biographical in nature. True, this study was, at times, highly—even overly—technical, while referencing ten βίοι that I have never read; however, Burridge still managed to make the book easy to read. I am glad that the end of the book addressed some critiques and leftover questions, including the interpretive/apologetic advantages of understanding the Gospels as βίοι. Finally, his explanation of why he focused on Graeco-Roman biographies and never any Jewish literature is quite profound and staggering. My only problem with the book is that he did not describe the Gospels as the continuation and the climax of God’s narrative of redemption begun in the Old Testament. Overall, it is worth the read, especially chapter 10 and the second part of chapter 11.

[Laura Robinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a really helpful book but very confusingly organized. Author seems to repeatedly retread the same material in different chapters or return to the same themes over and over instead of dealing with them all at once - particularly in the first half of the book. The thesis is convincingly argued and engagement with classical sources is solid.

[Kristoffer Kruse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Læst ifbm. Speciale. Simpelthen så velargumenteret og velstruktureret.

[Brian LePort · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid argument for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John being part of the Greco-Roman genre "bios". Burridge does his homework. He examines a wide-variety if bioi, examining their characteristics, deriving statistics such as commonality of a name, or the name of a person as the subject (nominative). Once he has provided a good picture of bioi in the ancient world he juxtaposes the characteristics of the canonical gospels and finds that they share enough similarities to be considered bioi as well. I know that there has been some push back recently on Burridge's conclusions, though i haven't had the opportunity to read much about those challenges. But this goes to show Burridge's work has provoked others to visit the subject.

[Chad Gibbons · Rating 3 out of 5]

The standard, go-to text for examining the genre of 'the gospels'. There has been so much ink spilled on the topic, it's almost embarrassing that the final answer is the obvious one: They are biographies. Burridge shows that they all fall into the category of Graeco-Roman Biographies, a common form of the time.
I think that perhaps the jury might still be out on 'Luke' however, only because of his follow-up, 'Acts'. Since this book was first written, there have been convincing arguments that that particular gospel falls more under the category of 'History', rather than 'Biography'.