In my last post I indicated that among the different ways to study the Gospels, one is what I call the “literary-historical” approach. This approach determines the literary genre of a writing, and then sees how that genre “worked” in its own historical context (as opposed to how a similar genre make work today). The Gospels of the NT are widely seen as examples of ancient biography. So it would help to know how biographies worked in Greek and Roman antiquity.
There are numerous examples of biographies from the Greco-Roman world, many of them by some of the most famous authors of the Roman literary scene, such as Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. As I indicated in my previous post, and need to stress here, these biographies, understood in their own historical context, are different from the biographies we read today. Understanding the differences can be key to recognizing the way any particular ancient biography “worked,” including the Christian examples such as Mark (and the other Gospels). As I contrast ancient with modern biographies here, it is important always to bear in mind that literary genres by their very nature are very flexible. A novel by John Irving is very different indeed from a novel by Charles Dickens. But they have enough formal characteristics in common that we can easily speak of them both as novels.
Most modern biographies are full of data – names, dates, places, and events – all of which show a concern for factual accuracy. A modern biography, of course, can deal with the whole of a person’s life or with only a portion of it. Typically it is concerned with both public and private life and with how the subject both reacts to what happens and is changed by it. In other words, the inner life of the person, his or her psychological development based on events and experiences, is quite often a central component and is used to explain why the character behaves and reacts in certain ways. Thus modern biographies tend not only to inform but also to explain. They also are meant to entertain, of course, and often propagandize as well, especially when they concern political or religious figures.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, DON’T BLOW YOUR CHANCE!!!!
This is where I feel the “absolute literalists” fail. To try to take an Elizabethan English translation of the oldest sources available at the time and force it to conform to modern concepts of factual data, science, and history is (to me) absurd on its face. In my own research that only stretches back 100-200 years (mostly) of family history I find much the same thing. Details as “minor” as spelling of names are much less important. Oral history conveys much more about who the person was in some context and not about precise factual details. Yes, I still believe it was divinely inspired — but that isn’t the same as divinely dictated and divinely copied in a way that would conform to changes in literary usage over multiple millenia.
Do you think the authors of the gospels saw what they were writing as biographies in the same way that Tacitus and Suetonius would have seen their own works? Was the genre that came to be known as “gospel” something unique to the Christian (or Jewish apocalyptic) communities?
I suppose they did think so. And I’m not sure they would have considered their works in the “genre” of “Gospel.” That term came to be applied to their works only by later readers/editors/users.
What’s your take on Mark’s Gospel as an apology instead… to defend who Jesus was and why he died?… and then the other gospels one-upped the defense so they only seem more comprehensive and more like ancient biographies?
Yes, I think it definitely fulfills an apologetic purpose. But it is not an apologia by *genre*. (A biography can be apologetic, so can an essay, an epistle, etc.)
I read in Joel Marcus’s book on Mark that the eponymous gospel was likely liturgical. My inner seven year old is thanking God that it is no longer used in this way.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
Your last three posts (including this one) have just enlightened me so much regarding THE GOSPELS!
This post is very helpful. Did ancient biographies usually include material about angels and demons or is that unusual? Either way, do we think the Gospel writers really thought that there really were angels and demons? Did the histories of that time also usually include material like talking snakes and talking donkeys and so on and so forth? Did these Old Testament authors really think such events occurred? Separating legend, from the little bit of history underlying the legends, especially when the material is 2,000 years old, seems quite a challenge and I know you have spent most of your life trying to do so. I admire the quest.
Yes, angels and demons show up in a number of ancient writings. And yes, most ancient people thought they really existed. I don’t know of too many talking animals, but they do occur in somem places. Better yet, Apuleius’s The Golden Ass, where the main character is *tranformed into* a donkey! Terrific book, veyr funny. But it is clearly meant to be a work of fiction.
Thanks so much. Ron
This always makes me think of the cherry tree pericope is George Washington’s biography, meant to show us who his tremendous honestly was evident even from his childhood.
The more I look into Parson Weems The Life of Washington, the more I think that biography remained full of hagiography and “borrowing” well into the Enlightenment. To his Enlightened peers’ credit, Weems was called out early for his plagiarism.
Yup, I use the example a lot. A made up story that conveys a lesson! Like a lot of the Gospel stories.
So begin at the beginning of Jesus’ public life, his baptism by John (sometimes preceded by fantasies of from where Jesus came). Proceed to tell the teachings and signs. End with a distinctive death and very distinctive resurrection. Such is the genre of the gospels?
I would rather have a modern biography of my Lord and my Savior, but it would take a truly remarkable God to pull that off. Apparently the real God is limited to movies that repeat more myths than history, with tall, handsome Europeans playing Jesus, the genre of cinematic historical fiction, with the emphasis on fiction. To what end? For some of us, it’s to say, “That’s not the real you, Lord, is it?” So who and what is he, especially now when his days in the flesh are long gone?
Ah, different opinions on that. I spell out my view in several places, including Jesus: Apocaylyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
“In the ancient world, prior to the formation of modern notions of human psychology that have arisen since the Enlightenment, there was little sense that the human personality developed in light of its experiences and encounters with other people”
Does this apply only during adult life, or did writers of antiquity thought that as a person moved from childhood to adolescence to adulthood to old age, he has essentially the same personality? Surely the latter is contrary to commonsense, even by standard of ancient psychology?
The idea is that the basic personality traits were there already — generosity, intellectual superiority, baseness, depravity, humility, wit, whatever.
Just wondering…approximately how many ancient biographies of this kind, of different religious figures, survive? And approximately how many more are known to have existed?
Two great questions. And I don’t know the answer to either! I don’t know of many. I suppose Burridge talks about it (been many years since I read the book). And for a great *spoof* of a religious biography (a lampoon of the genre, of course, presupposes the popularity of the genre) check out Lucian of Samosata’s Death of Peregrinus.
Prof Ehrham: Assuming your analysis of Greco-Roman biographys, and by extension the canon and non-canon books of the NT which indicates that much of the material was based on oral tradition(hearsay), how much do you think the individuals and groups who decided on the canon used religious preferences as opposed to what was the most logical and believable. Or put more simiply, do the winners of religious and political thought get to select the topics and/or scripture
My sense is that what they included in the canon they considered to be both logical and believable. They were not 21st century, post-Enlightenment, Americans, and had a very different sense of reality than many of us…..
Narrative theology i.e. “gospels” is not biography in either the ancient or modern sense. Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus’s biographies were not based wholly on existing scripture; Plutarch’s Lives do not constantly remind the reader that their subjects did this or that “so that the words of the prophets could be fulfilled;” and rarely are Plutarch or Tacitus’s bios written in chiastic structure, while the gospels are entirely chiastic.
Genre is not determined on the grounds of specific content, but on the basis of form. And chiasm is certainly not a requirement of the Gospel genre. (I don’t see it in any of the Gospels, myself; but that’s beside the point)
Mike Licona published a book last month with Oxford Press on differences in the gospels: “Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography.”
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/why-are-there-differences-in-the-gospels-9780190264260?cc=ca&lang=en&
I’m curious about your thoughts on it.
I haven’t read it but in my conversations with Mike about it it has struck me that his case does not really make for a good apologetic about the infallibility of hte Bible, but rather explains why there could be so many errors in it (well, gives one explanation; there are lots of others)
Was it acceptable within the Greco roman biography genre to invent stories to illustrate a purpose? Would the writers and readers be expecting The account to be completely factual or would some fabrication be seen as normal, as opposed to a modern biography where it would be seen as lying?
It depends which genre you were reading. Usually biographers tried to tell stories that happened, even if they molded them to their purposes.
Bart, I came across this when I was researching some of Mike Licona’s current discussions with Linda McGrew.
Do you (still?) think that the gospels are Roman-Greco Histobiographies or have you changed your mind since 2014.
They obviously contain purported facts about Jesus’ life but all 4 seem to read more accurately as theological texts.
What are you current views on this question?
Yes, they are biographies that implement many of the same generic characterisitcs of other religious biographies, with some facts and some fictions, with the problem being how to decide which is which.
So you don’t consider them to be primarily theological texts about a human who was also divine?
Yes I do. But that is not their “genre.”
Even John?
That’s history/biography rather than theology?
No, not at all. “Theology” is not a genre of literature.
What genre would a theological text normally fall into?
Any genre that an author chose. Most theology today is written in the form of academic journal articles, or non-fiction books. They can be essays, or poems, or — actually you can do theology in any genre, from fan fiction to haiku to literary essays. Theology is the subject, not the genre. A genre is the *kind* of literature you’re reading, with generic conventions, which are expectations of a reader (a science fiction novel; an op ed; a limerick poem; a short story; etc. — the content could be most anything)
Wiki seems to think that theology is a genre.
“Nonfiction genres
Theology (under Religious Texts)
Apologetics
Biblical theology
Cosmology
Christology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
Hamartiology
Pneumatology
Mariology
Natural theology
Soteriology
Theology proper
I must say, that John certainly doesn’t read like a biography.
Thanks for responding.
None of those is a genre. Those are topics.
And no, none of the Gospels read like modern biographies. But they read very much like *ancient* biographies. I should have made that distinction. If you’re interested in pursuing the matter, check out Richard Burridge’s book on teh Gospels as biographies.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Related to the gospels’ genre, I have sometimes seen apologists say that ancient biographers often chose to omit details; they bring this up most often when harmonizing apparent contradictions in the text, like in one blog post around how many women were at the tomb after the resurrection, saying
“There is no contradiction involved in the variation regarding which women are mentioned as being present, per the principle that the Evangelists can choose which details they will record.”
Do you have any thoughts on this application of genre to appeal to authors omitting details? It strikes me as a bit “convenient”: one can apply this principle in those situations where a contradiction would otherwise be likely. But there doesn’t seem to be any actual methodology behind it: in this case, why leave out some women from the tomb scene when a few extra words are all it takes?
Curious on your thoughts here. Hope you are doing well.
If I were to tell you that my most recent course had three people enrolled, when in fact there were seventy-four, you would probably be puzzled that I meant there were three plus seventy-one. Or if my wife asks why I didn’t get home last night until 3:00 am, and I say I had to work late and didn’t get out of there until the custodians had to lock up the building, when the actual situation is that the custodians did get me out of there at 10:00 after which I went out drinking with friends for five hours. It would be just a little thing I left out, so technically not a contradiction.