ApostateAbe

On pages 62-64 of Bart Ehrman's textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd edition (or via: amazon.co.uk), Ehrman introduces his case for his genre of the gospels.

BIOGRAPHY AS A GRECO-ROMAN GENRE

We have numerous examples of Greco-Roman biographies, many of them written by some of the most famous authors of Roman antiquity, such as Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus. One of the ways to understand how this genre worked is to contrast it with modern biographies, following the principle that we can learn something only in light of what we already know. In doing so, we must constantly bear in mind that literary genres are highly flexible; just think of all the different kinds of novels or short stories you have read.

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 segment 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 entertain, of course, and often propagandize as well, especially when they concern political or religious figures.

Most ancient biographies were less concerned with giving complete factual data about an individual’s life, or a chosen period of it. Research methods were necessarily different, with few surviving documents to go on, and (by our standards) inadequate tools for record-keeping and data recovery. Biographers often relied heavily on oral information that had circulated for long periods of time. Indeed, many of them expressed a preference for oral sources; these at least could be interrogated! Modern biographers are somewhat more leery of hearsay. Yet more significantly, most ancient biographers were less interested in showing what actually happened in their subject’s lives than in portraying their essential character and personality traits (see box 4.1). This is a key difference between ancient and modern biographies: in the ancient world, prior to the formulation 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. Thus Greco-Roman biography does not generally deal with the inner life, and especially does not do so in the sense of what we would call character formation.

For the ancient biographer, character traits were thought to be relatively constant throughout a person’s life. A person’s experiences were opportunities to demonstrate what those traits were, rather than occasions for those traits to develop. Therefore, when an ancient biographer employed a chronological framework to organize an individual’s life, it was strictly for organizational purposes; it was not to show how the person became who he or she was. Great persons were who they were, and everyone else could try to model themselves on the positive aspects of their characters while avoiding their pitfalls. Biographies were usually meant to highlight those various aspects, not so much for the sake of providing history lessons as for giving instruction in proper behavior. Personal qualities could be conveyed by a variety of stories about the person. Many of these stories were drawn from narratives that an author inherited from oral traditions, such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and stories about conflicts.

As I have already mentioned, there was considerable flexibility in how an ancient biography might portray a person’s life, depending in good measure on what kind of public figure he or she was: a military person, a political ruler, a philosopher, a religious leader. The genre could encompass any of these kinds of figures, and different subgenres developed accordingly, each with its own set of expectations. The role of the miraculous, for example, was typically pronounced in the life of a religious figure (e.g., Philostratus’s biography of Apollonius of Tyana): miraculous signs might accompany his birth, he might manifest divine power in his own miracles and inspired teachings, and he might be glorified after his death through an ascension into heaven or through receiving cult from those whose lives he had touched.

If I were to attempt a definition of the Greco-Roman biography, then, it might be something like this: ancient biography was a prose narrative recounting an individual’s life, often within a chronological framework, employing numerous subgenres (such as sayings, speeches, anecdotes, and conflict stories) so as to reflect important aspects of his or her character, principally for purposes of instruction (to inform about what kind of person he or she was), exhortation (to urge others to act similarly), or propaganda (to show his or her superiority to rivals).

Page 65 describes the ways in which the gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biographies, and Box 4.1 tells about Plutarch, the most prolific biographer of the time.

Neil Godfrey, in January on his blog, intending to rebut the claim that the gospel of Mark is a biography, claimed that:

At the end of reading the Mark we know nothing about Jesus as a person. His words and works have only demonstrated that he is a supernatural being who came in the flesh and who is waiting to return again.

However, it would not at all be unusual for biographies to contain mythically-flattering and unlikely claims. Philostratus's portrayal of his hero in The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (or via: amazon.co.uk), a biography by the very title, is chock full of unlikely mythically-flattering claims about Apollonius.

Neil Godfrey also claimed:

The acts of Jesus in Mark are not written to show what sort of personality or character he had, but to demonstrate that he came from God and was the Son of God. The words of Jesus are not written to inform us about the personality or character of Jesus, but to instruct readers and convey, directly or indirectly, a gospel message. They are about the identity of Jesus, not his life story.

No doubt, Mark intended to demonstrate that Jesus was the Son of God. The intentions of Mark could have been any number of additional things within the framework of evangelizing for the Christian religion, but, one way or the other, the gospel of Mark narrates in detail the life and character of Jesus, from his baptism, to his teachings, travels and miracles, to his death and resurrection.

Plutarch, in particular, explicitly intended to write about only a narrow subset of the aspects of the historical lives of his biographical subjects. In The Life of Alexander the Great (or via: amazon.co.uk), he wrote:

In writing for this book the [life] of Alexander the king … I have before me such an abundance of materials that I shall make no other preface but to beg my readers not to complain of me if I do not relate all [his] celebrated exploits or even any one in full detail, but in most instances abridge the story. I am writing not histories but lives [bioi], and a man's most conspicuous achievements do not always reveal best his strength or his weakness. Often a trifling incident, a word or a jest, shows more of his character than the battles where he slays thousands, his grandest mustering of armies, and his sieges of cities. Therefore as portrait painters work to get their likenesses from the face and the look of the eyes, in which the character appears, and pay little attention to other parts of the body, so I must be allowed to dwell especially on the things that express the souls of these men, and through them portray their lives, leaving it to others to describe their mighty deeds and battles.

So, the gospel of Mark fits the genre of Greco-Roman biography because it is most closely analogous to many other ancient writings of that genre. Ehrman's points rebut the arguments that follow in large part from the tendency of thinking that ancient biographies are very closely similar to modern biographies. The tendency lends itself to the apologetic argument that the gospels are historically reliable, but the solution is to correct that mistaken tendency, not to reject the sensible categorization.

Do you disagree with this categorization? If so, then please explain why. You may also present your reasons for categorizing Mark or the canonical gospels as some other genre. In doing so, please present the ancient writing that you take to be the closest analogy to Mark. I stand by the assertion that the closest analogy to the canonical gospels including Mark is The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (or via: amazon.co.uk). The translated work is online at livius.org.

yalla

The attempt by Christians to label the gospels as biographies is founded on the presumption that there was a life to describe.

As one scholar has put it:
"Twentieth century scholarship with its faith in history assumed a historical Jesus as its starting point"

The same scholar asks a key question:

"To what extent does the figure of Jesus ......fulfill a function in a narrative discourse about something else?
Is Jesus rather - like so many other great figures of ancient literature- the bearer of a writer's parable? The question does not refer to our knowledge of our historical person. It asks instead about the meaning and function of biblical texts."

He further makes the point that:
"Before we can speak of a historical Jesus we need a source that is independent of [the gospels] and refers to the figure of the early 1c."


From:
"The Messiah Myth" T.L. Thompson p8,9.



Rather than ask the wrong question, are the gospels bio-graphy [which presumes a life to describe] I would ask this:
Did the authors of the gospels invent the "Macguffin" and thereby predate Alfred Hitchcock by millenia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin

JonA

May I ask why the categorization is important? What does determining the genre ad to the text?

Jon

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

When we read "Life of Apollonius," the author tells us that he is writing a biography. Before we read any biography by Plutarch, Plutarch tells us that he is writing a biography.

On the contrary, the beginning of the Gospel of Mark states:

Mark tells us that he is writing a gospel. A gospel is a birth announcement. In the text, it is apparent that Mark is announcing the birth of the Kingdom of God on Earth. He is not giving the biography of any person.

No amount of saying this is a biography makes this a biography. Finding factor "X" that is in ancient biographies and saying the gospel of Mark has factor "X" does not make it a biography. Finding factor "Y" that is in all biographies and saying the gospel of Mark contains "factor "Y" does not make it a biography. Finding factors "X" + "Y" do not make it a biography.

When you find the passage "This is a biography of Jesus the Christ." at the beginning of the text of Mark, we can say it is a biography.

One might as well say that Amazing Fantasy Issue #15 was meant as the biography of Spider-man.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Do you disagree that Tolkien composed a biography of Bilbo Baggins?

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

When we read "THE TREATISE OF EUSEBIUS, THE SON OF PAMPHILUS, AGAINST THE LIFE OF APOLLONIUS OF TYANA WRITTEN BY PHILOSTRATUS, OCCASIONED BY THE PARALLEL DRAWN BY HIEROCLES BETWEEN HIM AND CHRIST." written by Eusebius in many books, in which the author makes repeated references to Philostratus's "Biography of Apollonius", Eusebius repeatedly refers to it as a "history".

I wonder why he does that?

Best wishes,


Pete

aa5874

The Roman writer called Suetonius wrote a compilation called the "Life of the Twelve Caesars" and once these are read it is quickly realized that the Gospels are Ghost stories.

The Emperor Tiberius was supposedly a contemporary of Jesus of the NT so let us READ what Suetonius wrote about the birth of the Emperor Tiberius.

Suetonius "Life of Tiberius" Now, let us read about the birth of Jesus in gMatthew.

Matthew 1.18-20 The Gospels are just Ghost stories and cannot be compare to the Biographies of the Lives of the Twelve Caesars.

Let us PROCEED and see how Suetonius described Tiberius.

"The Life of Tiberius" And let us READ about Jesus in gMatthew 17 It is CLEAR that the NT Gospels are Ghost stories from antiquity.

JoeWallack

JW:
As Bill said in the God-awful Gangs of New Lord I'm not going to refute AA here because he hasn't earned the right to have me refute him in his Thread. I'll do it in a new related Thread.

For those who have been paying attention, I've already demonstrated that in general "Mark" parallels better with Greek Tragedy than Greco-Roman Biography:

Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy?

I've also just specifically demonstrated that "Mark" parallels better with Oedipus the King than Suetonius, The Life of Julius Caesar using Burridge's own criteria:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=107

The above indicates that asking if "Mark" is Greco-Roman Biography is asking the wrong question. The question should be:

Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy?

I'll give the main problems here with AA's claim of GRB before I start my own related Thread:

JW:
As has been pointed out to AA Ad Nazorean on these unholy boards, Authority by itself has little weight here. Actually the late great Raymond Brown assured us that the Gospels in general and especially "Mark" are not GRB. Brown trumps Ehrman in authority here (not a textual criticism, issue).

JW:
This is a defining criteria for genre, the extent of the Impossible. GRB tries to avoid it. Fiction attracts it. Burridge wisely avoids it as a criteria since 4 of his 5 classic GRBs in his sample have no Impossible while Appollonius above has more Possible than Impossible. Clearly the extent of Fiction is a key criterion to help classify genre. In "Mark" almost every story is either Impossible or improbable.

JW:
Oh but "Mark" provides less than a year of Jesus' supposed life. This would otherwise be unknown in GRB. The continuous narrative that "Mark" gives for a relatively short time period compared to a lifetime is typical of Greek Tragedy.

JW:
Another key criteria that Burridge wisely ignores is identification of sources. GRB generally identifies sources while Greek Tragedy does not. Apollonius is very careful in identifying historical sources while not only does "Mark" not identify his historical sources but we can identify his fictional use of sources (Imagination, Paul, Jewish Bible and Josephus).

AA has not presented anything here that would support "Mark" matching better to GRB than Greek Tragedy.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

ApostateAbe

The categorization relates to the fundamental issue of making sense of the author's intentions. If you think that the author of the gospel of Mark is giving his perspective of the perceived life and teachings of Jesus, then you will have a much different way of explaining the texts than if you think Mark was explicitly writing fictional prose, as some in the forum have suggested.

ApostateAbe

OK. So, what type of literature is the gospel of Mark? And what do you take to be the closest analogy to the gospel of Mark?