Thanks for your encouragement. Please feel free to link to these articles.

- NB

Thanks for your comment.

I am familiar with two of Burridge’s works, What are the Gospels? (Cambridge, 1992) and Four Gospels, One Jesus? (Eerdmans, 1994); and with his case for identifying the genre of the gospels as Graeco-Roman bios literature. (The Gospels for All Christians [edited by Bauckham, Eerdmans 1998] also builds on some of Burridge’s ideas, and includes a chapter by him.)

While I appreciate the intensive study that Burridge has done, I believe he pushes it too far. In his opinion, genre is the key to hermeneutics. While I would not disagree that genre is very important, Burridge at times has the tail wagging the dog. In some instances, he denies the factuality of the gospel accounts on the basis that other ancient biographies are not historically factual. As ancient biographers:

They [the gospel writers] were allowed more interpretation of their subjects than in history writing, but they did not go to the lengths of encomium or the early novel; there had to be a correlation of the account with the historical person. This indicates the room for manoeuvre [sic] the evangelists have in creating their pictures of Jesus: we should not expect modern criteria of history, but nor the creativity of legend or novel.” (Four Gospels, One Jesus?, p. 168)

Thus, the gospel accounts are neither actual history nor are they complete fabrication. They are somewhere in the middle, focused on the historical person of Jesus whose life they tend to embellish for didactic and apologetic reasons.

In my opinion, the key component Burridge overlooks is the impact of inspiration on a given genre. The gospels are not secular biographies, and so we must be careful in interpreting them the same way we would interpret other ancient biographies. Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would help them remember the details of His teaching ministry (John 14:26). While other ancient biographers may have put words in the mouths of their main characters, the evangelists did not need to invent what Jesus’ said. The Spirit Himself enabled them to remember.

I would also not assume, like Burridge and many other scholars, that the apparent inconsistencies between the gospel accounts are historically irreconcilable.

Thus, while I appreciate the study Burridge has done, finding many of his insights to be helpful, I do not agree with his final assessment that the gospels are somewhere between fact and fiction.

In his work, Jesus and the Gospels, Craig Blomberg makes mention of Burridge’s work in a generally positive way. In Blomberg’s view, the gospels should be categorized as “theological biographies.”

I appreciate Blomberg’s explanation of what he means by “theological biography.”

At any rate, what is important to conclude at the end of this two-chapter survey of modern methods of Gospel study is that there is a legitimate place for historical, theological, and literary study of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Despite attempts of various scholars to pit one method against the other two, all three actually go hand in hand. Indeed, unless we approach the Gospels expecting to find historically reliable information, theologically motivated emphases, and delightful literary artistry, we shall overlook important dimensions of the texts and run the risk of misinterpreting them as well. (bold emphasis added)

Anyway, hope that make sense. Thanks for the discussion.
- NB

With that said, his major point is that the Gospels are Graeco-Roman biographies and not unique documents to the first century world. This same Graeco-Roman biographies are not modern history books nor are they necessarily concerned with our modern conception of ‘historicity’ or ‘historiography.’

The reason I asked Nathan if he had read this book is because I think it would re-shape some of the things he has written.

Everyone would do well to read Burridge’s work. In the scholarly world this book is considered as the definitive work on the genre question of the Gospels until someone (if they can) proves him wrong.

With your permission, I would like to place links to this series on my church website. They are a great summary.

Thank,
Steve Lamm

Can you please briefly summarize Burridge’s conclusions for us who have not read his book?

Regards,
Steve Lamm