About Friends, by Friends, for Others: Author-Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-Roman...

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

353formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

EditorMark Goodacre

Editorial Board

John M. G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, R. Alan Culpepper, James D. G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl,

Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Robert Wall, Steve Walton,

Robert L. Webb, Catrin H. Williams

THE AUDIENCE OF THE GOSPELS

The Origin and Function ofthe Gospels in Early Christianity

Edited byEDWARD W. KLINK III

Copyright © Edward W. Klink III, and contributors, 2009

Published by T&T Clark InternationalA Continuum imprintThe Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038

www.tandtclark.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 10: 0567045366 (hardback)ISBN 13: 9780567045362 (hardback)

Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production LimitedPrinted on acid-free paper in Great Britain by …

Contents

Acknowledgements vii 1. Gospel Audience and Origin: The Current Debate 1 Edward W. Klink III

2. Sectarian Gospels for Sectarian Christians? The Non-canonical Gospels and Bauckham’s The Gospels for All Christians 27 Michael F. Bird

3. About Friends, by Friends, for Others: Author-Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-Roman Biographies 49 Justin Smith

4. Is there Patristic Counter-Evidence? A Response to Margaret Mitchell 68 Richard Bauckham

5. The Gospels for Specific Communities AND All Christians 111 Craig Blomberg

6. Gospel Audiences: Variations on a Theme 134 Adele Reihnhartz

7. Conclusion: The Origin and Function of the Gospels in Early Christianity 153 Edward W. Klink III

Bibliography 167Index

ACknowledgemnts

The idea for this volume was conceived during tea with Professor Richard Bauckham at McGregor’s Coffee Shop in St. Andrews, Scotland in May 2005. I had just passed my viva and was soon to depart for southern California to take up a teaching post at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University. Since my Ph.D. thesis, written under Professor Bauckham, had focused on the issue of Gospel audience in relation to the Fourth Gospel, our conversation that afternoon focused on aspects of the current debate. One of the notables of our discussion was that with the increasing number of responses to and proposes regarding the audience and origin of the Gospels, there were still several core issues that needed to be both defined and addressed. Richard gently urged me to address these issues in the form of an edited volume. Almost four years to that day at McGregor’s, and after many surprises along the way, the volume is finally completed. This volume is an attempt to address several of the contemporary issues regarding the audience and origin of the Gospels. It is not comprehensive, nor are all the contributors in agreement, but it does provide some needed clarity and definition to the resurgence of the Gospel audience discussion almost a decade after the arrival of The Gospels for All Christians (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998). There are several people that made this volume possible. I am deeply grateful to the highly skilled contributors that made room in their busy schedules to participate in this volume. I am especially thankful to Richard Bauckham for not only his substantial contribution, but also for encouraging me to take on this task. I am very thankful to Biola University for the Research and Develop Grant I received in 2008, allowing me to complete a good amount of work on my essay for the volume. Thanks are due to Ben Wilson, my teaching assistant, and Adam Dam, both of whom are graduate students at Talbot School of Theology, for their assistance with the final stages of the volume. Sincere thanks are due to T&T Clark/Continuum, especially the series editor, Dr. Mark Goodacre, for accepting this volume into the Library of New Testament Studies series. I am also grateful for the patience exhibited by the editors, first by Haaris Naqvi, and more recently by Dominic Mattos. This volume is dedicated to my local church family, Calvary Church of Placentia, California (EFCA), with gratitude for its commitment to Christ

viii Acknowledgements

and appreciation for its warm embrace of the Klink family as fellow participants of the Gospel.

Edward ‘Mickey’ Klink29 May 2009

1. Richard Bauckham, ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written?’ in Richard J. Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 9–48 (28).

2. Richard A. Burridge, ‘About People, By People, For People: Gospel Genre and Audiences’, in The Gospels for All Christians, pp. 113–46. I am indebted to Richard Burridge for many things among which the title of this essay.

3. Heather Dubrow, Genre (London: Methuen, 1982), p. 31.

Chapter 3

About friends, by friends, for others:Author–subjeCt relAtionships in

ContemporAry greCo–romAn biogrAphies

Justin Marc Smith

1. Introduction: For Whom Were Gospels Written? Assessing the Question

For whom were gospels written? Richard Bauckham posed this question in his essay of the same title in his edited collection of essays, The Gospels for All Christians, in 1998 and nearly ten years later we are still assessing the question. For whom were the gospels written and why does it matter? Questions concerning gospel audiences matter due to the important relationships that exist between authors, the genres to which they conform and the audiences they intend to reach. The communicative matrix of author-genre-audience forms an important interpretive framework through which we gain understanding of a text and its meaning. In ‘For Whom Were Gospels Written?’ Bauckham raised the question as to the relationship between the genre of the gospels and the implied reader.1 To date, only Richard Burridge’s insightful, and important essay, ‘About People, by People, for People: Gospel Genre and Audiences’, has attempted to deal effectively with this important question.2 There is a serious gap that exists in biblical scholarship on the topic of gospel genre and implied audience. Genre, at least in part, serves to form a binding contract (to varying degrees) between the author and the audience.3 By choosing a specific

50 The Audience of the Gospels

4. Dubrow, Genre, p. 31.5. Dubrow, Genre, p. 31.

genre as the literary means through which an author intends to convey a particular message, story, or view, the author agrees to conform to the structures of the chosen genre (at least in theory).4 Similarly, the audience agrees to read and understand the information presented in light of and in conjunction with the genre.5 Thus, the genre serves as the agreed structure through which profitable communication is able to take place. Both author and audience bring certain expectations and understandings to the genre, and it is the recognition of and adherence to these conventions (at least in part) that allows the author to convey meaning and the audience to understand meaning. Conversely, one can imagine the confusion that would exist if the author purported to present the information in a particular generic form (as a comedy for instance), but actually presented the material in another genre (a tragedy perhaps). The information would essentially be the same, but the meaning and interpretive process on the part of the audience would be quite different. Both author and audience must be in some agreement as to the expectations and patterns of genre if effective communication is to be achieved. Since the act of writing is in part, the act of entering into a communicative relationship, what might we be able to say about the relationships between the authors and the subjects themselves? If authors choose certain genres through which to impart their message, and if they choose the genres that are best suited for disseminating their message, would they not also take a certain amount of care or at least interest in choosing their subjects as well? In the case of biography, why write about a certain individual over another. Certainly there comes a point where biographers and especially those who produce collections of Lives would begin with a list of stock characters or people of influence. But what of those authors who write about new and (at the time) unknown individuals? Is it purely the result of academic or ethical inquiry? Or is it possible that the authors of Greco-Roman biographies, and in particular contemporary biographies, had particular and meaningful relationships to the subjects they chose?

2. Contemporary Biographies: Organizing and Re-Organizing the Genre of Greco-Roman Biography

Given the vast amount of literature that makes up the genre of Greco-Roman biography the task of organizing it into manageable and suitable categories has proven difficult. Some scholars have chosen to organize the

About Friends, by Friends, for Others 51

6. This is a re-working of the typology proposed in Justin M. Smith, ‘Genre, Sub-Genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman Biography’, JGRChJ 4 (2007), pp. 184–216 (212–14). See Patricia Cox Miller, ‘Strategies of Representation in Collective Biography: Constructing the Subject as Holy,’ in Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau (eds.), Greek Biography and Pangyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), pp. 209–54 for a discussion of the relationship between subjects and authors in collective biographies in late antiquity.

7. Friedrich Leo, Die Griechish-Römische Biographie Nach Ihrer Literarischen Form (Leipzig: Teubner, 1901).

8. Leo, Die Griechish-Römische Biographie, pp. 315–16. 9. Ibid., pp. 316–7.10. Ibid.

material following the historical development of the genre. Others have chosen organizational patterns based on the arrangement of the material or according to subject matter. Still others have attempted to organize the material based on social function. While these classifications are helpful, none of them shed any light on the relational aspects of these texts. One can arrange biographies according to how they are written, but that tells us little about why they were written. One can arrange biographies based on when they were written and in what stage of biographical development, but that tells us little about the interest of the authors in their subjects. As we are interested in sorting out the relationships between the authors, their subjects and their audiences, a new classification for Greco-Roman biography is necessary; one that takes these relationships into account. What follows is a brief review of current typologies for Greco-Roman biography and a suggestion for a new typology that takes the relationship between authors, subjects and audiences.6

Friedrich Leo

Friedrich Leo’s work on Greco-Roman biography has stood as the benchmark on the history and development of the genre.7 Leo offered a typology for bi,oi consisting of two types. Leo argues that the roots of bi,oi are to be found in the Athenian interest in individuals as examples worthy of moral imitation, and in particular the Peripatetics.8 Out of the historical framework of the Peripatos, under the influence of Aristotle, two distinct types of biography emerge.9 Peripatetic biography, which Leo associated with Plutarch’s Lives, are biographies arranged in a chronological structure with attention to literary development.10 The second type, Alexandrian biography (associated with Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars) had none of the literary ambitions of the Peripatetic type, and they avoided the chronological order of the Peripatetic type with the material arranged in a systematic or itemized manner. This type


11. Ibid., p. 318. See Duane Reed Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1928), pp. 155–88 (185–7); Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), pp. 92–3; Patricia Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 6–12; David E. Aune, ‘Greco-Roman Biography’, in David E. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 107–26; esp. p. 108; Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, pp. 71–2.

12. Fritz Wehrli, ‘Gnome, Anekdote und Biographie’, MH 30 (1979), pp. 194–208 (194).

13. Klaus Berger, ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament’, in Hildegrard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase (eds.), Aufsteig und Niedergang Der Römischen Welt (ANRW II.25.2; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1984), pp. 1031–1432 (1236). Also, see Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography, pp. 157–8.

14. See Smith, ‘Genre, Sub-Genre and Questions of Audience’, pp. 193–6.

of biography was associated with the grammarians at the Museum of Alexandria and was well suited for the lives of poets and artists.11

Fritz Wehrli modified Leo’s two-fold structure to include three types of biography; 1) lives of philosophers and poets (with the material being chronologically arranged); 2) encomium of generals and political leaders and; 3) lives of literary characters.12 Similarly, Klaus Berger has proposed the following typology: 1) The Encomium type (Isocrates, Xenophon, Philo, Tacitus, Lucian); 2) the Peripatetic type, which is a chronological representation of the moral character of a person as seen through their actions (Plutarch); 3) the popular-novelistic type (Life of Aesop, Life of Secundus the Silent Philosopher); and 4) the Alexandrian type, consisting of a systematic presentation of the life events (Suetonius).13 Leo’s sub-dividing of the biographical material and the subsequent attempts to re-classify the material amounts to what is essentially a methodological problem.14 How does one go about separating this material into sub-genres? Leo, in attempting to trace the historical development of the material, sought to divide biography along the lines of its proposed development. The difficulty here is that this type of literature did not develop in such a straight forward pattern and Leo’s typology does not account for the diversity present within the genre. Similarly the attempts of Wehrli and Berger to rehabilitate Leo’s basic structure both include the insertion of categories that blend the themes of historical/literary development with subject matter and no clear or set pattern emerges for the sub-classification of the genre.

Charles H. Talbert

Talbert identifies four main types within existing classifications of Greco-Roman biography. In conjunction with the Peripatetic and


15. Talbert, What is A Gospel?, p. 92.16. Ibid.17. Ibid., p. 93.18. Ibid.19. Ibid. See David E. Aune, ‘The Problem of the Genre of the Gospels: A Critique

of C. H. Talbert’s What Is a Gospel?’ in R. T. France and David Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives II: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 9–60; and Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, pp 80–1.

20. Talbert, What is A Gospel?, p. 94–6.

Alexandrian types, Talbert distinguishes an Encomium type of ancient biography, characterized by Isocrates’ Evagoras, Busiris and Helen as well as Xenophon’s Agesilaus and Tacitus’ Agricola. 15 To these three types, Talbert would add a fourth categorization or the ‘romantic or popular’ type such as the anonymous Secundus the Silent Philosopher and The Life Aesop.16 Talbert argues that such classifications are based essentially on two principles: 1) the composition of formal elements; and 2) the extent to which each is historically reliable.17 Talbert proposes that Greco-Roman biography be categorized as either didactic or non-didactic with didactic Lives calling ‘for emulation of the hero or avoidance of his example and non-didactic Lives that are unconcerned with moral example’.18 Talbert establishes his classification ‘on the basis of the criterion of the function(s) of the writings in their social-intellectual-spiritual milieu’.19 Thus, ancient biography can be classified as didactic or non-didactic, with didactic lives being interested in the propagandistic enterprise of compelling an audience toward or away from the emulation of a certain person of note. Talbert subdivides didactic biographies into five categories or functions: 1) Type A: Biographies that function as a pattern of emulation (e.g. Lucian, Demonax); 2) Type B: Biographies that function to replace a false image of a teacher or figure of renown with a true representation that should then be seen as worthy of emulation (e.g. Xenophon, Memorabilia); 3) Type C: Biographies that function to expose a teacher or individual as false or flawed (e.g. Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet); 4) Type D: Biographies that function to record and establish the true delineation of a particular school or philosophy by documenting the succession of the students from the teacher and thus establishing orthodoxy via succession; and 5) Type E: Biographies that function to shed understanding on the behavior or teachings of a particular figure especially in instances where the behavior is peculiar, strange, or out of step with social norms (e.g. Secundus the Silent Philosopher).20 While helpful for organizing Greco-Roman biographies, Talbert’s typology is at times confusing and says little or nothing about the relationships between the authors of biographies and their subjects.


21. ‘Living memory’ means simply that the author had access to first-hand/eye-witness accounts concerning the life of the subject. These accounts can be the author’s own or those of others which are accessible to the author. See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 7.

22. See Smith, ‘Genre, Sub-Genre and Questions of Audience’, pp. 203–11.23. These stand just outside the lifetime of the author and as such may be at the

borders of ‘living memory’. The Gospel of John presents similar difficulties. However, the reliance upon, or lack thereof, of first-hand/eyewitness accounts may provide a rubric here. Those that utilize these accounts are contemporary and those that do not are best understood as non-contemporary.

A Relationally Oriented Typology for Greco-Roman Biography

As we have seen, there have been a number of typologies of bi,oi/vitae based on a variety of organizing principles (literary structure, subject, purpose, etc.). Yet we have also acknowledged that each of these typologies is insufficient in addressing questions pertaining to the relationships between authors, subjects and audiences. Accordingly, I would propose a typology that takes both of these issues into account. Greco-Roman biography can be divided into four sub-types: 1) Non-Contemporary-Focused; 2) Non-Contemporary-Open; 3) Contemporary-Focused; and 4) Contemporary-Open. This typology is based on the following guiding principles: 1) non-contemporary biographies are those in which the subject is not within ‘living memory’ of the author.21 2) Contemporary biographies are those where the subject is accessible to the author via ‘living memory’. 3) Focused biographies are those that have a distinguishable audience. 4) Open biographies are those that have no distinguishable audience group. Admittedly, there are two potential difficulties with this typology. First, the construction of audience functions on a number of levels, at least primary and secondary, and as such the secondary levels of audience tend to be less distinguishable than those of the primary levels.22 Second, it can be difficult to identify the relationship between the subject and author as either contemporary or non-contemporary. In some contexts this differentiation is easily achieved (ex. Plutarch’s Theseus, Romulus; Phlostratus’s Apollonius of Tyana; Philo’s Moses, as non-contemporary biographies and Isocrates’ Evagoras, Xenophon’s Agesilaus, Porphyry’s Plotinus and Cornelius Nepos’ Atticus as contemporary), while in others it is more difficult (Nepos’ Cato; Suetonius’ Caligula, Claudius and Nero).23 Even with these difficulties, this typology still proves to be valuable. 1) Non-Contemporary-Focused biographies (Satyrus, Life of Euripides; Philo, Life of Moses; Plutarch, Lives; Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander; Iamblichus, On The Pythagorean Life; and Philostratus, The Lives of


24. C. B. R. Pelling, ‘Truth and Fiction in Plutarch’s Lives’, in D.A. Russell (ed.), Antonine Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 19–52; esp. pp. 24–27.

25. See Barry Baldwin, Suetonius (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1983), pp. 101–213.26. Elizabeth Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London:

Duckworth, 1985), p. 49.27. Cf. Isocrates, Evagoras, 4–6; Xenophon, Agesilaus III.1; X.3; and Tacitus,

Agricola 4.3; 24.3; 44.5.28. While this typology ends up separating some of the works of Plutarch, Nepos

and Suetonius into different ‘types’ (based the relationship of the subject and the author), the separation is representative of the differing subject matter (contemporary or non-contemporary) as opposed to structural differences or differences in purpose. See Talbert, “What is A Gospel?’ pp. 93–98.

29. See Philostratus, Apollonius, I.2.3; Lucian, Demonax, 1–2; and Secundus, I.1–5 as examples of an educational impetus for writing bi,oi.

the Sophists) are biographical works about non-contemporary men of importance and are aimed at a distinguishable audience (philosophical school, educational group, critics, etc.). They are less likely to utilize verifiable eyewitness accounts and they tend to be less ‘historically’ reliable. Myth, fiction, and the like are readily used and without much reservation.24

2) Non-Contemporary-Open biographies (ex. The Life of Aesop; Philostratus’, Life of Apollonius of Tyana; Cornelius Nepos, The Book on the Great Generals of Foreign Nations; and Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Augustus and Tiberius), likewise, are biographical works about non-contemporary men of importance but are aimed at an indistinguishable audience.25 Often these audiences can be those who are generally interested in the subject, history or entertainment.26

3) Contemporary-Focused biographies (ex. Isocrates, Evagoras; Xenophon, Agesilaus; Tacitus, Agricola; Plutarch, Lives – Galba, Otho; and Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books) are works written about a person of significant interest who lived within ‘living memory’ of the author and are directed toward a distinguishable audience. Eyewitness accounts are of vital importance to these types of biographies and they are frequently used to refute criticisms aimed at the subject.27 Often, in this type of biography, there exists a personal relationship between the author and subject that transcends a conventional interest in the subject as a moral example or person of interest. 4) Contemporary-Open biographies (ex. Cornelius Nepos, Atticus; The Life of Secundus the Silent Philosopher; Lucian, Demonax; and Suetonius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian) are works written about a person of significant interest who lived within the ‘living memory’ of the author and which are directed toward an indistinguishable audience.28 This type of biography tends to be geared toward education and entertainment.29 As with other contemporary biographies, Contemporary-open biographies


30. Simon Swain, ‘Biography and Biographic in the Literature of the Roman Empire’, in M. J. Edwards and Simon Swain (eds.), Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), pp. 1–37 (2).

31. For instance, if one example proves to fit better in another category, the entire typology is not undermined unlike typologies based on literary structure.

32. Burridge, ‘About People, by People, For People’.

are often dependent on eyewitness/first-hand accounts. Again, the contemporary nature of these biographies often points to a personal relationship between the author and subject, and as such, the author often has a stake in telling/re-telling the life of the subject.30

What is being proposed is a typology for bi,oi that takes into account the relationships that exist between the author and the subject and the author and the audience. In some instances, authors have chosen to write about men of renown who are removed from the writers’ own context but whose reputation and status render them as important subjects. Some of these biographies are written with focused audiences in mind (Non-Contemporary-Focused) while others are written with deference to no focused audience (Non-Contemporary-Open). In other instances, authors have chosen as biographical subjects persons who are closer in chronological proximity to them. Often, the authors have a personal relationship with the subject (friend, teacher, mentor, etc.) and thus have personal reasons for recording the subject’s life. Similarly, these biographies can be written with a distinguishable (Contemporary-Focused) or indistinguishable (Contemporary-Open) audience in mind. This typology has the distinct advantage of being flexible enough to accommodate the generic diversity, yet concrete enough to offer distinct insight into the author-subject-audience relationships that exist in Greco-Roman biography.31

3. The Relationship Between Authors and Their Subjects in Greco-Roman Biography

Burridge has argued effectively for the realization that ancient biographies were written ‘by people, about people, for people’.32 Biographies were written by people who had an interest in the subject, either personally or academically. The implication is that the gospel authors as writers within the genre of biography also wrote with a particular interest in the subject Jesus. When Xenophon or Plutarch or Porphyry wrote biographies, they wrote because they were interested in the subject about which they were writing. Not all authors of ancient biography had the same level or type of interest in their subjects, but all had an interest just the same.


33. Charles D. Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon on Agesilaus’, The Ancient World 25 (1994), pp. 202–12 (205).

34. Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon’, p.205. See Patricia Cox Miller, ‘Strategies of Representation in Collective Biography: Constructing the Subject as Holy,’ pp. 216–18.

35. Alexei V. Zadorojnyi, ‘Cato’s Suicide in Plutarch’, The Classical Quarterly 57.1 (2007), pp. 216–30 (221).

36. Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon’, p. 206.37. Ibid. 38. Burridge, ‘About People, by People, For People’, p. 132; Joseph Geiger, ‘Munatius

Rufus and Thrasea Paetus On Cato the Younger’, Athenaeum, New Series, 57 (1979), pp. 48–72.

Just as different writers had different levels of interest or attachment to their subjects, so too did writers write for various reasons. For instance, in the biographies of Plutarch there is a ‘combined concern for moral character and virtue, a belief that knowledge of the past could shape those who studied it, and a hope that society could be improved by examining the past’.33 Plutarch’s aim was to provide his readers with ‘useful lessons from the past’.34 Moreover, Plutarch was ‘significantly detached’ temporally and perhaps relationally from most or all of his subjects.35 Plutarch’s involvement in choosing subjects and writing about them had more to do with his belief in the biographical genre as one that could demonstrate ethical (or unethical) principles than the subjects themselves.36 It was his hope that these ethical principles themselves would become evident through the narratives and that future generations would emulate, not the lives of great men, so much as the ethical principles they revealed.37 I would suggest that this is often the case with collections of biographies, where the overall project takes precedent over the individual works themselves. Thus the treatment of contemporary subjects in collections of Lives will be less personal and less relational than those in individual biographies. What can we say then about the relationship between authors and subjects in contemporary biographies? In the case of collections of biographies, contemporary subjects would generally have been subsumed under the greater project of the collection. In Plutarch there is little indication that he had any personal relationship with or to the contemporary subjects he includes in his collection of Lives. This is not the case with other contemporary Lives. In most other cases authors compose contemporary biographies because they have a personal relationship with the subject and therefore have a particular reason for wanting to see the subject’s portrait remembered by others. In the case of the ‘Cato Literature’ both those who venerated and those who denigrated Cato wished to see him considered by future generations.38 Likewise, Isocrates, Xenophon, Nepos, Tacitus and Porphyry wrote their


39. See Burridge, What Are the Gospels? p. 125, for a short introduction to this work. See also Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography, (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1993), pp. 46–9; Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography, pp. 77–118; Takis Poulakos, ‘Isocrates Use of Narrative in the Evagoras: Epideictic Rhetoric and Moral Action’, QJS 73 (1987), pp. 317–328; Stephen Halliwell, ‘Traditional Greek Conceptions of Character’, in Characterization and Individuality, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 32–59; and William H. Race, ‘Pindaric Encomium and Isokrates’ Evagoras’, TAPA 117 (1987), pp. 131–55.

40. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? p. 125.

biographies of family members, friends and teachers precisely because they wanted them to be remembered and remembered well. In most of the above instances the writers were defending their subjects, in part, from what they saw as unwarranted and untrue attacks. But on a deeper and more relational level, the above writers wrote because they had a personal relationship with the subject, one that went beyond ethical exploration, and they wanted future generations to honor and respect these individuals as well.

4. Contemporary Biographies and Personal Relationships

A brief discussion of specific examples of contemporary Greco-Roman biographies will be helpful for illustrating the relationships between the writers and their subjects within the genre. The examples that are presented here are representative of the development of bi,oi/vitae from the fourth century BCE (Isocrates’s Evagoras) to the fourth century CE (Porphyry’s Plotinus). While not exhaustive, these examples provide a relational pattern for the development and treatment of contemporary subjects in Greco-Roman biography.

Isocrates’s Evagoras39

Isocrates’s Evagoras serves as an important example of Greco-Roman biographical literature. In 365 BCE, on the occasion of the festival held by Niccoles to commemorate his father Evagoras, Isocrates composed the Evagoras as the first attempt by anyone to eulogize an individual in prose and not in poetry. Evagoras is important for a number of reasons. First, as Burridge has noted, ‘Evagoras may be seen as crossing over from rhetoric to bi,oj; it takes the form of a funeral eulogy praising the king, rather than a full biography’, and it stands as a transitional expression of biographical literature.40 It is somewhere between encomium and


41. Poulakos, ‘Isocrates Use of Narrative’, p. 317.42. Poulakos, ‘Isocrates Use of Narrative’, p. 318; see also Race, ‘Pindaric Encomium’,

p. 133, where Isocrates acknowledges that in choosing a contemporary example it will leave his presentation open to scrutiny in regard to historicity (Evagoras 5).

43. Poulakos, ‘Isocrates Use of Narrative’, p. 318.

biography and is one of the earliest examples of Hellenistic biographical literature, if not a full-fledged biography. Second, Evagoras is important as Isocrates sought to use it as a means to move Niccoles toward moral action.41 This further separates Evagoras from the tradition of festival or funerary oration. Whereas typical festival orations would be seen as an opportunity for the rhetorician to display their verbal prowess, Isocrates has it in mind to use the opportunity to encourage Evagoras’s son, who is now a king himself, to live a life worthy of the moral example set by his father. This moves the biographical efforts of Evagoras into the realm of exhortation to emulation and makes the figure of Evagoras one that should be studied and followed by future generations (Evagoras 5 and 77). Finally, Evagoras is important as an example of biographic literature, and perhaps the first of its kind, as Isocrates chose ‘a contemporary [rather than a mythical personage] as the subject’.42 It is in Isocrates’s desire to bring these two aims together, the traditional poetic purpose of demonstrating the ‘essential character of the dead’ and the historical purpose of providing ‘the hearers with the larger context of their tradition’, that Isocrates is able to present Evagoras as both historically relevant and the personification of true moral character.43 It is unclear from the text what the nature and extent of the relationship was between Isocrates and Evagoras. There is some indication that Isocrates was privy to information about Evagoras not available to everyone and this may indicate a more intimate or personal relationship (Evagoras 21). However, it is possible that this information was known by others but was not readily known by the general public. The relationship between Isocrates and Niccoles is easier to discern. Isocrates seems to have counted himself among the friends of Niccoles (Evagoras 80) and given the fact that Isocrates composed a number of admonitions to Niccoles it may be the case that Niccoles was a student of Isocrates. It would seem then that there existed a personal relationship between Isocrates and Niccoles if not Evagoras. As such, Isocrates would have an interest in preserving the memory of Evagoras above and beyond rhetorical or literary conventions. In so doing he expects not only Niccoles but many others to remember and follow the moral example of Evagoras and it is precisely the written word which will make this possible (Evagoras 73–78).


44. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? pp. 127–8. See also Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography, pp. 49–57; Stuart, Epochs of Greek and Roman Biography, pp. 69–90; J. K. Anderson, Xenophon (London: Duckworth, 1974), esp. chs. 12–13; Samuel E. Bassett, ‘Wit and Humor in Xenophon’, CJ 12.9 (1917), pp. 565–74; G. J. D. Aalders, ‘Date and Intention of Xenophon’s “Hiero”’, Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 6.3 (1953), pp. 208–15; Michael A. Flower, ‘Agesilaus of Sparta and the Origins of the Ruler Cult’, CQ, New Series, 38.1 (1988), pp. 123–34; and Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon’.

45. Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon’, p. 212.46. Ibid.; Agesilaus 2.21, 4.3, 5.6 and 8.7.47. Ibid. 48. Flower, ‘Agesilaus of Sparta’, p.127; and Hamilton, ‘Plutarch and Xenophon’, p.

212.49. Agesilaus 10.2 and 11.1.50. The use of Evagoras by Xenophon points to two issues. First, it illustrates that

biographical texts were being copied and read outside of their immediate contexts and in this case Evagoras had been copied and circulated within a period of five years. Second, because texts were being copied and used as sources either of information or for emulation. It is fair to conclude that authors were expecting (and perhaps hoping) that their works were going to be copied and spread widely. As such they would have envisioned an audience

Xenophon’s Agesilaus44

Xenophon, most likely using Evagoras as an example, composed his Agesilaus in honor of his friend Agesilaus, the recently deceased king of Sparta. The purpose of the composition seems to have been a reaction to critics who accused Agesilaus of being responsible for the failures of Sparta.45 Xenophon seeks to vindicate his friend and alludes to a number of the criticisms leveled against him.46 It is certain that this is an edited portrayal of Agesilaus as Xenophon omits many of the less flattering aspects of his subject’s life. Many of these elements will be included in the later biographical presentation of Agesilaus by Plutarch.47 Agesilaus is portrayed as being ‘a paragon of traditional piety’ and as ‘devoted to the service of his state, to self-control, justice, piety, the support of his friends, and to the idea of panhellenism’.48

As one who had traveled and fought under Agesilaus and as one who considered him a friend, Xenophon would have had a profound and personal interest in preserving the life of Agesilaus in words. Certainly one aspect of the work was to serve as a defense of the life and the conduct of the king, but that should not obscure the fact that Xenophon presented Agesilaus as a moral example worthy of emulation.49 The emphasis on Agesilaus as a moral example is seen in the dual portrayal of Agesilaus’s character, first in a chronological arrangement and secondly as a summary of the king’s virtues so that they might be more readily remembered (Agesilaus 11.1). Xenophon would have expected his work to be read and studied by future generations in the same way that Evagoras had served as a literary example for his composition.50


much wider than the immediate context. For some discussion on literary emulation see Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (NTM 1; (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004), pp. 3–23; and Myles McDonnell, ‘Writing, Copying, and Autograph Manuscripts in Ancient Rome’, CQ, New Series, 46.2 (1996), pp. 469–91.

51. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? pp. 127–8. See also Edna Jenkins, ‘Nepos – An Introduction to Latin Biography’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Biography (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967), pp. 1–15; Joseph Geiger Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography (Historia Einzelschriften 51; Weisbaden: Steiner, 1985); A. C. Dionisotti, ‘Nepos and the Generals’, JRS 78 (1988), pp. 35–49; Fergus Millar, ‘Cornelius Nepos, ‘Atticus’ and the Roman Revolution’, Greece and Rome, Second Series, 35.1 (1988), pp. 40–55; and Louis E. Lord, ‘The Biographical Interests of Nepos’, CJ 22.7 (1927), pp. 498–503.

52. See for example Plutarch’s Galba and Otho.53. Dionisotti, ‘Nepos and the Generals’, p. 45.54. Millar, ‘Cornelius Nepos, ‘Atticus’ and the Roman Revolution’, p. 41.55. Millar, ‘Cornelius Nepos, ‘Atticus’ and the Roman Revolution’, p. 42. Millar

writes, ‘It is the biography of one who endured and survived, not who acted’.

Xenophon wanted to present the life of Agesilaus both as a refutation to those who defamed his friend’s character and to serve as an example of virtue for others.

Cornelius Nepos’s Atticus51

Titus Pomponius Atticus was the patron and friend of Cornelius Nepos. It is no wonder that Nepos both dedicated his work to Atticus and includes his biography as one of those among De Virus Illustribus. As in the case with other contemporary biographies there is a pre-existing relationship between the subject and the author. Atticus serves as an interesting example as it departs to a certain extent from other examples of contemporary Greco-Roman biographies that are a part of a larger set or work. In the work of Suetonius and Plutarch there are examples of biographies of contemporary figures, but there is little indication that either of these writers has any sort of special relationship to the subjects.52 Through the biography of Atticus, Nepos presents the political neutrality of his friend and patron as virtuous and as a benefit not just for ‘Atticus but all his friends and dependents’.53 Nepos as a personal friend of Atticus undertook the writing of the biography while Atticus was still alive. A first edition of the biography was completed before Atticus’s death in 32 BCE, with the second edition containing the addition of chapters 19–22 after the death of Atticus.54 Atticus is remarkable for what it is as much as what it is not. It is not the presentation of the life of an individual who is spurred to the undertaking of great or heroic acts, but the presentation of the life of a man who was spurred toward neutrality.55 The biography ‘presents the most troubled


56. Ibid.57. Ibid.; Atticus 19.1–2.58. Preface 1–8.59. Preface 1.60. See Burridge, What Are the Gospels? p. 151. See also M. M. Sage, ‘Tacitus’

Historical Works: A Survey and Appraisal’, ANRW II.33.2 (1990), pp. 851–1030, pp. 854–5; T. A. Dorey, ‘Agricola and Domitian’, GR 7 (1960), pp. 66–71; Ronald Martin, Tacitus (London: Batsford, 1981), pp. 39–49; For further discussion see Janet P. Bews, ‘Language and Style in Tacitus’ “Agricola”’, GR, Second Series, 34.2 (1987), pp. 201–11; W. Liebeschuetz, ‘The Theme of Liberty in the Agricola of Tacitus’, CQ, New Series, 16.1 (1966), pp. 126–139; A. G. Woodhead, ‘Tacitus and Agricola’, Phoenix 2.2 (1948), pp. 45–55; Charles Christopher Mierow, ‘Tacitus the Biographer’, Cp 34.1 (1939), pp. 36–44; M. A. Fitzsimons, ‘The Mind of Tacitus’, RevP 38.4 (1976), pp. 473–93; Stephen G. Ditz, ‘Tacitus’ Technique of Character Portrayal’, AJP 81.1 (1960), pp. 30–52; and Dylan Sailor, ‘Becoming Tacitus: Significance and Inconsequentiality in the Prologue of the Agricola’, CA 23.1 (2004), pp. 139–77.

61. See Ronald Syme, ‘Tacitus: Some Sources of His Information’, JRS 72 (1982), pp. 68–82 for a treatment of some of the sources available to Tacitus. Also see Kurt Von Fritz, ‘Tacitus, Agricola, Domitian, and the Problem of the Principate’, CP 52.2 (1957), pp. 73–97, esp. 75–6 for some discussion of the difficulties in the reliability of Tacitus’s portrayal of Agricola.

period of Roman history’ from the perspective of a man who stood at the very center of the Roman cultural and political world, yet remained amazingly distant from the fray.56 Undoubtedly there would have been some who were critical of Atticus’s lack of involvement in the Roman Civil War and Nepos holds up Atticus as a hero who is judged in terms of what he ‘did not do, of the temptations presented by public life, and the changes of political fortune, to which he did not succumb’.57 The actions of Atticus would have required some explanation on the part of Nepos. It is reasonable to conclude that Nepos intended Atticus to correct the misconceptions that some held concerning his friend. Yet, the presentation and explanation of deeds or actions that would ordinarily have been seen as disgraceful or embarrassing were a function of The Great Generals of Foreign Nations and this presentation extended at least in part to Atticus.58 Nepos’s work was intended for a wider Roman audience. This would have included those with a particular interest in Atticus as well as those interested in the broader subject matter of the lives of illustrious men.59

Tacitus’s Agricola60

Tacitus’s Agricola centered on the subject of Tacitus’s father-in-law Agricola. As such it is a biography devoted to a subject/person of whom Tacitus has intimate knowledge. This is not to say that all of the material included in the Agricola comes from first-hand experience.61 However,


62. Bews, ‘Language and Style’, p. 201.63. Agricola 1.2; Bews, ‘Language and Style’, p. 202.64. Agricola 46; Bews, ‘Language and Style’, p. 202.65. See Evagoras 4; 73–75; Agricola 42.3.66. Sailor, ‘Becoming Tacitus’, p. 140. Sailor has argued, ‘Literature is politically and

ideologically engaged. This is true not simply of a text’s relationship to large-scale discourse about, say, empire or social status, but also of its function as a representative of an author, for whom its circulation and consumption has social consequences’. This is certainly true of Agricola which has political overtones running through it. Moreover, as Tacitus’s first foray into writing on of this sort in the public sphere it serves as his introduction to the Roman reading public. Therefore, there is certainly some measure of literary pretense on the part of Tacitus but the entire work cannot be reduced to only a literary exercise. The content and presentation are far more personal.

67. Burridge, ‘About People, By People and For People’, p. 133. See also Liebeschuetz, ‘The Theme of Liberty’, p.129.

the relationship between the author (Tacitus) and the subject (Agricola) make this work one of a ‘deeply personal’ nature.62 The personal nature of the work can be attributed both to Tacitus’s relationship to the subject matter and his relationship to the issues at stake. It is these very same issues that affect not just the telling/re-telling of the life of Agricola, but also the person and work of Tacitus himself. While there is much debate as to the reasons for the writing of the Agricola we can identify two key reasons for the crafting of the biography. First, Tacitus wishes to present the life Agricola in order to ‘“foster the memory of excellence”, [which was] more acceptable in earlier times when virtus was most easily demonstrated’.63 Further, ‘Agricola’s virtues are to be contemplated and imitated, qualities which will ensure his continued memory since they have been expressed in literary form’.64 It is not enough for a few select persons to know the deeds of the great. On the contrary it is precisely in writing and choosing the written word (as opposed to other means of commemorating the individual) that the authors of ancient biography intended their tributes to be read and studied by future generations.65 It was not enough for just a few select persons to have access to these bi,oi/vitae. Tacitus had a vested interest in seeing his father-in-law presented and remembered correctly. Tacitus’ work was not only a work of literary achievement, but one of personal and political passion.66

Second, Tacitus wishes to defend Agricola (and perhaps himself) from criticisms leveled against him as one who served under the tyrant Domitian.67 The mention of the names of Arulenus Rusticus and Herennius Senecio in the Agricola suggests that the work was aimed, at least in part, to those who were admirers of those who had opposed


68. Agricola 2.1; Liebeschuetz, ‘The Theme of Liberty’, p.129. Domitian had the works of these two individuals burned. Geiger, ‘Munatius Rufus and Thrasea Paetus’, has suggested that although ‘…a full-scale account of the life of the hero was given, a special emphasis was laid on detailed pictures of their last hours and death. Thus, for instance, Arulenus Rusticus’ biography of Thrasea Paetus and Herennius Senecio’s Life of Helvidius Priscus no doubt reached their climaxes in depicting the martyrdom of the heroes’ (p. 62). What is of interest here is 1) all four individuals were engaged in the work of biographical writing; Paetus and Priscus on the subject of Cato and Rusticus and Senecio on the subjects of Paetus and Priscus, respectively. 2) All four used the biographical genre to demonstrate political points or emphases. This is similar then to the presentation of Agricola by Tacitus, where Tacitus is tapping into a pre-existent literary trend which used biography to present an apology and/or a political view-point. This is all the more interesting since he is directing (at least in part) his biography of Agricola towards those who admired Rusticus and Senecio. See also Sailor, ‘Becoming Tacitus’, p. 148.

69. Agricola 42 .4.70. See D. J. O’Meara, Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads (Oxford: Clarendon,

1993); Cox, Biography in Late Antiquity; G. Clark, ‘Philosophic Lives and the Philosophic Life: Porphyry and Iamblichus’, in Thomas Hägg and Phillip Rousseau (eds.), Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), pp. 29–51; Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 137–47; M. J. Edwards, ‘A Portrait of Plotinus’, CQ, New Series, 43.2 (1993), pp. 480–90; Leonardo Taran, ‘Amelius-Amerius: Porphyry Vita Plotini 7 and Eunapius Vitae Soph 4.2’, AJP 105.4 (1984), pp. 476–9; M. J. Boyd, ‘The Chronology in Porphyry’s Vita Plotini’, CP 32.3 (1937), pp. 241–57; Roger Miller Jones, ‘Notes on Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus’, CP 23.4 (1928), pp. 371–6.

71. Edwards, ‘A Portrait of Plotinus’, p. 480. Votaw has noted Xenophon recoded some of the elements of the life of Socrates in his Memorabilia and Plato recorded similar biographical material in his Dialogues. Votaw states that ‘the interval between the life of the teacher and the writing of the life was brief; also, the accounts were at first-hand, the biographers having been pupils for years of the men about whom they wrote’. Clyde Weber Votaw, ‘The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies’, AJT 19.1 (1915), pp. 45–73 (55).

72. Edwards, ‘A Portrait of Plotinus’, p. 481.

Domitian.68 Thus the work can be seen to have at least two purposes that are not at odds with each other. Tacitus simultaneously intended for his work to present the life and deeds of his father-in-law for all posterity, and in so doing correct the misconceptions that others have about Agricola (and Tacitus) in terms of their perceived acquiescence under Domitian.69 Tacitus’s writing is not one of a detached academic work but one of passion and investment.

Porphyry’s On the Life of Plotinus and the order of His Books70

Porphyry’s work on Plotinus may be the earliest extant biography of a philosopher by his student.71 As a student and disciple of Plotinus, Porphyry wished his work to stand as a means of preserving the memory of his teacher for posterity.72 Commemorating the life of the individual, and especially the philosopher, was more aptly accomplished by writing


73. Ibid. Edwards argues that ‘portraiture competed with philosophy and biography for the distinction of bestowing immortality; philosophers could scorn it as a trifling substitute, but the biographer must take some pains to show the inferiority of this rival form of art.’ This rival form of art is subtly undermined in Life of Plotinus 1.1–20. Similarly Isocrates also argues that the written word is far more suitable for capturing the essence of the individual and is much better as the written word is able to travel abroad and affect a wider audience (Evagoras 73–78).

74. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 137.75. This can be contrasted with Amelius, another of Plotinus’s trusted disciples who

did not record much of Plotinus’s teachings and who attempted to have an artist make a portrait of Plotinus against his wishes and without his knowledge (Life of Plotinus 1.1–20 and 6. 4.1–7.

the life of the subject as opposed to having the subject commemorated though statuary or portraiture.73 Porphyry intended for his work to stand as the introduction to his edited versions of Plotinus’s work.74 Porphyry was interested in placing the treatises of Plotinus into a particular chronological framework that coincided with particular phases in the life of Plotinus. In so doing, Porphyry not only placed Plotinus’s work into a particular context, but he was able to place himself into that context as well as a student, friend and first-hand observer of the life and work of Plotinus. Porphyry’s biography served the purpose of apology for both himself and Plotinus. Porphyry was the one to whom the task of collecting and editing the manuscripts was given, even though there were students of Plotinus that had been with him longer. Moreover, Porphyry seemed to take a certain amount of pride in the fact that Plotinus’s best work was done during the years that Porphyry was in residence with him (Life of Plotinus 6.26–37). Thus not only does Porphyry wish to defend the work of his teacher and friend he also attempts to distance himself from the other disciples as the one who was entrusted with the task of preserving the memory of the teacher and his works.75 As one closely associated with Plotinus, Porphyry had a vested interested in preserving the life and work of his master as much as he had a personal interest in proving himself worthy of the task. Certainly the hope was that both the life and work of Plotinus would be remembered by future generations.

5. Implications/Conclusion

Here I would conclude with four observations/implications for further Gospels study. 1) Most often contemporary biographies were written by authors who had a particular personal relationship to the subject. In some instances the relationship was a negative one with the intent of the biography to expose the subject as a fraud or model of moral


76. Burridge, “About People, by People, For People’, pp. 130–4.77. Richard A. Burridge, ‘Who Writes, Why and For Whom?’ in Markus Bockmuehl

and Donald Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp.99–115 (110–112).

78. Burridge, “About People, by People, For People’, pp. 133.

avoidance (the Anti-Cato literature, Lucian’s Alexander). In other instances authors wrote biographies about friends, teachers and/or family members as a way of protecting and preserving their memory/legacy for future generations (Xenophon’s Agesilaus, Tacitus’s Agricola). In some instances the biographies served as a corrective to defend the subject from slander or misinformation; in other instances they served as written monuments to the life and work of the individual. In either instance the relationships that induced the writing of this material were personal; whether positive or negative. 2) The personal nature of these biographies would seem to indicate a desire on the part of the authors to have their works read widely. Even in the case of works lacking a personal nature (Plutarch) the desire on the part of the authors was to have their works read widely and to have a lasting effect on the readers/hearers of their work. This desire for a wide acceptance/readership would work whether the biographies were intended to defame or promote the individual. It may be the case then that one of the functions of the genre of biography itself was to disseminate information about individuals of note to the widest possible audience. While it may be the case that some biographic presentations were directed at more focused audience groups, that does not mean that biographies as a whole were directed to definite groups or communities.76 On the contrary, at best we can distinguish between audiences in terms of degrees (more or less focused) as opposed to different types of audiences or audience groups (definite or indefinite).77 Ultimately, as Burridge has suggested, ‘in biographies, the portrait of the subject matters more than the readership’.78

3) The Gospels are best seen as examples of contemporary biographies. What remains to be seen is the extent to which they are more or less focused in regard to their implied audiences. Matthew, Mark and Luke, (by most accounts) were written within ‘living memory’ of their subject Jesus. The Gospel of John stands on the fringe of living memory and while the author of the Fourth Gospel my not have been an eye-witness to the ministry of Jesus, it is still possible that the author of John had access to eye-witnesses or eye-witness accounts. If the Gospels are indeed contemporary biographies, then they would be subject to the same conventions and expectations (both on the part of the author and the audience) as other contemporary biographies.


4) As examples of contemporary biographies the Gospels should be indicative of the personal nature of the relationship between the authors (evangelists) and the subject (Jesus). In the case of most contemporary biographies the author has first-hand knowledge of the subject and it is the direct nature of the relationship that makes it personal. This may or may not be the case for the evangelists. They may or may not have had first-hand knowledge of Jesus in the same way that Tacitus had of Agricola or Porphyry of Plotinus. However, neither Porphyry nor Tacitus knew all of the facts of the lives of their subjects and they both depended on other sources to write their biographies. A personal relationship does not necessarily mean a life-long intimate friendship/relationship. The evangelists had a personal relationship to Jesus of a different kind, one that was perhaps more indirect, but personal nonetheless. As such their Lives of Jesus were not academic or theological exercises (alone) but representative of their desire to see the (authoritative) memory/portraits of Jesus preserved in writing for future generations. Authors often choose the genres through which they intend to communicate for specific reasons. Genres themselves provide the contractual obligations for both author and audiences and these obligations/agreements make the communicative process possible. As Greco-Roman biography developed as a genre it proved to be the garner most suitable for presenting the lives of individuals. These biographies were written for a number of reasons (polemic, entertainment, emulation, commemoration, etc.), but always with the individual as the ultimate focus. As biography developed it became one of the best ways for individuals to preserve the memories of friends, family and teachers. Biographies were more far-reaching than festivals or celebrations in honor of individuals and said more about the individual than statues or portraits. Biographies spoke to the lasting effects and characteristics of the individual honored. In written form they were copied, spread, read and discussed. It should be no surprise then that biography would be the chosen genre through which the evangelists recorded the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. It should also come as no surprise that they expected their biographies of Jesus to be copied, spread, read and discussed by Christians within their immediate reference group and by others as well.

About Friends, by Friends, for Others: Author-Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-Roman...

Documents

Transcript of About Friends, by Friends, for Others: Author-Subject Relationships in Contemporary Greco-Roman...