Premeditated Literary Works
Premeditated Literary Works
Although we will be more specific about Gospel genre below, we must first observe the broader significance of their narrative genre more generally. We shall examine the importance of oral tradition in ch. 10, and this history of transmission leaves an indelible mark on some of our Gospel sources. Notwithstanding this important observation, we must not underestimate the level of literary cohesiveness our works display. Literary critics have demonstrated that in their present form the Gospels are relatively polished and intricate works. The consequent cohesiveness characterizes literary works in general, regardless of their more particular genre (e.g., novels, biographies, and histories).7
Audiences in the ancient Mediterranean world would appreciate such literary preparation, even for many speeches.8 Writers of Greek and Latin narratives typically began with a rough draft before producing their final work;9 Jewish writers in Greek could do the same.10 The Gospels are thus undoubtedly polished products of much effort, carefully arranged to communicate their points most adequately.11
The writers of the Synoptics, like writers of most ancient historical works, probably began with a basic draft of the material in roughly chronological order, to which they could later add a topical outline, speeches, and other rhetorical adjustments.12 Luke and Matthew probably followed one main source at a time, incorporating a large block of Q material into Mark;13 both Luke and Matthew make Mark the backbone and supplement this from other sources.14 After completing the book, a writer might check copyists’ manuscripts when possible, and then give the first copy to the dedicatee when appropriate15 (perhaps Luke did this for his dedicatee Theophilus).
Large, premeditated narrative works like the Gospels are not mere occasional documents like letters. As Charles Talbert points out, “Foundation documents like the canonical gospels (and Acts) seemed more analogous to systematic theology, albeit in narrative form”; they are more shaped by the foundational events they report and less shaped by their local situations than letters are.16
Foundation documents can be largely fictitious (like Virgil’s Aeneid), but they can also use the best historical traditions to which authors had access. Ancient historians often examined “foundations” in a way that encouraged and solidified loyalties or convictions, whether Livy’s valedictory history of Rome or, more to the point, apologetic histories of marginalized peoples (by Josephus and others). Granted, foundation stories of the distant past might be mythical; but such suppositions are less relevant for recent foundations. To require an unimaginative choice between literary strategies and narrative cohesiveness on the one hand, and substantial genuine information on the other, is to impose categories unworkable in ancient literature (particularly historiography and biography).