I’ve been studying Luke these days, to prepare for a new sermon series at our church. And this Sunday, I’ll kick off the series with a book overview.
To help me grasp background matters, I’ve been working my way through a course with Logos Bible Software on Luke’s gospel, taught by Dr. Andrew Pitts. The course has been outstanding, and Pitts’s comments on the genre of Luke have been particularly stimulating.
Overall Genre
Certainly, Luke belongs to the genre of historical narrative. However, there are many sub-categories of genre that fall under the umbrella of historical narrative. On a large scale, there are epics, histories, and biographies. On a small scale, there are miracle stories, confrontation stories, healings, teaching, parables, and origin stories.
Regarding Luke, Pitts argues that there is a difference between ancient biography and ancient history. Biographies focus on one individual, the subject, who is praised or lifted up in some way, and readers are called to imitate or follow that figure. Histories, however, focus more on events than on any particular person, and they are concerned with explaining why something is the way it is, or with making a political or social point in light of the relevant history.
Comparing the Four Gospels
I have always presumed Luke to be the same genre as the other gospels. Of course, it’s closer to Matthew and Mark, which is why those three are often referred to as the “synoptic” (similar perspective) gospels. John is unique, with a completely different style and method of narration.
However, Pitts argues that, at least with respect to genre, the oddball among the four gospels is really Luke. He suggests that Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies, but Luke is a history.
Why does he conclude this?
- Ancient biographies tend to introduce their subject in the first sentence (or very close to the first sentence). Matthew 1:1, Mark 1:1, and John 1:1 all reference Jesus as the book’s subject. But Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus until Luke 1:31, and then only in predictive speech. Jesus doesn’t become a character or subject until Luke 2:7, or even Luke 2:11. This late mention of the chief subject would be very unusual for a biography. But such late mention of a major protagonist fits right with the expectations for a narrative history.
- Compared to ancient histories, ancient biographies have a much higher density of citation of authoritative sources to support the portrait of the biography’s subject. Matthew, Mark, and John all fit the parameters of citation density (quoting the Old Testament, in their case) expected from biography. Luke’s density of OT citation is much lower, fitting more closely the parameters of ancient history. (Though Luke cites the OT more times than Mark does, Luke is much longer than Mark, thus making his density of citation significantly lower than Mark’s.)
- When Luke does introduce his subject matter in the first verse, he terms it “the things that have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1). He doesn’t speak of a person, but of a series of events. This is what we’d expect from a history, not a biography.
- Luke is the only gospel with a sequel (the book of Acts), so we need to read Luke and Acts as a single work in two parts. And Acts clearly moves well beyond the life of Jesus of Nazareth, telling the tales of a number of Jesus’ followers. It might be possible to say that Luke-Acts is a collection of biographies, with Jesus’ life being the first subject. But compendiums of biographies were also known in the ancient world, and there is no other example of such a collection following a single narrative thread (from the first subject, to the second, to the third, etc., instead of treating each biography as a completely separate narrative). If Luke-Acts were a collection of biographies, it would be the only ancient document to take this meta-narrative approach. However, Luke-Acts does follow the standard expectations of an ancient history, moving from one event, to another, to another, in a seamless overarching narrative.
What Difference Does It Make?
What difference does it make whether Luke is biography or history?
Simply that we’ll better observe Luke’s focus, which enables us to focus there with him. Since Matthew, Mark, and John are biographies of Jesus, we read them rightly when we focus on the person of Jesus. Of course, we can’t ignore what Jesus did or what resulted from his work. But with the emphasis on who he was, the other things fall into place as implications of the main idea (Jesus himself).
But if Pitts is right that Luke-Acts presents itself as history, then we’ll better understand Luke-Acts if we focus on what that two-volume work says about the Christian movement. Of course, we can’t ignore who Jesus is when we read Luke-Acts; the movement’s founder is, well, the movement’s foundation. But the identity and character of Jesus, in Luke’s case, are more the implications than the main idea.
Another way to state the hypothesis is that the biographies of Matthew, Mark, and John are meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Jesus. And the history of Luke (along with Acts) is meant to tell us, first and foremost, about Christianity.
This understanding of Luke’s genre is one piece of the puzzle that is Luke’s purpose in writing, along with his main point. In future posts, I may revisit Luke with yet more pieces of that puzzle.
