With the conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum, literary genres have been recognized, also in the Catholic field, as fundamental to the biblical message: “To discover the intention of the hagiographers, among other things, we must attend to literary genres” (DV 12) . Thus, the realization that the four gospels, collected in the New Testament, are part of the historical world of classical biography, in a totally anomalous way, has given rise to the new literary genre of “gospel”. Indeed, a first confrontation between evangelical history and classical Greco-Roman history, such as that of Polybius, Thucydides, Xenophon, Titus Livy. Suetonius, forces scholars to rethink the type of narrative present in the Gospels. It can be argued that we are facing a narrative or “diegetic” genre; but what narrative is it? Also, what is the composition criteria and what are -? By way of narrative purposes.
negation, it can be pointed out that in the gospels not enough space is given to the origins and – to the personality of Jesus. Moreover, if it were not for “the infancy gospels” (Lk 1-2: Mt 1-2), Jesus would appear as a meteor in the history of men: Mark does not hesitate to introduce him in this way, beginning with baptism (cf. Mk 1,9-11). In addition, although studies on the psychology and affectivity of Jesus continue to be published, perhaps the data that appears in the gospels is too vague to recognize the foundation of these studies. On the contrary, it can be seen how, for example, Plutarch with his Parallel Lives is particularly interested in paideia and the psychology of his characters. The same goes for the spatio-temporal reconstruction of the life of Jesus, as the gospels trace it to us: the elements are too vague and often contradictory if we compare them with each other; For this reason, attempts to identify the places and to time the stages of the J life of Jesus, through a concordance of the gospels, usually end in failure. In fact, it is surprising that, while in John’s gospel Jesus goes to Jerusalem several times (cf. Jn 5,1: 12,12), in Luke’s he only makes one trip to Jerusalem. And in turn, if we look at the synoptic material, it is not consistent, based on the canons of classical biography, the fact that in Luke the trip of Jesus to Jerusalem occupies the considerable space of 10 chapters (9,51- 1946), while in Matthew (19:1-20:34) and in Mark (10:11-52) it is narrated in a few chapters. We could affirm that one of the fundamental principles of classical historiography, such as the unity of space and time, is continuously marginalized in the Gospels. If we then insist on assessing the identity of the various characters in the narrative, we come across an analogous phenomenon: how is it that a miracle as important as the resurrection of Lazarus, which Jn 11:1-44 tells us, is not even mentioned in the synoptic gospels?
We could continue giving examples to demonstrate that the historiography of the Gospels, although it does not deny history, presents totally original characteristics. That is why it is preferred to speak more and more of the literary genre “gospel”, which would have been born ex abrupto with the gospel of Mark (cf. Mk 1,1). This genre would be constituted by the historicization or narration of the central kerygma of Christianity: Jesus died and rose for us. Indeed, although the Gospels do not deny the historical value of the life of Jesus, what they propose is to motivate, through the same story, the conversion of the listeners of all times. In practice, while Paul, especially with his “great letters” (cf. Rom, Gal, 1 Cor, 2 Cor), intends to “demonstrate” the content and implications of the kerygma, the evangelists prefer to narrate that kerygma. But this new literary genre is not only intended to tell the kerygma to move the reader to conversion; the evangelist and his community formulate their profession of faith in their story. For this reason, their narrative function is not external to the content of the gospels, as often happens in classical biography, but they assume an “inclusive” role, since they are “witnesses” of the kerygma. In short, faith in Christ constitutes the starting point, the dynamism of the narrative plot and the persuasive purpose of the gospels.
On the other hand, questions arise about the very legitimacy of the “gospel” literary genre. In the first place, the very term “gospel” (good news) was not initially understood as a written one, but as an oral proclamation: it is not a written phenomenon, but a verbal one (cf. already 15 52,7. Ps 96 ″2.10). We will have to wait for the 11th century AD with Irenaeus (Adv. haer. III, 1, 1) and above all with Justin (Apol. 1, 56, 3) to recognize the meaning of “written” for the term “gospel”.
But leaving aside the question of lexicon, Paul does not hesitate to put his epistolary demonstrations under the global denomination of “gospel”: it is not by chance that the general theme of the Letters to the Romans and to the Galatians is defined as “gospel” even though they do not contain narrations about what Jesus said or did (cf. Rom 1,16-17; Gal 1,11-12).
Furthermore, by applying the term “literary genre” to the Gospels, we actually have no internal or external evidence to suggest a new genre in Hellenistic literature.
If the “literary genre” is defined as the convergence of elements of content, style and structure that can be recognized in several texts, it is not so certain that the gospels that have come down to us are presented as such. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke differs not only from the Gospel of John, as synoptic, but also from that of Mark and Matthew, both for its style and for its structure and content. The truth is that the Acts seem to be closer to the “gospel” literary genre than the gospel of Jn.
Finally, if we delve into the problem of the stylistic and structural elements as characteristic of a literary genre, it will be quite complex to establish the convergent data, at least for the synoptic gospels. Starting from an inverse consideration, it can be easily observed that the literary genres of the “parable”, of the “miracle”, of the “vocation” present certain undeniable formal and stylistic elements within the minor variants of all evangelical exposition. But, can one speak of the literary genre “gospel” in the same way, for example, as one speaks of the “parabolic” genre? A way, perhaps not very convincing, to solve the problem is found in the consideration of the literary genre “Gospels” as the unique synthesis of other minor literary genres that appear in the Gospel narratives. After a bibliographical analysis of the issue, we can say that, if the expression “gospel literary genre” seems acquired, its definition remains vague” to the point that it creates more problems than it solves.
However, even without falling into the skepticism of B. Croce, according to which literary genres represent, in the last analysis, a hermeneutical action of contemporary criticism, it may be convenient to distinguish the horizons in which literary genres are drawn. In fact, it is necessary to assess above all the horizons in which the literary genre is drawn, which the author himself takes into account in the formation of his work, even if he later shows himself to be quite free in his writing (cf. the epistolary genre, or rather forensic or deliberative). The same classic manuals testify to its presence. But the literary genre that a set of texts makes emerge from the hermeneutical analysis of scholars is very different. Thus, for example, there may be literary genres that do not depend directly on the author’s literary consciousness; and the “diatribe” genre could be one of them. Finally, the literary genre that the same exegete recognizes from his own perspective is also different, confirming that he is facing some original literary phenomena.
Therefore, without reaching the skepticism of those who consider the literary genre as an exegetical fiction, perhaps our gospels belong to the latter category, especially due to their complex redactional formation, even when the very denomination of “gospel” as a literary genre continues to be problematic.
A. Pitta
Bibl.: J. Delorme, From the Gospels to Jesus, Messenger, Bilbao 1973; M. Dibelius, The history of evangelical forms, San Jerónimo Institution, Valencia 1984; B. de Solages, How the Gospels were written, Mensajero, Bilbao 1975; Ph. Vielhauer, History of early Christian literature” Follow me, Salamanca 1991; R. Aguirre – A. Rodríguez Carmona, Synoptic Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, Verbo Divino, Estella 21994; C. Vidal Manzanares, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels” Verbo Divino, Estella 1995.
PACOMIO, Luciano, Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary, Divine Word, Navarra, 1995
Source: Encyclopedic Theological Dictionary