Anonymity of the New Testament History Books.pdf

8/14/2019 Anonymity of the New Testament History Books.pdf

1/23

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/156853608X262891

Novum estamentum 50 (2008) 120-142 www.brill.nl/nt

Te Anonymity of the New estament History Books:A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and

Ancient Near Eastern Literature

Armin D. BaumGieen / Leuven

AbstractTe anonymity of the N historical books should not be regarded as peculiar to earlyChristian literature nor should it be interpreted in the context of Greco-Roman historiog-raphy. Te striking fact that the N Gospels and Acts do not mention their authors names

has its literary counterpart in the anonymity of the O history books, whereas O ano-nymity itself is rooted in the literary conventions of the Ancient Near East. Just as in theO, where the authors of books that belonged to the genre of wisdom and prophetic lit-erature were usually named while historical works were written anonymously, only the Nletters and the Apocalypse were published under their authors names while the narrativeliterature of the N remained anonymous. Te authorial intent of the Gospels anonymitycan also be deduced from its ancient Near Eastern and O background. Unlike the Greekor Roman historian who, among other things, wanted to earn praise and glory for his liter-

ary achievements from both his contemporaries and posterity, the history writer in theAncient Near East sought to disappear as much as possible behind the material he pre-sented and to become its invisible mouthpiece. By adopting the stylistic device of anonym-ity from O historiography the Evangelists of the N implied that they regarded themselvesas comparatively insignificant mediators of a subject matter that deserved the full attentionof the readers. Te anonymity of the Gospels is thus rooted in a deep conviction concern-ing the ultimate priority of their subject matter.

Keywordsanonymity, authorship, gospel superscriptions, Greco-Roman historiography, Near Easternhistoriography

Te absence of the authors name in Lukes prologue remains mysteriousto me.1With this statement at the beginning of his analysis of Luke 1:1-4

1) Das Evangelium nach Lukas (EKK 3/1; Zrich: Benziger, 1989) I, 33; compare S.M.


2/23

Te Anonymity of the New estament History Books 121

F. Bovon points out a critical problem that pertains to the other two Syn-optics, the Book of Acts, and the Gospel of John as well. All five historicalbooks of the New estament, including those without a prologue, were

written and published anonymously. However, this obvious fact has notsparked much interest among New estament scholars. Te undoubtedlysecondary Gospel superscriptions have, in the wake of M. Hengels semi-nal work, been thoroughly scrutinized with regard to their original word-ing, date of origin and function.2 Yet only M. Wolter has developed areasonably thorough answer to the question as to why the Gospels wereoriginally composed without superscriptions and in particular without anymention of the authors names. Regarding Luke-Acts, Wolter points toLuke 1:2 and makes the case that Lukes work was written anonymouslybecause, from the authors perspective, the apostolic tradition guaranteedits authenticity and therefore its binding authority.3aking my startingpoint from Wolters previous study I will try to interpret the anonymity ofthe New estament historical books against the background of the literary

conventions of history writing in ancient literature.

1. Te Anonymity of the Historical Books in New estamentResearch

a. Te Evidence

While most New estament letters bear the names of their (purported)authors (James, Jude, Paul, Peter, or at least the Elder) the authors of thehistorical books do not reveal their names. Te superscriptions that includepersonal names (Gospel according to Matthew etc.) are clearly secondary.

Praeder, Te Problem of First Person Narration in Acts, N29 (1987) 193-218, esp. 214,and A.J.M. Wedderburn, Te We-Passages in Acts: On the Horns of a Dilemma,ZNW93 (2002) 78-98, esp. 81, with regard to the Acts of the Apostles; D.E. Aune, Anonymity,Te Westminster Dictionary of New estament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric(Westminster: Knox, 2003) 35: the subject has been almost completely neglected.2) See the recent contribution by S. Petersen, Die Evangelienberschriften und die Entste-hung des neutestamentlichen Kanons,ZNW97 (2006) 250-274.3) Die anonymen Schriften des Neuen estaments. Annherungsversuch an ein lite-rarisches Phnomen, ZNW 79 (1988) 1-16, esp. 14-15. J. Zmijewski, Anonymitt,LTK1 (31993) 702-704, has accepted his approach.


3/23

122 A.D. Baum / Novum estamentum 50 (2008) 120-142

Te author of the Coptic Gospel of Tomas, for instance, who himselfopened his work with an explicit statement of authorship, took a verydifferent approach. He opened his book with the words: Tese are the

secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and (which) Didymus JudasTomas wrote.4In contrast, the five historical books of the New esta-ment were written anonymously.

C.-J. Tornton holds a view that differs from this consensus. As a result of his narra-tological analysis he concludes that at least Luke-Acts cannot have been publishedanonymously but must have mentioned the name of the author in its title. Tornton

points to the we passages in Acts and assumes that the narrator of a first personnarrative has to be identifiable for the reader. Furthermore, he takes for granted thatthe readers of Luke or Acts could only have known the authors name if it had beenpart of the original text.5Yet, the original readers could also have known the authorsidentity by personal relationship or oral tradition. But above all we have to take intoaccount that Lukes name is missing in almost all ancient manuscripts of Acts (as wellas in the early tradition) and occurs comparatively late.6

Te anonymity of the New estament historical books is especially strikingwhen we consider those works that have prologues. Only the two books ofLuke-Acts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1ff) have a conventional prologue in whichthe author provides information about the content and purpose of his workin the first person singular. Te so-called Johannine prologue (John 1:1-18)contains an authorial we (1:14.16), yet differs strongly from the commontype of historical prologues. In its conclusion Johns Gospel has a state-ment about its purpose (John 20,31: in order that you may believe . . .;cf. 19:35), but without any I or we of the author. Te two final versesof the Fourth Gospel in which both we (John 21:24) and I (John 21:25)occur should probably be interpreted as editorial statements about theauthor of the book and not as words of the author himself.7Whenever Newestament narrators address their readers, whether in the first person or in some

other way, they consistently remain anonymous.

4) ranslation according to B. Metzger in Synopsis Quatuor Evangeliorum. Ed. K. Aland(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 131985) 517.5) Der Zeuge des Zeugen. Lukas als Historiker der Paulusreisen(WUN 56; bingen: Mohr,1991) 142-148.6) See J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte(KEK 3; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1998) 56-58, whoregards the title Deeds of the Apostles as original.7) Compare M. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage. Ein Lsungsversuch(WUN 67; bingen:Mohr, 1993) 224-225.


4/23


b. Te Discussion

For what reason did the New estament narrators consistently abstain

from mentioning their names? Tis question has rarely been addressed bybiblical scholars, and if so, quite different answers have been developed.(1) Te distinguished historian E. Meyer compared the anonymity of

the Fourth Gospel with Xenophons claim that hisAnabasiswas written bya certain Temistogenes.8 Meyer thus interpreted the phenomenon ofanonymous historical books in the New estament in the context of Greekhistoriography. However, Greek (and Roman) historians published their

works almost exclusively under their own names. Xenophons anonymous(or better: pseudonymously published) work forms a special case that cannot be regarded as representative of the conventions of Greco-Roman his-toriography.

(2) A.J.M. Wedderburn assumes that the anonymity of the Gospelsmay serve to emphasize the complete dependence of their authors on tra-dition, rather than on any firsthand experience.9While this interpretation

certainly applies to the Synoptic Gospels, it fails when it comes to thelikewise anonymous Gospel of John and the Book of Acts, inasmuch theauthors of these two books appear to claim to have witnessed at least someof the events they describe (see John 1:14; 13:23; 21:20.24 and the wepassages in Acts).10 Furthermore, the question arises as to whether theassumed relationship between the New estament Gospels and theirsources actually may be regarded as unique or whether an anonymous han-

dling of traditions and source material was conventional in at least sometypes of ancient literature.

(3) M. Wolter has interpreted the namelessness of the New estamenthistorical books as a specifically Christian phenomenon. He argues that inall the anonymous writings of the New estament Jesus Christ is the oneand only personal authority; besides him every human authority shouldfall silent. According to Wolter, this is the reason why the New estamentGospels were published without mentioning their authors names. Inthe Gospel of John, the Johannine Jesus preaches himself through hissigns and also, of course, through his speeches. Likewise, in Marks bookJesus himself is the instance that authorizes the Gospel and by this the

8) E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfnge des Christentums(Stuttgart: Cotta, 4/51924) I, 313.9) We-Passages, 96.

10) Compare M. Rese, Das Selbstzeugnis des Johannesevangeliums ber seinen Verfasser,ETL72 (1996) 75-111; Tornton, Der Zeuge des Zeugen, 84-197.


5/23


individuality and authority of the author is completely surpassed and abol-ished.11Nevertheless, it may be asked why Paul, who explicitly appeals toJesus as the authority behind his message and theology (e.g. in Gal 1:1.11-

12), did not write his letters anonymously? Why did he feel free to send hisletters under his own name? And why was the Book of Acts written anon-ymously, although, unlike the Gospels, it did not relate the words anddeeds of Jesus? It should be noted that this approach to the problem ofanonymity interprets the New estament history books as works sui generisand does not take into account its possible relationship to other kinds ofanonymous historiography in the ancient world. It is self-evident thatWolters interpretation of anonymous Christian literature can by no meansbe applied to anonymous books from Greco-Roman or Near Eastern lit-erature. A closer look at the history of Greco-Roman and Old estamentJewish literature might offer valuable clues that could help us understandthe phenomenon of literary anonymity more precisely.

2. Te Name of the Author in Ancient Historiography

a. Te Name of the Author in Greco-Roman Historiography

Te work of a Greco-Roman historian was almost always preceded by aprologuein which he informed his readers about the content of his book.Te fact that a classical author like Xenophon abstained from using a pro-

logue and abruptly opened his Hellenicawith the words wasprobably due to the fact that this historical narrative started where thehistorical work of Tucydides had ended and was apparently meant as itsdirect sequel.12 In any case, the beginning of Xenophons work was anexception to the rule. Te absence of a prologue was usually considered asa departure from long established standards. Terefore, Lucian could writedisapprovingly:

Tere are historians who produce bodies without any headsworks lacking an intro-duction that begin at once with the narrative.13

11) Anonymitt, 15.6-7.11-12.12) Compare H.R. Breitenbach, Xenophon von Athen, PREIX.A.2 (1967) 1569-2052,esp. 1670-1674.13) Lucian, De historia conscribenda23 (III 301,27-302,1 Macleod; translation accordingto LCL); compare G. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim:


6/23


Tus, the Jewish historian Josephus prefixed elaborate prologues to his Bel-lum Judaicumand to hisAntiquitatesbecause he did not want his works toappear, in the eyes of his educated Hellenistic audience, like headless bodies.

At the beginning or end of his prologue the Greek historian would men-tion his name and his provenance.14In the 6th century BC Hecataeus ofMiletos began his historical work with the words: Hecataeus of Miletosreports as follows. I write this, as it seems to be true to me.15 In the5th century B.C. Herodotus, the father of Greek historiography, intro-duced his historical narrative with the words: Tis is the demonstration ofthe investigation of Herodotus of Halicarnassus.16And the opening sen-tence of Tucydides goes: Tucydides of Athens has described the war ofthe Peloponnesians and Athenians.17Tucydides also concluded individ-ual books of his historical work with a remark about the exact number ofyears that had passed in the war that Tucydides has described.18Withthis procedure, the name of the author could not escape the reader. Arrian,in hisAnabasis, has consciously deviated from this practice by not giving

his name in the prologue where he only mentioned his sources.

19

Later inBook I he writes:

I need not write my name, for it is not at all unknown among men, nor my countrynor my family. . . .20

Nevertheless, ArriansAnabasiswas not published anonymously, because it

probably had the name in the title.21

Hain, 1956) 113-118; E. Herkommer, Die opoi in den Promien der rmischen Geschichts-werke, Diss. bingen 1968, 14-17, and see also De historia conscribenda52-55.14) Herkommer, Die opoi in den Promien, 46-52; E. Schmalzriedt, .

Zur Frhgeschichte der Buchtitel(Mnchen: Fink, 1970) 32-34; D. Earl, Prologue-Form inAncient Greek Historiography, ANRWI.2 (1972) 842-856, esp. 842-849; J.M. Marin-cola,Authority and radition in Ancient Historiography(Cambridge: University Press, 1999)271-275.15) FGH1 F 1 (I 7,32-33 Jacoby).16) Ipr(I 1,1 Rosn).17) I 1,1 (Jones/Powell).18) I 103,2 etc.19) Ipr. 1-3.20)AnabasisI 12,5 (I 28,20-22 Roos; translation according to LCL).21) A.B. Bosworth,A Historical Commentary on Arrians History of Alexander(Oxford: Clar-endon, 1980) I, 106.


7/23


Even XenophonsAnabasis, in which the author reports about his own role as an officerin the campaign of Cyrus, is no exception. Although it appears to the modern readerto be anonymous, Xenophon himself elsewhere calls it the work of a certain Temis-

togenes of Syracuse.

22

Probably he published it under this pseudonym. Plutarchidentified the true reason why Xenophon did not publish hisAnabasisunder his ownname: Xenophon recorded that it was Temistogenes the Syracusan who had com-piled an account of them (i.e. Xenophons successes), his purpose being to win greatercredence for his narrative by referring to himself in the third person, thus favouringanother with the glory of the authorship.23

In accordance with Greco-Roman practice, the Jewish historian Josephus

revealed his name in the first paragraph of his work on the Jewish War:IJosephus, son of Matthias, a Hebrew by race, a native of Jerusalemand a priest, who at the opening of the war myself fought against theRomans and in the sequel was perforce an onlookerpropose to providethe subject of the Roman Empire with a narrative of the facts.24And nei-ther Jason of Cyrene, author of the main source of 2 Maccabees,25 norJustus of iberias, the rival of Josephus,26wrote their now lost historical

works anonymously. Te same is true of the early Jewish narrators Eupol-emus (157/158 B.C.), Artapanus, Cleodemus Malchus und Teophilus(around 100 B.C.), who are all quoted by Eusebius in the 9th book of hisPraeparatio Evangelica(from the lost writings of Alexander Polyhistor).27Tese Jewish historians also published their works under their own namesaccording to the conventions of Greek and Roman historical literature.

Greco-Roman biographies were published under the names of theirauthors (Euripides, Isocrates, Lucian, Philo, Plutarch, Suetonius etc.) aswell. Only the lives that belong to the genre of popular literature (1st to4th century A.D.) were an exception: the Vita Aesopi, the Vita AlexandriMagni (later ascribed to Callisthenes), the somewhat more sophisticated

22) HellenicaIII 1,2.23) De gloria Atheniensium 345E (V/1 186 Frazier/Froidefond; translation according toLCL). For similar examples compare W. Speyer, Die literarische Flschung im heidnischenund christlichen Altertum. Ein Versuch ihrer Deutung (HAW I/2; Mnchen: Beck, 1971)30-31.24) Bellum JudaicumI 3 (translation according to H.St.J. Tackeray [LCL]).25) Compare 2 Macc 2:19-32.26)See Josephus, Vita336-339.27) FGH 723, 726, 727, 733; compare M. Hengel, Anonymitt, Pseudepigraphie undliterarische Flschung in der jdisch-hellenistischen Literatur,Judaica et Hellenistica(Kle-ine Schriften 1; WUN 90; bingen: Mohr, 1996) 196-251, esp. 199-200.


8/23


narrative Lucius seu asinusand the Vita Secundi philosophi. Tese biogra-phies have not only a rather low and episodic style but also anonymity incommon.28

A special genre of historical writings was produced by the ancient epit-omisers. Tey extracted short summaries from extensive historical writ-ings without changing the wording of their literary source texts. In a vitalcontribution to this subject, I. Opelt has listed 42 historical epitomes.29Her list begins with the two-volume epitome probably extracted fromHerodotus nine-volume history by Teopompus of Chios in the 4th cen-tury BC. And it ends with epitomes from the Christian era. Only 7 out ofthese 42 epitomes are anonymous; all the others were attributed to a cer-tain author. An example is the excerpt of the now lost historical workof Pompeius rogus that was handed down under the name of Justin(3rd century A.D.). On the basis of these observations we may conclude:If a Hellenistic historian did not mention his name in (the prologue of) hiswork, he deviated from an ancient and widespread literary convention.

b. Te Anonymity of Old estament Historiography

In contrast to the works of Greco-Roman historiography the Old esta-ment historical books are anonymous without exception.30Te authorsname is never mentioned. Even the historical source texts to which the Oldestament narrators refer remain anonymous.31Te historical books of theHebrew Bible are not named after their authors but after their introduc-

tory words (In the beginning etc. in the Pentateuch), after their content(Chronicles) or after their main characters: Joshua, Judges, etc. Later nar-rative works like obit, Judith or the Books of the Maccabees and otherwritings like the anonymous Vitae Prophetarum32or Joseph and Asenethhave also been named after their main characters.33

28) W. Hansen,Anthology of Ancient Greek Popular Literatur(Bloomington: Indiana Uni-versity Press, 1998) xi-xxiii; compare H.-G. Beck, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Volkslitera-tur(Byzantinisches Handbuch II/3; Mnchen: Beck, 1971) 28-35.29) Epitome, RAC5 (1962) 944-973, esp. 947-950.30) H. Cancik, Geschichtsschreibung, NBL1 (1988-91) 813-822, offers a helpful surveyof the different aspects of Old estament narrative literature.31) Te names mentioned in 1 Chr 29:29 are an exception: As for the events of King Davidsreign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the recordsof Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer.32) A.M. Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum(JSHRZ I/7; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1997) 543, 561.33) C. Burchard,Joseph und Aseneth(JSHRZ II/4; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1983) 589.


9/23


In all these examples of Jewish historiography the narrator stays in thebackground and remains hidden. In the Old estament only the propheticbooks and works that belong to the genre of wisdom literature carry their

authors names.34In the history of Jewish historiography the Hellenistichistorian Josephus was one of the first who did not publish his booksanonymously. In hisAntiquities, for instance, in which he retells the con-tent of the anonymous historical books of the Old estament, he candidlyreveals his identity.

Read against the background of Ancient Near Eastern literature theanonymity of the Old estament history books was anything but unusual.Acadian literature was for the most part handed down anonymously aswell.35In Mesopotamia, historical epics were generally published withouttheir authors names. And Egyptian literature was mostly written anony-mously as well. Near Eastern Wisdom books frequently carried theirauthors names. Writings on the deeds of the Pharaohs, however, were usu-ally written by unknown authors.36Not until the time of Alexander the

Great did Greek literature and literary conventions gain a decisive influencein the Ancient Near East, among them the wider use of authors names.37Nevertheless, even during the Hellenistic period, Jewish writings were stillbeing published without the names of their authors. As a rule, however,only wisdom, apocalyptic, and testamental literature mentioned the namesof the respective authors.38

Most of the documents found at Qumran give no indication of authorship. Worksthat mention their authors names (such as the estament of Levi or the Psalms ofJoshua) are the exception. Qumran literature is largely anonymous. Tis applies notonly to the paraphrases of biblical narratives (rewritten Bible) but also to the poetical,liturgical and wisdom texts such as the Hodayot and the Sabbath Songs. Te Pesharim(1QpHab etc.) and the halachic texts (such as the emple Scroll, the CommunityRule, the Damascus Document and the War Scroll) are also anonymous.39Tis is

34) For example Prov 1:1; 25:1.35) W. Rllig, Literatur, Reallexikon der Assyriologie7 (1987-90) 35-66, esp. 49-50.36) A. Millard, Authors, Books and Readers in the Ancient World, Te Oxford Handbookof Biblical Studies (Ed. J.W. Rogerson and J.M. Lieu; Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006) 544-564, esp. 544-548, 549-551.37) Millard, Authors, 558.38) Hengel, Anonymitt, 235-236.39) For a helpful presentation of the evidence see M.J. Bernstein, Pseudepigraphy in theQumran Scrolls: Categories and Functions, Pseudepigraphic Perspectives. Te Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls(ed. E.G. Chazon and M. Stone; Leiden:Brill, 1999) 1-26.


10/23


something they have in common with the works of rabbinic literature. Mishna, oseftaand the almudim as well as the Midrashim were also distributed anonymously.40

Furthermore, the Hebrew history books did not have a prologue thatinformed the readers about their purpose and their sources. Tey also didnot contain authorial reflections in the first person.41Even 1 Maccabeesstill makes use of this Old estament style. In contrast, 2 Maccabees alreadyincludes a prologue by the author in the first person. Tis prologue con-cludes with the following words (2 Macc 2:19-32):

At this point therefore let us begin our narrative, without adding any more to what hasalready been said; for it would be foolish to lengthen the preface while cutting shortthe history itself.42

By writing these words the author of 2 Maccabees adopted a literary devicecharacteristic of Greek historiography. Yet, even 2 Maccabees remainsanonymous.

It should be remembered that 2 Maccabees is an excerpt of the fivevolume historical work of Jason of Cyrene and thus represents one of theepitomes discussed by I. Opelt. Te author of 2 Maccabees does not men-tion his name, neither in the prologue nor in the title. In this regard2 Maccabees may be regarded as a close analogy to the Gospel of Luke whoseprologue is also anonymous. Te same holds true for the Wisdom ofBen Sira. In its prologue, which introduces the authors Greek translation

of his grandfathers originally Hebrew work, the grandson of Jesus, sonof Sirach (Sir 50:27) also conceals his name. 2 Maccabees, like the Oldestament history books, was named after its main characters. Clementof Alexandria called it Te epitome of the Maccabees.43 And in oneof its two oldest manuscripts (V) the writing is called epitome of thedeeds of Judas Maccabeus. Nevertheless, the designation 2 Maccabees

40) Compare J. Neusner, Why No Gospels in almudic Judaism?(BJSt 135; Atlanta: Scholars,1988) 70-72.41) S. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible(JSO.S 70/BiLiSe 17; Sheffield: Elmond, 1989)23-45: Te Narrators Manifestation, esp. 23-24.42)Compare Lucian, De historia consribenda23: Some historians write introductions thatare brilliant, dramatic, and excessively long, so that you expect what follows to be marvel-ous to hear, but for the body of their history they bring on something so tiny and so undis-tinguished . . . (translation according to LCL).43) StromataV 14,97.


11/23


prevailed.44Because of the anonymity of his work the author of 2 Macca-bees differs from the Greco-Roman epitomisers who usually publishedtheir works under their names.

Jerome also describes 1 and 2 Chronicles as excerpts of older historicalworks: Paralipomenon liber, id est instrumenti ueteris.45In contrastto the author of 2 Maccabees the author of Chronicles did not write aprologue and thus did not inform his readers in more detail about thesources of his subject matter. Still, the two Jewish epitomisers have in com-mon that they published their works anonymously in accordance with theconventions of Old estament historiography. Te Old estament historians(and those early Jewish historians who were influenced by them) consistentlywrote their works anonymously.

c. New estament Anonymity in the Context of Ancient History of Literature

By writing anonymously the New estament narrators were closer toHebrew than to Greco-Roman historiography. Te first and second Gos-

pel present themselves in the style of Old estament history books: anony-mous, without prologues, and without any first person reflections by theirauthors. Te Gospel of Luke and especially the Book of Acts with theirprologues and the statements of their authors in the first person conformedto a certain extent to the conventions of Greco-Roman historiography. Yetthey, like 2 Maccabees, remain anonymous. Teir authors integrated ele-ments of both traditions. Te following table can illustrate this. Brackets

indicate cases in which the simple difference between plus (+) and minus(-) is not completely adequate.

Authorship in ancient historiography

Name Prologue 1. Person

Hebrew historiography Matthew Mark

John () ()Luke + +

Acts + +Greek historiography + + +

44) See C. Habicht, JSHRZ I/3 (1976) 169-177: itel, Verfasser und Entstehung desWerkes.45) EpistulaeLIII 8,18 (CSEL 54, 461,14 Hilberg).


12/23


Te New estament historical books share the feature of anonymity, whichdistinguishes them from Greco-Roman historiography, with all the works ofOld estament (and Near Eastern) historiography. In concealing their

authors names the narrative books of the New estament follow the modelof the Old estament books from Genesis to 2 Kings as well as 1 and 2Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

3. Reasons for the Use of Authors Names in Ancient Historiography

In order to understand why ancient historians added their names to theirworks we need to consider how they wrote their books and what they triedto achieve by publishing them. In a further step (in section 4), we must askthe same questions regarding the writings of those historians who pub-lished their works anonymously.

a. Te Work of the Greco-Roman Historian

In an independent treatise on the topic of How to Write HistoryLucian ofSamosata (in the 2nd century AD) explained the task of a Greek historian.Other historians explained in the prologues to their works how they hadused their sources and how they wanted to present their material stylisti-cally. Both of these issues are among the topoi that regularly occur in thepraefationesof ancient history books.46

According to Lucian, the first step in the historical working process wasto collect the historical source material, if possible as an eyewitness orelse by consulting reliable witnesses.47Contemporary eyewitnesses were,according to Polybius, subject to close scrutiny. Te historian was onlyallowed to give credence to those witnesses that had proved to be reliable.48Te amount of work involved at this stage could be considerable. As a mat-ter of course, an epitomisers like Justin, who merely extracted the books of

others, had to do considerably less research.After collecting all his material, the historian had to produce (in a sec-ond step) a stylistically inelegant series of notes (), a body of

46) Herkommer, Die opoi in den Promien, 86-101 (about working with the sources)und 112-122 (about style).47) De historia consribenda47; compare Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 71-85.48) XII 4c,5; compare G. Schepens, Some Aspects of Source Teory in Greek Historiogra-phy,AncSoc6 (1975) 257-274, esp. 269.


13/23


material as yet with no beauty or continuity.49According to some ancientreaders, Caesars Commentariifell into that category. Cicero, for example,has Brutus say that Caesar only supplied the unadorned material out of

which someone else could produce a proper historical work.50In a third step, the historian had to stylistically revise his rough draft:

After arranging his material in the right order, his next task, according toLucian, was to give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expres-sion, figure, and rhythm.51 Some historians, like Josephus and Lucian,took the Attic prose writers of the 5th and 4th century as their guide inmatters of style. Others, like Polybius, wrote in literary Koine.52Lucianalso refers to historians who used a rather unpretentious, colloquial Greek.He knew one author who has compiled a bare record ()of the events and set it down on paper, completely prosaic and ordinary,such as a soldier or artisan or pedlar following the army might have puttogether as a diary of daily events. Terefore, according to Lucian, thiswriter did not himself create a proper historical work but his work has

cleared the ground for some future historian of taste and ability. Yet, inspite of his artless style the narrator mentioned by Lucian did not publishhis work anonymously but used a title that also contained his name: Cal-limorphus, surgeon of the Sixth Lancers, History of the Parthian War.53Anonymity was unusual even with stylistically unpretentious works.

Te following table indicates which persons involved in the productionof Greek or Roman history books provided their names. It is immediately

obvious that only secretaries and copyists worked anonymously. Teirnames are mentioned only in exceptional cases.54Greco-Roman historiansmention their names even if the amount of work they invested in collect-ing their material and adorning it stylistically was rather limited.55

49) De historia consribenda48 (translation according to LCL).50) Brutus262.51) De historia conscribenda48 (translation according to LCL).52) Concerning the different levels of style in Greek literature see F.R. Adrados, Geschichteder griechischen Sprache. Von den Anfngen bis heute(span. 1999; UB 2317; bingen:Francke, 2001) 169-200.53) De historia conscribenda16 (translation according to LCL).54) So E.R. Richards, Te Secretary in the Letters of Paul(WUN 2/42; bingen: Mohr,1991) 68, with regard to secretaries in ancient epistles.55) Te number of plus signs indicates the amount of work invested in collecting and shap-ing the material.


14/23


Te work of Greco-Roman historians

Historical research Style revision Author

Josephus, Bellum +++ +++ JosephusJosephus,Antiquitates + +++ JosephusPolybius +++ ++ PolybiusCallimorphus +++ + CalimorphusJustin + JustinSecretary anonymousCopyist anonymous

b. Te Desire for Personal Recognition

Only exceptionally did ancient authors profit financially from their works.56Some of them explicitly state the reasons why they composed and pub-lished their books. Serious historians were primarily interested in teachingtheir readers about historical truth and in showing them how they shouldbehave as private persons or in political offices.57However, this goal could

have been achieved without telling the audience the authors names.Te fact that almost all Greek and Roman historians published their

works under their names is probably due to their distinctive longing forfame. Every Greco-Roman author, not just the historians, wanted to receiverecognition for his literary accomplishments.58A book had the potential tomake its author famous. Martial rebuked a certain Faustinus, because hefound it difficult to finally publish a work he had written: Do you hesitateto admit Fame that stands before your doors?59And Martial emphasizedthat the fame of a writer should already come about during his lifetime:o the ashes of the dead glory comes too late.60Many authors, however,were striving for literary recognition that would outlast their death. Tus,Ovid expresses his conviction at the end of his Metamorphoses that thiswork was destined to become his own everlasting monument:

56) See K. Dziatzko, Autorrecht, PREII/2 (1896) 2608-2611.57) Tus already Tucydides I 21-22; compare Herkommer, Die opoi in den Promien,128-136 (about benefit) und 137-151 (about truth).58) Compare K. Schickert, Der Schutz literarischer Urheberschaft im Rom der klassischen

Antike(bingen: Mohr, 2005) 128-131: Ruhm und Unsterblichkeit als Motivation.59) EpigrammataI 25,5: ante fores stantem dubitas admittere Famam(Lindsay; translationaccording to LCL).60) EpigrammataI 25,9: cineri gloria sera venit(Lindsay; translation according to LCL).


15/23


I shall be borne immortal far beyond the lofty stars and I shall have an undying name.Wherever Romes power extends over the conquered world, I shall have mention onmens lips, and if the prophecies of bards have any truth, through all the ages shall I

live in fame.

61

Historians, too, were hoping for fame and recognition by publishing theirhistorical works. In the prologue to hisAntiquitiesJosephus mentions sev-eral goals that, according to him, motivated historians to write their works.In the first place he refers to fellow writers who approached their taskeager to display their literary skill and to win the fame therefrom

expected.62

Even epitomisers like Justin reckoned with the appreciation oftheir readers for their (albeit comparatively small) literary efforts: Foryour approbation is sufficient for me for the present, with the expectationof receiving from posterity, when the malice of detraction has died away,an ample testimony to my diligence.63Only authors who published theirwork under their own names could hope for fame and recognition. Tat is whyGreek and Roman history books were not published anonymously.

4. Reasons for Anonymity in Ancient Historiography

Why did Old estament historians write their works anonymously?

An old answer suggests that Old estament narrators abstained from using their namesbecause they considered the Holy Spirit to be the true author of their works. As worksinspired by God, the narrative books in the Bible had no real human author; theirwriters were simply pens in the hand of God. Tis was the argument on the basis ofwhich Gregory the Great (in the prologue of hisMoralia in Iob) declared it unneces-sary to determine the author of the anonymous book of Job: If we regard the HolySpirit as the author and ask nonetheless who the scribe is, what else are we doing thanreading the text and enquiring about the pencil?64According to this view the authorof the book of Job concealed his name because he considered God to be the actual

61)MetamorphosesXV 871-880 (480-481 arrant; translation according to LCL); compareid., ristiumIII 3,77-80; Horaz, CarminaIII 30,1-16.62)Antiquitates pr. 2: . . . . . . (I 4,41 Niese; translation according toH.St.J. Tackeray [LCL]).63) Epitome historiarum Philippicarum Pompei rogi pr. 6: . . . apud posteros . . . industriae tes-timonium habituro(2,12-14 Seel; translation according to J.S. Watson).64)Moralia in Iob pr. I 1-3 (CCL 143, 9,29-32 Adriaen; my translation). For a detailedinterpretation of thepraefatiocompare K. Greschat, Die Moralia in Job Gregors des Groen(SAC 31; bingen: Mohr, 2005) 65-78.


16/23


author of his work and viewed himself as a more or less passive mediator of Godsrevelation. Tis traditional interpretation can easily be applied to the other historicalbooks of the Old estament and to the New estament Gospels. Yet, the value of this

explanation is limited by the fact that the prophetic books and apostolic letters of theBible contain their authors names. Tus, Gregorys thesis is unable to explain whyseveral biblical authors (which he considered to be equally inspired) deliberately puttheir names at the beginnings of their works. His approach to the problem, whileinteresting, fails to explain why only some biblical books originated (and were trans-mitted) anonymously.

Another early, yet more plausible answer arises from an important text written byGalen of Pergamum. In the prologue of his work De libris propriisGalen explains whyothers were able to present as their own works books that actually he himself had writ-ten. o friends and students who asked to get notes of what they had heard they (i.e.some of Galens books) were given without a title () since the booksas they certainly knewhad not been made for publication but for their personaluse.65In a similar way, John Chrysostom explained the anonymity of the five booksof Moses and the four Gospels in his commentary on Romans: Te biblical narratorsdid not mention the authors name, because they were writing to people, who werepresent, and it had been superfluous to show themselves when they were present. Butthis man (i.e. Paul) sent his writings from afar and in the form of a letter, for whichcause also the addition of the name was necessary.66Yet, in the case of the Gospels, itappears to be difficult to find enough evidence that in the early church they wereregarded as private writings for a limited circle of disciples of the evangelists. And thelibrary index quoted by Irenaeus explicitly speaks of the publication or general release() of the Gospels. 67

Tere must be other reasons for the anonymity of the biblical narratives.

Tese must be identified through an analysis of the work process and theself-perception of their authors.

a. Te Work of the Near Eastern Historian

In the formation of Old estament historical works not only the scribes andsecretaries remained anonymous but also the historians (and epitomisers).

65) II 92,13-16 Mller (my translation); for similar ancient statements and the relevantsecondary literature see A.D. Baum, Pseudepigraphie und literarische Flschung im frhenChristentum(WUN II/138; bingen: Mohr, 2001) 40.66) Homiliae in epistolam ad Romanos1,1 (PG 60, 395; translation according to NPNF);additional remarks by the church fathers about the Gospels are discussed by D. Krueger,Writing and Holiness: Te Practice of Authorship in the Early Christian East (Philadelphia:University Press, 2004) 42-48.67)Adversus haeresesIII 1,1 = Eusebius, Historia ecclesiasticaV 8,2-4 (GCS 9/1, 442-444Schwartz/Winkelmann); compare Tornton,Zeuge des Zeugen, 8-69.


17/23


Even historians who had taken great pains in order to collect and arrange(and adorn) their material abstained from publishing their narratives undertheir names. Te anonymity of the Hebrew historians corresponds to the

observation that within Old estament historiography auctorial reflectionsin the first person are almost entirely missing and that the narrators presenttheir speech material almost completely in oratio recta.

Tis stands in stark contrast to Greek historiography. Herodotus usedthe first person hundreds of times in order to reflect on the reliability of hissources and his own reports. Tucydides provided information about hishistorical method, his temporal relationship to the events of the war andhis narrative technique in his prologue and did so in the first person (I 20-22). Te Greco-Roman historians acted as open narrators.68In contrast,the Hebrew historians from Genesis to Kings totally abstained from state-ments in the first person in which they would reflect on the purpose andmethod of their work. Te Old estament narrators consciously remainedvirtually invisible.69

A similar effect was achieved by reproducing the speeches consistently(with only a few exceptions) in direct speech. Tus the statements of theagents were presented much more directly and vividly. At the same timethe narrators remained entirely in the background. In contrast, Greek his-toriography detached itself from the example of Homer, who also used topresent his figures words in direct speech. Greco-Roman historians deliv-ered large parts of their discourses in indirect speech. Trough their narra-

tive techniques they moved themselves somewhat more into the focus oftheir readers. In Greco-Roman historiography the gap between the speakerand the narrator is more visible than in Hebrew history writing.70

Furthermore, Hebrew historians were not interested in editing andaltering the style of their sources in order to distinguish themselves as skil-ful writers. Teir reluctance to change the wording of their source texts canbe observed most clearly in a synoptic comparison between the text of

Chronicles on the one hand and the Books of Samuel and Kings on theother hand. On average, the Chronicler has preserved 80% of the original

68) Compare C. Dewald, Narrative Surface and Authorial Voice in Herodotus Histories,Arethusa20 (1987) 147-170.69) Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible, 23-45: Te Narrators Manifestation.70) For a detailed defense of this thesis see A.D. Baum, Zu Funktion und Authentizittder oratio recta. Hebrische und griechische Geschichtsschreibung im Vergleich,ZAW115(2003) 586-607, esp. 595-597.


18/23


wording of his presumed source texts.71Te anonymity of Old estamenthistoriography is related to the fact that it does not contain reflections in thefirst person nor does it use indirect speech and that it reproduces the wording of

the respective source texts rather closely.

Composition in ancient historiography

Name 1. Person Oratio obliqua Stylistic ambitionNear Eastern historiography GenesisKings Ezra/Nehemiah/Chronicles Greco-Roman historiography + + + +

b. Te Priority of the Subject Matter

In order to understand the relationship of Hebrew historians to their sub-ject matter an additional factor has to be taken into account. According to

W. Speyer the historical books of the Old estament were to be regarded asrecords of very old oral traditions.72 Tis characterization is basicallyaccurate. It must, however, be modified in light of the written sources towhich Hebrew historians regularly refer (1 Kings 11:41 et al.). Old esta-ment narrators thought of themselves as mediators of oral and writtentraditions. Te narrator disappears behind his material. He does not, as itwere, report on historical events; rather he passes on traditions.73 Tewriter remains invisible behind the tradition he hands on, acting as itsnameless mouthpiece.74 In Old estament historiography the historicaltradition had absolute priority, as indicated by the fact that these historicalworks are almost invariably anonymous.

In contrast to the anonymous historical works, the prophetic andWisdom books of the Old estament (and the Ancient Near East) were

71) See A.D. Baum, Die lukanische und chronistische Quellenbenutzung im Vergleich:Eine eilanalogie zum synoptischen Problem, ETL78 (2002) 340-357, and the literaturementioned there.72) Speyer, Die literarische Flschung, 109-110; compare Aune, Anonymity, 35: the textrepresents traditions owned by the community in which the author writes.73) H. Cancik,Mythische und historische Wahrheit. Interpretationen zu exten der hethitischen,biblischen und griechischen Historiographie (SBS 48; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,1970) 105-108.74) Compare R. Alter, Te World of Biblical Literature(New York: Basic Books, 1992) 2-3.


19/23


published under their authors names. Te comprehension of the reasonfor this difference has already been lost in late antiquity. In his commen-tary on Romans Chrysostom wrote somewhat perplexed:

But when the prophets have mentioned their own names and also Solomon, I leave itfor you to examine this further, (that is) why some (i.e. the prophets and Solomon)have mentioned it while others (i.e. the Old estament historians) have not. For youare not to learn everything from me, lest you become more dull.75

Te correct explanation which Chrysostom apparently was unable to give

should have been that the authority of Wisdom literature was generallydeduced from the authority of the Wisdom teachers. Teir names weretherefore mentioned. With regard to prophetic literature, the authority ofprophetic messages depended even more on the identity of the particularprophet who claimed to have been appointed by God and to be authorizedto act as a mediator of divine revelation. For this reason an anonymousprophetical book was considered unacceptable in the world of the Ancient

Near East (and the Old estament).76With historical works there was nocomparable concern with the identity of the writer. Te attention wasfocused entirely on the subject matter.

An appreciation for the essential relationship between the anonymity ofOld estament (and Ancient Near Eastern) historiography and the priorityof its content or subject matter has rarely been expressed by Greco-Romanhistorians. Yet, Salvian of Marseille had to defend himself in his ninth let-

ter against critics who accused him of having published his four books tothe church (Ad ecclesiam) under the name of imothy. In one of his argu-ments he tried to explain why a work could abstain from mentioning the(true) name of the author:

In every book one searches more for the impact of what one is reading than for thename of the author . . . Since the name of the author has no impact at all, it is needless

that the one who has found value in the writings should ask for the name of theauthor.77

75) Homiliae in epistolam ad Romanos1,1 (PG 60, 395; my translation).76) See J. Weinberg, Was Elihu, the Son of Barachel, the Author of the Book of Job? AHypothesis, ranseuphratne16 (1998) 149-166, esp. 152-157, and id., Authorship and

Author in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, HebStud44 (2003) 157-169,esp. 158-161.77) Salvian, Epistolae9,4: in omni enim uolumine profectus magis quaeritur lectionis quamnomen auctoris . . .(CSEL 8, 217,24-218,7 Pauly; my translation).


20/23


A statement by Sulpicius Severus has still more in common with the truereason for the anonymity of Old estament narratives. At the beginning ofhis Life of St. Martin, in the dedication letter to Desiderius, Sulpicius

explains why he was willing to have his biography of bishop Martin ofours published anonymously:

Kindly erase the title which the book bears on its front, so that the page may be silent;and (what is quite enough) let the book proclaim its subject-matter, while it tells noth-ing of the author.78

In the context of this paper, the fact that the authors offer to have his workpublished anonymously belonged to the humility topoi of hagiographicliterature and thus must not be taken at its face value is irrelevant.79Teprologue of Sulpicius Severus explicitly put into words an authorial self-perception that also formed the basis of a very different kind of historiog-raphy. Te anonymity of their works was the stylistic device by which Oldestament (and Ancient Near Eastern) historians presented themselves as rather

insignificant mediators of the traditional material they passed on and by whichin contrast they gave highest priority to their subject matter.

5. New estament Anonymity from the Readers Perspective

By writing their works without mentioning their names, the New esta-

ment narrators deliberately placed themselves in the tradition of Old es-tament historiography. Like their Old estament models, they wanted touse the anonymity of their works to give priority to their subject matter,the narratives about the life of Jesus (and the spread of the early Jesusmovement). As authors they wanted, for the most part, to disappear behindtheir subject matter. In order to move the subject matter to the foregroundas much as possible they let their actors talk mostly in direct speech and

abstained from any reflections in the first person. Even in this respect theytook over the stylistic devices with which the Old estament historians had

78) Vita sancti Martini pr. 6: . . . ut . . . loquatur materiam, non loquatur auctorem(CSEL 1,110,8-9 Halm; translation according to NPNF).79) R. Klein, Die Praefatioder Martinsvita des Sulpicius Severus,AU31/4 (1988) 5-32,esp. 12-23; compare Herkommer, Promien, 52-59: uerungen der Bescheidenheit;T. Pratsch, Der hagiographische opos. Griechische Heiligenviten in mittelbyzantinischer Zeit(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005) 22-34.


21/23


already tried to disappear as far as possible into the background of theirnarratives. Since they were mainly concerned with their subject matter andnot with displaying their literary skill, the narrators of the New estament

also largely abstained from elevating the colloquial Hellenistic prose oftheir sources to a more sophisticated literary level. All of these literaryidiosyncrasies of the Gospels and Acts80were designed to make the authorsas invisible as possible and to highlight the priority of their subject matter.

Tat early readers understood this self-perception of the evangelists isshown by the testimony of Papias concerning the Gospel of Mark. Tepresbyter quoted by Papias makes unmistakably clear that in his view thecontent of the second Gospel had merely been transmitted by Mark, itsassumed author. As Peters interpreter, Mark had mainly reproduced thecontent of Peters oral presentations.81

In spite of this information, which corresponds well with the anonymityof the second Gospel, it is clear that Papias himself is interested in theidentity of the Gospels authors. Tis was probably due to his concern to

substantiate the historical claim of the Gospel narratives, and thus toconfirm their authenticity and reliability. Te name Matthew representsan implicit claim that the first Gospel came from a direct disciple of Jesus.By appropriating the name Mark the second Gospel was attributed to aclose companion and co-worker of the apostle Peter, who had been a directdisciple of Jesus.

In his argument with Marcion, ertullian addresses the question of why

the early readers of the New estament historical books were not contentto accept their anonymity, but emphatically asked about the names of theirauthors. ertullian also comments on the edition of Lukes Gospel thatMarcion used. It was particularly in this regard that he attached impor-tance to the names of the Gospel authors and dismissed anonymous Gos-pels: We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical estamenthas apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself

this office of publishing the Gospels.82According to ertullian, the four

80) For an excellent and more detailed introduction see M. Reiser, Sprache und literarischeFormen des Neuen estaments. Eine Einfhrung(UB 2197; Paderborn: Schningh, 2001)98-115.81) Quoted by Eusebius, Historia ecclesiasticaIII 39,15; compare A.D. Baum, Der Presby-ter des Papias ber einen Hermeneuten des Petrus. Zu Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3,39,15,TZ56 (2000) 20-35.82) ertullian,Adversus MarcionemIV 2 (CSEL 47, 426,6-8 Kroymann; translation accord-ing to ANF).


22/23


Gospels, written by the apostles and their disciples, differ in terms of theorder of their subject matter etc. but agree with regard to the main tenetsof the faith. In their common theological perspective, however, ertullian

regards them as theologically incompatible with the teaching of Marcion:

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if itcould not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes)to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a workought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consis-tency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just

profession of its author.

83

Te decision of the authors on the one hand to abstain from mentioning theirnames in order to highlight the subject matter met with the concern of earlyreaders to secure the authenticity of the historical narratives by identifying theauthors by name.

Anonymity and names in the historical books of the New estament

Priority of subject matter Authenticity of narrative

1st Gospel anonymous Matthew2nd Gospel anonymous Mark3rd Gospel anonymous Luke4th Gospel anonymous John

Acts anonymous Luke

Tis twofold concern may also be reflected by the secondary Gospel super-scriptions. A work like Philostratus book about the Sophists had the title. Te Gospels did not receive similar titles.Te first gospel was not called Gospel of Matthew (

or), but Gospel according to Matthew (), which was a comparatively unusual designation.

In these secondary titles the names of the evangelists are mentioned.Tis must have satisfied the desire of those readers who for reasons ofauthenticity and historicity wanted to know the identity of the Gospelauthors. At the same time, the word (according to) that could be

83) Ibid. IV 2: . . .non agnoscendum . . . opus, quod non erigat frontem . . .(426,18-24; transla-tion according to ANF).


23/23


used instead of the genitive expressed that the evangelists were or wantedto be nothing other than mediators of their subject matter. Te Gospel ofJesus Christ had existed long before the authors of our Gospels wrote their

works. Tey merely wrote it down, though in different versions. In a simi-lar way, a reference to the (Greek) Old estament according to ()Symmachus alluded to the conviction that Symmachus the Ebionite didnot produce the Old estament or its subject matter, but had only been itsmediator through his particular (Greek) version.84

6. Conclusion

Te anonymity of the New estament historical books should not beregarded as peculiar to early Christian literature nor should it be inter-preted in the context of Greco-Roman historiography. Te striking factthat the New estament Gospels and Acts do not mention their authorsnames has its literary counterpart in the anonymity of the Old estament

history books, whereas Old estament anonymity itself is rooted in theliterary conventions of the Ancient Near East. Just as in the Old esta-ment, where the authors of books that belonged to the genre of wisdomand prophetic literature were usually named while historical works werewritten anonymously, only the New estament letters and the Apocalypsewere published under their authors names while the narrative literature ofthe New estament remained anonymous. Te authorial intent of the

Gospels anonymity can also be deduced from its Ancient Near Eastern andOld estament background. Unlike the Greek or Roman historian who,among other things, wanted to earn praise and glory for his literary achieve-ments from both his contemporaries and posterity, the history writer in theAncient Near East sought to disappear as much as possible behind thematerial he presented and to become its invisible mouthpiece. By adoptingthe stylistic device of anonymity from Old estament historiography the Evange-lists of the New estament implied that they regarded themselves as compara-tively insignificant mediators of a subject matter that deserved the full attentionof the readers.Te anonymity of the Gospels is thus rooted in a deep convic-tion concerning the ultimate priority of their subject matter.

84) S M H l T F G l d h O G l f J Ch i (L d SCM

Anonymity of the New Testament History Books.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Anonymity of the New Testament History Books.pdf