Titles of the gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:15 pm
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:49 pmThe message communicated in the four gospels was not the message of the authors, it was the message of God, as they understood it. That's why they were anonymous, I think.
Agreed. Armin D. Baum makes the following observations:

Armin D. Baum, The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient near Eastern Literature (Novum Testamentum volume 50, fascicle 2, 2008, pages 120-142), pages 135-136: In the formation of Old Testament historical works not only the scribes and secretaries remained anonymous but also the historians (and epitomisers). Even historians who had taken great pains in order to collect and arrange (and adorn) their material abstained from publishing their narratives under their names. The anonymity of the Hebrew historians corresponds to the observation that within Old Testament historiography auctorial reflections in the first person are almost entirely missing and that the narrators present their speech material almost completely in oratio recta.

This stands in stark contrast to Greek historiography. Herodotus used the first person hundreds of times in order to reflect on the reliability of his sources and his own reports. Thucydides provided information about his historical method, his temporal relationship to the events of the war and his narrative technique in his prologue and did so in the first person (I 20-22). The Greco-Roman historians acted as open narrators. In contrast, the Hebrew historians from Genesis to Kings totally abstained from statements in the first person in which they would reflect on the purpose and method of their work. The Old Testament narrators consciously remained virtually invisible.

A similar effect was achieved by reproducing the speeches consistently (with only a few exceptions) in direct speech. Thus the statements of the agents were presented much more directly and vividly. At the same time the narrators remained entirely in the background. In contrast, Greek historiography detached itself from the example of Homer, who also used to present his figures' words in direct speech. Greco-Roman historians delivered large parts of their discourses in indirect speech. Through their narrative techniques they moved themselves somewhat more into focus of their readers. In Greco-Roman historiography the gap between the speaker and the narrator is more visible than in Hebrew history writing.

These observations even bring the direct speech of the gospels into account; direct speech replicates the original scene, as if the reader were standing there, listening. Indirect speech, which the author rewords, inserts the author, visibly, in between the subject matter and the reader. The evangelists, like the Jewish historians (but very much unlike Greco-Roman historical and biographical authors), recede into the background as far as possible. Baum continues:

Baum, pages 138-140: ...the authority of Wisdom literature was generally deduced from the authority of the Wisdom teachers. Their names were therefore mentioned. With regard to prophetic literature, the authority of prophetic messages depended even more on the identity of the particular prophet who claimed to have been appointed by God and to be authorized to act as a mediator of divine revelation. For this reason an anonymous prophetical book was considered unacceptable in the world of the Ancient Near East (and the Old Testament). With historical works there was no comparable concern with the identity of the writer. The attention was focused entirely on the subject matter.

....

By writing their works without mentioning their names, the New Testament narrators deliberately placed themselves in the tradition of Old Testament historiography. Like their Old Testament models, they wanted to use 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 Jesus movement). As authors they wanted, for the most part, to disappear behind their subject matter. In order to move the subject matter to the foreground as 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 they took over the stylistic devices with which the Old Testament historians had already tried to disappear as far as possible into the background of their narratives. Since they were mainly concerned with their subject matter and not with displaying their literary skill, the narrators of the New Testament also largely abstained from elevating the colloquial Hellenistic prose of their sources to a more sophisticated literary level. All of these literary idiosyncrasies of the Gospels and Acts were designed to make the authors as invisible as possible and to highlight the priority of their subject matter.

The Greco-Roman authors operated with a different set of values:

Baum, page 133: The fact that almost all Greek and Roman historians published their works under their names is probably due to their distinctive longing for fame. Every Greco-Roman author, not just the historians, wanted to receive recognition for his literary accomplishments.

I agree, and it's a good point about the names of the prophetic and wisdom books. I don't know what Baum's answer would be as to why there is this difference in biblical historiography and Greco-Roman ditto, but for me it's an important aspect that highlights the nature of biblical historiography, including the gospels. And the nature of it in one word is preaching. Biblical historiography is preaching in the sense of conveying the Truth. Which means that the biblical historiographers are writing narratives in a completely different way than Greco-Roman historiographers and probably any other historiographer. The biblical historical books are much more like fiction, and the narrators (as opposed to 'authors'!) are for the most part all-knowing narrator. In fact in biblical historiography it's not the narrators who dissappear, it's the authors. In Greco-Roman historiography there is an author, and it is the same as the narrator. In the bible the narrator is completely anonymous, but he's very visible, in some texts more than others.

Baum brings up Homer, which seems relevant actually, because if we regard his works as historiography (do we do that?) then that's really close to the narrative historiography of the gospels, I think.

But I think the main point of difference comes the from the difference in the fundamental view of history between the Greco-Roman historiographers and their biblical counterparts. The latter believed - and were intent to show - that reality itself, and therefore history, had a director, or an author, God. In a very real sense, then, reality itself (and history) becomes one huge narrative. With characters and a plot. (The characters in this case were God, Israel, the gentiles and Satan, and for the Christians also the messiah.)
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stefan Kristensen wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:56 amIn the bible the narrator is completely anonymous, but he's very visible, in some texts more than others.
In what way is the narrator very visible?
Baum brings up Homer, which seems relevant actually, because if we regard his works as historiography (do we do that?) then that's really close to the narrative historiography of the gospels, I think.
I would not call Homer historiography in any real sense. It is epic poetry.
But I think the main point of difference comes the from the difference in the fundamental view of history between the Greco-Roman historiographers and their biblical counterparts. The latter believed - and were intent to show - that reality itself, and therefore history, had a director, or an author, God. In a very real sense, then, reality itself (and history) becomes one huge narrative. With characters and a plot. (The characters in this case were God, Israel, the gentiles and Satan, and for the Christians also the messiah.)
Very well said. And the gospels were trying to tell and retell the last chapter of that story.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Michael BG »

Perhaps it might helpful if we discussed the word “gospel”. It is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning good news. I would think it was first used during the eighth century when I think books of the Bible were translated into Anglo-Saxon. So before this they were referred to as bona annuntiatio and before that evangelion. It is therefore wrong to think in the second century there was the ‘Gospel according to Mark’; there was the ‘Good News according to Mark’.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:22 pm Perhaps it might helpful if we discussed the word “gospel”. It is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning good news. I would think it was first used during the eighth century when I think books of the Bible were translated into Anglo-Saxon. So before this they were referred to as bona annuntiatio and before that evangelion. It is therefore wrong to think in the second century there was the ‘Gospel according to Mark’; there was the ‘Good News according to Mark’.
Nor were there lords or masters in the second century; there were kyrioi. Nor was there righteousness; there was dikaiosynē. How far ought we to unravel this thread? Do we abandon English words altogether and conduct our business on this forum in ancient Greek or Latin or Hebrew instead?

Far better: simply accept that all English words in this context, even cognates (!), are merely translations of Greek or Latin or Hebrew words whose meanings may overlap but probably do not correspond 100%.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Michael BG »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:40 pm
Michael BG wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:22 pm Perhaps it might helpful if we discussed the word “gospel”. It is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning good news. I would think it was first used during the eighth century when I think books of the Bible were translated into Anglo-Saxon. So before this they were referred to as bona annuntiatio and before that evangelion. It is therefore wrong to think in the second century there was the ‘Gospel according to Mark’; there was the ‘Good News according to Mark’.
Nor were there lords or masters in the second century; there were kyrioi. Nor was there righteousness; there was dikaiosynē. How far ought we to unravel this thread? Do we abandon English words altogether and conduct our business on this forum in ancient Greek or Latin or Hebrew instead?

Far better: simply accept that all English words in this context, even cognates (!), are merely translations of Greek or Latin or Hebrew words whose meanings may overlap but probably do not correspond 100%.
I think you have misunderstood my point. My point is that “gospel” has a specific religious meaning and is not an everyday word. It is a bit like a foreign loan word such as say “bureau” which is the French word for desk.

No one would say, “Have you heard the gospel, Jane has given birth to twins?”

I was not suggesting we should we use the Greek words; I was suggesting the opposite we should use every day English words divorced from any religious meaning.
There are words which have a particular religious meaning such as church (assembly), gospel (good news) and I am sure you remember by problems with dominical (as relating to Jesus). And it was the use of the word “gospel” I was pointing out should be translated as “good news” to divorce it from its purely religious meaning in this discussion.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:59 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:40 pm
Michael BG wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:22 pm Perhaps it might helpful if we discussed the word “gospel”. It is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning good news. I would think it was first used during the eighth century when I think books of the Bible were translated into Anglo-Saxon. So before this they were referred to as bona annuntiatio and before that evangelion. It is therefore wrong to think in the second century there was the ‘Gospel according to Mark’; there was the ‘Good News according to Mark’.
Nor were there lords or masters in the second century; there were kyrioi. Nor was there righteousness; there was dikaiosynē. How far ought we to unravel this thread? Do we abandon English words altogether and conduct our business on this forum in ancient Greek or Latin or Hebrew instead?

Far better: simply accept that all English words in this context, even cognates (!), are merely translations of Greek or Latin or Hebrew words whose meanings may overlap but probably do not correspond 100%.
I think you have misunderstood my point. My point is that “gospel” has a specific religious meaning and is not an everyday word. It is a bit like a foreign loan word such as say “bureau” which is the French word for desk.

No one would say, “Have you heard the gospel, Jane has given birth to twins?”

I was not suggesting we should we use the Greek words; I was suggesting the opposite we should use every day English words divorced from any religious meaning.
That is a decent point. Unfortunately, such evaluations are very subjective. In my case, for example, "gospel" is freer of religious connotations than "good news" would be in a Christian context. My childhood was saturated with country preachers who used the term "good news" with great bluster and enthusiasm. Of course they used "gospel" too, but in a very real sense they used it when they were trying to mimic the biblical language, which left the impression upon me that "gospel" is how we translate the biblical terms, while "good news" is how we convey the religious meaning of that "neutral" term to others.

I got into etymology very early, as well, and of course gospel = godspel = "good spell" = "good message." I cannot hear "gospel" without hearing "good news" as its core meaning.

Finally, and possibly most importantly, euaggelion is not necessarily the word one would use for "ordinary" instances of good news in the Koine (one might instead use φήμη ἀγαθή or the like). Euaggelion could have some gravity to it, and was used in some pretty formal contexts (such as in the Priene calendar inscription to describe the effects of Augustus' birth upon the world, or in announcements of victory on the battlefield). It was also used in the LXX, but usually in a different form than that taken on in the New Testament. That gravity, I find (personally), is better conveyed by "gospel" than by "good news" in English.

But, again, these are very subjective judgments.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stefan Kristensen
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 1:54 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Titles of the gospels

Post by Stefan Kristensen »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:43 am
Stefan Kristensen wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:56 amIn the bible the narrator is completely anonymous, but he's very visible, in some texts more than others.
In what way is the narrator very visible?
Well, maybe not necessarily very visible, but Baum uses the term "narrators" in the meaning 'writers' or 'authors' or 'historians', and my comment above was meant as a response to that. He writes that "The Old Testament narrators consciously remained virtually invisible". But in the sections from his article that you've posted he doesn't seem to deal with the important fact that whereas the Greco-Roman historians can be said to 'narrate' their historical accounts, they are not writing narratives as such. In the Bible, on the other hand, we're dealing with full-blown 'narratives', characterized among other things by direct speech. For example the exodus story is also meant as an historical account, but it's a full-blown narrative, where we are told the thoughts and feelings of the characters, and in a sense the only difference between that and the gospel accounts is, that in the gospels we're never told the thoughts and feelings of the character God. That character has been transposed unto the human character Jesus, God’s son (“hear him”), so it is through him that we here learn the thoughts and feelings of the character God, who is ever present but thoroughly hidden in the whole narrative (“a voice came ...”). But his thoughts and feelings are also mixed with the human thoughts and feelings of his human son Jesus, I suppose, which complicates the matter.

But I think the main point of difference comes the from the difference in the fundamental view of history between the Greco-Roman historiographers and their biblical counterparts. The latter believed - and were intent to show - that reality itself, and therefore history, had a director, or an author, God. In a very real sense, then, reality itself (and history) becomes one huge narrative. With characters and a plot. (The characters in this case were God, Israel, the gentiles and Satan, and for the Christians also the messiah.)
Very well said. And the gospels were trying to tell and retell the last chapter of that story.
Exactly. And that final chapter had also already been revealed in cryptic manner, according to the Jews and Christians, namely through the prophets. So the question was how one should understand them. In this way prophecy is also a form of historiography, telling beforehand the part of world history that is going to unfold. Moses also revealed it himself actually, in Deut 29-30, that Israel will enter the land, become disobedient, be expelled into exile, and then finally gathered again into the promised land for the end of the story. And everone lives happily ever after. (Eternally, actually, according to the eschatological understanding of the story.)

Paul is also a historiographer in this way, as he also knows the entire story of world history, right until the end.
Post Reply