Stefan Kristensen wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:14 pm
I've argued that gMark was intended to be understood as an account of historical events. And as such, it is legitimate to compare gMark to other known history works of the time.
What I'm most interested in is the 'narrator' of such other works. Because one thing that characterizes gMark is the anonymity which
pervades the whole work. It purports to present real events, but the person who presents them does not want to show himself to the audience. That's a strange way to present history, I think.
Compared to modern works of fiction the author of gMark appears in a stunningly consistent manner as what can be categorized as a 'covert narrator', i.e. a narrator that appears in the narrative as nothing more than a neutral and dry reporter of the events, never commenting in a such way so as to indicate any sort of
personal interest or opinion or even understanding concerning the things which he narrates. The gospel of Mark is through and through anonymous.
So the 'narrator' which narrates the events in the narrative shows no opinions at all. Obviously, the contrast in this regard to the 'real author' himself is absurdly huge, and the question why that author chose to write his history work in such a way, with a 'covert narrator', is an interesting one which has not yet been posed in true fashion by biblical research, I believe.
But my question here is: Are there other examples of history writings where the 'narrator' is completely neutral, i.e. where the author appears in this way (or rather doesn't appear)? In the form of a 'covert narrator'? Or just anonymous history writings?
Armin D. Baum addresses the anonymity of the gospels in his article, "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). Here is the abstract:
Baum, abstract: The anonymity of the NT historical books should not be regarded as peculiar to early Christian literature nor should it be interpreted in the context of Greco-Roman historiography. The striking fact that the NT Gospels and Acts do not mention their authors' names has its literary counterpart in the anonymity of the OT history books, whereas OT anonymity itself is rooted in the literary conventions of the Ancient Near East. Just as in the OT, where the authors of books that belonged to the genre of wisdom and prophetic literature were usually named while historical works were written anonymously, only the NT letters and the Apocalypse were published under their authors' names while the narrative literature of the NT remained anonymous. The authorial intent of the Gospels' anonymity can also be deduced from its ancient Near Eastern and OT background. Unlike the Greek or Roman historian who, among other things, wanted to earn praise and glory for his literary achievements from both his contemporaries and posterity, the history writer in the Ancient Near East sought to disappear as much as possible behind the material he presented and to become its invisible mouthpiece. By adopting the stylistic device of anonymity from OT historiography the Evangelists of the NT implied that they regarded themselves as comparatively insignificant mediators of a subject matter that deserved the full attention of the readers. The anonymity of the Gospels is thus rooted in a deep conviction concerning the ultimate priority of their subject matter.
I had come to some of these conclusions independently, and reading his article really helped to seal the deal.
Here is an excerpt:
Baum, page 124: The work of a Greco-Roman historian was almost always preceded by a prologue in which he informed his readers about the content of his book. The fact that a classical author like Xenophon abstained from using an prologue and abruptly opened his Hellenica with the words μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα was probably due to the fact that this historical narrative started where the historical work of Thucydides had ended and was apparently meant as its direct sequel.
Another excerpt:
Baum, 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 again:
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.
What genre do the gospels belong to? I think that they, especially Matthew and Mark, belong to
whatever genre the Jewish scriptural narratives belong to. I think that they are conscious continuations of that venerable tradition.