Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Testamentum
AnInternationalfor
Quarterly
NewTestament
and
Related
Studies
5RILL Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 120-142 www.brill.nl/nt
Armin D. Baum
Gie?en I Leuven
Abstract
The anonymity of the NT historical books should not be as to
regarded peculiar early
Christian literature nor should it be interpreted in the context of Greco-Roman
historiog
raphy. The striking fact that theNT Gospels and Acts do not mention their authors' names
has its literary counterpart in the anonymity of the OT
history books, whereas OT ano
nymity 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 lit
erature were named while historical works were written the NT
usually anonymously, only
letters and the Apocalypse were under their authors' names while the narrative
published
literature of the NT remained anonymous. The authorial intent of the
Gospels' anonymity
can also be deduced from its ancient Near Eastern and OT the Greek
background. Unlike
or 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 the
Ancient Near East to as much as
sought disappear possible behind the material he pre
sented and to become its invisible mouthpiece. By adopting the stylistic device of anonym
ity from OT historiography the Evangelists of theNT implied that they regarded themselves
as of a subject matter that deserved the full attention
comparatively insignificant mediators
of the readers. The anonymity of the Gospels is thus rooted in a concern
deep conviction
the ultimate of their matter.
ing priority subject
Keywords
anonymity, authorship, superscriptions, Greco-Roman Near Eastern
gospel historiography,
historiography
E Bovon points out a critical problem that pertains to the other two Syn
as
optics, the Book ofActs, and theGospel of John well. All five historical
books of the New Testament, including those without a prologue, were
written and published anonymously. However, this obvious fact has not
a. The Evidence
While most New Testament letters bear the names of their (purported)
authors (James, Jude, Paul, Peter, or at least "the Elder") the authors of the
historical books do not reveal their names. The superscriptions that include
Praeder, "The Problem of First Person Narration inActs," NT29 (1987) 193-218, esp. 214,
and AJ.M. Wedderburn, "The
'We'-Passages inActs: On the Horns of a Dilemma," ZNW
93 (2002) esp. 81, with to theActs of the
78-98, regard Apostles; D.E. Aune, "Anonymity,"
The Westminster Dictionary New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric
of
(Westminster: Knox, 2003) 35: "the subject has been almost completely neglected."
2) See
the recent contribution by S. Petersen, "Die und die Entste
Evangelien?berschriften
hung des neutestamentlichen Kanons," ZNW97 (2006) 250-274.
3)
"Die anonymen Schriften des Neuen Testaments. an ein lite
Ann?herungsversuch
rarisches Ph?nomen," ZNW 79 (1988) 1-16, esp. 14-15. J. Zmijewski, "Anonymit?t,"
LThKX (31993) 702-704, has accepted his approach.
The author of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, for instance, who himself
an statement of a very
opened his work with explicit authorship, took
different approach. He opened his book with the words: "These are the
secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and (which) Didymus Judas
Thomas wrote."4 In contrast, the five historical books of the New Testa
ment were written
anonymously.
C.-J. Thornton holds a view that differs from this consensus. As a result of his narra
4) to B. in Ed. K. Aland
Translation according Metzger Synopsis Quatuor Evangeliorum.
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 131985) 517.
(Stuttgart:
5)Der als Historiker der Paulusreisen 56; T?bingen: Mohr,
Zeuge des Zeugen. Lukas (WUNT
1991) 142-148.
6) See
J. Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 3; G?ttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1998) 56-58, who
the title "Deeds of theApostles" as
regards original.
7) Ein
Compare M. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage. L?sungsversuch (WUNT 67; T?bingen:
b. TheDiscussion
(or better: pseudonymously published) work forms a special case that can
not be as representative of the conventions of Greco-Roman his
regarded
toriography.
(2) A.J.M. Wedderburn assumes that ?the anonymity of the
Gospels
may 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 the
likewise anonymous Gospel of John and the Book of Acts, inasmuch the
authors of these two books appear to claim to have witnessed at least some
of the events they describe (see John 1:14; 13:23; 21:20.24 and the "we"
passages in Acts).10 Furthermore, the question arises as to whether the
assumed relationship between the New Testament Gospels and their
sources may be as or whether an anonymous han
actually regarded unique
of traditions and source material was conventional in at least some
dling
types of ancient literature.
8) E.
Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums (Stuttgart: Cotta, 4/51924) I, 313.
9)
'"We'-Passages," 96.
10)
Compare M. Res?, "Das Selbstzeugnis des Johannesevangeliums ?ber seinen Verfasser,"
EThL 72 (1996) 75-111; Thornton, Der
Zeuge des Zeugen, 84-197.
ymously, although, unlike the Gospels, it did not relate the words and
deeds of Jesus? It should be noted that this approach to the problem of
anonymity interprets theNew Testament history books as works sui generis
and does not take into account its possible relationship to other kinds of
anonymous historiography in the ancient world. It is self-evident that
can no means
Wolters interpretation of anonymous Christian literature by
be applied to anonymous books from Greco-Roman or Near Eastern lit
erature. A closer look at the history of Greco-Roman and Old Testament
Jewish literaturemight offer valuable clues that could help us understand
the phenomenon of literary anonymity more precisely.
n)
"Anonymit?t," 15.6-7.11-12.
12) H.R. von Athen," PREIXA.2 1569-2052,
Compare Breitenbach, "Xenophon (1967)
esp. 1670-1674.
13) translation
Lucian, De historia conscribenda 23 (III 301,27-302,1 Macleod; according
to LCL); G. Avenarius, Lukians zur (Meisenheim:
compare Schrift Geschichtsschreibung
Thus, the Jewish historian Josephus prefixed elaborate prologues to his Bel
lumJudaicum and to his Antiquitates because he did not want his works to
appear, in the eyes of his educated Hellenistic audience, like headless bodies.
At the beginning or end of his prologue theGreek historian would men
tion his name and his provenance.14 In the 6th century BC Hecataeus of
Miletos began his historical work with the words: "Hecataeus ofMiletos
reports as follows. I write this, as it seems to be true to me."15 In the
5th century B.C. Herodotus, the father of Greek historiography, intro
duced his historical narrative with thewords: "This is the demonstration of
the investigation of Herodotus of Halicarnassus."16 And the opening sen
tence of Thucydides goes: "Thucydides of Athens has described thewar of
the Peloponnesians and Athenians."17 Thucydides also concluded individ
ual books of his historical work with a remark about the exact number of
years that had passed in thewar "that Thucydides has described."18 With
this procedure, the name of the author could not escape the reader.Arrian,
in his Anabasis, has consciously deviated from this practice
by not giving
his name in the prologue where he only mentioned his sources.19 Later in
Book I he writes:
Hain, 1956) 113-118; E. Herkommer, "DieTopoi inden Pro?mien der r?mischen Geschichts
werke," Diss. T?bingen 1968, 14-17, and see also De historia conscribenda 52-55.
14) in den Pro?mien,"
Herkommer, "Die Topoi 46-52; E. Schmalzriedt, I1EPI OYXE?l.
Zur Fr?hgeschichte der Buchtitel (M?nchen: Fink, 1970) 32-34; D. Earl, "Prologue-Form in
Ancient Greek Historiography," ANRW 1.2 (1972) 842-856, esp. 842-849; J.M. Marin
cola, Authority and Tradition inAncient Historiography (Cambridge: University Press, 1999)
271-275.
15)FGH1 F 1
(I 7,32-33 Jacoby).
16)
\pr{\ 1,1 Rosen).
17) I
1,1 (Jones/Powell).
18) I
103,2 etc.
19)
\pr. 1-3.
20)
Anabasis I 12,5 (I 28,20-22 Roos; translation to LCL).
according
21)A.B.
Bosworth, A Historical Commentary
on Arrians
History ofAlexander (Oxford: Clar
endon, 1980) I, 106.
Even Xenophons inwhich the author reports about his own role as an officer
Anabasis,
in the campaign is no exception. Although
of Cyrus, it appears to the modern reader
to be anonymous, himself elsewhere calls it the work of a certain Themis
Xenophon
togenes of Syracuse.22 Probably he published it under this pseudonym. Plutarch
identified the true reason why Xenophon did not publish his Anabasis under his own
name:
Xenophon recorded "that itwas
Themistogenes the Syracusan who had com
an account of them (i.e. successes), his purpose being to win greater
piled Xenophons
credence for his narrative to himself in the third person, thus favouring
by referring
another with the glory of the authorship."23
Justus of Tiberias, the rival of Josephus,26 wrote their now lost historical
works anonymously. The same is true of the early Jewish narrators Eupol
emus (157/158 B.C.), Artapanus, Cleodemus Malchus und Theophilus
(around 100 B.C.), who are all quoted by Eusebius in the 9th book of his
narrative Lucius seu asinus and the Vita Secundi philosophi. These biogra
a rather low and episodic style but also anonymity in
phies have not only
common.28
28)W.
Hansen, Anthology ofAncient Greek Popular Literatur (Bloomington: Indiana Uni
versity Press, 1998) xi-xxiii; compare H.-G. Beck, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Volkslitera
tur (Byzantinisches Handbuch II/3; M?nchen: Beck, 1971) 28-35.
29)
"Epitome," RAC 5 (1962) 944-973, esp. 947-950.
30)H.
Cancik, NBL 1 (1988-91) 813-822, offers a helpful survey
"Geschichtsschreibung,"
of the different aspects of Old Testament narrative literature.
31) The names in 1Chr 29:29 are an
mentioned exception: "As for the events of King Davids
from to end, are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records
reign, beginning they
of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer."
32)A.M.
Schwemer, Vitae Prophetarum QSHRZ 1/7; G?tersloh: Mohn, 1997) 543, 561.
33) C.
Burchard, Joseph undAseneth (JSHRZ II/4; G?tersloh: Mohn, 1983) 589.
ally written by unknown authors.36 Not until the time of Alexander the
Great did Greek literature and literaryconventions gain a decisive influence
in theAncient Near East, "among them thewider use of authors' names."37
even were still
Nevertheless, during theHellenistic period, Jewishwritings
without the names of their authors. As a rule, however,
being published
names
only wisdom, apocalyptic, and testamental literaturementioned the
of the respective authors.38
at Qumran no indication of
Most of the documents found give authorship. Works
that mention their authors' names (such as the Testament of Levi or the Psalms of
Joshua) are the exception. Qumran literature is largely anonymous. This applies not
to the of biblical narratives (rewritten Bible) but also to the poetical,
only paraphrases
texts such as the Hodayot and the Sabbath Songs. The Pesharim
liturgical and wisdom
etc.) and the halachic texts (such as the Scroll, the Community
(lQpHab Temple
Rule, the Damascus Document and theWar Scroll) are also This is
anonymous.39
Furthermore, the Hebrew history books did not have a prologue that
informed the readers about their purpose and their sources. They also did
not contain authorial reflections in the first
person.41 Even 1Maccabees
stillmakes use of thisOld Testament style. In contrast, 2Maccabees already
includes a prologue by the author in the first person. This prologue con
cludes with the following words (2Mace 2:19-32):
At this point therefore let us begin our narrative, without adding any more towhat has
already been said; for itwould be foolish to lengthen the preface while cutting short
the history itself.42
40)
Compare J.Neusner, Why No Gospels in Talmudic Judaism? (BJSt 135; Atlanta: Scholars,
1988) 70-72.
41) S.
Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in theBible (JSOT.S 70/BiLiSe 17; Sheffield: Elmond, 1989)
23-45: "The Narrator's Manifestation," esp. 23-24.
42)
Compare Luc?an, De historia consribenda 23: Some historians write "introductions that
are brilliant, dramatic, and so that you
excessively long, 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 to LCL).
according
43)
StromataV 14,97.
c. New Testament
Anonymity in theContext ofAncient History ofLiterature
in ancient
Authorship historiography
Name 1. Person
Prologue
Hebrew historiography
Matthew
Mark
Acts + +
Greek historiography + + +
44)See C. Habicht,
JSHRZ 1/3 (1976) 169-177: "Titel,Verfasserund Entstehungdes
Werkes."
45)
EpistulaeLUI 8,18 (CSEL 54, 461,14 Hilberg).
a. TheWork
of theGreco-Roman Historian
In an independent treatise on the topic ofHow toWrite History Lucian of
Samosata (in the 2nd century AD) explained the task of a Greek historian.
Other historians explained in the prologues to theirworks how they had
used their sources and how theywanted to present theirmaterial stylisti
cally. Both of these issues are among the topoi that regularly occur in the
praefationes of ancient history books.46
to Lucian, the first step in the historical was
According working process
to collect the historical source material, if as an eyewitness or
possible
else reliable witnesses.47 were,
by consulting Contemporary eyewitnesses
to Polybius,
according subject to close scrutiny. The historian was only
to
allowed give credence to those witnesses that had proved to be reliable.48
The amount ofwork 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 a sec
produce (in
ond step) a notes (\m?|Livr||i?xi), a body of
stylistically inelegant "series of
46)
Herkommer, "Die Topoi in den Pro?mien," 86-101 (about working with the sources)
und 112-122 (about style).
47)De
historia consribenda 47; compare Avenarius, Lukians
Schrift, 71-85.
48)XII
4c, 5; compare G. Schepens, "Some Aspects of Source Theory inGreek
Historiogra
phy," AncSoc 6 (1975) 257-274, esp. 269.
56) See K.
Dziatzko, "Autorrecht," PRE 11/2 (1896) 2608-2611.
57)
Thus already Thucydides I 21-22; compare Herkommer, "Die Topoi in den Pro?mien,"
128-136 (aboutbenefit)und 137-151 (about truth).
58) K. Schickert, Der Schutz literarischer
Compare im Rom der klassischen
Urheberschaft
Antike (T?bingen: Mohr, 2005) 128-131: "Ruhm und Unsterblichkeit als Motivation."
59)
I 25,5: ante stantem dubitas admitiere Famam
Epigrammata fores (Lindsay; translation
to LCL).
according
60) I 25,9: sera venit
Epigrammata cinerigloria (Lindsay; translation according to LCL).
I shall be borne immortal far beyond the lofty stars and I shall have an undying name.
Wherever Rome's power extends over the conquered world, I shall have mention on
men's if the prophecies of bards have any truth, all the shall I
lips, and through ages
live in fame.61
Historians, too, were hoping for fame and recognition by publishing their
historical works. In the prologue to his Antiquities Josephus mentions sev
eral goals that, according to him, motivated historians towrite theirworks.
In the first place he refers to fellow writers who approached their task
to win the fame therefrom
"eager to display their literary skill and
expected."62 Even epitomisers like Justin reckoned with the appreciation of
their readers for their (albeit comparatively small) literary efforts: "For
your approbation is sufficient forme for the present, with the expectation
of receiving from posterity, when themalice of detraction has died away,
an to my
ample testimony diligence."63 Only authors who published their
work under their own names could hopefor fame and recognition. That iswhy
Greek and Roman history books were notpublished anonymously.
An old answer suggests that Old Testament narrators abstained from names
using their
because they considered the Holy Spirit to be the true author of their works. As works
the narrative books in the Bible had no real human author; their
inspired by God,
writers were of God. This was the argument on the basis of
in the hand
simply pens
(in the prologue of hisMoralia in Lob) declared it unneces
which Gregory the Great
sary to determine the author of the anonymous book of Job: "If we regard the Holy
as the author and ask nonetheless who the scribe is,what else are we doing than
Spirit
text and to this view the author
reading the enquiring about the pencil?"64 According
of the book of Job concealed his name because he considered God to be the actual
61)
Metamorphoses
XV 871-880 (480-481 Tarrant; translation according to LCL); compare
id., Tristium III 3,77-80; Horaz, Carmina III 30,1-16.
62) translation according to
Antiquitatespr.
2:... xrjv an a?xfi?... ?o^av (I 4,41 Niese;
appears to be difficult to find enough evidence that in the early church they were
as a limited circle of
regarded private writings for disciples of the evangelists. And the
or
library index quoted by Irenaeus explicitly speaks of the publication general release
There must be other reasons for the anonymity of the biblical narratives.
These must be identified through an analysis of thework process and the
a. TheWork
of theNear Eastern Historian
In the formation ofOld Testament historical works not only the scribes and
secretaries remained anonymous but also the historians (and epitomisers).
65) II
92,13-16 M?ller (my translation); for similar ancient statements and the relevant
Even historians who had taken great pains in order to collect and arrange
(and adorn) theirmaterial abstained from publishing their narratives under
their names. The anonymity of theHebrew historians corresponds to the
observation thatwithin Old Testament historiography auctorial reflections
in the firstperson are almost entirelymissing and that the narrators present
their speech material almost completely in oratio recta.
This stands in stark contrast to Greek historiography. Herodotus used
the firstperson hundreds of times in order to reflecton the reliability of his
sources and his own reports. Thucydides provided information about his
historical method, his temporal relationship to the events of thewar and
his narrative technique in his prologue and did so in the firstperson (I 20
22). The Greco-Roman historians acted as open narrators.68 In contrast,
theHebrew historians from Genesis toKings totally abstained from state
ments in the first person inwhich on the purpose and
theywould reflect
method of theirwork. The Old Testament narrators consciously remained
virtually invisible.69
A similar effectwas achieved by reproducing the speeches consistently
(with only a few exceptions) in direct speech. Thus the statements of the
same time
agents were presented much more directly and vividly. At the
the narrators remained entirely in the background. In contrast, Greek his
who also used to
toriography detached itself from the example of Homer,
present his words in direct speech. Greco-Roman historians deliv
figures'
ered of their discourses in indirect their narra
large parts speech. Through
tive techniques theymoved themselves somewhat more into the focus of
their readers. In Greco-Roman historiography the gap between the speaker
and the narrator ismore visible than inHebrew history writing.70
Furthermore, Hebrew historians were not interested in editing and
sources in order to distinguish themselves as skil
altering the style of their
fulwriters. Their reluctance to change thewording of their source texts can
be observed most clearly in a synoptic comparison between the text of
Chronicles on the one hand and the Books of Samuel and Kings on the
other hand. On average, theChronicler has preserved 80% of the original
in ancient
Composition historiography
71) See
A.D. Baum, "Die lukanische und chronistische im
Quellenbenutzung Vergleich:
Eine zum
Teilanalogie synoptischen Problem," EThL 78 (2002) 340-357, and the literature
mentioned there.
72)
Speyer, Die literarische
F?lschung, 109-110; compare Aune, "Anonymity," 35: "the text
represents traditions owned' by the community in which the author writes."
73)
H. Cancik, Mythische und historische Wahrheit. zu Texten der hethitischen,
Interpretationen
biblischen und griechischen (SBS 48; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
Historiographie
1970) 105-108.
74) R. Alter, The World
Compare ofBiblical Literature (New York: Basic Books, 1992) 2-3.
But when the prophets have mentioned their own names and also Solomon, I leave it
for youto examine this further, (that is) some {i.e. the
why prophets and Solomon)
have mentioned itwhile others (i.e. the Old Testament historians) have not. For you
are not to learn more
everything from me, lest you become dull.75
In every book one searches more for the impact of what one is reading than for the
name 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 the
author.77
75)Homiliae in
epistolam ad Romanos 1,1 (PG 60, 395; my translation).
76) See "Was Elihu, the Son of Barachel, the Author of the Book of Job? A
J.Weinberg,
Hypothesis," Transeuphrat?ne 16 (1998) 149-166, esp. 152-157, and id., "Authorship and
Author in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible," HebStud 44 (2003) 157-169,
esp. 158-161.
77) in omni enim uolumine profectus magis lectionis quam
Salvian,
Epistolae 9,4: quaeritur
nomen auctoris... (CSEL 8, 217,24-218,7 Pauly; my translation).
Kindly
erase the titlewhich 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
In the context of this paper, the fact that the author's offer to have his work
to the humility topoi of
published anonymously belonged hagiographie
literature and thus must not be taken at its face value is irrelevant.79The
an authorial self
prologue of Sulpicius Severus explicitly put into words
a
perception that also formed the basis of very different kind of historiog
was the
raphy. The anonymity of their works stylisticdevice by which Old
Testament (and Ancient Near Eastern) historianspresented themselvesas rather
on and
insignificantmediators of the traditional material theypassed bywhich
in contrast theygave highestpriority to their subjectmatter.
presbyter quoted by Papias makes unmistakably clear that in his view the
content of the second
Gospel had merely been transmitted by Mark, its
assumed author. As Peter's interpreter,Mark had mainly reproduced the
content of Peters oral
presentations.81
In spite of this information, which corresponds well with the anonymity
of the second Gospel, it is clear that Papias himself is interested in the
was to his concern to
identity of the Gospels' authors. This probably due
to
substantiate the historical claim of the Gospel narratives, and thus
confirm their authenticity and reliability.The name "Matthew" represents
an came from a direct disciple of Jesus.
implicit claim that the firstGospel
name "Mark" the second Gospel was attributed to a
By appropriating the
close companion and co-worker of the apostle Peter,who had been a direct
disciple of Jesus.
In his argument with Marcion, Tertullian addresses the question ofwhy
the early readers of theNew Testament historical books were not content
to accept their anonymity, but emphatically asked about the names of their
authors. Tertullian also comments on the edition of Luke's Gospel that
Marcion used. Itwas particularly in this regard that he attached impor
tance to the names of the Gospel authors and dismissed anonymous Gos
as our first position, that the evangelical Testament
pels: "We lay it down
has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself
this office of publishing the Gospels."82 According to Tertullian, the four
terms of the
Gospels, written by the apostles and their disciples, differ in
order of their subject matter etc. but agree with regard to themain tenets
of the faith. In their common theological perspective, however, Tertullian
as
regards them theologically incompatible with the teaching ofMarcion:
Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his as if it
Gospel,
could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which itwas no crime (in his eyes)
to subvert the very now make a stand, and contend that a work
body. And here Imight
not to be which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consis
ought recognised,
tency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just
The decision of the authors on the one hand to abstain from mentioning their
names in order to matter met with the concern
highlight the subject of early
readers to secure the authenticity of the historical narratives by identifying the
authors by name.
matter
Priority of subject Authenticity of narrative
This twofold concern may also be reflected by the secondary Gospel super
scriptions. A work like Philostratus' book about the Sophists had the title
OiAoaxpoVcoi) ?ioi a <pioTcbv.The Gospels did not receive similar titles.
The firstgospel was not called "Gospel ofMatthew" (Ma68aioi) e-oayyeXiov
or e?ayy?Xiov xovMa09aioi)), but "Gospel according toMatthew (e?ccyy?^uov
KaxocMa66a?ov)," which was a
comparatively unusual designation.
In these secondary titles the names of the are mentioned.
evangelists
This must have satisfied the desire of those readers who for reasons of
83) .. .non
Ibid. IV 2: opus, quod non erigatfrontem... (426,18-24; transla
agnoscendum...
tion toANF).
according
used instead of the genitive expressed that the evangelists were or wanted
to be matter. The
nothing other than mediators of their subject Gospel of
Jesus Christ had existed long before the authors of our Gospels wrote their
works. They merely wrote itdown, though in different versions. In a simi
larway, a reference to the (Greek) Old Testament "according to (kcckx)
6. Conclusion
84) See M.
Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel ofJesus Christ (London: SCM,
2000) 48-56.