The genre of the gospels.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

But again we come back to the same difficulty. Was the gospel - as the Marcionites had it - a product of a man who identified himself as a second Moses (= THE apostle) or was it the witness of a multitude of eyewitnesses who all saw the same human being and attested together that he was the Son of God. The Clementine literature I believe preserves the closest thing to the original truth - Paul was a hallucinating visionary. Paul, say the Marcionites, wrote the original gospel.

Who did Paul persecute, then? Who did he write to in Rome? Where did the Christians in places like Alexandria and Ephesus come from (communities which were not founded by Paul)? Who were the Jerusalem pillars? Why did Paul say others saw Christ before he did?

There is strong evidence, even by his own words, that some kind of Christ cult - whatever the form - existed before Paul.

[MrMacSon]

Who did Paul persecute, then? Who did he write to in Rome? Where did the Christians in places like Alexandria and Ephesus come from (communities which were not founded by Paul)? Who were the Jerusalem pillars? Why did Paul say others saw Christ before he did?

There is strong evidence, even by his own words, that some kind of Christ cult - whatever the form - existed before Paul.

Roman Mithracism? An Egyptian mystery religion? Another new pagan-Gentile cult?

[robert j]

Who did he write to in Rome? Where did the Christians in places like Alexandria and Ephesus come from (communities which were not founded by Paul)?

H. Gamble, in his comprehensive study of the textual history of Romans, presents the evidence and comes down on the side of the addresses to Rome (and chapters 15 and 16) as original to the letter. However, the evidence can also be used to support an original letter without the addresses to Rome --- with the addresses (and chapters 15 and 16) added later. It’s not a settled issue, as Gamble admits.

There is no significant evidence of believers in a Jesus Christ in Ephesus or Alexandria (save perhaps Philo's proto-christian thought) prior to Paul.

Who did Paul persecute, then? ... Who were the Jerusalem pillars? Why did Paul say others saw Christ before he did?

We only have what Paul wrote about these in a letter in which he was obviously serving his own aims.

There is strong evidence, even by his own words, that some kind of Christ cult - whatever the form - existed before Paul.

I think your statement is too “strong”. By removing that adjective, and its attendant opinion, one might characterize the situation with a simple statement of fact ---

The only evidence is his own words, that some kind of Christ cult - whatever the form - existed before Paul.

Of course that raises the question --- can we take Paul at his word? I keep coming back to that question --- no matter how much I would like to avoid it --- especially in regards to the letter to the Galatians.

Many just read past, just allowing Paul’s inconsistencies in the letter. Others propose numerous interpolations, and remove offending portions until the letter conforms to their own pet theories. And others see a pastiche --- a messy document resulting from pissing-matches between Marcionites (and/or Simonians) and proto-catholic editors.

No. IMO, the work of an entrepreneurial evangelist, the work of a purveyor of spiritual gifts faced with a grave challenge to the very core of his message and his livelihood better fits the evidence. I’m still investigating just how far Paul stretched the truth to achieve his aims.

[Ben C. Smith]

I wanted to follow up briefly on this matter of genre and point out that, if the proposition is true that the gospel authors (especially of Matthew and Mark) wished to recede into the background (by remaining anonymous, using direct dialogue instead of indirect, and so forth) so as to highlight only the subject matter, then it turns out that whole swaths of early Christians actually treated them in the spirit in which they were intended.

First of all, no matter which of the gospels (or proto-gospels) was written first, rampant unannounced plagiarism is what led to more and more being composed... and is that not what we find amongst some of those anonymous Hebrew narrative books? 1 and 2 Chronicles, for example, plagiarized the books of Samuel and of Kings.

Second, look at how the Apostolic Fathers tended to refer to the gospel materials. If they were quoting from some gospel source (be it one of the extant gospels or some nonextant proto-gospel), they certainly did not always advertise it as such.

We find the following in 1 Clement 13.1b-2, for example: "...most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering: for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured withal to you." If Clement got these dominical sayings from a written source, he treated that source just like the gospels present themselves: as conveying the relevant words and deeds without interjecting an authorial presence in between. "This is what the Lord taught," says Clement, not, "This is what Matthew or Mark wrote that the Lord taught."

The same goes for Polycarp to the Philippians 2.3: "...but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God."

In Ignatius to the Ephesians 17.1, Ignatius may be citing a gospel incident (the anointing of Jesus) with the following words: "On this account did the Lord receive myrrh upon his head, so that he might breathe incorruptibility into the church." If he is, however, he is skipping the middleman and going straight for the events themselves ("the Lord did this"), exactly as the gospels present themselves.

On those occasions when the Apostolic Fathers expressly indicate that they are using a source, they tend to treat it anonymously, as well, calling it (for example) simply "the gospel" or such. I submit that such references are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the gospel genre itself.

Of course, another way of treating the text is always waiting in the wings. Those anonymous Hebrew narrative books eventually got tagged with named authors in Jewish tradition: Samuel wrote the books named after him, as well as Judges; Jeremiah wrote Kings; Ezra wrote Chronicles. Likewise, eventually those standardized gospel titles ("according to Matthew," "according to Mark") began referring to the gospel texts by their purported authors' names. Oral tradition surrounding the texts, as we find in Papias (for example), did the same thing, attributing gospel writings to named authors (Matthew and Mark); when we get to Justin Martyr, the gospels are "memoirs" written by apostles and by their followers. Namedropping soon became a way of fighting off heresy with the big, blunt stick of apostolic succession. The days of blithely plagiarizing anonymous gospel texts on the assumption that those texts handed you the events themselves on a platter were disappearing.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

They 'wanted to recede into the background' because it was 'the gospel of Jesus' or 'the gospel of the Lord' - in other words (and this is a profound Marcionite theme) God dictated the gospel. It was according to God not according to a particular man. As such there could only be one gospel and that's why all the earliest witnesses tend to use gospel in the singular.

[neilgodfrey]

I wish to thank Neil Godfrey for a fruitful exchange on this topic a couple of months ago; he anticipated the direction I was leaning with virtually no prompting at all.

For this post, I intend the term genre to indicate what kind of writing a text is as a whole; genre is a matter of locating other texts that seem to belong to the same overall type.

. . . . .

Fourth, there is a type of ancient biography that bears similarities to the gospels in most of the respects I have discussed so far (lack of authorial voice, lack of reflection on character or purpose, and so forth); there are βίοι in the Jewish tradition, including the Lives of the Prophets (Vitae Prophetarum) and the Life of Adam and Eve (Vita Adami et Evae). If the gospels are biographies, then I say they are closer to that kind of biography than to the Greco-Roman kind.

Such, then, is my current state of thinking on the matter of the genre of the gospels. All relevant comments welcome.

Ben.

Ben, I have since come across an article by 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" -- See Novum Testamentum 50:2 120-142

I have selected certain points from the article to post at Why the Anonymous Gospels? Failure of Scholarship in Pitre’s The Case for Jesus. Sorry the post begins addressing a bit of nonsense relating to a new book that too many mainstream biblical scholars were lauding on their websites -- scholars showing their apologetic colours -- but if I hadn't been goaded into writing something about Pitre's book I may never have come across the Baum article. Silver linings etc.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, I have since come across an article by 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" -- See Novum Testamentum 50:2 120-142

Thanks. I did mention that article in the OP. It came to my attention well after I had already come to my main conclusions, but it helped a great deal by way of confirmation, assurance, and the addition of new levels of detail to the thesis.

[neilgodfrey]

Ben, I have since come across an article by 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" -- See Novum Testamentum 50:2 120-142

Thanks. I did mention that article in the OP. It came to my attention well after I had already come to my main conclusions, but it helped a great deal by way of confirmation, assurance, and the addition of new levels of detail to the thesis.

Woops -- sorry for overlooking/forgetting the OP. Yes, when I last spoke with you about this question I was wondering if there was a "biblical" genre of sorts, so it was definitely confirming to see Baum find the same features in Near Eastern historical works. I don't feel like my neck is poking out so far any more.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
I like to discuss the concept of λόγια. Therefore I bring up this old thread and Ben’s excellent OP (What a pearl!). First, the review of the main points of the discussion so far

What genre do the gospels belong to? I think that they belong to whatever genre the Jewish scriptural narratives belong to. I think that they are conscious continuations of that venerable tradition.
...
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.
...
The scriptures are what matter here; the name of the translator is attached for convenience. Likewise, with the gospels, the perception is that it is the gospel story itself that matters; the name attached to it is seen as less that of the author than that of a tradent.

Second, I think that the concept of λόγια reinforces the overall impression that the gospels were seen as the heirs, by genre, of the Jewish scriptural narratives. The use of this term throughout Judeo-Christian history has a telescoping effect whereby one author might use it of the quoted words of God within his text, while a later author might use it to refer to that author's entire text.
...
At the same time, the word starts to gain currency as a way to refer to the words of Christian prophets (1 Peter 4.11), as well as accounts about Jesus himself. In this latter connection, we may think especially of how Papias considers both Matthew and Mark to have written down the λόγια of the Lord, and how those λόγια include both words and deeds (Eusebius, History of the Church 3.39.15-16). I suggest that to associate Matthew and Mark, at least, with λόγια is to set them in the grand tradition of the Jewish scriptures, as records of a divine nature; it is to continue their scope and story in the form of gospels written as the climax of their narrative thrust.

Has anyone ever looked into the possibility of Mark (or an ur-Mark) originating as a mystery cult initiation text? A sort of "Xenu document" if you will. A lot of it looks like it's designed to be a reveal to the audience to me, including the empty tomb and putative resurrection. The disciples never knew about it because the women ran away, but now you, young acolyte, you have received the truth.

The gospel wasn't read but recited antiphonally ...

They 'wanted to recede into the background' because it was 'the gospel of Jesus' or 'the gospel of the Lord' - in other words ... God dictated the gospel. It was according to God not according to a particular man. As such there could only be one gospel and that's why all the earliest witnesses tend to use gospel in the singular.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Ideas that point in this direction have been suggested before. It was discussed whether

- Paul or other early Christians had some sort of a passion play or standardized lecture material
- GMark was performed as a religious street play or held as a public lecture
- GMark is a Greek tragedy

Actually I am not so much interested in the idea that the gospel could funtion as a play or a lecture. It is rather the question whether the withdrawal of the author gives rise to a more direct relationship between the words of Jesus and the hearing audience. Did the gospels generate a situation in which the audience took part as active listeners of the divine words of Jesus?

Was Paul carrying around a painting of the crucifixion? If so, is he calling the Galatians foolish for not believing that a painting is real?

If a historical Paul said this, and he was an observant Jew (which the letters claim he is), then it would not be a picture (Jews didn't make representations of human beings to avoid any possibility of idolatry). I believe I have heard it suggested that it was some sort of passion play, which Hellenized Jews of the diaspora (such as Paul was supposed to have been) might not have seen as offensive, but it was more likely a verbal account, perhaps read from a written text. If the latter, then I'd guess it was an anachronistic reference to one of the gospels circulating in the 2nd century or at least an account of Jesus' death that served as a source for the canonical gospel passion account, coming from a level of editorial additions I have proposed for the letters of Paul as we have them now.

It would help to have passages from other gospels (if they, unlike Mark, are not supposed to be screen plays), or from other Christian texts, that would spill over the constraints of a stage, for contrast.

Maybe, maybe not. Mary Ann Beavis' book " Mark's Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark" seems to deal in detail with the points why she thinks gMark has resemblance to a Greek drama (five narrative sections interspersed with four teaching scenes, where the latter take the position of the Greek chorus). However, keep in mind that the novelization of a screenplay still contains the screenplay, which means that, whatever you find as answer to your question may not be very meaningful.

I only mentioned this here in the context of John21 as ending of Mark. If gMark is the scaffold of a religious street performance with a mystery aspect to it (the cliffhanger) that serves to get the susceptible among the audience to a more inimate, revelatory session, John21 may have been part of "gMark" without physically being part of the public part.

It also makes sense that "secret" part is more prone to changes than a public one.

The purpose of this Thread will be to consider the parallels between GMark and the genre of Greek Tragedy.