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.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:15 pmAgreed. Armin D. Baum makes the following observations: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.
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.
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.)