When we began reading texts in this
course, the first texts we had to read, among others, where the canon Genesis
and the apocryphal Jubilees. While reading this, I noticed that they were very
different: the canon text was dry and matter-of-fact, while the apocryphal one
was much elaborate and descriptive. One may even say that it was a further
development/literary evolution of the canon.
Then, the previous week we had to
read 2 Ezra from Old Testament and Revelations from New Testament, and here the
tone of the texts was very descriptive and elaborate – very different from the
dry-cut tone of Genesis, much more similar to Jubilees.
Finally, this week we had to read
Gospel of Mark, and here the tone was closer to Genesis instead. Considering
that this text is the first in New Testament, this allows me to draw a conclusion
that the gradual elaboration of the Biblical texts was a chronological process
and may have been affected by the pagan influences as well.
More precisely, Genesis was written
before the exile, when Israel was relatively isolated from more powerful pagan
influences such as Babylonian or Greek, and as such it is one of the more ‘canonical’
texts, it is very matter-of-fact. 1 Maccabees, which we have also read, are something
of a ‘missing link’: this book is factual on one hand, but written in a very
fancy tone. 2 Ezra is written probably at the very end of the existence of the ancient
Israel, and it is very evocative and metaphorical, like Revelations, but unlike
Genesis. Apocryphal Jubilees, “Joseph and Asenath”, etc, were probably written
around that time too.
Gospel of Mark, however, is like
Genesis and unlike Revelations – or Gospel of John, for that matter. It is very
concise, very matter-of-fact, and focused not on divine miracles, even the Resurrect
and the Ascension, but on realism and on Christ’s parables. Therefore, if the
Gospels are biographies of Christ, then the Gospel of Mark might be the most
precise, especially since the popular opinion is that Matthew and Luke had used
the Gospel of Mark as one of the literary sources for their gospels. This means
that the Gospel of Mark is also older than their Gospels (and also the Gospel of
John), but also that it is more ‘old-fashioned’ than the rest of them.
Finally, this means that the
process of the Biblical texts, both Old Testament and New, from factual/‘canon’
to fancy/‘apocryphal’ may not have been completely continuous, in a single
straight line. Rather, it was probably more convoluted, with the elements of
both writing styles appearing at different times almost regardless of the time –
almost. The factual, canon text was still the first one to be used in the Bible.
Then again, the dry, ‘old-fashioned’
writing style of Gospel of Mark may mean only that Mark, regardless of his
conversion to Christianity, was a conservative, old-fashioned fellow, and wrote
his book in a writing style that he was more comfortable – as opposed to more
modern and liberal John, as evident by the Gospel of John. Either way, these
revelations are part of the reason why I am enjoying this course so much and
hope to enjoy it in the future.
There are a lot of interesting questions being asked here, Dmitri, but there are also some presuppositions at work that we could all do to consider further.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, the Gospels are NOT biographies of Christ - not by ancient standards (biography was an established genre of Greek literature), and most especially not by modern standards. Very little is afforded us in any of the four canonical gospels as to the life, behaviour, or character of Jesus Christ as either a historical personage or a literary character. We have nothing of his childhood (extracanonically we do, but it's so fantastical that it's no surprise it wasn't made canonical; he actually strikes a kid dead in the schoolyard, then resurrects him when his teacher complains), adolescence, or young adulthood. Besides his attitudes toward John the Baptist's ministry, we know little from the Gospels about Jesus's influences or formative experiences. In fact, all we really DO know about Jesus (as personage or character) from the four canonical accounts of his ministry is that he was an itinerant rabbi who acquired followers, preached about the land, and was crucified by the Romans for insurrection. The Gospels are theological narratives written long after the historical Jesus's death, not accounts of a real human life.
Apart from this, while I admire your attempt to trace the literary style of these documents, I'm a little unclear as to what exactly your thesis is here. Is it your claim that, assuming corporal distinction between "Old" and "New" Testaments, each one begins with mechanical language, and then gradually morphs into a more effusive, poetic style as its canon progresses (i.e. as you flip through the pages in order)? This would be the work of redaction criticism, would it not, to determine whether the final compilers of the Christian Bible followed stylistic trends in ordering the books?
Unfortunately, we aren't reading any of the other canonical Gospels in this course of readings. Had we been, I would have been interested to hear your thoughts on Matthew's and Luke's stylistic revisions to their citations of their common sources (including Mark). As it stands though, interesting points here. There are some presuppositions underlying your suggestions that could use revamping, but literary style is a very fresh angle from which to approach these writings. Thanks.
Oh, an attempt at good faith by way of recommendation - you might be intrigued by a book that prints the synoptic gospels in parallel columns for ease of cross-reference. This one by Throckmorton might be a good one: http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Parallels-Comparison-Synoptic-Standard/dp/0840774842
DeleteAnd thank you for reviewing my entry, Patrick. Glad that you liked it, and yes, you've identified my point about the writing styles correctly. Also, thanks for the amazon com ref - I'll think about it. Cheers.
Delete