Expanding and Condensing Sources
Expanding and Condensing Sources
Ancient writers freely expanded or abridged accounts without any thought that others might find this practice objectionable. Contrary to early form-critical studies of the Gospels, which supposed that the tradition’s tendency was always expansive, it is impossible to predict whether the passage of time would lengthen or shorten accounts.93 Expansion was in fact sometimes due to the passage of time and consequent growth of tradition;94 in other cases, however, lengthy stories were sometimes progressively abbreviated in time.95
One ancient rhetorical exercise involved “expanding” and “condensing” fables. 96 When applied to other kinds of narrative, this approach need not tamper with historical substance. For example, aside from adding details known from other sources and adding some description that is either implicit in the narrative or inherently probable in itself, the same ancient writer’s example for expanding a chreia does not make much change in its basic meaning.97 Likewise, another writer explains amplification as adding more and more phrases to bring home the point increasingly forcefully.98 One could expand a work by including more summaries and connections.99 In rhetorical exercises one can elaborate a chreia by offering an encomium on a character; then paraphrasing; then explaining; and so forth.100
Hellenistic Jewish historians followed this practice. Josephus, for example, often follows accurately the sequence and substance of the biblical account, while expanding on some biblical narratives,101 even though he could not but assume that many Jewish readers would readily recognize the addition. 2 Maccabees openly claims to be a careful abridgment of a five-volume work by Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc 2:24-25), noting that the author has followed the rules of abridgment (2:28). Most Synoptic scholars likewise believe that Matthew (and less frequently Luke) abridges Markan accounts. Few stylistic critics would have complained about abridgments. Greco-Roman writers and rhetoricians appreciated conciseness in a narrative, provided that it did not impair clarity or plausibility.102 Perhaps more importantly for many ancient readers, longer works were not only more expansive, but also more expensive.
Many changes that writers made in their sources were matters of arrangement, which was of great importance to those trained in rhetoric.103 Writers sometimes added clauses nonessential to the meaning or removed essential ones simply to make the arrangement sound better.104 Also relevant to the Gospels, inserting sayings from sayings-collections into narrative, or narratives into sayings, was considered a matter of arrangement, not a matter of fabrication. 105 Linking sayings based on common points and wording was apparently common.106 Thus, for example, while Matthew and Luke overlap a great deal in their initial lengthy “speech” of Jesus (Matt 5:3-7:27//Lk 6:20-49), an ancient audience would not be surprised that Matthew also apparently weaves in other material not from the same speech in his source (e.g., Matt 7:7-11//Lk 11:9-13; Matt 7:13//Lk 13:24).
As we have suggested, even writers intending to write accurate historical information could “spice up” or “enhance” their narratives for literary, moralistic, and political purposes.107 Again, this is not to say that good biographers or historians fabricated events (sometimes in fact they simply repeated their sources);108 but they did often alter or add explanatory details to events.109 Given the importance of vividness for rhetorical style,110 it is not surprising that some writers added details to augment dramatic effect.111 Many interpreters through history have noticed divergences in the Gospels without feeling troubled by them; for example, Luther apparently considered concern over divergences among the sources on points of detail a pedantic exercise.112
Authors differed among themselves as to how much variation in detail they permitted, but some writers who wanted to guard the historical enterprise from distortion had strong feelings about those who permitted too much (as we noted earlier). Thus the second-century rhetorician Lucian objected to those historical writers who amplified and omitted merely for literary or encomiastic purposes (i.e., to make the character look better).113 Even despite their divergences from one another, however, modern historians of the period regularly mine various ancient historians that conflict on various points.114
Palestinian Jewish haggadah about ancient persons permitted greater amplification than Hellenistic historiography,115 but may be comparable in this respect to Greek mythography.116 (A significant part of the difference between historical and mythical was often perceived as the difference between recent historical figures and remote characters of the mythical or legendary past.)117 The process was probably often incremental, preserving earlier legendary accretions and speculations. Writers used amplification for various reasons (see appendix 3, on Palestinian Jewish biography). But while such traditional techniques may have influenced Hellenistic Jewish historians and particularly their sources, they did not characterize the genre of history per se. (Some early Christians also seem to have found the traditional haggadic approach problematic; cf. 1 Tim 1:4; Tit 1:14.)118 What may therefore be more relevant for works written in Greek is the degree of variation among Hellenistic Jewish works involving historical traditions such as 2 Macc and 4 Macc119 (though 4 Macc is a philosophic treatise more than a historical monograph) and probably especially the historian Josephus.120
But in general, one does not expect as free a treatment of recent characters (the sort covered in the Gospels or most of Josephus’ report of the Jewish war) as with those of the distant past, where audience expectations for accuracy of details was less. Moreover, as we have noted, the Gospel writers did not write on the same rhetorical level as Josephus, who needed to impress the Greek and Roman elite with his rhetorical skills. What they lack in elite rhetoric, they make up for in the cohesiveness of their more popular and concise narrative.