Notes to Chapter 6
Notes to Chapter 6
1 There are notorious debates regarding how to translate these verses. My point is merely to convey the general sense; rendering them differently would not alter the point I make by citing them.
2 Johnson, “Luke-Acts,” 406.
3 Hengel, Acts and History, 61.
4 In this chapter I draw heavily on material in my forthcoming Acts commentary, as well as on the more concise survey in Keener, “Luke-Acts and Historical Jesus.”
5 Cf. Palmer, “Monograph,” 3; Parsons, “Unity: Rethinking,” especially 45-48.
6 See e.g., Goulder, Type and History; Talbert, Patterns; Tannehill, Luke; idem, Acts.
7 E.g., Barrett, Acts, lxxviii-lxxix; Marshall, “Treatise,” 180; Verheyden, “Unity,” 47; Penner, Praise, 59.
8 Burridge, Gospels, 246 (citing Diod. Sic. Bk. 17); Balch, “METABO?H ?O?ITEI?N,” 143 (citing Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.41-85).
9 Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 123-37; Cadbury, Acts in History, passim.
10 For Acts as history (often including the more specific proposal of historical monograph), see Palmer, “Monograph”; Schmidt, “Influences,” 59; Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398; idem, Lukas, 33-38 (comparing mission speeches), 137-39; idem, Geschichte, 1-32; idem, “Cicero und Lukas,” 772-73; idem, “Monographie”; Bovon, Theologian, 5; Johnson, Acts, 3-7; Marguerat, Histoire, 49 (although noting overlap with biography); Eckey, Apostelgeschichte, 20-31; Flichy, L’oeuvre de Luc; idem, “État des recherches,” 28-32 (reviewing recent research); Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 296; Stagg, Acts, 17; Fitzmyer, Acts, 127; Cross, “Genres,” 404-6; Tuckett, Luke, 29; Ehrman, Introduction, 133; deSilva, Introduction, 349-351; Balch, “METABO?H ?O?ITEI?N,” 141-42, 149-54 (political history); idem, “Genre,” passim, especially 11-19; “Gospels: forms,” 948-49; Barnett, Birth, 195-96; Guijarro Oporto, “Articulación literaria”; Litwak, Echoes, 36; Kisau, “Acts,” 1297; cf. Fuller, “Classics,” 189 (summarizing G. Kennedy). Sterling, Historiography, 318 n. 39, lists as supporters also Conzelmann, Acts, xl; Hengel, Acts and History, 14, 36-37; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1:122; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 1:23.
11 Johnson, “Luke-Acts,” 406. Penner, Praise, 4, likewise summarizes that most scholars hold “the most obvious generic identification for” Acts, namely “ancient historiographical writing.” Even in 1985, Callan could write that “It has long been almost taken for granted that Luke-Acts is a historical work” (“Preface and Historiography,” 576, noting that Talbert’s biography proposal had reopened the question).
12 Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 11.
13 Johnson, Acts, 3-5; Hengel, Acts and History, 61.
14 Thucyd. 1.22.2.
15 Plümacher, “Luke as Historian,” 398.
16 See Plümacher, “Mission Speeches,” 251-66; as in idem, “Missionsreden”; idem, “Luke as Historian,” 398; Horsley, “Speeches,” 613. Novelists usually preferred livelier narration, though Pervo, “Direct Speech,” may be right to note the dominance of direct speech in novels.
17 See discussions in e.g., Horsley, “Speeches”; Soards, Speeches, 183; Aune, Environment, 124-25.
18 Witherington, Acts, 808-9.
19 On Luke’s prologue as fitting for historical works, see e.g., Callan, “Preface and Historiography”; van Unnik, “Once More Prologue”; Johnson, “Luke-Acts,” 406, 407; Porter, “We Narratives,” 550; Aune, Environment, 80; Penner, Praise, 219-22; Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 93-94; Flichy, L’oeuvre de Luc.
20 Alexander, Preface, 42-101; idem, “Preface.” Luke’s preface resembles scientific prefaces in structure and similar linguistic usage, although some other features lack parallels in the scientific preface tradition (Alexander, Preface, 147).
21 To modestly suggest Luke’s scientific background or that hellenistic schools provide an important type of setting for reconstructing Luke’s usage (Alexander, Preface, 211-12) is not problematic on the thesis that Acts is a historical work. Genuine technical treatises did seek to deal in information, not fiction (cf. Alexander, “Formal Elements,” 23-24; Sallmann, “Literature”).
22 Adams, “Preface,” 177-78, warns that, given the scarcity of extant examples, the scientific prefaces we have might not be representative. Moreover, Adams argues (“Preface,” 181-83) that Alexander’s argument from preface length depends on Thucydides as representative for history, whereas Luke’s falls within the usual historical prefaces (as a proportion of the entire work).
23 Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 371, and idem, “Prooimion,” points out that parallels are equally close, including some specific wording, in Plutarch Dinner, which is not scientific.
24 With Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 577. For topics in prefaces, see Alexander, Preface, 31-34.
25 Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 370.
26 Alexander, Context, 16.
27 Alexander, Context, 12-13 (though she believes that Acts also contains fictional elements that ancients would have recognized as such, p. 13). She does not believe that the preface by itself must identify Luke-Acts as historiography, though it certainly distinguishes it from genres such as epic (Alexander, Context, 21-42).
28 Alexander, Context, 17-18.
29 Alexander, Context, 41-42.
30 Alexander, Context, 41.
31 E.g., Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 93-94; Penner, Praise, 219-22, and others noted above.
32 This is a conventional expectation; see Quint. Inst. 4.1.34; also Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436a, lines 33- 39; Polyb. 3.1.3-3.5.9 (esp. 3.1.7); 11.1.1-5; Dion. Hal. Lysias 24; Thucyd. 19; Cic. Or. Brut. 40.137 ; Virg. Aen. 1.1-6; Sen. Controv. 1.pref.21; Dio Chrys. Or. 38.8; Aul. Gel. Pref. 25; Soranus Gynec. 1.intro.2; 1.1.3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.1; 8.1.
33 Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 577; cf. similarly Hemer, “Alexandria Troas,” 98.
34 Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 577, citing Lucian Hist. 7-14 (also in 39-40).
35 This is “Luke’s own explicit statement of purpose” (Aune, Environment, 136).
36 Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 578, also noting that Herodotus just says he wrote so the past may be remembered (Hdt 1.1); Thucydides does not specify (1.1.1). For the quest for truth in historical works, see also Adams, “Preface,” 186, and sources he cites.
37 Callan argues that after the fourth century BCE, usefulness becomes a dominant purpose for writing history (Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 579); but in the first century BCE some historical writers stopped emphasizing utility as their purpose and emphasized instead that they simply would write a “true account of something” (Callan, “Preface and Historiography,” 579-580). But chronological typology cannot afford to be as strict as Callan seems to suggest, especially given our narrow range of extant sources. In the second century CE, Lucian advises that historical prologues note the usefulness of the work (Lucian Hist. 53).
38 One could have more than one objective (e.g., Jos. Ant. 1.4, citing two objectives). Thus 2 Maccabees abridges a larger work (2 Macc 2:23, 26, 28) to provide a more pleasurable narrative (2:24- 25; cf. 2:27) and to profit readers (2:25).
39 Moessner, “Arrangement,” 158, emphasis his.
40 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 67-69 (among the elements found in various historical prologues; I have listed those relevant to Luke, which is most of them).
41 Penner, Praise, 219-21.
42 With e.g., Johnson, “Luke-Acts,” 406; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:383. In a different form, legal documents could also be dated by rulers’ period of rule (e.g., P. Tebt. 104, lines 5-8). Luke cannot do so frequently because his sources do not provide chronological information (and adding such links to his sources based on inferences, to make them seem more precise, would risk introducing possible mistakes, such as many find already in Lk 2:1-2 and Acts 5:36-37).
43 See e.g., Talbert, Mediterranean Milieu, 203-8; Hemer, Acts in History, 108-220 (see esp. 108- 58); Campbell, “Journeys”; Harnack, Acts, 264-74. I treat the question much more thoroughly than here in two introductory chapters in my Acts commentary.
44 See Mealand, “Historians and Style.” Although he shares some LXX verbs, the stylistic level of his verbs falls between a high level of Koine and Dionysius’ atticizing (Mealand, “Verbs”).
45 Rosner, “Biblical History,” 81, after noting the common features on 65-81.
46 Jervell, “Future,” 110-11; on Luke-Acts as salvation history, see also Thielman, Theology, 113- 16.
47 Jewish historical writing by this period employed Hellenistic conventions (Cohen, Maccabees, 194; cf. in general Attridge, “Historiography,” 326; Eisman, “Dio and Josephus”).
48 E.g., Acts 25:14-22. From the outcome (for this Lukan example, see esp. Acts 25:26-27) many ancient historians would have felt free to infer and reconstruct the substance of the scene (cf. e.g., Tac. Ann. 14.35, 57; 15.59; Quint. Curt. 3.2.11-16; Jos. Ant. 19.38-45, 53-58, 78-83), as is often suspected in Luke’s case (e.g., Witherington, Acts, 119-20; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 586). The case of Acts 5:36-37, more often cited, is of a conversation that took place much earlier, and to which none of the Jerusalem church would have been privy (though Paul might have known the general content of the speech).
49 Such as Lk 2:2 (with e.g., Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 326-27; deSilva, Introduction, 369; Conzelmann, Primitive Christianity, 30). Some scholars propose possible solutions even here (e.g., Ramsay, Bethlehem, x, 107-96 passim; Robertson, Luke, 118ff; Bock, Luke, 903-9; Hayles, “Correct”; Marshall, Luke, 104; Brindle, “Census”; Thorley, “Census”; Haacker, “Erst”; cf. Porter, “Census”).
50 Fornara, Nature of History, 47. See also Aune, Environment, 81-82, noting the interview of eyewitness (Polyb. 4.2.2); other sources, when traveling to the scenes in question (Hdt 2.52; Polyb. 3.48.12; 4.38.11; 10.11.4); and reading accounts of eyewitnesses (Polyb. 28.4.8; 38.4.8). For ancient historians’ use of oral history, depending on whatever sources provided the best access to events, see Byrskog, Story as History, 305.
51 Hdt 1.1.
52 Fornara, Nature of History, 47-48 (citing Thucyd. 1.22.2; 5.26). Thucydides notes that he procured (and investigated) reports of speeches from others who heard them (1.22.1-2), and sometimes had to evaluate conflicting claims of eyewitnesses (1.22.2-3).
53 Diod. Sic. 1.4.1. He also claims to have consulted records (1.4.4-5). While granting Diodorus’ travels to some locations, Oldfather, “Introduction to Diodorus,” xiii, doubts that Diodorus visited either Mesopotamia or Athens; his skepticism concerning Mesopotamia is plausible (though certain only with respect to Nineveh), but his argument regarding Athens is from silence (i.e., what Diodorus does not mention).
54 Appian Hist. rom. pref. 12.
55 Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.606.
56
Vit. soph. 1.22.524. On other occasions his research came up empty, but he incidentally confirms that he had done some (Vit. soph. 2.5.576). Likewise, the later historian Herodian insisted that he accepted nothing secondhand without tracking down all the facts (1.1.3). According to later tradition, even mythographers traveled from one city to the next gathering their various oral traditions (Philost. Hrk. 48.11; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc-xci). Likewise, Artem. Oneir. 1.pref. emphasized gathering oral reports in addition to reading all the works of his predecessors.
57 Polyb. 12.4c.3 (LCL 4:316-17). Polybius’ emphasis on investigation appears throughout 12.4c.1-5.
58 Polyb. 12.4c.4-5. He severely criticizes Timaeus for neglecting travel to the locations about which he writes (12.25e.1), complaining that written sources alone are not sufficient (12.25e.7) or even the most critical part of historical study (12.25i.2). It was possible, however, to visit places, consult witnesses, and still prove mistaken (12.4d.1-2, also on Timaeus). Like a historian researching recent events, a prosecutor preparing a case might do research, such as tracking down eyewitnesses (e.g., Lysias Or. 23.2-8, §§166-67).
59 Even here, ancients sometimes found local oral sources that purported to have survived over the centuries (e.g., Paus. 1.23.2). Nevertheless, scholars today often question such local oral information from a much earlier period (Pretzler, “Pausanias and Tradition”).