Chapter 343 of 404

Notes to Chapter 7

1 Penner, Praise, 179.

2 Fornara, Nature of History, 104. Although I start with extreme quotes, and Penner and Fornara represent different poles of approaches to ancient historiography, both positions are more nuanced than one might gather solely from the brief excerpts above.

3 It is to such elements that those who object to the historical value of ancient historians often point. These factors must be (and will be) noted, but should not be used to ignore evidence for historians’ interest in sources. Neither the historical nor the rhetorical elements need exclude the other.

4 On this point, see e.g., Morgan-Wynne, “Traditionsgrundlage.”

5 See e.g., Mosley, “Reporting,” 26; Hemer, Acts in History, 63-70; Byrskog, Story as History, 179- 84; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 330-34; see e.g., Jos. Ant. 20.156-57; cf. Life 336-39. On how history was written, see also Keener, John, 17-25, much of which I have also incorporated into the larger discussion here.

6 Of course, they did not define accuracy at all the points the way modern historians do, writing what they thought were probable inferences into their narratives (instead of identifying them as possible reconstructions, as we do today) and allowing rhetorical considerations in composition foreign to modern historiography (see e.g., our discussion on speeches). But on matters of historical events, they did indeed value such accuracy.

7 Mosley, “Reporting,” 12-14; on Strabo and Plutarch, 16; for Greek historians in general, see 11- 18.

8 Mosley, “Reporting,” 20-22 (cf. Tac. Ann. 4.10-11; 13.20; in Pelling, “Historiography,” 716); among Romans in general, see Mosley, “Reporting,” 18-22. Roman historians often appear less careful with facts than Greeks (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 263) and sometimes focused more on “trends” than details (Fornara, Nature of History, 88-89); but Luke, writing Greek in the Eastern Mediterranean, undoubtedly is nearer the Greek model.

9 E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.26; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 8.

10 Jos. Life 336-39; Diod. Sic. 21.17.1; Lucian Hist. 24-25; see especially discussion of Polybius below. Those who claimed the superiority of their own works, however, could risk the charge of impudence from detractors (Jos. Life 359); the charge of falsehood served polemical agendas well.

11 Diod. Sic. 1.37.4, 6.

12 So Plut. Mal. Hdt. 3-7, Mor. 855C-856B (though in defense of Herodotus, Plutarch’s other extant sources may have followed a favorable bias; Plutarch may have his own bias because of Herodotus’ critique of Boeotia, Plutarch’s homeland). Penner, Praise, 169, notes that Plutarch resented Herodotus’ “pro-barbarian” approach. Perhaps more plausibly than Plutarch, cf. Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3, on Thucydides’ grudge against Athens.

13 Polyb. 10.21.8; but see discussion on biographies in our genre chapter.

14 Thus Antiphon’s report about Alcibiades is suspect, Plutarch opines, because Antiphon hated him (Alc. 3.1).

15 Arist. Poet. 9.2, 1451b; thus poetry is more philosophical, conveying general truths, whereas history conveys specific facts (9.3, 1451b). Pliny Ep. 9.33.1 notes that historians, unlike poets, care about the authority of their sources.

16 Alexander, “Fiction and Genre,” 382-85.

17 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1.2-4; 1.4.2.

18 Arrian Ind. 7.1.

19 As is clear, for example, in his correspondence with Suetonius and especially Tacitus.

20 Pliny Ep. 8.4.1.

21 Pliny Ep. 7.17.3.

22 Pliny Ep. 5.5.3; 5.8.5. Even rhetorical historians writing essays on earlier historians’ rhetoric might emphasize the importance of truth-telling (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 55).

23 Pliny Ep. 9.19.5.

24 Pliny Ep. 7.33.1, 3.

25 Narrated in Ep. 7.33.4-9.

26 Ep. 7.33.10. Likewise, eager to have his own account of Vesuvius in Tacitus’ work, he even writes in historic style in Pliny Ep. 6.16, 20 (so Augoustakis, “Nequaquam”). As it turns out, we know far more about Pliny from his own letters than any other source (except a biography) could have provided.

27 Fornara, Nature of History, 116-19.

28 Fornara, Nature of History, 135.

29 Fornara, Nature of History, 138-39, citing Cic. De or. 2.15.62-63.

30 Fornara, Nature of History, 72.

31 Fornara, Nature of History, 100.

32 Fornara, Nature of History, 104. If a history was too biased, it was probably the weakness of the particular historian (Fornara, Nature of History, 91).

33 At least insofar as we may infer from the number of copies preserved in Egypt; see Stephens, “Who Read Novels?” 411, 415-16.

34 See e.g., Cueva, “Longus and Thucydides.”

35 Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10.

36 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.18.

37 On his method, see Meister, “Herodotus,” 267 (including his personal observation and interviews with informed locals; cf. 2.28.1; 125.6; 4.76.6; 8.65.6). Herodotus did recognize that historical data was inseparable from the discourses that transmitted it (Byrskog, “History,” 279).

38 At least as early as Cicero (Leg. 1.1.5), people viewed Herodotus as the “first” historian and western narrative writer (Meister, “Herodotus,” 269). Some have compared Herodotus with the Pentateuch (Van Seters, “Primeval Histories”; cf. idem, Search), but the differences are considerable (Blenkinsopp, Pentateuch, 39-41; on 42 he suggests that Israelite historiography may have anticipated Herodotus), and narratives earlier than 1-2 Kgs may have some earlier parallels in the Greek heroic tradition.

39 Rainey, “Herodotus’ Description.”

40 Meister, “Herodotus,” 267-68.

41 Meister, “Herodotus,” 268, notes his “methodological principle”: “I am obligated to report that which is reported, but I am not obligated to believe everything” (7.152); he often reports conflicting traditions without passing judgment either way.

42 See fully Meister, “Herodotus,” 268-69.

43 E.g., Val. Max. 1.8.7, which he justifies as believable because it is in his sources (importantly for our discussion, however, he does not invent the story). For the special case of “signs,” see my book on miracle accounts (intended as a sequel to this one).

44 See e.g., Meister, “Historiography: Greece,” 421. Certainly Suetonius, who was in many other respects a good historian, failed to sift his sources and includes much gossip (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 272).

45 Plut. Arist. 19.5-6, challenging Hdt 9.85.

46 Plut. Them. 25.1-2. Cf. also Cam. 6.1-2 (citing Livy 5.22); Alex. 31.3; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.516.

47 Plut. Alex. 20.4-5.

48 Livy 3.8.10.

49 Paus. 1.3.3 (LCL 1:15, 17).

50 Ant. 19.68, 106-7.

51 He could regard as inauthentic speeches which reflected conditions that don’t fit the alleged author’s time (here, “before his prime”) — e.g., Dion. Hal. Din. 11. He used stylistic criteria to evaluate authenticity, when other factors were not compelling (Lysias 11; cf. Demosth. 57).

52 E.g., that he fails to evoke the full horror of war at points (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 15), in contrast to the more rhetorical historians. But Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10 rates Thucydides first, above Theopompus and far beyond Ephorus.

53 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 19 (LCL 1:512-13); see Thucyd. 1.1.1-2; 1.21.2; 1.23.1-2. For some other cases of hyperbole in historical writing, see Thucyd. 8.96.1 (cf. 2.94.1); Polyb. 1.4.5; Tac. Hist. 1.2; cf. also, for us less surprisingly, in epic treatments of history (Sil. It. 9.183; cf. Josh 10:14), in prosecutorial rhetoric (Cic. Verr. 2.5.72.189) and in fiction (Xen. Eph. 1.1; Philost. Hrk. 24.2).

54 Thucyd. 1.3.2-3. Likewise, Homer does not speak of “barbarians” because Greeks had not yet distinguished themselves from others in this manner (Thucyd. 1.3.3).

55 Thucyd. 1.10.1-2.

56 E.g., Diog. Laert. 1.23: “But according to others”; 6.1.13; 8.2.67-72; Plut. Lyc. 1.1; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.21.516; 2.5.576; p. Sot. 9:13, §2.

57 E.g., Sall. Jug. 67.3.

58 See Meister, “Herodotus,” 268, on Hdt 7.152.

59 Hist. 60 (LCL 6:71).

60 Polyb. 34.4.3. He also suggests that the Odyssey mixes myth with truth (34.4.1).

61 Polyb. 34.4.2. Sophists made a pastime out of noting logical and chronological problems in Homer (e.g., Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, l-li, citing Philost. Hrk. 23.5-6; 25.10-13).

62 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 8 (LCL 1:478-79); this is an ideal, not the writer’s exceptionless practice.

63 Hdn 1.1.1-2.

64 Hdn 1.1.3. My point is not that Herodian achieved this ideal (certainly he did not strive for chronological precision; see Whittaker, “Introduction,” xxxix-xl), but that it was in fact the ideal.

65 E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.21.603 (of his own teacher, 2.21.602); the biographer Eunapius Lives 461 (of Iamblichus, whom Eunapius considered supernatural, 459-61).

66 E.g., Livy 3.8.10.

67 Aul. Gel. 10.12.8-10. Some could also caution readers not to be too skeptical of something that otherwise appeared implausible (Sall. Catil. 3.2; Plut. Cam. 6.4).

68 Arrian Alex. 4.28.1-2.

69 Polybius’ moralistic agenda (emphasized e.g., in Penner, Praise, 145; see our chapter on historians’ Tendenz) need not require fabricating events. Penner, Praise, 157, shows how Timaeus’ critique of Aristotle, who is useful as a positive moral model, invites Polybius’ enmity (noting Polyb. 12.7.2-6; 12.8.1-2).

70 Polyb. 12.3.1-12.15.12.

71 Polyb. 12.7.6.

72 Polyb. 12.4a.1. Cf. Penner, Praise, 118, who notes: “if every historian who accuses another of being a dramatic and rhetorical historian is doing so to garner support for his or her own version of events, then the line dividing a Polybius from an Ephorus, Theopompus, Ctesias, or Phylarchus is much thinner than one might be led to believe from the initial comments.” Polybius “condemns tragic history but then resorts to it himself.” Still, we should note that even in our extant sources, the level of rhetorical embellishment appears to be a matter of degree (as Penner, Praise, 179, also acknowledges). Polybius does what Timaeus does, but he apparently does not do it nearly as much as Timaeus does.

73 Fornara, Nature of History, 48. Others suggest that Timaeus defended western Greeks’ contributions to Greek civilization, providing an “apologetic edge” which Polybius felt compelled to challenge (Sterling, “Historians,” 502).

74 Likewise, when Josephus thinks the perspective of some other historians distorted, he criticizes them for failing in their objective to write history properly (War 1.7); they undoubtedly responded polemically in kind.

75 Polyb. 12.3.1-2.

76 Polyb. 12.4c.2-5.

77 Polyb. 12.4d.1-2.

78 Polyb. 12.28.12.

79 Polyb. 12.9.1-12.11.7. Polybius condemns those who make up or pass on hearsay about distant lands that cannot be verified (Polyb. 3.38.3), a genuine practice of some.

80 Polyb. 12.7.1. These rhetorical techniques are certainly in common use by Luke’s era, although (again) even orators could use such techniques without inventing “facts.” Penner, Praise, 235- 47, argues that epideictic techniques were common in Jewish apologetic historiography.

81 Polyb. 12.7.6.

82 Polyb. 12.15.12.

83 Polyb. 15.34.1.

84 He reports graphic bloodshed (15.33), but claims that unlike some other writers, he avoids amplifying it for sensationalism (15.34). By Luke’s day, both Polybius’ “critical” approach and the “sensational” approach had left a mark on historiographic practices (see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 93-95).

85 Polyb. 2.56.7.

86 Polyb. 2.56.10. No one, however, will ensure that Polybius’ own speeches are verbatim recollections.

87 Polyb. 2.56.11. The entire digression against Phylarchus starts in 2.56.1-16 (including criticism for excess accommodation of tragic conventions, 2.56.1-11), followed by examples of his sensationalism in the matter at hand in 2.57.1-2.63.6. Poetic treatments of historical events (e.g., Silius Italicus; Lucan) enjoyed more freedom of expression (cf. Pliny Ep. 8.4.1).

88 Polyb. 12.11.7-8.

89 Polyb. 12.12.1-3.

90 Polyb. 2.56.1-2. Penner, Praise, 153-55, complains that Polybius uses an ethnic plausibility criterion against Phylarchus: by evoking sympathy for the dishonorable Mantineans against the honorable Achaians, Phylarchus violates probability. Sympathetic portrayal of opponents appears commonly in ancient epics (the Trojans in the Iliad; Dido in the Aeneid), and rhetorical historians use it to heighten tragic pathos (cf. e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. Bk. 3; 9.39.1-6; Livy 21.1.3; cf. discussion in Keener, John, 216-17); indeed, Lucian criticizes historians who praise their own leaders while slandering the other side as engaging merely in panegyric (Hist. 7). But it is clear that Polybius has his ethnic biases; cf. similarly Plutarch’s Malice of Herodotus. Ancient and modern judicial rhetoric do infer probability based on past behavior; ancient and modern historians do the same, except that modern historians would be explicit about their inferences rather than simply writing them into their narratives. We would agree with Polybius that historical reconstruction necessarily includes inferred probabilities; we would prove more critical of the ethnographic basis for some of his assumptions, but that is why we must take into account ancient (or modern) historians’ perspectives. It is not inference from probability that differs, but the way we narrate those inferences and the particular assumptions (based on differing perspectives) that inform those inferences.

91 Polyb. 2.56.3.

92 Polyb. 2.56.4.

93 Tac. Hist. 1.1. Cf. similarly Jos. Ant. 20.154, criticizing some of his contemporaries.

94 We might suspect the long-reigning Augustus as offering an exception; but later Suetonius and Tacitus are critical even regarding Augustus, and rival views did survive.

95 Historical distance multiplied the possibility of gratuitous errors, such as 4 Macc 4:15 (Antiochus Epiphanes was Seleucus’ younger brother rather than his son, though the mistake is readily understandable). Of course, modern historians also prefer reports closer in time to the events recounted (e.g., Robeck, Mission, 293-94, 296).

96 Indeed, as W. D. Davies points out (Invitation, 115-16), probably only a single lifespan “separates Jesus from the last New Testament document” (cf. similarly Sanders, Tendencies, 28; Benoit, Jesus, 1:33).

97 E.g., Xen. Apol. 2; Ages. 3.1; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 7; Plut. Demosth. 11.1; Arrian Alex. 1, pref. 2-3; 6.11.8; Corn. Nep. 23 (Hannibal), 13.3; 25 (Atticus), 13.7; 17.1; cf. Philost. Hrk. 7.9; 8.2, 6-7; Sen. Nat. Q. 3.25.8; 4.3.1. Cf. Xen. Hell. 6.2.31 (refusing to believe a report until an eyewitness was available). Aune, Environment, 81, cites for this also Hdt 2.99; Polyb. 12.27.1-6; 20.12.8; Lucian Hist. 47 (and Polybius’ somewhat self-serving view that participants made the best historians — 3.4.13; 12.25g.1; 12.28.1-5); Alexander, Preface, 34, notes that one recurrent claim was “that the best history was written on the basis of personal experience.”

98 Jervell, “Future,” 118.

99 See Jos. Life 357; Ag. Ap. 1.45-49, 56; War 1.2-3.

100 Thucyd. 1.22.3. For gist generally being reliable in memory even where details are not, see Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 333-34 (citing memory studies).

101 In a forensic setting, see e.g., Lysias Or. 20.22, §160. 102. Fornara, Nature of History, 48. For accuracy in certain kinds of ancient Mediterranean oral traditioning over the span of one or two generations, see Keener, Matthew, 27-30; idem, John, 54-65; but for failure to learn accurately from purported travels, see Strabo 2.5.10; Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 31.

103 Eunapius Lives 460. Suetonius depends more heavily on older written records than interviews of more recent persons (Rolfe, “Introduction,” xviii). The Greek method preferred interviews, but even Romans could write about contemporary figures (e.g., Pliny Ep. 9.19.5).

104 Xen. Hell. 3.1.2; those who attribute the Gospel of Matthew to one of the Twelve yet accept its dependence on Mark (like R. Gundry; see his Matthew, 609-22) could adduce that case as a further example.

105 Eunapius Lives 453; for anthropological confirmation, see Lord, Singer, 138.

106 E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.45-47; Xen. Symp. 1.1 (Todd, “Introduction,” 376, is skeptical because Xenophon nowhere places himself in the narrative, but this argument is questionable; Todd concurs that the characters and discussion match external evidence, 376-78; this is also Xenophon’s style, since he does not report his presence in Anab. until it is relevant to the narrative); Xen. Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4-6; Thucyd. 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Polyb. 31.23.1-31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; Caesar C.W. passim, e.g., 1.1; Gall. W. passim, 1.7; 2.1; 3.28; 4.13; 5.9; 6.4; 7.17; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.23.606.

107 Jos. Ant. 20.266.

108 Jos. Life 359-60. Criticizing someone should best be done while they remain alive or, if they have died, only shortly afterward (Pliny Ep. 9.1.3-4). Bede Comm. Acts pref. (trans. p. 5) contends that Luke wrote while eyewitnesses remained alive.

109 Jos. Life 361-66. This also suggests that if Josephus embellished his story with some details, the eyewitnesses accepted that embellishment as relatively minor, fitting acceptable historical canons. Undoubtedly the portrayal was also not to their detriment; Josephus was careful to praise surviving political figures like Agrippa and any member of the Flavian dynasty.

110 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.45.

111 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.46. Naturally, Josephus would be happy to enforce a criterion that excluded his competitors but not himself. Yet Josephus hardly invented this criterion, useful as it proved in his case.

112 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.47.

113 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.49.

114 Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.56.

115 Jos. Life 357. Josephus is not above depicting a scene, such as the suicide of the Sicarii at Masada, where he lacks potential eyewitnesses (unless we think of the two women who escaped), but he might have protested that this represented a special scene rather than a consistent pattern.

116 See e.g., Mosley, “Reporting,” 26.

117 E.g., Diod. Sic. 1.6.2.

118 Pliny Ep. 5.8.12-13 (considering earlier times more praiseworthy).

119 E.g., Livy 7.6.6; 25.11.20; Plut. Mal. Hdt. 20, Mor. 859B. “Modern insights” (like bloodletting!) might be preferred to ancient ones, however (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 95.22).

120 E.g., Thucyd. 1.21.1; Livy 6.1.2-3; 7.6.6; Diod. Sic. 1.6.2; 1.9.2; 4.1.1; 4.8.3-5; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.12.3; Thuc. 5; Paus. 9.31.7; Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.15, 24-25, 58; cf. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 1-2. Some also considered the earlier period qualitatively different because of divine activities (Hesiod W.D. 158- 60, 165; Arrian Alex. 5.1.2); by contrast, others mistrusted its reports precisely because of such unusual events (Thucyd. 1.23.3).

121 Dion. Hal. Thuc. 5-7; cf. Plut. Thes. 1.3; Keener, John, 20. At least the early period was regarded as unusual (Thucyd. 1.23.3). This constitutes a major problem for treating Mark’s Gospel as “mythical” (so Dibelius, Tradition, 278-79, though he does not regard Mark’s material as mythical).

122 E.g., Thucyd. 1.21.1 (complaining in 1.21.2 that people make ancient events greater than they were); again, see Keener, John, 20.

123 They often tried to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate sources, when a consensus view was available (cf. Livy 1.1.1).

124 Some sources, like the Life of Aesop, may simply string together all available popular traditions into a narrative; these traditions had grown over six centuries (see Drury, Design, 28-29).

125 E.g., Livy 4.29.5-6; 23.47.8; cf. (more skeptically) Lucian Hist. 60.

126 See e.g., Thucyd. 1.21.1-2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.39.1; 1.41.1 (cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.84.4); Dion. Hal. Thuc. 6; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.554.

127 Plut. Thes. 1.3. Arrian accepts but explains on rationalistic grounds some old legends (Alex. 2.16.6). Cf. Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 139, citing Quint. Inst. 2.4.18-19 and the 133 cases of cautious attribution in Livy’s first 10 books.

128 See Dio Cass. 62.11.3-4; Aune, Environment, 83; Fornara, Nature of History, 134-36.

129 Ancients noticed tensions in regularly read sources just as we do; even mythographers might note chronological and other tensions within a text (Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, il-l (citing Philostratus Hrk. 23.5-6; 25.10-13).

130 Polyb. 3.32.4.

131 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.22.1-5.

132 Polyb. 3.20.1-5; 3.32.5. Polybius insisted on providing the longest-range historical context possible, both early (3.6.1-3.7.3, e.g., 3.6.10) and subsequent (9.2.5).

133 Plut. Themist. 27.1, though admitting uncertainty. Thucydides sought to take into account the relative dates of his sources (1.3.2-3); with some sense of relative chronology, Tac. Dial. 16, dates Ulysses and Nestor (purportedly early thirteenth century BCE) about a millennium before Alexander and Demosthenes (fourth century BCE).

134 Polyb. 3.33.18; Plut. Alex. 46.2; Demosth. 5.5; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.562-63.

135 Arrian Alex. 7.14.4-6; Dio Cass. 62.11.3-4; cf. Athen. Deipn. 5.215-16, 219ab. The same criterion could apply, however, in fictitious composition or historical reconstruction based on plausibility (cf. Arist. Poet. 15.4-5, 1454a; Theon Progymn. 1.46-52; 2.79-81; 8.2-3).

136 Thucyd. 1.10.1-2, evaluating the Iliad.

137 For probability arguments, see e.g., Arist. Rhet. 1.15.17, 1376a; Rhet. Alex. 7, 1428a.19-23; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 11.34.1-6; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 20-21; Anderson, Glossary, 37. For examples, see Lysias Or. 4.5-6, §101; 7.12-18, §§109-10; 12.27-28, §122; 19 passim (e.g., 19.24, §154); Isaeus Astyph. 14-15; Pyrr. 27; Demosth. Fals. leg. 120; Pant. 23; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.82.

138 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.6.1. See also Polyb. 3.20.1-5; 3.47.6; 3.48.7-9; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.35.5-6; Plut. Themist. 25.1-2; 27.1; cf. Paus. 9.31.7; Plut. Isis 8, Mor. 353F; and Theon’s reasons for thinking the account of Medea murdering her children implausible (Progymn. 5.487-501; cf. 3.241-76; 4.112- 16, 126-34).

139 Arrian Alex. 6.28.2. Hearsay without eyewitness testimony is much less credible (Arrian Ind. 15.7).

140 Cook, Interpretation, 14. For Celsus’ approach to the Gospels as unhistorical, see also pp. 26-27 (2.13).

141 Cook, Interpretation, 336-37.

142 Cook, Interpretation, 337.

143 Wright, People of God, 426.

144 See e.g., Venter, “Reviewing History.”

145 There is some debate whether the “teacher” refers only to the founder (Brownlee, “Messianic Motifs,” 13-15) or also to his successors in an office (e.g., Aune, Prophecy, 132; later Qumran sources suggest this, Buchanan, “Office”); some have also portrayed him as an eschatological figure (Wacholder, “Teacher”); as messianic (Allegro, “References,” 175-77; the priestly Messiah, Rosenberg, “Moreh”); as not messianic (Smyth, “Scrolls and Messiah”; Brown, “Messianism,” 72-75); earlier, a particular Zealot figure (Roth, “Teacher”); other particular figures (cf. Murphy-O’Connor, “Judah”); or one whose identity is unknown (Burgmann, “Lehrer”). There is today debate even how many other documents at Qumran genuinely derive from this sect. For Jesus’ pervasive centrality in extant early Christian Christology, see Hurtado, One God; Keener, John, 289-310.

146 The Qumran sect emphasized inspired interpretation yet preserved authentic memory of their founding Teacher (Stuhlmacher, “Theme,” 13; cf. Keener, John, 977-82), albeit not at length. Historical references tend to be generalized, whether because they did not matter or because their audience understood the referents (Callaway, “Reflections”).

147 Or most of it; over-Platonized versions had other interests, and Burkitt, History, 289, aptly titles ch. 9: “Marcion, or Christianity without History.”

148 See Martin, “Mithraism”; cf. Mattingly, Christianity, 5. Mithraism flourished in the Roman Empire only in a period long after the Gospels were written.

149 Metzger, “Considerations,” 15, 19-20.

150 With Hemer, Acts in History, 63-70.

151 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 139, opines that Josephus produced Judaism’s “best historiography”; certainly he is our main source for postexilic Jewish history (Hengel, Acts and History, p. 7); he was also known to early Christians (e.g., Iren. frg. 32). Much has been written on early Jewish historiography (see e.g., Mor and Rappaport, Bibliography). Suet. Vesp. 5, speaks of Josephus’ influence (probably ultimately dependent on Josephus on this point).

152 Jos. Ant. 19.60.

153 Ant. 19.61, 108. Somewhat like Luke, Josephus cites his sources directly far less often than many other extant historians did.

154 E.g., Ant. 16.183-84.

155 Cohen, “Josephus and Scripture,” argues that Josephus exercises more freedom and stylizes more in Ant. Bks. 1-5 than afterward — i.e., more in the “ancient” period.

156 Sometimes L.A.B. dramatically rewrites an account (e.g., Begg, “Ceremonies”), but usually depends on the biblical text for events. Feldman, “Antiquities,” 76, argues that in narrative style L.A.B. is closer to Acts than to Josephus.

157 See e.g., Penner, Praise, 113; Niehoff, “Two Examples.” Sometimes other Jewish authors omit it and Josephus tries to explain it (Feldman, “Command”).

158 See Höffken, “Reichsteilung.” In Jos. Ant. 6.203, he may amplify, or follow tradition in doing so (contrast 1 Sam 18:27, his source, where the LXX reduces the number in the Hebrew).

159 Cf. e.g., Attridge, History in Josephus, 44-50; followed by Newell, “Suicide Accounts,” 285.

160 For sample analyses of many of his accounts, see e.g., Begg, “Abimelech”; idem, “Deeds”; idem, “Jotham”; idem, “Rape of Tamar”; and the scores of other works (trying to list all of them would needlessly swell my bibliography) by L. Feldman and C. Begg on this subject (I cite merely a sampling, but a fuller one, in Keener, John, 15, 24-28).

161 I reserve treatment of them for my commentary on Acts; but cf. briefly Keener, John, 69-75. These differed from sayings traditions (Keener, John, 62-64).

162 Bellemore, “Josephus, Pompey and the Jews,” suggests that Josephus depended on more Roman sources and fewer Jewish sources in the later Antiquities than in the War.

163 E.g., Ant. 12.127. Probably Josephus depends on Nicolas as his main source from Antiochus IV through Herod I (e.g., Stern, Authors, 1:229).

164 Ant. 14.9; 16.183-84. Josephus also writes from a Jewish perspective that differs from Nicolas’ Greco-Syrian one (Wacholder, “Nicolas”). Josephus sounds less favorable to Herod in Ant. than in War.

165 Jos. Ant. 20.156-57, 260, 262, 266. That the historians he had in mind probably made the same claims need not trouble him; though reporting various perspectives as a rhetorical technique, ancient authors rarely reckoned with the multivalence of perspectives the way postmodernists would today. Josephus sometimes legitimates his own historical work (vis-à-vis that of other historians) by citing tradition (Gillet-Didier, “Paradosis”).

166 He specifically condemns a rival historian for lack of accuracy (Life 336), and compares him to a forger of contracts (Life 337-39). In this instance, however, for all we know, Josephus might be the one lying. Josephus’ claim not to have added anything may be conventional (Feldman, “Hellenizations: Abraham,” 133, citing Dion. Hal. Thuc. 5, 8; Lucian Hist. 47) and certainly does not fit his adaptation of biblical narratives in his Ant. (see again articles by Begg and Feldman noted above).

167 Ag. Ap. 1.45-49.

168 E.g., Ag. Ap. 1.48-49.

169 Ag. Ap. 1.49. On note-taking, cf. comments in our chapter on oral tradition.

170 Ag. Ap. 1.50.

171 But cf. Mason, “Contradiction.”

172 At one point (Jos. Ant. 20.16) he appears to claim not only that Herod, brother of Agrippa I, removed a high priest, but that the authority to remove high priests continued among his descendants; whereas elsewhere Josephus is clear that Agrippa II (Agrippa’s son, not Herod’s) ultimately assumed this role. Perhaps Josephus meant only that the right continued among Herod’s relatives, though his apogonois here normally means “descendants.” Herod replaces priests in 20.103; Agrippa II does so in 20.179, 196, 203.

173 Sometimes the apparent mistakes might instead betray deliberate literary connections (see the argument in Sievers, “Name”), but this approach does not explain all of them.

174 Ant. 20.53.

175 He provides only a later summary of what he already recounted, in 20.101.

176 His account of Caligula’s death reflects a source different from and impossible to harmonize with Suetonius’ (Scherberich, “Sueton und Josephus”).

177 Josephus, like Herodotus, fared much better on narrative than speeches by our standards (cf. Mosley, “Reporting,” 11-22); he is heavily influenced by rhetoric (see Botha, “Rhetoric and Josephus”).

178 Safrai, “Description in Works,” especially 320-21.

179 Cf. e.g., Jos. Ant. 18.206, which, at least in text as we have it, misconstrues Germanicus’ relationship to Tiberius.

180 Sometimes there is considerable debate, e.g., surrounding Felix’s full name (e.g., Hemer, “Name of Felix”; Bruce, “Name of Felix”; Kokkinos, “Gentilicium”).

181 For proposed problems in Josephus’ summaries, see e.g., McLaren, “Summary Statements.”

182 He defends both Rome to his people and his people to Rome (as widely noted, e.g., Neusner, Politics to Piety, 2; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 93).

183 Nearly three centuries before this time an Italian city used the same excuse of being forced by a few troublemakers (in that case, their leaders), and escaped punishment (Livy 24.47.6). Still, experiences and observations in northern Nigeria have given me more respect for the possibility of a few extremists ultimately provoking wider conflict.

184 Cf. e.g., Pastor, “Strata.”

185 Although some think that he emphasizes the Pharisaic connection due to the changed political landscape. Williams, “Josephus on Pharisees,” attributes to Josephus the full force of his anti-Pharisaic passages (by denying them to Nicolaus of Damascus); he may have followed much of Pharisaism without having officially joined (Mason, “Was Josephus a Pharisee?”).

186 With e.g., Ferguson, Backgrounds, 387.

187 Ferguson, Backgrounds, 387.

188 See e.g., Syon, “Gamla”; Cotton and Geiger, “Yyn”; Mazar, “Josephus and Excavations”; Safrai, “Education,” 995; Feldman, “Introduction: Josephus,” 45-46; Thackeray, Josephus, 49; Riesner, “Gate”; Pixner, “Gate”; Pixner, Chen, and Margalit, “Zion.”

189 Safrai, “Description in Works,” especially 320-21.

190 Feldman, “Introduction: Josephus,” 45-46; Mazar, “Josephus and Excavations,” 325-29.

191 War 5.166. McRay, Archaeology and NT, 117-18.

192 McRay, Archaeology and NT, 140.

193 McRay, Archaeology and NT, 144 (noting esp. War 1.415; Ant. 15.341; cf. Ant. 18.57; War 2.172).

194 Y. Yadin in Shanks, “BAR Interviews Yadin,” 19.

195 Thackeray, Josephus, 49; Mosley, “Reporting,” 23-24. Broshi suggests that the sources for much of Josephus’ accurate information included Roman military commentaries (Broshi, “Credibility of Josephus”; see esp. Life 348, 352; Ag. Ap. 56, on p. 381). Newell, “Suicide Accounts,” argues for conventional forms in Josephus’ suicide accounts, the battle suicides probably simply following the form; the evidence may not be sufficient to verify this suggestion, but Josephus does use tragic pathos like other rhetorical historians. Given his own experience, it is not surprising that he digresses to lament (e.g., War 5.19), though quickly returning to the subject with the notice that the rules of history prohibit such lamentation (War 5.20).

196 In Ant. 1.17; 20.154-57, 260-62; War 1.9-12, 30; 7.454-55; Ag. Ap. 1.47; Life 65.

197 Ag. Ap. 1.50-51; Mosley, “Reporting,” 23-24, noting that Josephus composed speeches freely, but he has many firsthand sources (e.g., Ant. 14.144-45, 189, 219, 224, 228).

198 Most notably, for literary purposes Luke brings the Nazareth pericope forward and makes it programmatic (Lk 4:16-30; Mk 6:1-4).

199 Following the model of Dionysius and Isocrates. In the War Josephus is closer to the model of Thucydides and Polybius (Attridge, History in Josephus, 44-50; followed by Newell, “Suicide Accounts,” 285). The more popular level of the Gospels invites less rhetorical embellishment, though no less interest in popular storytelling techniques for shaping and communicating the material.

↑ Back to top