Notes to Chapter 8
Notes to Chapter 8
1 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 291.
2 As is often noted, e.g., Marguerat, Histoire, 19-20. Biblical scholars, including conservative scholars, also note this caveat concerning ancient Israelite history (e.g., Dillard and Longman, Introduction, 23-25; Arnold, Samuel, 23).
3 On the divergence of ancient genre categories from their modern namesake descendants, see e.g., Hunter, “Genre.”
4 Josephus either has some very detailed sources (which is possible at many points) or is one of the more creative historians extant.
5 On ancient speech composition, often following the gist of sources when possible and composing “appropriately” when necessary, see e.g., discussions in Hammond, “Speeches”; Fornara, Nature of History, 143-54, 160-61 (more negatively regarding the distant past, 166-67); Gempf, “Speaking,” 264.
6 Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10.
7 It is possible that they could be more relevant for John, where I have treated them (John, 53-80; cf. now also Bauckham, Testimony, 106-12, who draws firmer conclusions than I did).
8 Keener, John, 53-80; idem, Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, forthcoming), introduction, ch. 8.
9 Cf. Tac. Agr. 10, where Tacitus assumes that his predecessors embellished details precisely where they lacked accurate information. Cf. similarly Acts 25:14-27; where are Luke’s witnesses (note also Witherington, Acts, 119-20)? Luke could infer the basic substance of the encounter, however, from the outcome (Acts 25:23-27). This historical approach is not defective, just different from our own; modern historians simply take account of it when reading ancient historians, so as to reproduce their essential information in ways more amenable to modern approaches.
10 Josephus can infer (or guess) what was said in private based on what happened in public (e.g., War 2.319). Even Tacitus, perhaps the historian of the early empire most respected today, sometimes indulges in reporting characters’ thoughts and fears (e.g., Tac. Hist. 2.74); he probably does so more often than Luke, precisely because Tacitus is more rhetorically sophisticated than Luke is. For plausibility and probability, as well as accuracy, as criteria for good ancient history writing, see Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 62.
11 E.g., Luke constructed symposia material and arranged events in his travel narrative (though he normally follows the sequence of his sources more than expected for a biography). Likewise, he may infer and elaborate a scene in Acts 25:14-27, as noted above; viewing such elaboration as deception or misinformation is anachronistic, because ancients expected such elaboration, and often even much more than Luke provides (compare the much longer speeches in most histories).
12 Lucian Hist. 12.
13 Lucian Hist. 24-25.
14 Penner, Praise, 107, notes that A. J. Woodman and T. P. Wiseman have argued that ancient historians invented even events (though conceding the resistance of most classicists to such claims). The statement may be true in some cases, but our evidence suggests that it was hardly the norm.
15 Thus Dibelius, Studies in Acts, 136-37, compares Luke’s freedom on details with that of other ancient historians.
16 Alexander, “Fiction and Genre,” 385-91.
17 Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.23. W. Miller, “Introduction,” viii, also takes Xen. Cyr. as historical romance, including history but allowing “many liberties with the facts of history”; yet (p. x) he notes it provides much valuable history and culture.
18 Bosworth, “Pseudo-Callisthenes,” opines that genuinely historical material in Ps.-Callisth. Alex. is minimal, though some of his fictitious material precedes him.
19 On Ps.-Callisthenes, see Fornara, Nature of History, 64-65, 72.
20 Plut. Alex. 70.3. His own romantic description of Darius’ death (Plut. Alex. 43.2) is missing in Arrian (Alex. 3.21-23), but was evidently not his own invention (the LCL note, 7:352 n. 1, cites Quint. Curt. 5.13, 28; Diod. 17.73).
21 Kennedy, NT Interpretation, 8-10; Satterthwaite, “Rhetoric,” 340-42; Litfin, Proclamation, 124- 26; Aune, Environment, 12-13.
22 Cic. Brut. 11.42.
23 Fornara, Nature of History, 136-37 n. 57. Dio Cass. 1.1.1-2 does complain that some of his predecessors have compromised accuracy for rhetorical style.
24 Marguerat, Histoire, 19-20, 25; idem, Historian, 12-13.
25 Because he writes at a more popular level, Luke may have less polished rhetoric and more adventure. Again, this is not to suggest that Luke or his contemporaries fabricated events; but the narrative tastes of Luke’s audience were no doubt an important factor in his selection and presentation of events.
26 See Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, passim, noting especially her conclusion on 291. Penner, Praise, 137, observes the influence of the narratio on all prose writing.
27 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 65-66, arguing that they treated them as cases to be defended, though not as actual defense speeches.
28 Observed, e.g., by Meister, “Historiography: Greece,” 421.
29 See most fully Rebenich, “Historical Prose.” Roman historiography varied stylistically (Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 312).
30 Winterbottom, “Rhetoric.”
31 Penner, Praise, 129.
32 Pliny Ep. 1.16.4. History was a form of discourse distinct from others (e.g., forensic rhetoric or philosophy; e.g., Philost. Ep. Apoll. 19).
33 Pliny Ep. 2.11.17.
34 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 62; cf. Penner, Praise, 217.
35 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 62-64.
36 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 69.
37 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 69-70.
38 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 88-91.
39 Cadbury, Foakes Jackson and Lake, “Writing History,” 13.
40 Fronto Ad Ant. Imp. 2.6.1-2.
41 Pliny Ep. 5.5.3.
42 Witherington, “Addendum,” 29-31; idem, Acts, 41-42.
43 Dion. Hal. Demosth. 47 (LCL 1:418-19). Let. Aris. 322 claims that it should provide greater pleasure than “mythographers” do.
44 Thucyd. 1.1; Polyb. 1.4.5; 39.8.7. For Thucydides, the uniqueness of events established their significance (Grene, Political Theory, 83).
45 See Burridge, “Biography.” But biographies were rarely as partisan as forensic speech, where a primary object was legal victory (e.g., Dion. Hal. Lysias 8).
46 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 93.
47 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 95. The function of audience is significant here: among the Gospels, even Luke’s audience would not expect extensive rhetorical elaboration and pathos to the degree one finds in more dramatic historians, although they were apparently more comfortable with abundant signs claims than the audiences of many elite historians were.
48 Even Theopompus’ weaknesses should not be exaggerated; he did genuine research (Meister, “Theopompus”).
49 For his general accuracy, see e.g., Mosley, “Reporting,” 20-22. Tacitus complained of the decline in imperial historiography but ranked himself among the earlier, superior historians (Marincola, “Tacitus’ Prefaces”); for annotated bibliographies on Tacitus, see e.g., Benario, “Recent Works” (688 sources between 1974 and 1983); Benario, “Work” (709 works on Tacitus from 1994 to 2003).
50 Witherington, “Addendum,” 29-31; cf. also 23-32.
51 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 81.
52 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1.2-4; 1.4.2.
53 Litwak, Echoes, 37, noting what he is not implying.
54 E.g., Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.24-25; see discussion of Polybius’ standard in this chapter.
55 Lucian Hist. 22-23.
56 We should, of course, take into account that Lucian is writing satire (Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 81); his critiques are thus meant to entertain, possibly exaggerating others’ offenses.
57
Hist. 7. He does not rule out praise and blame or moral evaluation; rather (Hist. 59, LCL) “Eulogy and censure will be careful and considered, free from slander, supported by evidence, cursory” — “not in court” (hence, not forensic exaggerations). The rhetorical historian Theopompus, by contrast, “impeached nearly everybody in a quarrelsome spirit” so “that he was a prosecutor rather than a recorder of events.”
58 Lucian Hist. 8 (trans. LCL 6:13).
59
Hist. 40 (LCL 6:55).
60
Hist. 40. One must, he emphasized, tell the truth, no matter how offensive to one’s own contemporaries; thus one would win praise in future generations (Hist. 61-62). As particular models of good historians, he offers Xenophon and Thucydides (both contemporaries of the events they report), who would not let personal bias make them change facts; “public interest” and truth take priority over personal enmity or friendship (Hist. 39).
61
Hist. 9 (LCL 6:15). Rejecting history’s entertainment value altogether — contrary to most of his own (nonhistorical) works — is a stringent standard not shared by all historians (as their pleasant readability suggests); but he affirms history’s edifying value, i.e., moral lessons, which flow from truth (e.g., Hist. 59). Usefulness and pleasure were not mutually exclusive objectives.
62 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, for example, emphasized rhetoric in the writing of history (see Fox, “Dionysius”).
63 Cf. also Botha, “Rhetoric and Josephus.”
64 While usually maintaining the biblical story line, he occasionally augments it with subsequent traditions and often reshapes it for apologetic purposes. E.g., even his use of speeches in 1 Macc tends to reveal more adaptation than creation (Gafni, “Maccabees,” esp. pp. 126-27).
65 Pliny Ep. 5.8.9.
66 Pliny Ep. 5.8.10-11.
67 Polyb. 3.4.1 (LCL).
68 Polyb. 10.21.8 (LCL). Of course, even orators praising the emperor claimed objectivity; e.g., Fronto Ad Ant. Imp. 2.2 declares that it was not his praise of the emperor, but the emperor’s virtues, that had produced admiration. Nor is Polybius always objective in his history. But the point is that Polybius sought to be substantially more objective in history than in pure epideictic. Indeed, historians often praised both sides in a war, thereby amplifying pathos and the credit due the victor.
69 Dio Cass. 1.1.1-2.
70 Rolfe, “Introduction,” xix.
71 See e.g., Suet. Rhet. passim. Penner, Praise, 137, contrasts the epiphany in Suetonius’ account of Caesar crossing the Rubicon with Caesar’s own account; but a century and a half (well beyond the living memory of eyewitnesses) is sufficient time for legends to grow, and Suetonius’ dependence on such sources does not require his own fabrication.
72 See Tac. Dial. passim. On Tacitus’ rhetorical prowess, see Moore, “Introduction,” ix (citing Pliny Ep. 2.1.6; 2.11.17). Tacitus does develop dramatic scenes and dialogues.
73 Patristic writers were often embarrassed by the poor Greek and lack of rhetoric in the New Testament, though we should point out that they wrote after the rise of, hence may have been influenced by the standards of, the Second Sophistic. Most educated Greeks found first-century Christian writings in general vulgar (Townsend, “Education,” 148-49, citing late-second-century CE Tatian Or. to Greeks 26-30). This would create a problem for those for whom inspiration demanded also good rhetoric (Dion. Hal. Thuc. 34, though acknowledging that Thucydides was a good historian; cf. Philost. Hrk. 25.4, 8, which praises Homer’s inspiration, yet critiques his accuracy in 24.1-2; 25.10-17).
74 Penner, Praise, 220; cf. Moessner, “Poetics,” 97-112.
75 Satterthwaite, “Rhetoric,” 337 (summarizing the conclusions of his chapter). Cf. also the positive evaluation in Bultmann, Tradition, 366.
76 Pervo, Profit, 6, citing Julian Letter 36.423d, who lists it with Matthew as inferior.
77 Blass, Debrunner and Funk, Grammar, §464; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 347; cf. Cadbury, “Commentary on Preface.” Lk 1:1-4 also includes five p-words, as Plutarch employs seven of them in his preface to Septem sapientium convivium 146C (Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 33); divided in two parts, Luke’s prologue employs “three matching phrases” (Aune, Environment, 116-17).
78 See Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, passim.
79 Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 56-61 (esp. 61, citing the much later Nicolaus 4.18-19).
80 Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 382 (noting that Aug. De doctrina Christ. 4.41 also observed its rareness in the NT).
81 Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 43-44, further arguing (44-63) that Luke probably had learned from the sort of rhetorical exercises preserved for us in the handbooks. Cf. further the high evaluation of Luke’s rhetorical skill in Asso, “Raconter.” For an example of some fairly obvious and common rhetorical techniques in one Lukan speech, see Keener, “Rhetorical Techniques.”
82 Cf. similarly Barrett, Acts, xxxv (with Plümacher); for Acts as popular historiography, also Verheyden, “Unity,” 55 (citing further Barrett, “First Testament,” 101; Acts, 2:li). Of course, antiquity lacked “professional historians” (Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 289).
83 See Rebenich, “Historical Prose,” 288. Polybius, in fact, opined (presumably against his competition) that most historians lacked proper qualifications (Polyb. 12.25e.2).
84 Alexander, Context, 41.
85 E.g., Pliny Ep. 2.5.7; 3.13.4; 4.14.3; 6.33.7-8; 7.9.7; 8.21.1; 9.29.1-2; Cic. Or. Brut. 46.156; 47.157; Fam. 13.27.1.
86 Ekphrasis (with a sort of set-piece description nowhere found in Luke) does appear in narrative works (Rusten, “Ekphrasis”; Bowie, “Second Sophistic,” 1377; see discussion in Aphth. Progymn. 12. On Ecphrasis, 46S, 36-37R); it often appears in ancient fiction (see e.g., Shea, “Stage,” 70). Homer’s detailed depiction of Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.468-608) offered the standard for descriptiveness, and other writers (e.g., Aeschylus Eum. 39-59; Eurip. Ion 82-183) used such accounts long before ekphrasis is attested as a rhetorical exercise in the Second Sophistic (Fantuzzi, “Ekphrasis,” 873; e.g., Ps.-Lucian Hipp. 8).
87 Such as Thersites being “bandy-legged, lame in one foot,” in Hermog. Progymn. 10. On Ecphrasis 22 (trans. Kennedy, 86).
88 A standard practice; see e.g., Aphth. Progymn. 12. On Ecphrasis, 47-49S, 39-41R.
89 Fronto Ad Ant. Imp. 2.6.4-15.
90 Fronto Ad Ant. Imp. 2.6.6.
91 Athen. Deipn. 15.682B.
92 Dion. Hal. Comp. 18. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 15 complains that Thucydides often portrays successfully the abject cruelty and sufferings involved in war, but at other times fails to evoke the appropriate horror involved. But some historians protested if narration of such scenes exceeded necessary details of history (Polyb. 15.34.1).
93 The initial influence of the Second Sophistic was already in some sense underway when Luke wrote, though it had probably not yet affected members of his social circle. Bowie, “Second Sophistic,” 1377, dates it to the period c. 60-230 CE, though some scholars begin it later. Even in the first century BCE, however, some writers already advocated the literary use of old Attic Greek rather than Koine (see e.g., Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 18; Rowe, “Style,” 156), by which standards Luke usually falls short, though less so than most other first-century Christian writers.
94 Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2.1.14.
95 On the grand style, see e.g., Dion. Hal. Demosth. 15; Cic. Or. Brut. 5.20-6.21; Pliny Ep. 3.13.4; 6.33.7-8; 7.12.4; 9.26.1 ; 9.26.10; Aul. Gel. 6.14; Longinus Sublime; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.2; Menander Rhetor 1.1, 335.21-22; 2.1-2, 368.9; 2.1-2, 369.8-9; 2.6, 399.21-22; 400.7-9; Keener, John, 48-49; Cronjé, “???? ??o??.”
96 This is not to deny any kind of dramatic elements; see Plümacher, Lukas, 80-136.
97 Still, “signs” do appear in histories (Plümacher, Geschichte, 33-84).
98 Plümacher, Geschichte, 33-84.
99 Pathos does appear; see e.g., Acts 20:19, 31, 37; some also argue that Israel’s failure to respond is viewed as tragic (so Tannehill, “Rejection,” esp. 98-99, 101; cf. Tannehill, “Tragic Story”). But such occasions are minor compared to sources more steeped in Greek tragic conventions (even some descriptions in Tacitus are more “tragic-pathetic,” e.g., Ann. 5.9), and come nowhere close, for example, to a Phylarchus.
100 Penner, Praise, 134.
101 Even in the telling of the story in Acts 8:26-40 (see Keener, “Official”).
102 For Acts as a “popular” history, see also Barrett, Acts, xxxv; Verheyden, “Unity,” 55.
103 Some of this section employs material from Keener, John, 14-16, albeit augmented and rearranged.
104 As often noted (e.g., Ehrman, Introduction, 133). Ancient historians used history to shed light on their own times, as many do today; Aune, Environment, 62, cites especially Isoc. Nic. 35; Demon. 34; Polyb. 1.1.2; Livy 1, pref. 10-11; Plut. Aem. Paul. 1.1; Lucian Dem. 2.
105 General textbooks on (human) “world history” would be excluded from this principle of focus, but even introductory textbooks focusing on such broad topics as “western civilization” or “Asian history” implicitly accept the legitimacy of focusing on a theme or people in historical study.
106 For their theological as well as historical interest, see e.g., Osborne, “History.” This is true even of Luke, who comes closest to the style of Greco-Roman historiography (e.g., Marshall, “Luke as Theologian”; idem, Historian and Theologian; Martin, Foundations, 53-56; Tuckett, Luke, 13-14; Green, “History/Writing”; Hotze, “Zeugen”; Marguerat, Histoire, 28-29, 36-37, 42, 59-63, especially 91; Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 59, 295).
107 See at length e.g., Hemer, Acts in History, 79-85; see also Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 63.
108 I borrow the phrase from Penner, Praise, 129 (cf. also the idea on 179).
109 See e.g., Marshall, Historian and Theologian, 47, critiquing Perrin for his outdated understanding of historiography. Thus, e.g., Cicero’s depiction of Dionysius (in Tusc. Bk. 5) probably is shaped partly by the author’s concerns for Caesar’s rise (Verbaal, “End of Liberty”).
110 Litwak, Echoes, 37 (noting that it is impossible in any era to write history without a perspective).
111 Jos. Ant. 20.154.
112
Ant. 20.155-56.
113
Ant. 20.157.
114 Luke’s primary audience is undoubtedly Christian, but his appeals to the public forum suggest that he wishes his history to be at least acceptable to outsiders (cf. Acts 26:26).
115 Penner, “Discourse,” 73-77.
116 E.g., Polyb. 36.9.1-17. Cf. Momigliano, Historiography, 71-73. For Polybius’ appreciation for history’s political value, see Fornara, Nature of History, 113.
117 On whose biases cf. Wade-Gery, “Thucydides,” 1519, adding that “Perhaps no good historian is impartial.” Dion. Hal. Pomp. 3 thinks Thucydides more biased (in his case against Athens, which had exiled him) than Herodotus was; but he accuses him of focusing on Athens’ failings, not of inventing them.
118 Livy 1, pref. 10.
119 Often noted, e.g., Mason, Josephus and New Testament, 60-71, 77-81; cf. ibid., 196-98; Crossan, Historical Jesus, 93; for Josephus’ pro-Flavian propaganda, see Saulnier, “Josèphe.”
120 Thus Xenophon, while largely accurate in what he reports in the Hellenica, proves biased by what he omits of Thebes’ greatness (Brownson, “Introduction to Hellenica,” ix-x), though he remains our “best authority” for the period (xi).
121 Cf. the respective roles of Pompey and Caesar in Lucan Civil War passim (even Homer portrayed the Trojans appealingly enough for Romans to latch onto the Trojan line as their own). That military success did not always determine history’s favor is clear: Greece, with its rich culture, influenced Rome no less (and perhaps more) than Rome influenced Greece.
122 E.g., Albans in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. book 3; plebeians and patricians in Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.39.1-6; Romans and Carthaginians in Livy 21.1.3; or (outside history) the evenhandedness of Homer’s portrayal of Greek and Trojan heroism in the Iliad, which allowed such later works as Euripides’ Trojan Women and the Roman adoption of Aeneas (e.g., Virg. Aen.).
123 E.g., Hdt. 2.4, 32, 50, 58, 77, 82.
124 Meister, “Herodotus,” 268. This approach did not commend him to everyone (cf. e.g., Plut. Mal. Hdt.).
125 Burridge, Gospels, 182-84. So also characters in history, e.g., Marcius as the greatest general of his era, yet with fatal character flaws (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.60.1-2; 8.61.1-3).
126 Lucian Hist. 7. Such poetic descriptions are inappropriate within history (Hist. 8), though praise is permissible within careful bounds (Hist. 9).
127 Plut. Mal. Hdt. 3 (Mor. 855C).
128 Polyb. 9.9.9-10.
129 Pliny Ep. 3.5.20, on his late uncle. In other genres, cf. Aesop’s Fables (e.g., 172); Pindar Encomia frg. 121; Theophr. Char. proem 3; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.1.554; Athen. Deipn. 1.10e; 3 Macc 2:5; Pearl, Theology.
130 Aeschines Embassy 75-76; Lysias Or. 2.61.196; Rhet. Alex. 1429b.6-22; Cic. Sest. 68.143; Max. Tyre 6.5. See the treatment of examples in rhetoric in Rhet. Alex. 8, 1429a.21-1430a.13; cf. also Anderson, Glossary, 86-88; Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21; Demoen, “Paradigm.” The intellectual orator Maximus of Tyre opines that history preserves the memories of humanity and so “guards its virtues” (Max. Tyre 22.5, trans. Trapp).
131 See Men. Rhet. 2.4, 392.28-31.
132 On the hortatory value of history in Roman historians, see Fornara, Nature of History, 115-16. For moralizing elements in ancient historiography, Marguerat, Histoire, 28-29 cites examples from Dionysius, Livy, Sallust and Plutarch.
133 E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.2.1.
134 Polyb. 1.1.1 (LCL). On Polybius’ moral and political objectives, see also Fornara, Nature of History, 113 (who notes on 115-16 that Romans emphasized this even more).
135 Tac. Agr. 1.
136 Moore, “Introduction,” xiii.
137 E.g., Hist. 59.
138 Val. Max. 2.pref. (LCL).
139 E.g., Polyb. 1.35.1-10; Diod. Sic. 31.10.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 7.65.2; Tac. Ann. 4.33; Dio Cass. 1.5.4; Arrian Alex. 4.10.8; Corn. Nep. 16 (Pelopidas), 3.1. For narrative asides in histories and biographies, see Sheeley, Asides, 56-93.
140 See e.g., Dobbeler, “Geschichte”; Kooij, “Death of Josiah”; Reinmuth, “Zwischen Investitur”; Bergren, “Nehemiah”; Borgen, “Reviewing and Rewriting.”
141 See e.g., Polyb. 2.56.13; 3.32.2. Ancient historians did not, as some contend, ignore lines of cause and effect (Rajak, Josephus, 102).
142 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 5.56.1; Polyb. 3.31.11-13.
143 For paradeigmata to make moral points in speeches, see Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 6.80.1; Rhet. Alex. 8.1429a.21-1430a.13; Cic. Sest. 48.102; cf. also Kennedy, “Survey of Rhetoric,” 21.
144 On such historical “paradigms” see also Diod. Sic. 37.4.1; Hdn. 3.13.3.
145 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.6.3-5; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.1.1; 37.4.1.
146 Philo Abr. 4; Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.204; 1 Cor 10:11.
147 E.g., 4 Macc 1:7-8. Rabbis sometimes employed earlier rabbis’ behavior as legal precedent. For disciples imitating teachers, see also Jos. Life 11; b. Ber. 62a; Kirschner, “Imitatio”; Abrahams, Studies 2:138-154; Xen. Mem. 1.2.3; Sen. Controv. 9.3.12-13; Lucian Peregr. 24; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.21; 1 Cor 4:16.
148 See Avioz, “Lot.”
149 For a more detailed study of Josephus’ adaptation of Isaac, see Feldman, “Isaac.”
150 See Feldman, “Joseph.”
151 See Feldman, “Moses.” Hata, “Moses within Anti-Semitism,” emphasizes the apologetic value of Josephus’ portrayal of Moses against anti-Semites.
152 See Levison, “Ruth.”
153 See Feldman, “Samuel.”
154 See Jos. Ant. 10.24-35; Begg, “Illness”; Feldman, “Hezekiah.”
155 See Jos. Ant. 9.1-17; Begg, “Jehoshaphat”; Feldman, “Jehoshaphat.”
156 See Begg, “Josiah”; Feldman, “Josiah.”
157 See Feldman, “Daniel.”
158 See Feldman, “Nehemiah.”
159 See Feldman, “Jeroboam.”
160 See Feldman, “Ahab.”
161 Noah appears positive but Feldman, “Noah,” thinks that Josephus reduced his role because he was ancestor of the Gentiles (though Josephus does not transfer Noah traditions to Moses the way later rabbis did). In idealizing characters into various types, Josephus may have also used standard hellenistic typologies for women characters (Sarah as the good wife, Potiphar’s wife as evil, etc.; Amaru, “Women”).
162 Cicero felt that historical monographs were ideal for glorifying their subjects, and Plümacher includes a work of Cicero’s and 2 Maccabees as examples of monographs fulfilling this function (Plümacher, Geschichte, 15-32; idem, “Cicero und Lukas,” 772-73). Naturally this is also a dominant element in biography (Penner, Praise, 135).
163 Polyb. 3.4.1.
164 Polyb. 8.8.3-6. He finds it appalling that Theopompus praises Philip while depicting his despicable deeds; one may forgive historians who are slightly wrong, but not those driven by severe bias (Polyb. 8.8.8-9); fairness is the standard (8.8.7). He sometimes digresses in asides to give lessons related to the events narrated (1.35.1-10). But while Theopompus was one of the major “rhetorical” historians, he did genuine research (Meister, “Theopompus”).
165 Polyb. 10.26.9.
166 Pliny Ep. 5.8.1-2. Cf. Pindar Encomia frg. 121.
167 Aeschines Embassy 75-76. Classical orators, for example, had long praised those who imitated their ancestors’ valor in battle (Lysias Or. 2.61, §196) and summoned their hearers to imitate their ancestors’ wisdom (Aeschines Embassy 75).
168 Fornara, Nature of History, 36. At times this approach could produce distortion, but it need not do so (Fornara, Nature of History, 64-65).
169 E.g., Corn. Nep. 11 (Iphicrates), 3.2; Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1-4.9.6; Plut. Cim. 2.4-5; much more fully, see Keener, John, 16 (cf. idem, Matthew, 51 n. 157).
170 Likewise, Suet. Jul. 52 (like much of the work) is full of scandal about Julius, but 53 praises him. After recounting his noble deeds (e.g., Jul. 73-75), Suetonius concludes that his negative actions “so turn the scale, that it is thought that he abused his power and was justly slain” (76.1, LCL 1:99).
171 Suet. Nero 19.3 (LCL 2:115).
172 Pliny Ep. 3.3.5.
173 E.g., Pliny Ep. 6.27.1-2.
174 For example, some Socratic ideas appear in Xenophon’s Cyrus (e.g., Cyr. 3.1.17; Xenophon’s other works reveal his admiration of Socrates), though the Cyropaedia is not a true historical work or biographic work in the later sense (Cic. Quint. fratr. 1.1.8.23 argues that Xenophon’s Cyropaedia was intended to teach proper government, not primarily to report historical truth).
175 Cf. Seneca the Elder Historical Fragments 1, who divided Rome’s history into ages corresponding to human maturation. Contrary to some modern interpretations of ancient historiography, some ancient historians did think in terms of cause and effect, though not all of these were divine (e.g., Polyb. 2.56.13; 3.6.1-3.7.3; 3.31.11-13; 3.32.2).
176 E.g., the interpretation of a head found beneath Rome (Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 4.59.2; 4.61.2; Plut. Cam. 31.4; Dio Cass. frg. in Zonaras 7.11). Perhaps they inadvertently dug into part of an old burial site (though our sources claim a freshly severed head), but their interpretation became the dominant memory.
177 Xen. Anab. 5.2.24.
178 Meister, “Herodotus,” 269. The line between “objective” (Herodotus, Thucydides) and “confessional” (OT; Luke) historiography may often be thinner than one would surmise from Marguerat, Histoire, 42.
179 With e.g., Konkel, Kings, 328.
180 Frei, “Apologetics,” 56, notes that this view was also influential in eighteenth-century England.
181 Squires, “Plan,” 38, citing Diod. Sic. 1.1.3.
182 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 8.56.1.
183 Hebrew Scripture likewise affirmed God’s providence in all events, even in acts of disobedience to God (Eichrodt, “Faith in Providence,” 19-20).
184 Sometimes using it to justify reporting apparently supernatural phenomena (Ant. 17.353; cf. 17.350-52).
185 See Squires, Plan, 15-17 on Dionysius; 18-20 on Josephus; and 20-36 on Luke; for the nature of providence in hellenistic history, see 38-46, in Josephus, 46-51, in Luke-Acts, 52-77 (where see also Brawley, Centering on God, 86-106); for tempering divine determinism with free will, see 154-60 on hellenistic historians, 160-66 on Josephus and 166-85 on Luke-Acts. See also Marguerat, Histoire, 36- 37; for Luke’s interest in providence, 59-61.
186 E.g., Philo Creation 1-2, 157; Let. Aris. 168; Jos. Ant. 1.15. Even in an earlier era, Israel’s historical interests contrasted with many surrounding cultures’ “extra-temporal myths” (De Vaux, Israel, 272), though the contrast should not be overdrawn as if only Israelites cared about history (see Frahm, Jansen-Winkeln, and Wiesehöfer, “Historiography”; Millard, Hoffmeier, and Baker, Historiography in Context); cf. Van Seters, “Historiography” for some possible parallels with Greek historiography.
187 Thus some for example compare Luke’s work with OT historical works to argue that Luke intended to write history (Rosner, “Biblical History,” 81).
188 E.g., Philo Creation 1-2: Moses refused to invent fables. Philo did, however, allegorize embarrassing portions (as not literal, not just in addition to literal), and some did so more liberally than he. In Ant., Josephus treated the biblical narratives as real history (though he treated the text with freedom).
189 Wright, People of God, 471.
190 See Dunn, New Perspective, 15-34, especially 29; regarding the connection between Jesus’ mission and the church, cf. Aarde, “Historiese Jesus.”
191 Aune, Environment, 62 (citing especially Isoc. Nicocles 35; Demon. 34; Polyb. 1.1.2; Livy 1, pref. 10-11; Plut. Aemilius Paulus 1.1; Lucian Demonax 2). An interpretive framework and even nonhistoric genre need not obscure all historical data; e.g., Sib. Or. 5.1-50 recites recent history accurately from its author’s conceptual standpoint (i.e., including legends he assumes to be historical), despite some confusion (cf. 5.460-63).
192 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 20.
193 With Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 398-99.
194 Dunn, Acts, xvi.
195 With e.g., Marconi, “Interpretation”; Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 2; Hemer, Acts in History, 86-90.
196 E.g., viewers in the U.S. can get a more global perspective from the BBC than from most U.S. media outlets. One newsmagazine here, to which I no longer subscribe, failed to mention war in the Democratic Republic of Congo until the estimated death toll passed three million; I never saw even mention in that magazine of the smaller Congo, in which my wife was a refugee. Such omissions certainly distort perspectives for readers dependent on these sources; yet no one would accuse that newsmagazine of having deliberately fabricated whatever data that it did report.
197 For example, Luke’s emphasis on Paul going to the Gentiles is hardly a Lukan creation (cf. Botermann, “Heidenapostel”; cf. Rom 1:14; 11:11-14) even if the way he recounts this going creates a characteristic pattern.
198 Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 19; cf. Levinskaya, Diaspora Setting, 2; Hemer, Acts in History, 79-90. The shaping of gospel tradition does not exclude tradition to be shaped; cf. Levine, “Word,” 510: despite adaptation, much of the Gospels’ “general depiction of Jesus’ words and deeds has good claims to credibility.”
199 Meister, “Historiography: Greece,” 421.
200 Cf. Lüdemann, Acts, 22, 218, 363, on Acts.
201 Hengel and Schwemer complain (Hengel and Schwemer, Between Damascus and Antioch, 6-7) that in modern NT scholarship, “The real danger in the interpretation of Acts (and the Gospels) is no longer an uncritical apologetic but the hypercritical ignorance and arrogance which — often combined with unbridled fantasy — has lost any understanding of living historical reality.” For an argument against the usual unreliability of ancient historiography, see e.g., Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 330- 34 (observing on 333 that most of the critiques offered against ancient historians apply to modern historians as well).
202 Penner, “Discourse,” 77-78, warns that historians reinforced power grids of society, reflecting political philosophy. While this was true of elite historians, apologetic historians like Josephus could seek to advance the cause of their minority (in his case, of his fellow Jews, though with special sympathy for other aristocratic males). Modern historians may be more generally suspicious of these sorts of biases, but are not immune to them.
203 Penner, Praise, 179.
204 Penner, Praise, 217, correctly emphasizes the centrality of plausibility and arrangement, but goes too far when (Penner, Praise, 179) he suggests that “Completely fabricated accounts may in fact be better historia” than accurate ones, insofar as they fulfilled their rhetorical function. As we have noted, the genre included a factual as well as rhetorical component, and could be judged by both standards.
205 Penner, Praise, 107, prefers postmodern critics’ approach to the traditional classicist approach, which he complains has been too resistant to the postmodern critique. For recent appreciative responses to radical postmodern skepticism regarding historiography (each offering some fundamental critiques without rejecting all of postmodernism’s elements), see McKnight, Death, 6-42; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 15-24. Using ancient historians’ biases to negate all factual content may read our postmodern milieu’s agendas of radical perspectivalism into the ancient writers no less than the pure “historicizing” approach does. In a sense, it allows the rejected historicist paradigm to continue to set the agenda: if a text does not correspond at all points with history as strictly defined today, it is unreliable as a substantial historical source. Particular configurations of facts may produce political fictions, but not in the same sense in which novels are fictitious. Otherwise (at an extreme level) we would have to relinquish attempts at historical claims, unable to arbitrate, for example, between genuine histories of the Nazi Holocaust and the unfounded and dangerous claims of Holocaust deniers (cf. discussion in Beckwith, “History & Miracles,” 89-91).
206 Lüdemann, Acts, 22. Of course, ad hominem arguments about motives are risky in academic discourse, especially when Lüdemann, too, has agendas (Lüdemann, Acts, 383, condemns the fanaticism of Christianity, which on his reading has led to perhaps twenty million deaths).
207 Lüdemann, Acts, 22.
208 Lüdemann, Acts, 218.
209
Ant. 19.346. One may well wonder about the frequency of nocturnal woodland creatures in large public theaters during daylight! Because this omen provides a probable connection with Jos. Ant. 18.195, it could easily be Josephus’ addition to provide cohesiveness to his narrative, the way Luke, who usually follows Mark’s sequence, departs from it for his Nazareth pericope.
210 Rothschild, Rhetoric of History, 69.