Notes to Chapter 9
Notes to Chapter 9
1 Pliny N.H. pref. 17, 22 (LCL 1:13, 15).
2 See e.g., Foster, “Introduction,” xxxi, who argues that though Livy is sometimes uncritical, he is our only source, hence our best source, “for long stretches of Roman history.” Josephus is, for all his weaknesses, our best source for postexilic Jewish history (Hengel, Acts and History, 7).
3 E.g., Sil. It. 9.66-177. They could provide such insights, they believed, through inspiration (Val. Flacc. 3.15-17; Sil. It. 9.340-45; cf. also Nagy, “Prologue,” xxx; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxxix), through which they could also reveal the divine purposes in history (Sil. It. 1.19).
4 Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.1.1; see Keener, John, 22-23; for historians ideally using sources, see also Marguerat, Histoire, 30. Pervo, Dating Acts, 6-7, correctly notes that writers did not always acknowledge their sources, as long as they rewrote the material (citing Josephus’ rewrite of Ex 7:8-12 in Jos. Ant. 2.284-87); but we should note that it is rare to find elite historians who never mention their predecessors when such existed.
5 Pliny Ep. 9.33.1.
6 Suet. Jul. 9.3. Suetonius employed primarily written sources, hence had more information for earlier rather than later figures (Rolfe, “Introduction,” xviii).
7 Dio Cass. 1.1.1-2.
8 The practice is not limited to historical genres, being found also among mythographers and novelists (though novelists are more prone to free creation and sometimes may have invented their sources). Even a novelist might occasionally remember to provide the story world verisimilitude by providing a source (Apul. Metam. 9.30; Philost. V.A. 3.27). In other genres, cf. Contest of Homer and Hesiod 323; Parth. L.R. 11.1-3; 14.5. Ovid’s account of Lichas’s end (Metam. 9.225) diverges from Soph. Wom. Tr. 777-82; Ovid claims dependence on prior tradition, but his emphasis on metamorphoses at least accounts for which tradition he prefers! With a much earlier historical person, Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 1.2) claims that he gathered information from cities (i.e., local, century-old traditions); from others’ accounts and from his letters; and also (1.3) from Damis’s memoirs. As we have noted, Conybeare, “Introduction,” vii-viii, treats Damis as a genuine but not entirely reliable source; by contrast, Jones, “Apollonius’ Passage,” views him as Philostratus’ invention.
9 E.g., Num 21:14; Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18; 1 Kgs 14:19, 29; 15:7, 23, 31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39, 45; 2 Kgs 1:18; 8:23; 10:34; 12:19; 13:8, 12; 14:15, 18, 28; 15:6, 11, 15, 21, 26, 31, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5; 1 Chron 27:24; 29:29; 2 Macc. 2:24-25. Rabbis, too, often emphasized citing sources for traditions (e.g., m. Ab. 6:6; b. Nid. 19b).
10 E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.6.1; Arrian Alex. 6.2.4; Plut. Alex. 30.7; 31.2-3; 38.4; and further below. For details from Tiberius’ time, Tacitus cites generally “historians of that era” (Ann. 5.9).
11 Some are more probable and objective than others. Cf. Cook, “Plutarch’s Use,” for what may be a substantive stylistic source indicator in Plutarch.
12 E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.87.4; 3.35.1-4; 8.79.1; Livy 9.44.6; 23.19.17; 25.17.1-6; Appian Hist. rom. 11.9.56; 12.1.1; Plut. Alex. 31.3; 38.4; Demosth. 5.5; 29.4-30.4; Themist. 25.1-2; 27.1; 32.3-4; Paus. 2.5.5; 2.26.3-7; Arrian Alex. 4.9.2-3; 4.14.1-4; 5.3.1; 5.14.4; 7.14.2; 7.27.1-3; Hdn. 7.9.4; 7.9.9; Corn. Nep. 7 (Alcibiades), 11.1; 9 (Conon), 5.4; p. Sot. 9:13, §2; see further Livy LCL 12:320 n. 2; mythographers in Apollod. Bib. 1.4.3; 1.5.2; 1.9.15, 19; 2.3.1; 2.5.11; Ovid Fasti 6.1-2, 97-100. When unsure which is best, one simply cites various sources (e.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.4.570).
13 Arrian Alex. 1, pref. 1-2.
14 Arrian Alex. 3.3.6.
15 Philost. Vit. soph. 2.5.576.
16 Nor can one object that Philostratus, writing lives of sophists, was simply unaware of appropriate rhetorical conventions!
17 I.e., thereby implying far more than the five sources he has named for the “majority.”
18 Plut. Alex. 46.1-2, adding that the minor divergence does not affect our view of his hero’s character (the main point for him).
19 E.g., Diod. Sic. 4.4.1-5.
20 Cf. Damon, “Source to Sermo,” on Livy 34.54.4-8 (contrasting Tacitus’ freer composition in Ann. Bks. 1, 14), if this redaction critical approach proves durable.
21 See Hemer, Acts in History, 65. See e.g., Val. Max. 5.7.ext. 1; 6.8.3 (though Valerius confuses sources more often than most, especially when commenting on an earlier period).
22 E.g., Philost. Vit. soph. 2.4.570; in a different genre, cf. Ovid Fasti 6.1-2, 97-100.
23 Cf. e.g., Tacitus, who naturally does not need to cite many sources on his father-in-law in the Agricola.
24 E.g., 1 Esdras blends Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah with some midrash. Josephus does not state most of his extrabiblical sources (Nicolaus of Damascus being an important exception; see the source critical analysis in Bellemore, “Josephus, Pompey and Jews”); even Livy can mention that there are many while citing only one (Livy 42.11.1).
25 Schmidt, “Stellung”; Kümmel, Introduction, 37; see discussion in e.g., Keener, Matthew, 17. “High” literature influenced “low” literature, creating an overlap of style (Burridge, Gospels, 11, 153; Aune, Environment, 12, 63; Downing, “Relevance”).
26 E.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.6.1, 3; sometimes earlier oral traditions probably also surface later in rabbinic literature (see e.g., Keener, John, 189-90). Oral and written traditions sometimes overlapped (Jeremias in Hennecke, Apocrypha, 1:95).
27 E.g., Cic. Nat. d. 3.16.42 (concerning Hom. Od. 11.600ff; see especially Cicero LCL 19:324-25, n. a); Diog. Laert. 1.48 (Solon into Hom. Il. 2.557).
28 Possibly Hierocles in Stobaeus; Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 85. Jewish scribes, however, rarely practiced redaction criticism on Scripture (despite an occasional fourth-century Palestinian Amora; cf. Lev. Rab. 6:6; 15:2).
29 Gundry, “Genre,” 102; Witherington, Christology, 22; contrast the older approach of Dibelius, Tradition, 3.
30 Polyb. 12.25d.1.
31 Polyb. 12.25e.1, 25i.2.
32 Cf. e.g., the many contemporary histories of Nero noted in Jos. Ant. 20.154.
33 Pliny N.H. pref. 18.
34
N.H. pref. 17. Some emphasized the value of crediting one’s sources (Vitruvius Architecture 7.preface.10-17; Pliny N.H. pref. 21), though sometimes noting that most of their sources had not done so (Pliny N.H. pref. 21-23).
35 The majority view (so Fitzmyer, Acts, 59).
36 Fuller, “Classics,” 182, notes G. Kennedy’s observation that the plural (rather than the dual) requires minimally three, and grammatically each produced their own narration.
37 Aune, Environment, 121, doubts the certainty of this premise, given the conventionality of the statement; but other historians who used this convention did have sources (even if one regards “many” as hyperbolic) — i.e., the convention is not a fiction. Aune himself notes that Hellenistic prefaces often mentioned predecessors (Environment, 90); for the mention of sources in prefaces, see Alexander, Preface, 32-34; mention of many sources can also occur after concluding a discussion (as in Diog. Laert. 4.1).
38 Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 134-35, suggests as early as 45 CE based on Euseb. H.E. 2.14-15, but Eusebius’ tradition here seems questionable. More plausibly, Theissen, Gospels in Context, 203-34, especially 220-21, 230-32, dates “Q” (though not necessarily a narrative, it might fit Luke’s term) in the 40s, though this is uncertain. Certainly we cannot rule out even some early Palestinian written sources, given evidence for sufficient literacy there (Millard, Reading and Writing, esp. summary in 227-29; idem, “Literacy”; Head, “Note on Reading”); scribes (cf. Millard, Reading and Writing, 168, 176; Bucking, “Training”) could also be paid to take dictation.
39 E.g., Jos. War 1.1-2, 7; Ant. 20.154-57 (cf. 20.262); Wardle, Valerius Maximus, 67, cites Livy pref. 2; Sall. Hist. Fr. 3, 7; Tac. Hist. 1.1.2-3; Ann. 1.1.2 (comparing also Hecataeus fr. 1; Cato Orig. frg. 77; Asinius Pollio frg. 4). Outside history, see e.g., Longin. Subl. 1.1.
40 E.g., Val. Max. 1.pref. Only after praising his predecessors does Quintilian note that he will differ from them on some points (Quint. Inst. 3.1.22).
41 E.g., Dion. Hal. Thuc. 5.
42 Mason, “Chief Priests,” 127, following Sterling, Historiography, 343-45; Parsons, Luke, 47. Cf. epicheire?, which appears elsewhere in Luke-Acts for futile or mistaken efforts (Acts 9:29; 19:13), and an adjective.
43 Robbins, “Claims of Prologues,” 73-75, 83, arguing that Luke instead intends to provide a continuous account “from the beginning to Rome.” Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 371, also doubts that Luke criticizes his predecessors’ accuracy.
44 Xen. Apol. 1-2 (though citing for this new emphasis a specific informant, Apol. 2).
45 Aul. Gel. pref. 10 (preferring their style), 11-12 (preferring his selectivity). Cf. also this explanation (of greater selectivity) in 2 Macc 2:24-25 (conciseness was a narrative virtue, Theon Progymn. 5.39-40).
46 Nicolaus Progymn. 1. pref. 1.
47 One could refute sources based on rhetorical criteria (e.g., Theon Progymn. 3.241-244) and claim superiority in arrangement over one’s predecessors (Artem. Oneir. 3.pref.).
48 Moessner, “Poetics,” 97-112.
49 Danker, New Age, 4 (comparing Ovid Metam. 7.520); Tannehill, Luke, 9-10; Penner, Praise, 220; Parsons, “Progymnasmata,” 52 (noting arrangement for clarity in Theon Progymn. 87.13; Quint. Inst. 4.2.83; but also acknowledging preference for exact sequence in Rhet. Alex. 30, 28-31; Rhet. Her. 1.9.15; and Theon’s disapproval of accidental confusion of sequence in Progymn. 80.26-29). Certainly historical prefaces were supposed to promise that they would be easy to follow (Lucian Hist. 53).
50 Because Luke’s sources, whose sequence he usually follows meticulously in his Gospel, control his arrangement there but are probably not entirely chronological, Luke’s purposeful sequencing of a continuous narrative is probably more effective chronologically in Acts. On his sequential approach to putative sources, cf. also Morton and MacGregor, Structure, 27; Perry, Sources, 19-20.
51 Biography need not be chronological (see Görgemanns, “Biography”; Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 119-21; cf. even 4Q158; Augustine Harm. G. 21.51; for Mark, see Papias in Euseb. H.E. 3.39); cf. e.g., the accidental repetition in Plut. Alex. 37.4; 56.1. See somewhat more detailed discussion in Keener, John, 12-13.
52 Pliny Ep. 1.1.1; Thucyd. 2.1.1; 5.26.1 (although even most historians tended to follow events to their conclusion and not simply strict chronology; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 9; Pomp. 3). Rhetoricians emphasized order (e.g., Anderson, Glossary, 116).
53 See Balch, “Full History,” 229-39 (against Moessner); Penner, Praise, 163. But cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 3.18.1.
54 E.g., Diod. Sic. 1.4.4; 1.6.2.
55 In most Lukan texts one could interpret the term either way (Acts 18:26; 22:3; 23:15, 20; 24:22; 26:5), but Acts 18:25 seems to imply primarily “accuracy” (possibly implying the same for 18:26, but 18:26 may play on the other nuance of the term), and the texts about Pharisaic scrupulousness (22:3; 26:5; cf. 18:25-26) probably specify “accuracy,” in view of similar descriptions of Pharisaic learning in Josephus (Ant. 17.41; 19.332; War 1.110; 2.162; Life 191). For other groups with “accurate” interpretation, see e.g., Ant. 12.49, 104; perhaps Ant. 1.14; Ag. Ap. 2.144, 149; for non-Jewish laws, Ag. Ap. 2.227, 257. Josephus’ clearest parallel to Luke might be Ag. Ap. 2.287, but by itself this passage could be interpreted either way.
56 E.g., Alciph. Court. 13, frg. 6, ¶19; in a history, Diod. Sic. 1.6.2 (writing as accurately as possible given his subject’s antiquity). Similarly, Herodian applies akribeias to his “careful” research (though we do not consider Herodian particularly precise; Whittaker, “Introduction,” xxxix-xl); Josephus, too, promises to treat everything with accuracy (akrib?, Ant. 1.17; cf. 1.214), though we may think this an exaggeration; he also promises to narrate with accuracy in contrast to those whose histories are falsified (War 1.2, 6, 9, 22; Life 358, 360, 365, 412); cf. his use for Thucydides (Ag. Ap. 1.18). Josephus surely concurs that Scripture speaks accurately (Ant. 1.82; cf. War 1.17; Ag. Ap. 1.29).
57 For more detailed discussion, see e.g., Duling and Perrin, New Testament, 11-16; France, Matthew, 34-38; Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 26-38; Stein, “Synoptic Problem.”
58 E.g., Whittaker, “Introduction,” lxi-lxii.
59 Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 287-90.
60 For analogous constructions in classics, with the same needs for caution against excessive speculation, see Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 132.
61 See especially Farmer, Problem; cf. Longstaff, Conflation, 218; Murray, “Conflator”; Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 304-12 (and 273 on abridgement). For proto-Matthew see Lowe and Flusser, “Theory”; a smaller number have also contended for something like Lukan priority (e.g., Lindsey, Rabbi, 84; Young, Parables, 129-63; cf. Lindsey, “Approach”), though this thesis has so far gained few adherents outside Israel (cf. Ådna, “Attitude”).
62 See Senior, Matthew, 17-19; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:98-114; Tuckett, Griesbach Hypothesis (with conclusion on 186).
63 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:73-74; cf. Marcus, Mark, 41-44. The abbreviation is, however, less often theologically motivated than supposed in the heyday of redaction criticism (e.g., Held, “Miracle Stories,” 169; on expansion, pp. 193-206).
64 See Gundry, Old Testament, 9-28; cf. Stanton, New People, 353-63. Sometimes he follows the MT sequence but the LXX wording (e.g., in 19:18-19; cf. Hagner, Matthew, 557). Gundry, Old Testament, 174-85 also argued that the eclectic text-types behind citations found in all three Gospels fit only the trilingual milieu of first-century Palestine; while we would contend for common oral tradition in the earliest community on this point, Gundry suggests this material goes back to Matthew the tax collector’s notes (p. xii). Rabbis also used eclectic text-types (see Goulder, Midrash, 27); they are most obvious in Matthew where Matthew’s redactional hand is clearest (see Soares Prabhu, Formula Quotations, 63-106; cf. Cope, Scribe, 121-22). For a survey of views regarding the source of Matthew’s quotations, see Hagner, Matthew, lvi.
65 E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:115-24; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 156-63.
66 Probably from the German Quelle, “source,” which Weiss abbreviated to “Q” in 1890 (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 63). But some find this origin questionable (Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 155 n. 41, following Schmitt, “Siglum”).
67 Cf. e.g., Edwards, Concordance; idem, Theology of Q; more problematically, Mack, Myth, 69, 84; idem, Lost Gospel, 6, 73-80. As we have noted, Mack and others create an “early” recension of Q that fits their hypothetical reconstruction of early Christianity, but this approach is circular, as most scholars acknowledge (see Overman, “Deciphering,” 193; Witherington, Sage, 215; Johnson, Real Jesus, 52-53; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:177-80; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 73-74; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 204; Catchpole, Quest, 6). Q probably was edited a number of times, and the Gospel writers may have employed Q in various stages of its editing (cf. Koester, Introduction, 2:46), but reconstructing these editions is in most cases speculative. For some recent studies on Q (some more historically based, others more speculative), see e.g., Lindemann, Q and Jesus; also Lindemann, “Q and Jesus.”
68 Apart from the “Q Seminar,” this skepticism probably characterizes the majority of Gospels scholarship: e.g., Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 5; idem, Gospel Truth, 73-74; Keck, “Ethos,” 448; Voorst, Jesus Outside NT, 164-65; Overman, “Deciphering,” 193; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 204; Catchpole, Quest, 6; Meier, Marginal Jew, 177-80; Johnson, Real Jesus, 52-53. Many earlier scholars were also reticent to define Q too narrowly; cf. Burkitt, History, 123; idem, Sources, 42-43; Dodd, Parables, 39; idem, More Studies, 70; Cadbury, Making, 98; Jeremias, Theology, 38-39; cf. Koester, Introduction, 2:46, for the likely suggestion that Q was used in various stages of redaction. See especially the caution of Sanders, Tendencies, 276-79.
69 Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 5; Hengel, Atonement, 35; Aune, Prophecy, 213; Keck, “Ethos,” 448; Witherington, Christology, 223; idem, Sage, 211-12. As noted earlier, Q’s theology probably does not differ significantly (in contradictory ways) from Mark’s (Meadors, “Orthodoxy”; cf. Witherington, Sage, 233-36; see esp. Meadors, Herald). This is not to deny that “Q” has a distinctive Tendenz distinguishable from Mark (Kloppenborg, “Q and Jesus”).
70 For Galilee’s centrality, see Reed, Archaeology, 170-96 (esp. 196).
71 Dunn, New Perspective, 27 (also attributing its apparent lack of passion narrative to its formation before Jesus’ death — though I would argue that, given the multiplicity of passion traditions, we would not know if one of them were “Q”; Matthew and Luke mainly follow Mark, however). It could have been passed on by Galilean disciples now in Jerusalem (cf. Gal 1:17-19).
72 E.g., Burkitt, History, 123; Dodd, Parables, 39; idem, More Studies, 70.
73 E.g., Betz, Jesus, 22.
74 Cf. the questions of Gundry, “Genre,” 105 n. 31; Petrie, “Q”; Perry, Sources, p. 11. For one survey of recent approaches to the question of “minor agreements” between Matthew and Luke against Mark (not all opposed to the two-source hypothesis), see Friedrichsen, “Agreements.”
75 Where Matthew’s topical order (he likewise rearranges Mark, in contrast to Luke’s procedure) does not account for a variation; cf. also Schweizer, Jesus, 124-25; Tuckett, History, 34-39. Ellis, “Criticism,” 35, however, doubts this common sequence.
76 Dunn, New Perspective, 122.
77 See Casey, Aramaic Approach, 185-90. As we have noted, however, some question the Aramaic Q approach (Tuckett, “Q and Aramaic”).
78 Drury, Design, xi, 121; Farrer, “Q”; Abogunrun, “Debate”; Goulder, “Q,” 234; Farmer, Problem; Longstaff, Conflation, 218; Murray, “Conflator”; Thompson, Advice (common traditions); Lowe and Flusser, “Synoptic Theory”; Young, Parables, 129-63; Sanders and Davies, Synoptic Gospels, 91, 112; Linneman, “Gospel of Q,” 7-11.
79 Some have vigorously contested this position, advocating Q (cf. Martin, “Q”; Grant, “Clock”; idem, Hellenism, 120; Tuckett, “Relationship”; see especially idem, History, 1-39).
80 Linnemann, Criticism; idem, Problem. Nevertheless, we remain confident that the Synoptics share too much common ground with Mark, while simultaneously reflecting a far broader knowledge of abundant tradition outside Mark (cf. also Jn 21:25), to deny some measure of interdependence.
81 One must start somewhere. Admittedly, Mark Goodacre has rightly pointed out to me that use of such a default position risks uncritically perpetuating some academic presuppositions (for his own and others’ able case against Q, see Goodacre, Synoptic Problem, 122-61; Goodacre and Perrin, Questioning). While the Q hypothesis seems most plausible to me based on my previous work through the Synoptics (e.g., based on Luke’s different treatment of Mark and the shared material with Matthew that should include Matthew’s use of Mark; and Luke surely had more than two sources available, Lk 1:1), Luke’s use of Matthew would change the sources to which I gave first preference in following chapters but would not, I think, radically change the outcome in this book (most of Mark and, by definition, all of our “Q” being available in Matthew). The wide divergence of Luke’s account of Judas’ demise (Acts 1:18-19) from Matthew’s (Matt 27:3-10) is also easier to explain from separate sources than from Luke’s direct use of Matthew.
82 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 203-34, especially 220-21, 230-32; pace Mack, Myth, 84. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 29, suggest that it probably originated in Palestine in the 40s and early 50s (hence by early in Paul’s ministry).
83 The material where we cannot check them is traditionally loosely called “M” and “L” material, though usually no longer held to represent a single source.
84 Commonalities between John and Synoptic tradition besides Mark and Q also support the existence of oral traditions (see Stein, “Agreements”). If the “M” material is oral, Matthew may be able to adapt it more freely, however (cf. Brooks, Sayings Material).
85 Witherington, Sage, 343. Cf. Johnston, “Evangelists,” who even compares it to a manual produced by a committee; and Jones, Parables, 36, who uses the dominance of tradition to question the current biographical, literary-whole approach to the Gospels. Jones, Parables, 52-54 emphasizes Matthew’s conservatism with his sources and failure to rewrite them, challenging traditional redaction-critical assumptions.
86 Note especially the climactic rehearsal of some major themes in Matt 28:18-20.
87 Diod. Sic. 1.37.4, 6; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.6.1-3 explicitly note that they provide additional information from different sources that some previous historians lacked. Technical historians sometimes cite sources by name (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.6.1); more popular-level Jewish sources generally do not, however, so from Matthew’s silence we can infer nothing about Mark’s or “Q’s” anonymity.
88 See Hill, Matthew, 31-34; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:124-25; Luz, Matthew, 48; Brown, Death, 59-61.
89 Meier in Brown and Meier, Antioch and Rome, 55. The oral development of sources does not challenge the existence of written sources. Against the idea that an apocalyptic community like the earliest Christians would not care about writings (hence all written Gospel sources must be late), one need simply compare the early Qumran texts (cf. Boyd, Sage, 125). Concern for history also makes sense in a Jewish covenant context in which people believed God was revealed in history (Wright, People of God, 426).
90 For example, though countless allusions in Homer (e.g., Od. 12.69-72) were developed later, they are often so incomplete by themselves that it is clear that Homer alludes to commonly known fuller stories he does not record.
91 Euseb. H.E. 3.39. Papias does not here claim Mark’s dependence on Matthew (though neither does he claim the reverse).
92 Hengel, Studies in Mark, 50-53; Boyd, Sage, 229-37; on geographic errors, cf. Hengel, “Geography of Palestine,” 33 n. 19 (pace Theissen, Gospels in Context, 236-37). Cf. the uncontested nature and wide geographic distribution of this authorship claim in Oden and Hall, Mark, xxi-xxviii (and its widely used title). Goulder, Midrash, 32, thinks that Matthew treats Mark as authoritative because of the tradition that it derives from Peter.
93 See Sanders, Tendencies, 19, 46-87, 88-189, 272; cf. Stein, “Criteria,” 238-40; Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 283-84.
94 In Jewish sources, cf. e.g., ARN 7, §21 B (for a pseudonymous claim to have personally witnessed something that earlier tradition simply reports). For a halachic example, cf. Hoenig, “Kinds of Labor.” Amplification and embellishment are thus more characteristic of the apocryphal Gospels than the earlier canonical ones (Carmignac, “Pré-pascal”).
95 Cf. Blomberg, “Thomas,” 195, especially on the Gospel of Thomas (whose additions primarily reflect gnostic themes); it was especially abbreviated to streamline. Likewise, Matthew frequently abbreviates Marcan pericopes. Lucian Lucius or Ass probably epitomizes (see 7, 24, 38, 44, 54, with Apul. Metam. 2.11; 6.29; 9.39; Loeb notes); Virgil would write freely and then condense his own work (Suet. Vergil 22).
96 Theon Progymn. 4.37-42, 80-82. Even oracles, which were considered divine utterances, could be expanded; see Aune, Prophecy, 58.
97 Theon Progymn. 3.224-40; cf. Longinus On the Sublime 11.1; Hermog. Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 7; Aphthonius Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 23S, 4R. In Progymn. 2.115-23, Theon compares elaborations in earlier historical sources. Elaboration was especially useful for rebuttal (Progymn. 1.172-75).
98 Longin. Subl. 11.1; cf. Men. Rhet. 2.3, 379.2-4; for other adaptations for the sake of sound, see Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 9. For a more detailed discussion of amplification, see Anderson, Glossary, 26- 29, 48-49 (with full reference to the sources).
99
Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.8-11 (to omit these condenses the work, 22, 1434b.15-17). One could condense by abbreviating larger ideas into single words; avoiding unnecessary connectives; and recapitulating only at the end (22, 1434b.11-18).
100 Hermog. Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 7; Aphth. Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 23S, 4R; 4. On Maxim, 9-10.
101 E.g., Begg, “Blanks,” on Jos. Ant. 9.29-43 and 2 Kgs 3:4-27. Josephus exercised a degree of both freedom and fidelity in his handling of biblical history (see e.g., Begg, “Jotham”), so one might expect the Gospels to represent the same mixture, albeit not necessarily in the same degree of each. As we have noted, even the most rhetorically proficient of the Gospel writers (Luke) was less intent on rhetorical embellishment than Josephus, who was among the more rhetorically lavish historians.
102 Theon Progymn. 5.39-43, 52-53; Phaedrus 2, prol. 12-13; 3, epil. 8-9; 4, epil. 7-9; Philost. Hrk. 29.6; in speeches, e.g., Diog. Laert. 7.1.20; Dion. Hal. Thuc. 55; Demosth. 18, 20, 24; Lysias 5; Philost. Vit. soph. 2.4.569. One could, however, be too brief at times (Phaed. 3.10.59-60; Dion. Hal. 2 Amm. 2).
103 Cf. e.g., Dion. Hal. Comp. 2-4. For one conspicuous example of rearrangement in the Gospels, cf. Matt 21:12-13, 19-22; Mk 11:13-25.
104 Dion. Hal. Comp. 9.
105 Theon Progymn. 4.73-79, on adding narrative to a fable or the reverse (although the narrative is added as a parallel, not as a setting, for the fable), though one might expect more restraints for historical narrative. Maxims could be added to narratives (Progymn. 5.388-425) or preexisting narratives combined to relate two or more of them at once (5.427-41). The alternative to such arrangement was to simply recite narrative episodically; most readers found it acceptable, though it did not conform to more elite fashions (Drury, Design, 30; cf. Smith, Magician, 109).
106 Cf. the discussion of catch-words in Gerhardsson, Memory, 145-49, 153; in the Gospels, cf. Bultmann, Tradition, 325-26. One matter reminding the narrator of another was a common rhetorical technique for transition (Quint. Inst. 9.2.60-61). One might compare the rabbinic hermeneutical technique of gezerah sheva or the probable catchwords in Thomas (apparently too thoroughgoing, however, to reflect purely oral arrangement rather than a significant element of composition).
107 See especially Lyons, Autobiography, 29-32. Lyons advises reading such texts critically, not completely rejecting their historical value (ibid., 66).
108 Often later biographers simply repeat what earlier biographers said (e.g., Dion. Hal. Lysias 1); many sources simply repeated earlier ones verbatim (Pliny N.H. pref. 22).
109 Aune, Environment, 82. Even with regard to human memory in general, details are not always reliable, although the gist tends to be (see Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 333-34, citing memory studies); Bauckham applies this to the consistency of the gist of Peter’s denial among varying Gospel accounts, despite “variation in inessential detail” (Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 344-45).
110 E.g., Cic. De or. 2.45.189; Dion. Hal. Lysias 7.
111 Plut. Alex. 70.3.
112 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 8.
113 Shuler, Genre, 11-12; cf. Bowersock, Fiction as History, 1-27. See especially Lucian Hist. 7-13; in True Story 1.4 he complains that novelizers failed to recognize how obvious their “lies” (a frequent polemical charge in antiquity) were. The later historian Herodian shares this criticism (Hdn. 1.1.1-2) — despite his own rhetorical adjustments (cf. Whittaker, “Introduction,” xxxviii-xxxix)! The complaint appears even in mythography (cf. Philost. Hrk. 24.1-2), though we may expect that the practice was more common there.
114 See e.g., Whittaker, “Introduction,” xlv-lii.
115 Such haggadic adaptation appears in both midrash and folk literature (Wright, “Midrash,” 129). Penner, Praise, 247-60, contends that Jewish historians rewrote the past, as may be seen in their treatment of the exodus tradition.
116 Cf. Greek elaboration of sacred stories in Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, li-lii.
117 Still, Hellenistic historians like Josephus remain closer to the biographic literary model even for older figures, while nevertheless incorporating old legends and expansive techniques. Polyb. 34.4.1-3 argues that the Odyssey mixed history and myth, but notes (34.4.2) that the goal of history, unlike that of myth, is truth.
118 Cf. e.g., Charles, Jubilees, lxxxv; Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 8-9; Scott, Pastoral Epistles, 8.
119 See Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” 555; though even here the Gospels are not writing philosophy the way the writer of 4 Macc is. Scholars differ whether 2 Macc is a novel or dramatized history (Penner, Praise, 136-37, noting that all agree that 1 Macc is history); I believe it belongs closer to the latter, at least insofar as we regard the intention of the author (who was abridging another source; 2 Macc 2:24- 25).
120 Even this parallel is imperfect; whereas Josephus’ interests were less philosophic than Philo’s or 4 Maccabees’, he had obligations to elite rhetorical and literary interests that the Gospels (including Luke) for the most part lacked.
121 For surveys, see e.g., Duling and Perrin, New Testament, 20-23; Spivey and Smith, Anatomy, 64-65; Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 38-45; Osborne, “Redaction Criticism.”
122 Dio Cassius R.H. 1.1.1-2 explicitly affirms the contrary. Thus, for example, Matthew’s account of Judas’ death is so Matthean that Gundry, Matthew, 553 admits that one might think it Matthew’s “wholesale creation” — were it not for Acts 1:15-20. For specific characteristics of Matthean style (useful for redaction criticism) see e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:74-96; but on dangers of inaccurate use of stylistic criteria, see Jones, Parables, 12.
123 Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 138-39, on sections of Livy; more generally, Aune, Environment, 65, 139; cf. Downing, “Conventions”; idem, “Actuality”; Burridge, Gospels, 204-5.
124 Jones, Parables, 13-14. Jones introduces further complications: what if Matthew’s version of Mark is an oral tradition based on but differing from our text of Mark (Parables, 29-30, 39)?
125 See Payne, “Midrash and History,” 209.
126 Phaedrus 2, prologue 8-12. Matthew often edits Mark’s style (Burridge, “Gospels and Acts,” 526), and Luke does so even more often.
127 See Dunn, New Perspective, 118-19; Robbins, “Writing,” 146-55 (esp. 155). Stylistic, ideological, and legal factors all affected the editing of other works, such as the Mishnah (Kulp, “Patterns”).
128 Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 143 (cf. Fuller, “Classics,” 187, citing Kennedy’s observation that ancients did not usually look up their sources, but quoted from memory or notes).
129 Stanton, New People, 23.
130 Cf. Theon Progymn. 1.46-52; 2.79-81; 8.2-3; Arist. Poetics 15.4-6, 1454a; in a history, see e.g., Dio Cassius R.H. 62.11.3-4.
131 Vermes, Religion, 153-54.
132 See e.g., Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 42; cf. Draper, “Didache.” Note further the Semitic parallelism pervading Jesus’ sayings, probably more emphatic in Matthew (cf. Hagner, Matthew, xlviii).
133 See especially Theissen, Gospels in Context, 88 n. 70, who concludes that Matthew at points improves Mark’s historical accuracy. Josephus sometimes “corrects” the OT based on other OT passages — Höffken, “Reichsteilung.”
134 Vermes, Religion, 17-19.
135 On the publication of ancient literary works, see the introductory chapter on this subject in my forthcoming Acts commentary (ch. 1 of the introduction); less fully, Keener, John, 5-7, and sources noted there. The use of successive drafts might help account for the phenomena that earlier and bolder critics sometimes attributed to “proto-Matthew,” “proto-Luke” and so forth.
136 Josephus seems to have followed his own War at points in his later magnum opus, the Antiquities (Krieger, “Hauptquelle”); 4 Maccabees adapted material from 2 Maccabees (see Gardner, “Mqbym”).
137 Aune, Environment, 139.
138 Aune, Environment, 65; cf. Downing, “Conventions”; idem, “Actuality”; Burridge, Gospels, 204-5. Agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark in Markan material suggest that Luke felt free to adapt his dominant source in light of his larger repository of oral tradition and written information. Some sources could be oral, and the writers could have even drawn on the written sources from memory (see our subsequent chapter on oral traditions).
139 Pliny N.H. pref. 22. Pliny went so far as to append bibliography to each of his volumes (explained in Pliny N.H. pref. 33). Lucian reworked a story line later attested in Apul. Metam. (see Macleod, “Introduction,” 47 and 50, following Photius); his Dialogues of Courtesans bears some resemblance to Alciphron’s Letters of Courtesans; Livy reworked much of earlier historians, and biographers had a limited number of sources they could use. For Jewish examples of borrowing, see e.g., Sib. Or. 2.56-148 (from Ps.-Phoc.); 2 Peter’s use of Jude.
140 Sen. Suas. 3.7. The elder Seneca lamented that even obvious, unethical plagiarism could go undetected because of auditors’ negligence (Suas. 2.19; McGill, “Seneca on Plagiarizing”). Lucian expected his audience to recognize the literary works he satirized (True Story 1.2).
141 This practice may have been more common for Jewish religious texts in other genres; cf. e.g., 2 Peter’s use of Jude, or the borrowing in Sib. Or. 2.56-148 from Ps.-Phoc.
142 The nature of literary borrowing changed dramatically in the modern period, after England’s copyright law of 1709 (Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 275, noting the frequency of conflation before that time).
143 Cf. Gal 2:9; Acts 2:42; see discussion in the following chapter.