Notes to Chapter 10
Notes to Chapter 10
1 Funk et al., Gospels, 25.
2 Davies, Invitation, 115-16.
3 Some early-second-century fathers even preferred oral tradition, though cf. the preference for written sources in Eunapius Lives 459-60, when an event seemed incredible.
4 Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.5 (LCL).
5 For the coexistence of literacy and orality, see the example in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 325: “Greek schoolchildren who used to memorize from written texts of the poets in order to recite them without the written text” (Plato Protagoras 325E).
6 Byrskog, Story as History, 110-11. Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 280, note that oral history has taken a more optimistic view of memory than the dominant contemporary perspective in psychology and sociology. For one discussion of the issues in psychological memory studies, see Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 325-41.
7 See Harvey, Listening, 53 (citing Sen. Ep. Lucil. 100.2). Among early Christians, note the oft-cited prejudice of Papias (frg. 3.4, Holmes).
8 Lewis, History, 43; Vansina, “Afterthoughts,” 110; cf. Yamauchi, “Homer,” on very general historical events behind Homer. Some scholars argue that ancient writers may have modified written texts more often than oral traditions; hence Matthew and Luke may have adapted Mark more freely than the whole process of oral tradition modified Jesus’ sayings (Gundry, “Genre,” 102; Witherington, Christology, 22; cf. Diog. Laert. 1.48). I am not so confident that this is correct in matters of detail and wording, but am confident about the early persistence of the “gist.”
9 Lord, Singer, 138. Witherington, Christology, 8, 17-20, points to significant differences between the gospel tradition and oral Balkan folklore traditions.
10 See Harvey, Listening, 41. On the retention of “gist” in eyewitness memory even when details are inaccurate, see Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 333-34.
11 Dunn, New Perspective, 112 (with 110), 118, 122; cf. Lord, “Oral Literature” (but also the response in Talbert, “Oral and Independent”). On the frequent lack of verbatim recall, and often recreation, see e.g., Moniot, “Historiography,” 56-57; performances are adapted to new audiences (Bazin, “Past,” 70-71). The variation is typically greater in prose than in verse (Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 143).
12 Cf. e.g., Hoeree and Hoogbergen, “History”; Aron-Schnapper and Hanet, “Archives”; on rote memorization in traditional Quranic education, cf. Wagner and Lotfi, “Learning.” Limitations do, however, exist, especially over time (e.g., Iglesias, “Reflexoes”; Harms, “Tradition”; Raphael, “Travail”). For a recent and thoroughly documented case for the potential reliability of oral transmission of gospel materials in light of more general knowledge about oral transmission, see Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 239-68 (esp. 252-59).
13 Used in academic African historiography since the 1950s (Moniot, “Historiography,” 50), needed to reconstruct practices before modern western influences (Horton, “Possession,” 14). Westerners’ prior neglect often reflects ethnocentric prejudices (Chrétien, “Exchange,” 77). For oral history in NT scholarship, see Byrskog, Story as History, 33-40.
14 With e.g., Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 395 (on events no older than 80-150 years), citing various sources.
15 Henige, “History,” 103, rightly warns of the fanciful excesses caused by using theory to interpret evidence in reconstructing history behind oral tradition. Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 260-64, suggest that even folklore traditions about historical characters may often preserve more of the substance than western critics have often assumed, but their focus is more recent history.
16 Cf. West, “Rhapsodes.” The frequency of literary fragments scattered throughout the papyri (cf. Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 248) attests to the commonness of their usage.
17 Xen. Symp. 3.5-6.
18 Dio Chrys. Or. 36.9 (LCL 3:431). Although we cannot confirm this report, the culture that Dio reports apparently did exist (cf. CIG 2.2077 in the LCL note).
19 See Finkelberg, “Cypria” (doubting that texts always develop from fluid to rigid).
20 Today, it is said that all “true” Dulong can remember their epics, even though recounting them all fully can take several days (Yamamori and Chan, Witnesses, 22).
21 Dunn, New Perspective, 110.
22 Dunn, New Perspective, 112. Such flexibility is also consistent with what is known of memory (Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 344-45). Certainly Roman literature was generally orally performed in this period, affecting its rhetorical shape (see Schmidt, “Public recital”); but cf. the warning of Gerhardsson, “Exegetisk disciplin,” against overestimating our knowledge of precisely how the Gospels were orally performed.
23 Dunn, New Perspective, 114.
24 Dunn, New Perspective, 46-53; cf. idem, “The Tradition,” 174-82.
25 Dunn, New Perspective, 119; cf. Byrskog, Story as History, 110.
26 Cf. Fuller, “Classics,” 173-76 (esp. 174, 176), agreeing with G. Kennedy on the complexity of oral tradition beyond the traditional “two sources.”
27 Crosby, “Introduction to Fragments.”
28 Pliny N.H. pref. 17.
29 E.g., Paus. 1.23.2; cf. also Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc-xci. Cf. e.g., Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1 for an example of long informal traditioning by storytelling and song. Some scholars express misgivings about Pausanias’ oldest oral information (cf. Pretzler, “Pausanias and Tradition”).
30 E.g., to the voyage of the Argonauts in Od. 12.69-72; cf. Apollonius Rhodius; Valerius Flaccus.
31 See Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 1-3; cf. Bailey, “Tradition.”
32 Eunapius Lives 453 (writing it down fixed it and prevented further changes). Even first-century writers recognized that centuries of oral transmission could produce variations in ancient documents (Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.12).
33 Cf. Hermog. Progymn. 4. On Maxim, 8-10. (By the strictest definition, “maxims” might be unattributed; cf. the later Nicolaus 5. On Maxim, 25.) On boys learning these and chreiai, see also Anderson, Glossary, 126-27 (citing Sen. Ep. Lucil. 33.7).
34 Cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 27, who thinks (undoubtedly rightly) that Jesus as a Jewish teacher presumably taught in such forms.
35 E.g., Plut. Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 172B-194E. Many of these sayings also occur in other sources, as the Loeb footnotes indicate (Plutarch LCL 3:8-153). Such compilations of maxims were used in the progymnasmata, school rhetorical exercises in which the sayings were adapted (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 109, 117), and in the process their sense was learned (for the importance of learning maxims, cf. Isoc. Demon. 12, Or. 1; Arist. Rhet. 2.21.15, 1395b; Petron. Sat. 4; Sir. 18:29; Plut. Poetry 14, Mor. 35EF; also Epicharmus Gnomai C.1-15 in Select Papyri 3:440-43); often they upheld aristocratic social values (Sinclair, “Sententia”).
36 E.g., Sen. Ep. Lucil. 94.27-28; also Aune, Environment, 34, on Plato’s sayings, gathered into Gnomologia (maxim collections) only in the fifth century CE. Some also professed to know during what incidents various sayings were uttered, however (e.g., Plut. Themistocles 11.2).
37 Theon Progymn. 4.73-79; cf. 5.388-441. Early humanist exegetes like Calvin apparently agreed (Blomberg, Reliability, 52, citing Calvin’s harmony of the Gospels).
38 Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 291. The same may be noted for ancient speakers like Lucian, who gave orations in multiple locations (Harmon, “Introduction”); Dio Chrysostom also reused his own speeches (cf. Crosby, “Introduction to Discourse 66”).
39 E.g., Diog. Laert. 2.72, 6.2.51; Plut. Agesilaus 21.4-5.
40 Cf. Hermog. Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 6-7; Aphthonius Progymn. 3. On Chreia, 23S, 4R; Nicolaus Progymn. 4. On Chreia 19-20; 5. On Maxim, 26. Biographers sometimes expressed confidence during which incidents in their subject’s life a particular saying was given (Plut. Themist. 11.2). Not all chreiai were as brief as the most basic form (cf. Robbins, “Chreia,” 3), however, and the examples in the Gospels are the elaborated rather than basic form usually used in rhetorical exercises (see Mack and Robbins, Patterns, 196-97). One should not infer too much from hellenistic forms in the gospel tradition (Mack, Myth, 179; cf. Guenther, “Greek”); Palestine was hellenized; the Gospels are written in Greek (probably especially for Diaspora audiences); others besides Cynics employed such forms (see Boyd, Sage, 160; Wright, People of God, 427-35; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 120); and the formal pattern for elaborating chreiai seems restricted to rhetorical handbooks (Hester, “Epideictic,” 302, n. 1, citing chreia expert Edward O’Neil). For one discussion of chreiai, comparing the use by Jesus, philosophers and rabbis, see Hezser, “Verwendung”; for chreiai as analogous to the gospel tradition’s narrative units, cf. also Byrskog, “Chreia.”
41 Bultmann, Tradition, 88-89, may be too optimistic at how quickly such traditions may have grown in a relatively short span of time; his evidence (e.g., Sir 29:1-6) does not adequately support his conclusions. His evidence on 194 presupposes a longer period of time than is likely in the transmission and then redaction of gospel traditions.
42
ARN 22, §46 B, on R. Akiba and Ben Azzai; m. Ab. 3:9, 17 (R. Hanina ben Dosa and R. Elazar ben Azariah).
43 Cf. Diog. Laert. 2.60; Ariston 1 in Plut. Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 218A; Themistocles 2 in Plut. Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 185A, and Alexander in Dio Chrys. Or. 2; Alcibiades 1 in Plut. Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 186D, and a Spartan in Mor. 234E; Plut. Marcus Cato 2.4; the story in Philost. Vit. soph. 1.485; Athen. Deipn. 550; and Diog. Laert. 4.37 (Philost. LCL 14-15 n. 2); note also Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.3-7, 10-19. See Aune, Environment, 35, on the transference of Greek chreiai, because “they tended to represent what was useful rather than unique” (Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, 100).
44 E.g., Pliny Ep. 6.29.5 (regarding Pollio, a century to a century and a half earlier).
45 Thus many of M. Cato’s maxims were translated from Greek (Plut. Cato Major 2.4). A saying attributed to both Musonius and Cato (Mus. Ruf. frg. 51, p. 144.3-19) could be misattributed, or could have been recycled (perhaps more than once).
46 Pace Funk et al., Gospels, 22-23.
47 Still, some of them, such as Dibelius, Tradition, 62, and especially Taylor, Formation, passim, saw much of the tradition as essentially historical; Bultmann, Tradition, passim, was more radical.
48 Davies, Invitation, 115-16; cf. similarly Sanders, Tendencies, 28.
49 Benoit, Jesus, 1:33.
50 Witherington, Christology, 14, citing also Müller, Traditionsprozess.
51 Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 105; Stein, “Criteria,” 225-28; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60- 61; Wright, People of God, 421.
52 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 25-29. Cf. also the presence of Semitisms (e.g., Jeremias, Theology, passim; Witherington, Christology, 11), though the earliest traditioning community also spoke Aramaic (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:178-80). Translation could be very literal (Young, Parables, 180), but Josephus’ claim to have written the Bible in Greek (Apion 1.1) includes much interpretation.
53 With e.g., Jeremias, Promise, 30; Martin, “Healing,” 15; France, “Exegesis in Practice,” 257; Carson, “Matthew,” 201.
54 Missing from Mark, the no less Israel-exclusive claim in Matt 15:24 looks suspiciously like Matthean wording (Gundry, Matthew, 313); but Jeremias, Promise, 27 insists that its Aramaic construction suggests its antiquity (cf. also Wilson, Gentile Mission, 14). A stronger argument in its favor is that it hardly fits Matthew’s own perspective (Anderson, Mark, 191; cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 55; Matt 28:19); it would at least seem to belong to his community’s tradition, which he must answer.
55 The offputting remark about dogs (Mk 7:27) surely predates our extant Gospels (Montefiore, Gospels, 1:167).
56 E.g., 1 Sam 17:43; Hom. Il. 8.527; 9.373; 11.362; 20.449; 22.345; Od. 17.248; 22.35; for the female version, see Hom. Od. 11.424; 18.338; 19.91. The insult undoubtedly alluded to dogs’ unsociable behavior (cf. Prov 26:11; Mart. Epig. 1.83; Plut. Exile 7, Mor. 601DE; Philo Gig. 35; Mek. Kaspa 2.23-26; p. Taan. 1:6, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 7:6). Commentators who suggest that Jewish people regularly called Gentiles “dogs” (e.g., Brandon, Zealots, 172-73; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 62 n. 1) might make too much of relatively scant references (cf. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 167; on associations with Rome, cf. Hayward, “Targum to Genesis 27”)
57 On the “gist,” see e.g., Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 333-34, 344-46.
58 Presumably memory works in a basically similar way in all cultures; my point in noting the cultural difference is simply that we would not expect an oral culture’s eyewitness memory to be less dependable than modern western memory. Following the approach in oral history studies (which favors net transmission), some scholars also challenge the minimalist western approach to memory (Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 280-81). For applications from the use of memory in cultural studies more generally, cf. Strecker, “Perspektive.”
59 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 326, 333, 344.
60 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 327, 333-34, 345.
61 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 330, 334-38, 350.
62 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 331.
63 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 331.
64 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 331-32. Those who complain that emotional involvement would render a witness incapable of reporting true information would have to discount testimony from those involved in war, concentration camps, and so forth (Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 492-505; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 397-98).
65 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 332.
66 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 334.
67 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 341-46.
68 Thucyd. 1.22.2-3 (LCL 1:38-39).
69
Controv. passim. Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 143, argues that, given the ancient emphasis on memory and the use of commonplaces in declamations, Seneca’s recollection of declamation pieces is more credible than some critics have allowed.
70 Tacitus also claims to remember long dialogues years later (Dial. 1), but to some degree this is a literary device (cf. Justin Dial., though this also may reflect some genuine dialogue or composite of dialogues; cf. Barnard, Justin Martyr, 23-24, 39-40; Williams, Justin, xi-xix); while such a dialogue may have occurred, “Maternus” in the dialogue speaks for Tacitus’s own views.
71 Some mnemonic claims attributed to much earlier periods (Val. Max. 8.7.ext. 16: Cyrus’ knowledge of all his troops’ names or Mithridates’ of the 22 languages of his subjects) are less credible (these plus L. Scipio’s memory of all the Roman people’s names appear also in Pliny N.H. 7.24.88).
72 Sen. Controv. 1.pref.2.
73 Sen. Controv. 1.pref.19.
74 Sen. Controv. 1.pref.19. Also in Sen. Controv. 1.pref.19, he notes an ambassador who the next day greeted all the members of the Senate and the gathered townspeople by name.
75 Philost. Vit. soph. 1.11.495. On other exploits of the aged in antiquity, see Keener, John, 102-3.
76
Rhet. Her. 3.16.28.
77 Ancient theories on how memory worked varied (see Arist. Mem.; Plato Meno 81CD; Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.523); Cicero expounded on mnemonics (De or. 2.351; Olbricht, “Delivery and Memory,” 163). Philo (Boccaccini, Judaism, 192-94) and Pseudo-Aristeas (Boccaccini, Judaism, 194-98) stress memory, blending Greek language with Jewish memorial traditions concerning God’s historic acts. For ancient memory techniques, see e.g., Rhet. Her. 3.22.35; Small, Wax Tablets; Walde, “Mnemonics”; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98; Byrskog, Story as History, 163-65; on the importance and nature of memory in antiquity, see further Byrskog, Story as History, 111-12, 160-65; for memory cultivation, Byrskog, Story as History, 110-11; for exceptional memories in premodern sources, Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 283.
78 Quint. Inst. 11.2.1-51. In first-century BCE Roman courts, each defense speaker had “only” three hours (Cic. Brutus 93.324); by the second century CE, Tacitus laments that the time was normally just one or two hours, curbing eloquence (Dial. 38).
79 Satterthwaite, “Rhetoric,” 344; cf. Olbricht, “Delivery and Memory” (esp. 159, 163, citing Rhet. Her. 1.3-5; Cicero De Oratore 2.351); Heath, Hermogenes, 7; Eunapius Lives 502. Ancient rhetoricians praised this skill (Aeschines Embassy 48, 112).
80 Watson, “Education,” 310.
81 Pliny Ep. 2.3.3. For other praises of orators’ memory, see e.g., Pliny Ep. 6.11.2. Pliny also gladly reports the failure of his nemesis to be able to memorize his speeches (Pliny Ep. 6.2.2).
82 Sen. Controv. 1.pref.17.
83 Sen. Controv. 1.pref.18.
84 Eunapius Lives 494. Dio Chrys. Or. 18.19 advises reciting model speeches from memory, if possible. Naturally this would be easier for a speech heard recently; thus Lucian Peregr. 3 (LCL 5:5, 7) promises to repeat verbatim, as best as he can, the words of a Cynic he heard the previous day. Knowing basic Cynic style may have helped him with his recall.
85 Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.524.
86 As in Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.524, above.
87 See Dunn, New Perspective, 43, 114-15. He notes the emphasis on communal memory in traditional Middle Eastern culture (Dunn, New Perspective, 45-46, citing K. Bailey’s decades of observations). By contrast, Byrskog, Story as History, 69-70, doubts the relevance of the communal memory of the disciples for gospel tradition, since only a few are named and specified. He focuses on several like Peter (71-73) and the women (73-78; esp. Mary Magdalene, 78-81). Certainly tradition associates the twelve with this role (Acts 1:21-22), among others.
88 Philost. Vit. soph. 1.24.529. One may compare long-term ethnic conflicts in various regions of the world today.
89 See e.g., Quint. Inst. 1.3.1; Plut. Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Mus. Ruf. frg. 51, p. 144.3-7; Diog. Laert. 6.2.31; Eunapius Lives 481; Watson, “Education,” 310, 312; Heath, Hermogenes, 11.
90 On their learning see Quint. Inst. 2.4.15; Jeffers, World, 254, 256; memorizing poets in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 143.
91 Mus. Ruf. frg. 51, p. 144.3-7 (though it is either misattributed or, more likely, Musonius recycled an earlier saying of Cato — 144.10-19).
92 Theon Progymn. 2.5-8.
93 Jeffers, World, 256. On memorization in ancient education, see e.g., Quint. 1.3.1; Plut. Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Mus. Ruf. frg. 51, p. 144.3-7; Diog. Laert. 6.2.31; Eunapius Lives 481; Koester, Introduction, 1:93; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 84; Heath, Hermogenes, 11; Watson, “Education,” 310, 312; for memorizing examples, see Theon Progymn. 2.5-8.
94 Isoc. Demon. 18, Or. 1.
95 Jeffers, World, 256.
96 Aul. Gel. 8.3. Students apparently did sometimes doze during philosophic lectures (cf. Fronto Eloq. 4.3); one sophist struck a hearer for sleeping (Philost. Vit. soph. 2.8.578).
97 E.g., Lucian Alex. 61, employing paradid?mi. This term was applicable to passing down a founder’s teachings (Lucian Alex. 61; Iambl. Pyth. Life 28.148) or practices (Iambl. Pyth. Life 28.149); passing down traditional practices from ancestors (Thucyd. 1.85.1); and passing down information in a historian (Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10). “Receive” and “pass on” could apply to transmitting information (although allowing stylistic adaptation along the way, Philost. Vit. soph. 2.29.621).
98 Dio Chrys. Or. 18.10.
99 Culpepper, School, 193; Aul. Gel. 7.10.1; Socrates Ep. 20.
100 Diog. Laert. 10.1.12, on Epicurus, according to Diocles; on followers of Pythagoras, cf. Culpepper, School, 50.
101 Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 112.
102 Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 112-13. Those who remained part of the school would not normally criticize the founder’s teachings (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 110), although schools’ beliefs (whether Stoicism or Platonism) evolved over the centuries. Schools with less original tradition eventually composed more (Alexander, “IPSE DIXIT,” 113-14; cf. 121), but this accrued gradually over centuries, and would probably not normally be substantial in the first two generations, within living memory of eyewitnesses.
103 Plato probably composed dialogues freely, keeping to what he believed the spirit of Socrates’ teaching rather than exact conversation (Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 132-33, 136). Plato is not like the Synoptic tradition in this regard, however; producing literary compositions (whether Plato’s dialogues or finished gospels) probably involved more “permanent” adaptations than the bulk of individual retellings about a popular teacher. Nevertheless, despite Plato’s freedom in composing dialogues, he and Xenophon do share some common topics (such as love by the soul greater than that of the body (Xen. Symp. 8.12), and it is likely that Xenophon does not depend directly on Plato, but both go back to the historical Socrates and the first reports (Marchant, “Introduction,” ix-xv, suggesting that Plato retained much of the historical Socrates, yet presents him differently in different works). That Xenophon has a Symposium and an Apology like Plato could suggest that he deliberately offers a variant perspective, or that the speeches of these occasions had become well known.
104 See e.g., Val. Max. 8.15.ext. 1; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.17, 20, 22; 110.14, 20; Mus. Ruf. 1, 36.6-7; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.22. Especially among rabbis, correcting a teacher was rare (ARN 1A); against striving with one’s teacher, see Num. Rab. 18:20; against offering legal decisions in front of one’s teacher, p. Shebi. 6:1, §8 (it merited death: Sipra Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.5.6; b. Erub. 63a; Tem. 16a; Lev. Rab. 20:6-7).
105 E.g., ARN 25A; p. Bik. 3:3, §9; Gen. Rab. 22:2; for rank for esteemed Jewish sages, see e.g., tos. M.K. 2:17; Sanh. 7:8; b. Hor. 13b, bar; p. Sanh. 1:2, §13; Taan. 4:2, §§8-9. If a pupil ever needed to point something out to the teacher, this should be done respectfully (e.g., Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2.3); a pupil who contradicted a teacher might need to be reconciled to him (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.38). Later, one who despised a rabbi despised one’s help (b. Shab. 119b); risked losing eternal life (Pesiq. Rab. 11:2); by stinginess toward rabbis (b. B.B. 75a) or speaking ill of them after their death (b. Ber. 19a) might inherit hellfire; offending rabbis might yield deadly judgment (cf. b. B.K. 117a; B.M. 84a; Erub. 63a; Tem. 16a).
106 Culpepper, School, 177.
107 Lucian Hermot. 1.
108 Iambl. V.P. 35.256; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.14; 2.30; 3.16. Certainly their handing them down secretly only by memory (Iambl. V.P. 32.226) is portrayed as unusual. In one fictitious account, a disciple memorized all that his teacher taught (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 1.19). Pythagoras’ teachings were said to be concisely formulated like laws (Max. Tyre Or. 25.2), which would be more easily memorized.
109 Iambl. V.P. 20.94.
110 Diod. Sic. 10.5.1; Iambl. V.P. 29.165; on their memories, see further ibid., 29.164; 35.256. See note above on mnemonic techniques.
111 Iambl. V.P. 31.188.
112 Cf. e.g., by Thompson, Wenger, and Bartling, “Recall,” 210 (noting that it becomes unnecessary beyond a certain point; this source was supplied to me by M. Bradley, then a student at Duke); Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 334.
113 See e.g., Philost. V.A. 5.21; Liefeld, “Preacher,” 223; Robbins, Teacher, 64. Some writers emphasized that an internal inclination to virtue was superior to imitation (Philo Abr. 6, 38).
114 Eunapius Lives 458.
115 Philost. Lives 1.22.524.
116 Jos. Apion 2.204.
117 Jos. Life 11. Amoraim underlined this principle with stories of rabbis who imitated even their masters’ toilet habits and home life (b. Ber. 62a).
118 E.g., Xen. Mem. 1.2.3; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.4. Writers cared about both the words and “deeds” of characters (e.g., Xen. Cyrop. 5.1.1; Mem. 1.5.6; 4.4.10; on this pairing see further Keener, Matthew, 255, 540; the apparently contrary statement of Eunapius Lives intro. 452-53 refers in context to casual activities only — cf. Xen. Symp. 1.1).
119 See Gamble, “Literacy,” 646; cf. Millard, Reading and Writing, esp. 184-209. Although some have argued against overplaying the orality/literacy divide (Malina, “Criticism,” 98, as cited in Botha, “Cognition,” 37) some others warn against playing it down too much (Botha, “Cognition”).
120
Rhet. Alex. 36, 1444a.16-28; Sen. Controv. 1.pref.17; 3.pref. 4-6; probably Eunapius Lives 494. Some, however, did not use notes (Val. Max. 7.3.5; Sen. Controv. 1.pref.18), presumably including Galilean sages like Jesus.
121 E.g., Cic. Brut. 24.91 (remarking on the laziness of those who fail to write them out); Pliny Ep. 2.5.1-2; 5.8.6; 5.20.3; 7.17.5; cf. Ep. 2.19.2, 4; 3.13.1; 4.5.3; 4.26.1-3. This observation reinforces the point, however, that many orators spoke from memory.
122 Gempf, “Speaking,” 299, citing especially Quint. Inst. 11.2.2. Some took notes even during school declamations (Sen. Suas. 3.2).
123 Zeno in Diog. Laert. 7.1.20.
124 Shorthand existed (Richards, Letter Writing, 65-72) but was not widely available; it became popular only in the second century, and in circles different from those represented among Jesus’ disciples (see Maehler, “Tachygraphy,” 1468).
125 Cf. Montanari, “Hypomnema,” on hypomnema as notes or memory aids (though after the Hellenistic period they often represent a running commentary on texts, p. 72).
126 Cf. Cic. Fin. 3.3.10; 5.5.12; Aul. Gel. pref. 2, 22.
127 Cf. Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.6; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, p. 80 line 36-82.1; Lucian Hermot. 2; see also Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 131, on Socrates (citing Diog. Laert. 2.122; more cautiously, Plato Theaetetus 143A; Symp. 173B; Parmenides 126C); Stowers, “Diatribe,” 74, on Arrian’s notes on Epictetus; cf. Iambl. V.P. 23.104 on Pythagoreans. Cf. the brief discussion of Plutarch’s notebooks in Cherniss, “Introduction,” 398-99. Notes could derive from other sources as well; an intellectual might in several days fill five notebooks with extracts from sixty “books” (including brief speeches; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 2.10.2). I am reusing and augmenting here some material from Keener, John, 55-56.
128 Gempf, “Speaking,” 299; Quint. Inst. 11.2.2, 25.
129 Lutz, “Musonius,” 7, 10.
130 Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 129. Even Aristotle’s “books” are simply his regularly revised lecture notes (Kennedy, “Source Criticism,” 131), though the extant versions are well-organized (Cic. Fin. 3.3.10; 5.5.12). Meeks, “Hypomn?mata,” 159-60, views Kennedy’s contribution regarding notes here as important.
131 For instance, the notes (hypomn?mata) of rhetorical lectures by the fifth-century BCE teachers Corax and Tisias, made by themselves or by their students, were published (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 19).
132 Oldfather, “Introduction to Epictetus,” xii-xiii. Even in the Encheir., where Arrian organizes and summarizes his master’s teaching, Epictetus’ character dominates.
133 Epict. Diatr. 1.preface (LCL 1:4-5). Regarding the preservation of style, Xenophon in an earlier period (with less exacting standards) reports that all who write about Socrates reproduce his same lofty style (Apol. 1). As noted above, Aristotle organized his teachings into both popular, random and (those now extant) more formally arranged books (Cic. Fin. 3.3.10; 5.5.12).
134 Quint. Inst. 1.pref. 7-8 (LCL 1:8-9). Other teachers also had problems with people pirating their books and publishing them before they could nuance them properly (Diod. Sic. 40.8.1). When recounting such exploits to my students, I often add facetiously, “Don’t do that to me!”
135 Gerhardsson, Memory, 160-62; cf. Safrai, “Education,” 966.
136 See Millard, “Literacy”; Head, “Note on Reading.”
137 In Matthew’s Gospel, this tax-collector is even Matthew (Matt 9:9), one of the twelve (Matt 10:3; Mk 3:18). This particular claim is distinct from the question of who wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
138 See Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 250, noting Papias’ testimony in Euseb. H.E. 3.39.16. Interestingly, even Crossan’s approach to the passion story implies that some of Jesus’ disciples were learned (so Strijdom, “Unconventionality”).
139 Fuller, “Classics,” 179. This concession is also highlighted in Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 251-52.
140 Watson, “Education,” 312.
141 Jos. Life 8; Apion 1.60; 2.171-73, 204. Josephus’ statements on Jewish literacy, like that in m. Ab. 5:21, may reflect the literate elite, with much of the population learning Torah orally (Horsley, Galilee, 246-47); but there were undoubtedly reasons others considered Judeans a “nation of philosophers” (Stern, Authors, 1:8-11, 46-50; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39), and “The synagogue was a comparatively intellectual milieu” (Riesner, “Synagogues in Jerusalem,” 209). Philo (Boccaccini, Judaism, 192- 94) and Pseudo-Aristeas (Boccaccini, Judaism, 194-98) also stress memory, blending Greek language with Jewish memorial traditions concerning God’s historic acts.
142 See Riesner, “Education élémentaire”; idem, Jesus.
143
Sipre Deut. 48.1.1-4; Goodman, State, 79; cf. Sipre Deut. 4.2.1, 306.19.1-3; b. Ber. 38b; p. Meg. 4:1, §4; Gerhardsson, Memory, 113-21, 127-29, 168-70; Zlotnick, “Memory.” Because Meir was Akiba’s student, his anonymous traditions were assumed to stem from Akiba (p. Ber. 2:1, §4).
144 R. Akiba in Sipre Deut. 48.2.6. Traditional Israelite learning had emphasized the transmission of wisdom while also allowing individual learning (cf. Shupak, “Learning Methods”).
145 See Gerhardsson, Memory, 124-25.
146 E.g., tos. Yeb. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135-36; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6; ARN 24 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; b. Suk. 28a; p. Sheq. 2:5; cf. m. Ed. 1:4-6; Sipra Behuq. pq. 13.277.1.12; see further Moore, Judaism, 1:99; Urbach, Sages, 1:68; Gerhardsson, Memory, 122-70; idem, Origins, 19-24; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 14-17. When the proper attribution was unknown, this was sometimes stated (p. Ter. 8:5).
147 Cf. net transmission in the less formal Middle Eastern village settings (Dunn, New Perspective, 45-46).
148 See documentation cited in Keener, Matthew, 25-29. Greek and Roman philosophers also could do the same (Philost. Vit. soph. 1.22.523), even using poetry to reinforce their teaching for early students (Sen. Ep. Lucil. 108.9-10), though not advanced ones (ibid. 108.12; poetry and song involved memorization, Apollod. Bib. 1.3.1; Sen. Controv. 1.pref.2, 19). Various repetition devices aided memory (Harvey, Listening, 45, following Stanford, Sound of Greek, 83-85; also Harvey, Listening, 56). For the effectiveness of long-term memorization by a certain amount of repetition, see discussion of Pythagoreans above.
149 Dunn, New Perspective, 115 (including “parataxis, rhythmic speech, repetition, multiple existence, and variation”).
150 Many also observe that the later rabbinic method hardly arose ex nihilo after 70 CE (e.g., Hagner, Matthew, 1:xlix; Boyd, Sage, 121).
151 Gerhardsson, Memory, 136-48, 173; Goulder, Midrash, 64-65. Similar sayings thus could appear in different words (m. Shab. 9:1; A.Z. 3:6).
152 Simeon ben Azzai in Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.1, 3.
153
P. Sot. 5:6, §1; cf. p. Ket. 3:1, §4. Of course, the rabbi may have issued several different opinions on a subject in his lifetime; cf. p. B.K. 2:6, §3. Sometimes rabbis also seem to have told stories as fictitious homiletic illustrations rather than wishing to be understood as drawing on previous traditions (cf. e.g., Sipre Deut. 40.7.1).
154 Theon Progymn. 1.93-171; cf. e.g., Epict. Disc. 1:9.23-25 with the Loeb note referring to Plato Apol. 29C, 28E (LCL 1:70-71). Diod. Sic. 20.1-2 allowed limited “rhetorical embellishment” in composing speeches for historical works (Aune, Environment, 93).
155 Philost. Lives 2.29.621.
156 See Small, “Memory.”
157 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 333-34 (citing memory studies); he applies this to variation in detail among the different Gospels that nevertheless preserve the essential substance of events (such as Peter’s denials; Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 344-45). See also Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 275-85 and the many memory studies they cite.
158 Davies, “Aboth,” 156.
159 Draper, “Didache.”
160 Sanders, Figure, 193.
161 Cf. similarly Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 269-306. Witherington, Christology, 181, argues that if any historical tradition stands behind the sending of the twelve, Jesus’ disciples were already communicating his teaching during his lifetime.
162 Others before him, such as Dibelius, Tradition, 39, had already drawn less sustained comparisons between rabbinic and gospel traditioning.
163 Smith, “Tradition,” critiques Gerhardsson’s reading of later rabbinic traditioning into the Jesus tradition from three main angles: third-century rabbinic literature cannot represent pre-70 Pharisaism’s transmission techniques; Pharisaism would not represent all of first-century Judaism anyway; and the NT data simply does not fit this kind of traditioning. He is right on all these points, but characteristically overstates his case; Gerhardsson’s own case is overstated, but he does provide more useful evidence than Smith allows. Neusner, “Foreword,” has retracted his earlier severe critique of Gerhardsson, blaming it on Morton Smith’s influence.
164 See Bailey, “Tradition.” Cf. e.g., Xen. Cyrop. 1.2.1 for an example of long informal traditioning by storytelling and song.
165 Bailey, “Tradition”; also noted in Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 326.
166 See Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 79-153; Keener, John, 297-98, 300-3.
167 His most characteristic basis for ethics was union with the risen Christ rather than the sayings tradition (cf. Pfitzner, “School”), so such attestation is more incidental than pervasive.
168 1 Cor 9:14 (see Dungan, Sayings, 3-26, esp. 16-21); 11:2, 23; 15:3; 1 Thess 4:1-2; cf. 1 Cor 7:10-12; 1 Thess 4:15; 2 Thess 2:15; cf. perhaps Rom 6:17 (writers employed terms like “receiving” and “passing on” for both teachings, e.g., Philost. Lives 2.29.621; Iamblichus V.P. 28.148; 32.226; and customs, e.g., Thucyd. 1.85.1; Iamblichus V.P. 28.149). That these were generated by Christian prophecy is extremely unlikely; see our treatment of prophecy in Appendix 4. Many also find Jesus tradition in Rom 12-14 (e.g., Thompson, Clothed; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13), although many of these paranetic themes were more widespread (Gerhardsson, “Path,” 81, argues that paranesis was probably not the dominant reason for preserving the Jesus tradition). 1 Thess 2:14-16 resembles some “Q” material (Donfried, Thessalonica, 203).
169 This includes Jesus’ life (see Wenham, “Story”) and teachings (Taylor, “Quest,” noting that Paul more often gave them in person; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 216-28; see esp. Dungan, Sayings). For the eschatological Jesus tradition, see Appendix 4.
170 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 97. On Jesus’ divorce saying in Paul, see esp. Dungan, Sayings, 83-131.
171 Dunn, New Perspective, 119.
172 Theissen, Gospels in Context, 3-4. Given the differing genres of “lives” and letters, it is not surprising we lack more Jesus traditions in the letters (see Stuhlmacher, “Theme,” 16-19; Gerhardsson, “Path”).
173 Dungan, Sayings, 150. While we should definitely reckon with Diaspora aspects of Paul’s presentation (with Meeks, Malherbe, and others, including myself in Keener, Corinthians), this should not be played off against Palestinian features in Paul (e.g., Davies, Sanders) or hellenistic features in the finished Gospels.
174 Pace Koester, Gospels; idem, “Gospels.” Oral traditions of Jesus’ sayings continued to circulate even after the written Gospels were in existence, however; see Jn 21:25; Papias’ collection; Hengel, “Problems,” 213; Hagner, “Sayings.”
175 With Davids, “Tradition,” 89-90. Citing Byrskog, Bauckham, and Hengel, Riesner, “Rückkehr,” notes the welcome shift back toward an emphasis on eyewitnesses in Gospels scholarship.
176 See e.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 11 (“almost indisputable”), 98-101 (esp. refutation of Vielhauer in 99-100); Meier, “Circle of Twelve”; Ehrman, Prophet, 186-87; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 137; Neufeld, Recovering Jesus, 152-53. On Peter as a witness, see Byrskog, Story as History, 71- 73.
177 Cf. Ex 24:13; 33:11; Josh 1:1; 1 Kgs 19:16-21; CD 8.20-21; Mek. Pisha 1.150-53; Tg. Jon. on 1 Sam 19:23; 2 Kgs 6:1; 9:1, 4. Cf. Wilkins, Discipleship, 43-91.
178 Jos. Life 11-12.
179 The focus of “apostolic” witness in Acts is the resurrection, but Acts 1:21-22 indicates that intimate familiarity with Jesus’ public ministry was also important.
180 Historians normally did seek to consult with families of relevant individuals (see the sources in Byrskog, Story as History, 82-83), so consulting with James (Byrskog, Story as History, 86- 88) and even Mary (Byrskog, Story as History, 89-90), if she remained alive, is plausible.
181 For the women, especially Mary Magdalene, see also Byrskog, Story as History, 73-81.
182 Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 286-91. This emphasis persisted later; see e.g., Papias in Euseb. H.E. 3.39.3-4 (Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses and Traditions”); much later, Bede, Acts, p. 5, preface to Acts.
183 Bauckham, “Eyewitnesses and Traditions.” While I deeply appreciate most of Bauckham’s work, however, I believe that he may go too far behind our data in identifying particular names with particular traditions (cf. also Tuckett, “Review”; Keener, “Review of Bauckham,” 132).
184 See my more extensive discussion in Keener, John, 81-139 (where I argue for his eyewitness identity). For an eyewitness tradition or source of some sort, see (among many others who could be named) Kysar, John, 12; Borchert, John, 89-90; O’Day, “John,” 500; Smith, John (1999), 400; Witherington, Wisdom, 15-17; Braun, Jean, 301-30; Hengel, Question; Muñoz Léon, “Discípulo”; idem, “Juan”; Carson, Moo, and Morris, Introduction, 138-51; Bauckham, Testimony, 33-91. See the thorough list of scholarly positions in Charlesworth, Disciple, 197-211.
185 Stein, “Criteria,” 225-28; Wright, People of God, 421; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60-61. They also avoided harmonizing their portrayal of early Christianity. As Wright, People of God, 454, notes, after recounting Luke’s recital of Ananias and Sapphira, church divisions, and the separation of Paul and Barnabas, the mythical claim to early Christian uniformity was the invention of Eusebius, not of first-century Christians still close to the events.
186 Gundry, Old Testament, 191; cf. Pfitzner, “School”; Thompson, Clothed; Richardson and Gooch, “Logia,” 52.
187 See Theissen, Gospels in Context, 25-59.
188 Davids, “Tradition,” 89-90; France, Evidence, 100-1; cf. Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 22; pace Koester, Gospels; idem, “Gospels.” Ancients also regarded eyewitnesses as generally more reliable (e.g., Jos. Life 357; War 1.2-3; Apion 1.46-49; Arrian Alex. 6.11.8; Indica 15.7; Corn. Nep. 23 [Hannibal], 13.3; 25 [Atticus], 13.7; 17.1), especially if they knew both sides of the story (Jos. Apion 1.49, 56).
189 Gundry, Old Testament, 191, also emphasizing the lack of “Pauline terminology in the gospels” and Paul distinguishing his teaching from Jesus’.
190 E.g., Hill, Prophecy, 163, 172; cf. P. Oxy. 1 in Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, 106-11.
191 Cf. Stein, “Criteria,” 225-228; Goetz and Blomberg, “Burden of Proof”; Bartnicki, “Zapowiedzi”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 364-76 (cf. esp. 368 for this issue among historians generally).
192 Cf. Acts of Paul 3:1/Thecla 1.
193 Pace Beare, “Sayings,” 181; Bultmann, Tradition, 163; Boring, “Oracles,” 501-2; Boring, Sayings; Miller, “Prophets”; Price, Son of Man, 29. Boring, Sayings, 77 thinks that prophets contributed to the Jesus tradition because they valued it; yet the opposite is far more likely: they valued it enough to retain it as a distinct standard for evaluating prophecies. Boring, Sayings, 110 may be less far afield when he contends that early Christian prophets often adapted rather than simply created Jesus material (cf. Hill, Prophecy, 163); but lack of adequate formal criteria undercut his attempts to argue that Christian prophets transmitted and adapted Jesus material. As he himself concedes, some prophetic material must stem from Jesus the prophet (Boring, Sayings, 138-39).
194 See Aune, Prophecy; Hill, Prophecy; Bauckham, “Parables”; Dunn, “Prophetic Sayings”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 298-305. Some suggest that it occurred occasionally but rarely (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 110-11, for divine “I” sayings, in Matt 23:34/Lk 11:49; Matt 18:20; and often in John; Sanders, Figure, 62-63). The position in Sanders, Figure, 62-63 sounds more conservative than the language in Sanders, Tendencies, 27-28.
195 Cf. e.g., Hill, Prophecy, 160-170; Aune, Prophecy, 243-44; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 97. The prejudice against anonymous oracles might also count against the prophetic generation of Synoptic Jesus material, as does the relative scarceness of material attributed to Jesus outside the Gospels (Stanton, Gospels, 159). Given his prophetic activity, could not Jesus himself be responsible for genuinely prophetic material in the tradition (cf. Hill, Prophecy, 180-81)?
196 See e.g., Witherington, Christology, 3-7.
197 Witherington, Christology, 181. For arguments for the likelihood that Jesus, like most teachers, would have sent his disciples to carry on some of his work before his death, see Keener, Matthew, 312-13.
198 Price, Son of Man, 29; for this present distortion among many of Kimbangu’s followers, see Kalu, African Pentecostalism, 70, 78-79. Price regards Gerhardsson’s rabbinic analogy (which most do regard as too rigid) as anachronistic (Price, Son of Man, 28); yet it is less anachronistic than a speculative reconstruction stemming from solely modern premises would be. I use the Kimbangu analogy for other purposes in my book on miracle claims, but for reasons we have noted, it falters as an analogy for passing on first-century tradition.
199 Indeed, many of Kimbangu’s “closest disciples were also arrested” (Gray, “Christianity,” 158). This repression of Kimbangu is among the disgraceful acts of the colonial administration.
200 Kimbangu’s church was divided theologically, and especially after the death of his son Joseph Diangienda in 1992 (about 40 years after his own death; Gondola, “Kimbangu,” 767). Contrast the view of Jesus already in Paul’s letters spanning roughly 20-30 years after Jesus’ death (see ch. 19).
201 Price, Son of Man, 28.
202 From different perspectives, see e.g., Duling and Perrin, New Testament, 16-20; Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction, 21-25.
203 I deal with these more fully in Keener, John, 65-68.
204 See Wright, People of God, 342.
205 E.g., Bultmann, Tradition. Most of Bultmann’s “laws” of tradition were adequately refuted by Sanders, Tendencies.
206 E.g., Dibelius, Tradition; Jeremias, Theology; Taylor, Formation.
207 See Sanders, Tendencies; on critics discovering differing results from the same criteria, cf. also e.g., Van Oyen, “Criteria.”
208 The criteria of multiple attestation and embarrassment, respectively. The latter seems more widely used today than earlier, although it overlaps with the positive use of the criterion of dissimilarity.
209 See France, “Authenticity”; and discussion below.
210 So Wright, People of God, 341-42.
211 Dunn, New Perspective, 35-42.
212 Frye, “Analogies in Literatures,” 287.
213 E.g., Hill, Matthew, 58; more forcefully, Theissen, Gospels in Context, 5; at length, Porter, Criteria, though not all of his new criteria seem helpful, either.
214 Ael. Arist. Defense of Oratory 78, §25D.
215 Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 134; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 33-34. For some questions about the application of this criterion, see e.g., Eve, “Meier and Miracle.”
216 Arrian Alex. 7.14.4-6.
217 E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 236-37; Johnson, Real Jesus, 130; Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 35. In a different culture, compare Confucius Analects 168 (16.4) with 387 (7.28); even the most unified documents deconstruct (see comments in Keener, John, 38-39, 901 n. 19).
218 Lutz, “Musonius,” 12-13.
219 See this complaint in Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 115 (who also note that this criterion “underestimates” potential development in Jesus’ thought); Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133.
220 On the latter point, see Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 34-35; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 136; cf. Tan, Zion Traditions, 237. For the value of a cohesive story, see Hays, “Victory,” 158. Witherington, “Wright quest,” praises Wright for reading Jesus in light of the passion narrative.
221 Cf. also Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth, xxi-xxii.
222 Sanders, “Know,” 60 n. 12; Levine, “Introduction,” 10-11.
223 Sanders, “Know,” 51-53, calling it the criterion of “against the grain”; Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 408-12.
224 See e.g., Borg, Conflict, 20-23; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 16, 145; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:173; Brown, Death, 19; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 143; Young, Theologian, 257; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 115; Ehrman, Prophet, 92 (cautiously); Levine, “Introduction,” 10-11; Holmén, “Doubts about Dissimilarity”; idem, Covenant Thinking, 20-31 (esp. 29-30); Kazen, “Imagery,” 87; Broadhead, “Priests,” 125; Dunn, New Perspective, 58; Bird, “Quest”; cf. Mealand, “Dissimilarity Test”; Mack, Lost Gospel, 193.
225 I noted it in Keener, Matthew, 29-30.
226 Sanders, “Know,” 60 n. 12. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 115, denounce this emphasis on uniqueness as “dogmatics disguised.”
227 See Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 11 (noting that virtually all Third Questers mistrust the dissimilarity criterion).
228 Dunn, New Perspective, 59-60.
229 Dunn, New Perspective, 57-78 (on 68 citing this advice from Keck, Future, 33).
230 Stein, Messiah, 48.
231 Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133.
232 With e.g., Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, 116; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 133. Ancient historians could also test a report’s probability according to coherency with known customs of the report’s day (e.g., Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 9.22.1-5).
233 See Holmén, “Introduction” (esp. 1-13), allowing for some discontinuity as well as continuity (2). See likewise Neufeld, Recovering Jesus, 46; McKnight, Death, 44.
234 Holmén, “Introduction,” 4, 8.
235 Holmén, “Introduction,” 9. Some seek to explore Jesus’ impact on his followers (e.g., Piovanelli, “Charismatic Authority”).
236 Holmén, “Introduction,” 2; this is more helpful in explaining his ultimate rejection (Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 34-35; Tuckett, “Sources and methods,” 136). Many note both continuity and discontinuity (e.g., Schlosser, “Jésus de Nazareth”).
237 Holmén, Covenant Thinking, 35.
238 See Keener, John, 283-310; especially Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ; Marshall, Origins.
239 Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 22.
240 I do argue that Matthew re-Judaized tradition for a Jewish audience, but he could do so (and had a Jewish audience) precisely because Jesus was known to be a Palestinian Jew, and Jewish believers in Syria had maintained many of the early traditions. Conservative Syrian Jews would have hardly welcomed and appropriated an obviously non-Jewish tradition that needed to be re-Judaized.
241 Overman, “Deciphering,” 194.
242 Aramaisms could also indicate a rural Syrian milieu, but the first churches (and extant Christian authors) in Syria were mostly urban, and in urban centers (including, from an early period, the Jerusalem church) the one language nearly all members could share was Greek. Aramaisms thus suggest the Galilean tradition or on other occasions the bilingual milieu of the earliest eastern churches; both explanations point to tradition earlier than our extant Greek Gospels. In a later document like Thomas, they could point to indigenous Syriac Christianity, by then no longer restricted mostly to bilingual and Greek-speaking urban centers.
243 Witherington, Christology, 11; cf. Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 6.
244 Young, Parables, 180.
245 Witherington, Christology, 16-17; Riesner, “Ursprung,” 507. Some forms of Greek and Roman rhetoric also employed rhythm (Cicero Orator 23.77; 50.168-69.231), but obviously not in Aramaic.
246 See Black, Aramaic Approach, and others. Thus, e.g., some suggest a connection between “salt” and “manure” in Lk 14:34-35, citing Aramaic tabbala (seasoning) and zabbala (manure; Manson, Sayings, 132); or between “perfect” in Matt 5:48 and “merciful” in the parallel text in Lk 6:36 (Robinson, Trust, 32); in beatitudes, Jeremias, Sermon, 15-16.
247 Cf. e.g., step parallelism in Matt 7:7-11//Lk 11:9-13 (Bailey, Poet, 48; cf. Manson, Sayings, 32; Jeremias, Theology, 25; Tannehill, Sword, 46-47). Black also suggests that some of the comparable beatitudes are parallel lines from others (Aramaic Approach, 156-58, 192).
248 See Horsley, Galilee, 247-49; cf. Millard, Reading and Writing, 85-102 (esp. 91-102).
249 E.g., Mussies, “Vehicle”; Van der Horst, “Funerary Inscriptions”; Millard, Reading and Writing, 102-17; cf. p. Sot. 7:1, §4.
250 Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 3; on Greek-speakers in Jerusalem, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 54-62. Because most of Jesus’ teachings in the Synoptics appear to have been delivered to Galilean villagers, they probably reflect Aramaic, but because he also taught in urban Jerusalem, the scholars who suggest that he sometimes taught in Greek (Porter, “Teach”; idem, “Greek in Galilee,” 154; cf. Argyle, “Semitism”; pace Draper, “Greek”) may also be correct. For discussion of Jesus’ language through Dalman, see Schweitzer, Quest, 270-78.
251 Witness especially Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Dan 2:4-7:28; 2 Macc 15:36; also the Elephantine papyri in Egypt.
252 Segert, “Review” (1972), 274, doubted that the Aramaic materials originated with the sectarians themselves, but if we grant that they authored many of the documents found at Qumran (a point of some debate today), there is no reason to distinguish sectarian documents by language. At least a substantial portion, probably the majority, of 1 Enoch was composed in Aramaic (Rost, Judaism, 139; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and Research, 98), though this need not have originated at Qumran.
253 Bruce, Acts: Greek, 399, even suggests that Josephus’ first draft of the War addressed Babylonian Jews in Aramaic. If so, that draft was quite different in substance from the Hellenized audience the current form presupposes; Josephus may think just of style editors to catch Aramaic interference in his Greek unacceptable by purist standards in Greece and Rome.
254 Wilcox, “Influence,” 1094. We cannot be sure how far the extant written form may be from what was spoken (Wise, “Palestinian Aramaic,” 237).
255 Levine, Hellenism, 80-84; Millard, Reading and Writing, 85-102 (esp. 91-102).
256 Wilcox, “Influence,” 1094-98, especially 1095.
257 Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:267-68; Deissmann, Light, 64; Black, “Language,” 305; Jeremias, Theology, 4; Segert, “Languages.”
258 Dibelius, Jesus, 25.
259 See Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:178-80.
260 More adaptation might occur in the “translation” into Greek (although Josephus claims in Apion 1.1 that he “translated” [lit., “wrote in Greek”] his Antiquities from the Hebrew Bible, he clearly exercised stylistic and apologetic freedom where he felt necessary; the degree of “translation” is not quite clear, e.g., Jos. War 1.3; cf. Ant. 1.7; 20.263-64; see Townsend, “Education,” 148; Hata, “Version”).
261 Pace Burkitt, Sources, 20.
262 As Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:255-68, concurs; cf. Argyle, “Greek.” Horsley’s case (Horsley, Documents, 5:5-40) against Nigel Turner’s “Jewish Greek” (Turner, “Second Thoughts,” 46-47; cf. Nock, “Vocabulary,” 138-39; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 35-36) does not dispute the presence of Semitisms or other features of bilingualism, but that a separate dialect is in view (pp. 6, 40). Most bilinguals are less fluent in their second language, which may be the culture’s dominant language (Horsley, Documents 5:23-24).
263 Stanton, Gospel Truth, 139.
264 Jos. Life 11; among later rabbis, cf. e.g., b. Ber. 62a; Kirschner, “Imitatio”; Gerhardsson, Origins, 16-17.
265 E.g., tos. Pisha 2:15-16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. B.M. 2:11, §1; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yeb. 4:11, §8.
266 Jos. Apion 2.171, 173-74, 204. To a lesser degree, cf. the broader Greco-Roman principle of imitation among disciples (Quint. Inst. 1.2.26; Philost. V.A. 5, §21; and sources above) and children (Isoc. Nicocl./Cypr. 57, Or. 3.37; Quint. Inst. 1.1.5; 1.3.1-3; 1 Cor 4:16). For the importance of imitating virtuous fathers or elder brothers in Judaism, see e.g., L.A.B. 20:6; 4 Macc 9:23.
267 Cf. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 223; Robbins, Teacher, 64.
268 See Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 350, 472-508 (e.g., comparing taped interviews of Holocaust survivors on 493-505).
269 Bauckham, Eyewitnesses, 347-51.
270 Disciples could readily adapt both the Jesus tradition and Cynic tradition, both highly critical of the social establishment, to fit this form (cf. Theissen, Gospels in Context, 115; Wright, People of God, 427-35), but this does not imply that chreiai represent a strictly Cynic form or that the stories were composed under Cynic influence. Synoptic pericopes fit both Greco-Roman and Jewish forms (Theissen, Gospels in Context, 120-22, especially p. 120 n. 143; cf. Guenther, “Greek,” though Greek rhetorical forms may have prevailed less in first-century Palestine than he thinks); the specifically Cynic position of Mack, Myth, 179, 186-87, is thus too narrow, as is his attribution of Q to “Cynic-like” circles (Mack, Myth, 69, 84; cf. Downing, “Like Q”; idem, “Actuality”; but also the critique in Overman, “Deciphering,” 193; Tuckett, “Cynic Q”; Witherington, Christology, 184; Blomberg, “Studying Jesus,” 21; Boyd, Sage, 160). On the chreia as a basic narrative unit in the tradition, see further Byrskog, “Chreia.”
271 Cf. Robbins, “Chreia,” 3; Mack and Robbins, Patterns, 196-97. Jewish forms of transmitting tradition often closely resembled broader Greco-Roman patterns.
272 Burridge, Gospels, 203.
273 See e.g., Plut. Agesilaus 21.4-5; Lucian Demonax 12-62 (e.g., 39, 44); Alsup, “Function”; Robbins, “Pronouncement Stories”; Poulos, “Pronouncement Story”; Barrett, “Anecdotes,” 119-26; Aune, Dictionary of Rhetoric, 111, 378-79; the chreia in Stenger, “Apophthegma”; in Jewish contexts, cf. e.g., 1 Kgs 3:16-28; 10:3; tos. A.Z. 6:7; Sanh. 13:5.
274 These seem to have been substantially rarer in strictly Jewish works, perhaps due to the genres commonly involved; cf. VanderKam, “Pronouncement Stories” (nineteen examples, mainly in Test. Job and Ahiqar); Greenspoon, “Pronouncement Story”; and especially Porton, “Pronouncement Story,” who alone deals with the Jewish equivalent of “sage” narratives found in the Greek parallels. Yet Porton may underestimate the value of the rabbinic texts, which cite Scripture as in the Gospel narratives (see Theissen, Gospels in Context, 120 n. 143). These do admittedly become dominant especially in the Amoraic period, however, probably due to the primarily halakic character of Tannaitic texts preserved. In rabbinic controversy-dialogues (e.g., b. R.H. 32b), the rabbis debate pagan interlocutors in general (e.g., b. Bek. 8b; Sanh. 39a; p. Meg. 1:11, §3; 3:2, §3; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:2; 4:7; Num. Rab. 4:9; 9:48; Eccl. Rab. 2.8, §2), pagan philosophers (tos. A.Z. 6:7; b. A.Z. 54b, bar.; Bek. 8b-9a; cf. b. Sanh. 39a), including “Epicureans” (possibly used in its general denigrating sense of those who denied divine providence and judgment; tos. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. Ab. 2:14, expounded in b. Sanh. 38b), Sadducees (b. Erub. 101a), Samaritans (p. Yeb. 1:6, §1), and minim (schismatics) in general (b. Sanh. 38b, 39a, 43a; Hul. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b-57a; Herford, Christianity, 226-27, also lists Eccl. Rab. 30:9, 53cd; b. Hul. 87a; Shab. 152b; Suk. 48b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff.
275 E.g., Gundry, Old Testament, 190.
276 E.g., Witherington, Christology, 28-29; Theissen, Gospels in Context, 60.