Notes to Appendix 3
Notes to Appendix 3
1 Bultmann, Tradition, 369, exaggerated their hellenistic character (though allowing some Palestinian tradition); contrast Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 6. Aune explains Gospel biography by deliberately “oversimplifying” it as exhibiting “Hellenistic form and function with Jewish content” (Environment, 22). Hellenistic narrative techniques were standard in Jewish documents written in Greek (e.g., Cohen, Maccabees, 43).
2 Greek conventions for praising heroes or deities were also sometimes transferred to Jewish heroes; cf. e.g., van der Horst, “Children.”
3 This is not to deny that the latter depend on ultimate Palestinian sources (Hengel, “Problems,” 238-43, for example, supports the ancient tradition of Mark’s dependence on Peter), but to argue that they articulate their Gospels for a more pluralistic milieu.
4 Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 126; Aune, Environment, 37.
5 Hengel, “Problems,” 219-20.
6 The suggestion that ancient Near Eastern models provided the later Greek emphasis on individual characters (cf. Dihle, “Biography,” 366-67) is overstated.
7 Against Bultmann, Tradition, 57. Gerhardsson, Memory, 181-89, comments on narrative in rabbinic tradition, since disciples learned from their teachers’ lives as well as from their words; but as Gundry (“Genre,” 101) points out, this still does not correspond to what we have in the gospels, nor to the enormous tradition which must stand behind them.
8 Neusner, Biography, is skeptical even of the attributed sayings. There is certainly nothing comparable to the early-nineteenth-century collection of tales In Praise of the Baal Shem Tov (available in English in Ben-Amos and Mintz, Baal Shem Tov).
9 Neusner, Legend, 8.
10 Aune, Environment, 41-42.
11 Van Veldhuizen, “Moses,” 215-24.
12 Silver, “Moses” (on Jos. Ant. 2:243-53 and Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27). Runnalls, “Campaign,” suggests that Josephus indirectly challenged Artapanus’ account; but the use of the same tradition demonstrates the inroads that hellenism had made into Moses haggadah (cf. Rajak, “Moses”); Aristobulus (second century BCE) frg. 4 (Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5) possibly divinizes him with the vision of God. Some Jewish writers may adapt Orphean and Heraclean motifs (cf. Philonenko, “Juda”), and some euhemeristically identify pagan figures with biblical ones (e.g., Ps.-Eupolemus in Euseb. P.E. 9.17.9).
13 Feldman, “Abraham,” 150.
14 Feldman, “Jacob.”
15 Aune, Environment, 107.
16 Feldman, “Samson.” Roncace, “Samson,” critiques Feldman’s portrayal of Samson.
17 Feldman, “Saul.”
18 Begg, “Zedekiah,” argues that Josephus portrays him as something of a tragic hero, following Aristotelian conventions.
19 Feldman, “?Aqedah.” Joshua may become a Jewish Pericles (Feldman, “Joshua”). See other citations from Feldman above.
20 E.g., Feldman, “Concubine”; Höffken, “Hiskija.” Naturally, there is some disagreement regarding specifics, e.g., Roncace, “Deborah”; Feldman, “Roncace’s Portraits.”
21 Cohen, Maccabees, 194; cf. in general Attridge, “Historiography,” 326; cf. Eisman, “Dio and Josephus.” Even his apology for his “substandard” Greek fits rhetorical conventions for lowering audience expectations and may be compared with Anacharsis’ reported apology to the Athenians (Anacharsis Ep. 1.1-6). Other hellenistic Jewish historians probably employed similar techniques (cf. Rajak, “Justus of Tiberias,” 92); earlier still, cf. the liberties 1 Esd 1:23-30 takes with 2 Chron 35:20-25 (Kooij, “Death of Josiah”).
22 See e.g., Fisk, “Bible”: Harrington, “Bible.” Harrington, “Bible,” 242-43, does not think these reworkings constitute a distinct genre, since some (like Jubilees and Assumption of Moses) purport to be apocalypses, while others (he gives Chronicles as an example) purport to be straightforward historical narrative.
23 Cf. Jubilees; Life of Adam and Eve; Assumption of Moses; History of Joseph (of uncertain date); L.A.B. (which proceeds through 2 Sam 1); Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; 1-3 Enoch (especially the Book of Noah in 1 Enoch); 1QNoah (related to 1 En. 8:4; 9:4; 106:9-10; see Fitzmyer, Scrolls, 16); 4QAmram; Genesis Apocryphon; cf. Yadin, “Commentaries,” 66-68, 66-67. Some of those from Qumran are probably pre-Qumranian (Milik, “Écrits”).
24 Harrington, “Bible,” 242.
25 On Life of Adam and Eve, cf. Johnson, “Adam,” 252; Ps-Philo’s L.A.B. borrows lines from other passages of Scripture. Goulder, Midrash, 30, is probably right when he argues that midrash is creative, but seemed to the rabbis who engaged in it as if they were deriving all their data from inferences in the text; in many cases, however, antecedent interpretive traditions may be verified from other sources (e.g., postbiblical traditions in Theodotus; cf. Fallon, “Theodotus,” 786). Haggadic traditions were probably more easily remembered than halakic ones (Gerhardson, Memory, 147).
26 On the nature of Jubilees’ revision of Genesis and Exodus, see Vanderkam, “Jubilees.” Hellenistic writers like Hecataeus and Manetho had adapted earlier history to meet the contemporary needs, and it is not surprising that Jewish writers of this period sometimes did the same (Mendels, “History”).
27 Freund, “Deception.”
28
ARN 1 A. What would have been considered explanatory amplification of the words of sages was, however, part of the scribe’s traditional vocation (Meeks, Moral World, 117, on Sir 39:1-2).
29 E.g., Demetrius the Chronographer (third century BCE), frg. 5 (Euseb. P.E. 9.29.16); Jub. 4:1, 9; 12:14; 13:11; 27:1, 4-5 (Esau and Jacob, vs. Isaac and Jacob); p. Ket. 12:4, §8 (fanciful midrash).
30 2 Macc 2:1-8 (expanding Jeremiah’s mission); Jub. 29:14-20 (rhetorically contrasts Jacob’s respect for his parents with Esau’s disrespect); Test. Job 9-15 (see OTP 1:832); Test. Jos. 3:1; cf. Josephus’ expansion of Philistine casualties (Ant. 6.203; cf. 1 Sam 18:27, though the LXX reduced them). Cf. Jael in L.A.B. 31 (Burnette-Bletsch, “Jael”).
31
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:3 (“the rabbis” on Solomon); Gen. Rab. 43:3; Ex. Rab. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 49:5; cf. Artapanus on Pharaoh’s behavior toward Moses in light of 1 Sam 18:17, 21-25 (Euseb. P.E. 9.27.7). Genre conventions also could dictate amplifications; Joseph and Asenath, a Hellenistic romance, incorporates features ideal in such romances.
32
Jub. 11:14-15; 13:18, 22; possibly 4Q160, frg. 3-5, 7; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Gen 50:26; Ps.-Jon. on Ex 13:19.
33 Endres, Interpretation, 214-19.
34 See n. 32 above.
35
Jub. 11:14-15; Liv. Pr. 19 (Joad) (§30 in Schermann’s Greek text); Jos. Ant. 8.231; L.A.B. 40:1 (in L.A.B. in general, cf. Bauckham, “ ‘Midrash,’ ” 67; in Jewish sources more generally, Pilch, “Naming”); cf. Plut. Alex. 20.4-5 (questioning Chares’ report).
36 See Rook, “Names,” on patriarchal wives in Jubilees.
37 See the discussion in Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, li-lii.
38 As L.A.B. does in its polemic against idolatry (Murphy, “Idolatry”).
39
L.A.B. 12:2-3 (Aaron’s sin with the golden calf). Test. Job 39:12-13 (OTP)/39:9-10 (Kraft) and 40:3/4 seems concerned to soften God letting Job’s children die for his test.
40
Jub. 13:17-18 (conflict between Lot’s and Abram’s servants), 14:21-16:22 (omitting Sarah’s problems with Hagar, though they surface in 17:4-14), 29:13 (omits Jacob’s fear); Test. Zeb. 1:5-7 (Zebulon did not act against Joseph). In Jubilees (e.g., Abram passing off his sister as his wife), see Wintermute, “Jubilees,” 35-36; in Josephus, cf. Aune, Environment, 108; in Greco-Roman literature, see Shuler, Genre, 50 (following Cic. Part. or. 22). The same tendency of tradition may be noted in the Chronicler’s omission of David’s and Solomon’s sins reported in Samuel-Kings (cf. e.g., Williamson, Chronicles, 236). On the golden calf in Josephus, see Jos. Ant. 3.79-99 (esp. 95-99; despite War 4.3). Philo and Ps.-Philo omit the command to destroy Canaan’s nations, and Josephus explains it in a manner intelligible to Romans (Feldman, “Command”; for Philo, see also Berthelot, “Conquest”).
41 CD 4.20-5.3 (David’s polygamy, behavior that the Qumran community otherwise disapproved; also 11QT 56.18); Jub. 19:15-16 (Rebekah, in light of current morality); 27:6-7 (how Jacob could leave his father); 28:6-7 (Jacob’s sororal polygyny); 30:2-17 (Simeon and Levi), 41 (Judah and Tamar both made more innocent, especially Judah); 1Qap Genar 20.10-11 (Sarah rather than Abraham proposes the pretense that she is his sister); Jos. Asen. 23 (Levi and Simeon); Test. Jud. 8-12 (whitewashing Judah, and to a lesser extent Tamar, though Judah confesses it as a lesser sin; cf. the improvement of both in Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 38:25; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Gen. 38:25-26); Test. Iss. 3:1 (cf. Gen 49:15); Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Gen. 49:28 (all twelve patriarchs were equally righteous).
42 Cf. the variant forms of some sayings in Ahiqar (OTP 2:482).
43 Anderson, “4 Maccabees,” 555. Here the freedom is probably that of the author of 4 Maccabees, who appears to expand earlier sources, whereas 2 Macc probably stays closer to its sources, since it is an abridgement.
44 Cf. Robinson, Problem, 60.
45 See Theon Progymn. 1.93-171; Hock, “Education,” 202-3; cf. Gerhardsson, Memory, 136-48.
46 Cf. e.g., 4Q422, a homiletic paraphrase of Genesis (Elgvin, “Section”); see further below on rewritings of biblical history. Chilton, “Transmission”; idem, “Development,” suggests that Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to Targumic traditions. For the view that John developed Jesus’ message in a manner analogous to the Targums, which included interpretive amplification but sought fidelity to the meaning, see Taylor, Formation, 116.
47 Dunn, Acts, 117 (though noting the identical core, 121). Explanations vary (e.g., Hedrick, “Paul’s Conversion/Call,” 432; Marshall, Acts, 167; see esp. Tannehill, Acts, 10), but variation on details seems not to have been problematic. Retellings could selectively omit some details (e.g., Char. Chaer. 2.5.10-11).
48 Eddy and Boyd, Legend, 429-30. The exception might be if one needed grounds for polemic against a particular document (as in Apocrit. 2.12-15).
49 For the comparison, see e.g., Wills, “Aesop Tradition,” 225; cf. Keener, “Review of Lincoln” (regarding potential liberties in the Fourth Gospel, not the Synoptics).
50 Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth, 127.
51 Cf. e.g., Canevet, “Remarques” (Moses as commander-in-chief). Like other hellenistic Jewish writers, Philo adjusts biblical accounts where necessary to suit his idealization of virtues; cf. Petit, “Exemplaire.” Philo can nevertheless prove accurate when reporting events surrounding more recent personages (Smallwood, “Historians”).
52 For such reasons, I regard Philo as less comparable than, say, Plutarch’s lives or Josephus’ autobiography, particularly for the Synoptics (John may be closer, but even John does not go anywhere as far as Philo).
53 Even his postbiblical information (e.g., Philo Abr. 71-72; Migr. 177; Mos. 1.20-24) often derives from Alexandrian Jewish tradition rather than pure invention (we have some examples of this information attested elsewhere, including in Acts 7).