Slides: Genre and Historiography
Slide 1
Novel (Pervo), but….
Luke caricatures opponents:
But all polemic (cf. Tacitus vs. Nero, Domitian)
Pervo cites “rowdy mobs”- but also in histories
Can’t use later “acts” (derivative genre)
Ancient novels usually romances (Thecia?)
Novels
Only extremely rarely about historical characters
And never recent ones (vs. history, biography): Jesus, Paul
Novels would not include vast correspondences with history in Acts
Slide 2
Different genres
Fictionalizing in narratives limited to tales, novels- crit’d in hist’s
Lucian, Polybius (vs. Timaeus), slammed those with much error
Historical prologue; sources
Slide 3
Adventures as in novels?
Adventures: but also in histories
E.g. Jos. War or Thucyd (because a war)
Max. Tyre histories “pleasurable” at banquets
Esp. popular historiography
Hist. monographs even had “plots” (cf. Aristotle on plots)
i.e. traits of all ancient lit. narratives
· Those in Acts not unlike 2 Cor 11- if anything, Luke toned them down!
Hero, as in Hellenistic novels
But also biographies!
Useful element: interesting storytelling
Can use similar narrative techniques in historiography, esp. at popular level!
Slide 4
Epic
Bonz: PROSE EPIC
But such a genre did not exist: epics were in poetry
Also normally distant past
Possibly useful element: foundation story
Slide 5
Talbert: Biography
Diog. Laert: philosophic biographies strung together
Parallel lives
Thus: Jesus- Peter- Paul
But: what of Acts 6-8, and even 9-12?
Rather: biographic approach to history
Slide 6
Biography as usually done
History dealt with people’s praxeis: “acts”
Some with biographic, economiastic focus
But still history
Exception: Ps- Callisth, (500 yrs after Alex.)
Sometimes biographic volumes in multivolume history
Slide 7
Historiography
Majority view of scholars today
Dibelious, Cadbury, Plumacher, L.T. Johnson, Hengel
History could get some details wrong, yet still convey historical events (vs. novel, usually all fabricated)
Reasons
Speeches
Preface (except L. Alexander)
Correspondences with known data
Focus on events
Occasional synchronization (Lk 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12)
“Historical novels”: quite rare (Ps.- Call; Xen, Cyr.)
Slide 8
Eduard Meyer
20th century’s most famous historian of Greco- Roman antiquity
Concluded that Luke was a great historian
And that Acts, “in spite of its more restricted content, bears the same character as those of the greatest historians, of a Polybuis, a Livy, and many others”
Slide 9
What Kind of History?
Genealogy? Mythography? Horography (local history/annals)? Chronography (int’l)? History proper
By topic, e.g.:
Institutional?
Political?
Philosophic/biographic?
Ethnographic? (history of a people- e.g., Babyloniaka)
By motive:
Apologetic? (Sterling)
By form:
Monograph (Plumacher, etc) (like Sallust’s works)
Slide 10
Form: monograph
Popular level (with Pervo)
But not Kleinliteratur vs. Volkliteratur
Focus on intriguing narrative, but not the less history
E.g., today: The Hiding Place; The Cross and the Switchblade; Inside Love
Slide 11
Apologetic ethnographic history
Greeks caricatured others
Hence Manetho; others
Josephus Ant:
Israel has ancient history
Judaism as religio licita? No
Precedents of toleration
Acts:
Church has ancient history (heritage)
Precedents: Pilate; Sergius Paulus; Galio; Festus
Slide 12
Rhetorical Sophistication in some
Demanded by elites (looked down on NT)
Allowed adjustments of detail for cohesiveness
Emphasizes vividness
Though Luke lacks ekphrasis
Luke’s level:
-fairly popular, but on higher literary level than Mark
- literate, but not as sophisticated as Paul
- Not elite, but nowhere near to papyri
Speeches (see below)
Slide 13
Rhetoric in History
Narrative cohesiveness of Luke-Acts
A whole story
Goulder, Talbert, Tannehill
Patterns
Historians believed Providence created these patterns (Dion, Hal., Appian)
Parallel lives:
. Plutarch looked for existing parallels
. did not obliterate differences
Slide 14
Epideictic: assigning praise and blame
Some (despite Polybius): sensationalism (esp. pathos)
Elite hisorians
Elaborations of scenes (not in Luke-Acts)
E.g.; Josephus
Necessary for book to sell!
Popular historiography: good storytelling
Slide 15
Biases/Tendenz of Ancient Historians
Modern ones, too (as noted by postmodernists)
Cf. contrasting bios on Lincoln or Churchill
Also explicit foci: church history, political history, women’s history, etc.
But more overt in antiquity
-sometimes explicit narrative asides
- Nationalistic biases (Plutarch vs Hdt)
- Moral lessons (“responsible” historians)
- Selection of facts for purpose not fabricating them
Slide 16
Theological perspectives
Historians looked for divine hand:
Looked for patterns in history (hence parallels)
Divine providence (Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Josephus)
Jewish writers updating biblical history
. Jubilees
Slide 17
Accuracy? Varied by historian
Tacitus, Thucydides, Polybius, more than Herodotus, Strabo or Plutarch
Josephus:
. Unreliable on population estimates and distances- but didn’t measure
. Reliable on most architectural data and events
Historians:
Wide degree of latitude on details
Had to get bulk of story right (in so far as sources accurate)
. used criterion of coherence of historical setting
. preferred writers closer in time to events
. especially eyewitnesses
Slide 18
Objectivity the goal
Thus scholars debate which way Sallust leaned
Chronology not always available
Used in Polybius, Thucydides, Tacitus (military)
Not available for oral sources
Use of sources:
. rarely omniscient narrators
. usually citied varying sources
e.g. 7 on one side, 4 on the other
exceptions: if events are recent, or popular level
. eyewitnesses preferred
Meticulously careful with his sources in the Gospel (Luke 1:1-4)
Slide 19
My observation
Ancient historians covering the same period retold the same events
But they often filled in detailed scenes where they lacked access to information
Substance had to be correct
But they rounded out scenes for good storytelling
Slide 20
2 Dangers
Assuming that ancient historiography = modern historiography
-Thus judging it by modern rules
-Ultraconservatives and some skeptics (e.g. Acts 5: 37-38)
-Accuracy in substance, events, not all fleshed-out details (e.g., conversations)
Assuming that ancient historiography had “nothing to do” with historical information
- This is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Slide 21
Novels and history WERE distinct genres in antiquity!
Lucian
- Good biographers avoid flattery that falsifies events (Hist.12)
- Only bad historians invent data (24-25)
Pliny the Younger
- What is distinctive about history is its concern for accurate facts
Polybius
- Unlike encomium, history must assign praise and blame according to one’s actions
Slide 22
More on Pliny:
- History’s primary goal: truth and accuracy, not rhetorical display (Ep.7.17.3)
- Rhetoric was acceptable provided one’s basis was facts (8.4.1)
Aristotle:
- Difference between “poetry” and “history”
. Not their form (one could write history in verse)
. But their content: history must deal with what happened, not just with what might happen
Slide 23
Critical Historiography
Contrary to modern ethnocentric bias
Ancients did practice critical historiography
- (much modern practice from Polybius vs Timaeus)
Questioned sources
- Examined writers’ biases
- Tested consistency with geography, ruins, internal consistency, etc.
Preferred particular sources
- Preferred the earliest sources, nearest the events
- Preferred eyewitnesses
- Preferred those least apt to be biased
- Compared multiple sources
Slide 24
Even Josephus
He rewrites biblical narratives
- Sometimes he creates new speeches for these narratives
- He elaborates rhetorically
- Omits Golden Calf (apologetic)
Yet he retains the basic substance of the biblical stories
His own period: archeology confirms in great detail
Slides 25
Most Importantly:
Historians on ancient events
-admitted much of ancient past shrouded in fiction
Historians on recent events
- Valued eyewitness testimony
- Gathered oral reports (cf. Lk 1:1-4)
- Must be reliable on events
Slides 26
Is Acts entertaining? Yes
But historians sought to write in entertaining ways
The difference between novels and histories:
- Not that only one sought to entertain
- But that only one also sought to inform
- Ancients believed one could use truth to teach moral lessons and to entertain as well.
Slide 27
Testing Luke’s own case
Luke’s method?
- Available to us in his preface
- Available by comparing Mark
Slide 28
Preface
Preface should announce what is to follow
Luke’s promised content
- Lk 1:1,3: “an orderly narrative of the things fulfilled among us”
- Lk 1:4: to confirm what Theophilus had learned about such events
Slide 29
Luke 1: 1-4 tells us much about sources available to Luke.
1. Written sources (1:1)
2. Oral sources (from eyewitnesses) (1:2)
3. Luke confirmed this with his own investigations (1:3)
4. Luke couldn’t “fudge,” since the material was already widely known in the early church (1: 4)