James Still's "Critique of New Testament Reliability and 'Bias' in NT Development"--my initial response.


Section Three: My Comments 17-20


James Still continues...


Christian Trajectories

Almost from the beginning this "Jesus movement" was split among many different communities who each had their own ideas about who Jesus was and what his teachings meant to them. Over time a kerygma emerged, a message "which is proclaimed" (the literal translation of kerygma from the Greek). But it wasn't always clear what this proclamation was in the decades immediately following Jesus' death since each community enjoyed the freedom to interpret their stories about Jesus for themselves.

Comment 17

Let me interject here my radical disagreement with this position. There is almost NO NT data to support such a radical-diversity claim as this. One MUST ASSUME this first, and THEN 'arrange' the pieces of the NT along the pre-conceived lines arbitrarily constructed!

[We will get to the Bauer-guy (and his followers) in a moment, but let me give an example of how more modern research has pointed out the rather obvious 'reading back into the NT' of his reconstruction of post-NT heretical movements: "In the proposals of Koester and Robinson concerning Q and its genre, the trajectory-critical approach has a retrojectory character. It is fair to say that the approach as a whole is under the spell of Bauer's view of orthodoxy and heresy, retrojecting his picture of early Christianity after the New Testament into the New Testament era, indeed to traditions behind the New Testament documents themselves. Needless to say, that is a questionable method." (RNC:17)]

To see how 'diverse' the original communities were, we will need to look at the evidence from (1) the NT and (2) the post-NT documents of the early church (and related evidence.)

The data in the NT--with all of its ACTUAL diversity manifest--STILL manifests a uniformity and apostolic 'control' that would NOT generate such a scenario as imagined above. Consider the actual data:

  1. Every major Palestinian/Samaritan community of the 1st 30 years was founded by someone in the original circle of disciples or deacons. There is no evidence AT ALL in the NT of substantial theological disagreement between these individuals.

  2. Every OTHER major church was founded by Paul, who EXPLICITLY affirms his agreement with the other leaders:


  3. Every scrap of data we have in the NT indicates the controlling influence of the Jerusalem church, and of the Gentile mission's cooperation with its direction (Acts 15)!

  4. Even the 'evidence' that is often advanced for these 'discontinuities' is superficial:

  5. RECENT, MAINSTREAM scholarship has 'returned' to the notion of the underlying unity of the kerygma (while still allowing for diversity, though).

    For example, Lemcio [LPJG: 118ff] is representative of those who have begun to delineate the structure of the unifying (and NORMATIVE!) kerygma of the early church. He lists:

    1. God who
    2. sent (gospels) or raised
    3. Jesus
    4. A response (receiving, repentance, faith)
    5. towards God
    6. brings benefits (variously described)

    After looking at the various traditions in the NT, in light of the above structure, Lemcio concludes:

    These data demonstrate that, amid the unquestionable pluralism of the NT, there lies a unifying, kerygmatic center. It is formal and specific, rather that abstract and general, internal and native, rather than external and artificial. Among the several trajectories along which development of thought can be discerned, there remains a complementary stability. (italics HIS).
    But when we looks for this early kerygma in later, non-canonical writings, he reaches these conclusions:
    That the pattern identified in the NT continues to appear well into the second century is clear. But it is also obvious, judging by its infrequency, that there is a tapering off. Of course, the basic themes continue to be repeated in fragmentary form and elaborated upon. Yet they are not as concentrated in expression. Thus, it seems that the phenomenon of a well-defined, circumscribed outline of Christians' fundamental story belongs primarily to the NT.

    For another example, Hultgren [RNC:53]

    But there are some commonalties, and the beginnings of a normative tradition in the pre-70 era can be discerned. All three areas investigated [the churches of Palestine, the Q community, and the churches of Paul], for example, continue the Jewish heritage of belief in the God of Israel as Creator, the Father of Jesus, and the Father of humanity. All affirm the essential humanity of Jesus, on the one hand, and his role in redemption made possible by his crucifixion and exaltation/resurrection by God. All understand that a new era has been inaugurated in consequence of the cross and resurrection, attested by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. And in each case the believers constitute communities of faith that are marked by an ethos in which the individual gives himself or herself over to others in love and service, which is inspired by and modeled on Jesus' own giving himself over...Although these matters may seem, because of their familiarity, theological and ethical commonplaces, they ought rather to be considered remarkable achievements of communities of faith and life in their infancy. They are marks of a normative tradition that resonates elsewhere in the writings of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.

    So also, Martin Hengel (in New Testament Studies 40/3, 1944) rejects the "widespread opinion today" that the early church was filled with a 'multitude of contradictory messages." He affirms that there was indeed "an original unity of the church given through the Christ-event".

    [This type of argument/conclusion--working with REAL data--can be advanced from many RECENT mainstream (and often non-conservative) NT scholars today: D.A. Carson, Dunn, Farmer, Marshall, McGucken, Osborn, N.T. Wright, et. al.--see biblio in CSSG:331].]


  6. Even the entire notion of 'trajectory' is being called into question by modern scholars. Compare the words of T. Robinson (HI:BTEX:139-140):
    The golden calf of the last few years has been the use of the concept of trajectory as a means for filling in significant gaps within the history of primitive Christianity...But the problem with this paradigm is that it may misrepresent the way ideas develop or decay. The human dimension complicates the paradigm.
    He then goes on to give an example from the Reformation where that paradigm would specifically mislead a historical researcher.

    And E.P. Sanders (one of the pre-eminent modern scholars of the 1st century period) devoted a special section of his book "Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A comparison of patterns of religion" (Fortress: 1977) to criticism of this concept. One of his more basic objections is that it can be misleading (p. 23):

    A lot of things do not move in trajectories...and the trajectory paradigm may mislead one into attempting to impose sequential development where none exists.

  7. Another major issue surfaces in Jim's phrase "the freedom to interpret their stories about Jesus for themselves". The original Christian message was characterized as a 'tradition handed down'--NOT as 'stories to be interpreted'.

    Take, for example, Paul's account of the resurrection in I Cor 15. Blomberg (BLOM:108) illustrates the lack-of-freedom Paul had in the transmission process:

    Almost no one doubts that Paul wrote this letter or that he was telling the truth when he 'delivered' to the Corinthians the list of witnesses of the resurrection in verses 3-7 as one which he had 'received' from Christians who preceded him. The Greek words for 'deliver' ("paradidomi") and 'receive' ("paralambanomai") in this context are often used as fairly technical terms for the transmission of tradition. Almost certainly such information would have been related to Paul by the disciples in Damascus (c. ad 33) or in Jerusalem during his first visit there after becoming a Christian (c. ad 35).

    And Bock (JUF:80) echoes the 'transmission mentality' of the early Jewish-Christian church:

    The New Testament shares this approach to the important of what Jesus taught and how it was transmitted. I have already noted how Luke affirmed that the tradition he received had roots in those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1.1-4). When Paul writes about the gospel message or the tradition of the Last Supper that he passed on to the Corinthian church, he uses the language of tradition carefully passed on: "I preached to you [the gospel] which you received (I Cor 15.1), and, "I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you" (11.23). The terms "received" and "passed on" are technical terms for hearing and passing on tradition. In fact, Paul's version of this event reads virtually the same as how Luke recorded the event (Luke 22.14-23), showing that the church "passed on" events in much the way Judaism did.

    This is not your normal 'telephone game' or rumor-mill.

    The 'stories about Jesus' were general pre-interpreted by either Jesus Himself or by the Old Testament. Differing perspectives on the meaning of Christ's death, varied from Paul's emphasis on sacrifice to Hebrew's emphasis on the Priestly work of Christ to John's theme of 'lifting up'--ALL OF WHICH are extensions/completions of a pre-existing strand of OT prediction! The theological variety and richness of the NT is almost totally derived from the pre-existing variety and richness in the OT writings! It was not a 'freedom to interpret stories'--they were ALREADY interpreted by the theological context in 1st century Judaism!

    EVERY indication we have from the NT documents (and the early church, but we will look at some of that later) indicates that the earliest communities (1) 'received' interpretive tradition/teaching from someone inside the circle of Jesus' disciples; that (2) these churches were often 'authenticated' by apostolic visits (cf. Acts 8, esp. vs 14: When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. ); that (3) church leadership often convened to 'check themselves' against the others (cf. Acts 10-11, Acts 15, Gal 2); and that the shared material between the synoptic gospels ITSELF testifies to fact that the gospel authors did not vary the tradition much.

    It is simply false to maintain the position that the communities operated in either relative isolation, ignorance, or independence from the formative leadership of the early church.


Bauer [1934] first realized that this diversity existed throughout the early communities and regions of the Jesus movement. Bauer, (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, ed. G. Strecker, R. A. Kraft, and G. Krodel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971; German original, Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1934; 2nd ed., 1934). Koester developed Bauer's work three decades later, calling this diversity Gnomai Diaphoroi. Today, scholars refer to the diversity of those early Jesus movements simply as "Christian trajectories." (Ron Cameron, The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins, in The Future of Early Christianity, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991) p. 381-392.) Fredriksen [1988] describes these communities and how their diversity played an important role in formulating the kerygma:

"[Early Christians] grouped together, preserving some of Jesus' teachings and some stories about him, which became part of the substance of their preaching as they continued his mission to prepare Israel for the coming of the Kingdom of God. At the same time or very shortly thereafter, these oral teachings began to circulate in Greek as well as in Jesus' native Aramaic. Eventually, some of Jesus' sayings, now in Greek, were collected and written down in a document, now lost, which scholars designate Q (from the German Quelle, "source"). Meanwhile, other oral traditions--miracle stories, parables, legends, and so on--grew, circulated, and were collected in different forms by various Christian communities. In the period around the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) an anonymous Gentile Christian wrote some of these down. This person was not an author--he did not compose de novo. Nor was he a historian--he did not deal directly and critically with his evidence. The writer was an evangelist, a sort of creative editor. He organized these stories into a sequence and shaped his inherited material into something resembling a historical narrative. The result was the Gospel of Mark." (Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1988) p. 3-4. )

Comment 18

Strictly speaking the approaches of Bauer, Koester, and company are NOT required by Fredriksen's statement. In her quote, there is no particular mention of 'diversity' whatsoever. So, I would like to deal which those two issues separately.

First of all, the Bauer/Koester hypothesis. In a nutshell, this view of the early church was that "heresy" appeared both EARLY and STRONG, and in many cases, PRE-dated "orthodoxy". I have already dealt in detail with this issue in my comment #14, showing heresy to be neither EARLY nor STRONG.

Let me make an aside here. It has always troubled me (with a science background) how so much of what is called 'biblical scholarship' is so uncritical of itself. In science, we are ALWAYS questioning the position we held YESTERDAY--asking if there is new data, or better ways to interpret the old data. But in such much of 'modern scholarship' in the NT/OT arena, they don't give up positions for scores and scores of years!

In the OT, this is pre-eminently illustrated by the birth of the Graf-Wellhausen/Documentary theories--which EVEN IN THAT DAY major contrary data existed but was simply 'ignored' by the zealous founders! (RKH:33-82; HI:AOOT:17-38, chapter 6). It eventually 'catches up' (e.g. the 'control data' on much of OT literary theory NOW comes from comparison with actual ANE materials--NOT from comparison to Hegelian systems or cultural evolutionary theories!!!).

In the case of Bauer's thesis, we are faced with a similar situation. His hypothesis of 60 years ago IGNORED key elements of the data (HI:BTEX:129-161), and considerable data has come to light (in both literary and archeological arenas) documenting the "early and strong" appearance of orthodoxy (e.g. RNC:47ff; HI:BTEX:35-91). His position is called 'overly simplified' by even the editors of his 2nd edition (!), and yet his hypothesis is often assumed uncritically (by many more than just James Still!).

To illustrate how sometimes it is only the CRITICAL scholar that will 'step into the new world', let me cite the very non-traditional Robin Lane Fox, in his acclaimed Pagans and Christians (PAC:276):

In the West, in short, early Christianity has lost its history, but there is one general point on which we can be more confident. An older view that heretical types of Christianity arrived in many places before the orthodox faith has nothing in its favor, except perhaps in the one Syrian city of Edessa. In Lyons and North Africa, there is no evidence of this first heretical phase and the likelier origins are all against it. In Egypt, the argument has been decisively refuted from the evidence of the papyri. Details of practice and leadership did differ widely, but the later existence of so many heresies must not obscure the common core of history and basic teaching throughout the Christian world.
Notice that his view has assimilated the new archeological data (that tends to subdue rampant speculation) and that the author has gone 'beyond' Bauer, labeling it 'an older view'. Would that more contemporary scholars would review periodically the assumptions of their 'school' for current validity!

Now, I am not suggesting that we 're-invent the wheel' each generation, but rather that as hard data and/or control data surfaces that we re-examine our assumptions and abandon (without partiality) 'older views' that have proven to be mistaken.

Now, about Fredriksen's quote...

There are a few observations I would like to make about it.

In no way can this be taken to represent a 'consensus' of modern scholarship.

Virtually EVERY statement in this brief passage has come under scholarly attack within the last 20 years, and those statements that have NOT have been shown to support opposite conclusions from Still's.

Consider:

The above points were summary statements, simply to demonstrate the Fredrikson's statement--quoted approvingly by Stills--does NOT represent a consensus view, and indeed, represents a view that is increasingly being abandoned, as more historical and literary data is becoming available.

.............................................................................................................................

This gospel, written around 70 CE, was the Original Mark. Original Mark was much shorter than Canonical Mark, the Mark which is in the Bible today. It did not contain Canonical Mark's 6:45-8:26 verses or the resurrection appendix of 16:9-20. Those passages were interpolated (or inserted) after 70 CE, but sometime prior to canonization in the fourth century. What may have happened was that a dominant community took the gospel and incorporated their own oral traditions into it, with the result being passages 6:45 through 8:26. This provided them with a complete codified form of their own values along with the authority of the written gospel, all in one book. In the earliest versions of Mark and Q, Jesus' resurrection account was not yet included. At some point in the second century however verses 16:9-20, the resurrection account, was included in order to harmonize it with the other gospels.

Comment 19


This section is a great example of "tragic speculation!" that runs COUNTER to all available evidence we have! Consider the details (often ignored by Stills):

My point in this comment is merely to demonstrate (again) that the reconstructions of Stills in regard to the production of the gospel literature is (1) speculative and (2) contrary to the 'hard' data we have. A closer attention to the historical context, the manuscript evidence, and the literary data would have perhaps helped James be more critical of some of the speculation of the sources he is apparently dependent on.


..........................................................................................................................

This editorializing was common and acceptable practice in the ancient world.[Footnote: It is sometimes difficult for us moderns to remember that attention to fact and accuracy is a relatively recent phenomenon of the post-Enlightenment period. To the ancients, poetic license was not just an aesthetic, it was the commonly accepted practice of the day.]

Comment 20


Now, this statement in the text by James (above) is a little ambiguous as to what all would be included in "editorializing", but if his footnote can be taken to be explanatory, then his meaning is clear. "Editorializing" includes adding non-original material (and passing it off as 'original') for purposes of harmonizing (e.g. the longer ending of Mark), and "poetic license"--which seems to be equated with a lack of concern for "fact and accuracy". Stills also says that this lack of concern over historical/factual truth was THE acceptable practice of the day, and that there were no conventions against 'making stuff up' for various reasons.

Unfortunately, James seems to have swallowed some more dogma uncritically from his information sources (which are increasingly looking like what is called in the literature the "Harvard-Claremont axis"--that very VOCAL and VISIBLE minority of scholars that make headlines in Time and Newsweek all the time). If he had inspected ACTUAL historiographical data/literature, he would have seen a much different picture.

Indeed, even a brief review of ancient history writers can surface numerous statements about concern over "fact and accuracy", and the scholarly estimates of those perspectives will bear this up. If we then examine the Gospel writers to see if they intended to write "history" in this 'ancient' sense, and find that it was so, we will have a good case for their 'professional ethics relative to fact and accuracy'.

So, our approach will be as follows:

  1. Examine ancient history/biography writers for 'clues' as to their orientation toward "fact and accuracy": original statements, scholarly examples, and scholarly summaries.

  2. We will see if these standards apply to the category of Bioi (Greek term for a written account of a celebrated "life")

  3. We examine three specific issues that come up in this area:


  4. We then examine the evidence for classifying the Gospels in the category Bioi

  5. We note any additional relevant evidence.

......................................................................................................................................

  1. Examine ancient history/biography writers for 'clues' as to their orientation toward "fact and accuracy": original statements, scholarly examples, and scholarly summaries.

    Note Well: We are not looking to find out how well these ancient authors DID 'fact and accuracy' but rather their orientation and commitment to that ideal. (For a litany of their failures, shortcomings, and inconsistencies, see Grant in GRH.)

    Let's look first at some statements from the ancient writers (the BIG NAMES) themselves, about the matter of fact and accuracy.

    .............................................................................................................

    Now, let's look at some other situations in which scholars have noted strong attitudes of commitment to fact and accuracy.

    .............................................................................................................

    Now, let's look at some summary statements by scholars from this and related fields...

    Now, I don't know about YOU, but this data seems ME to contradict the statement by Stills rather dramatically...[but then again, maybe I am just reading into these texts the concepts of accuracy, details, truthfulness, critical methods, etc. ;>) ]

    .........................................................................................................

  2. We will see to what extent these standards apply to the category of Bioi (Greek term for a written account of a celebrated "life")

    Biographical writing for the ancients was a much wider venue, ranging from sketches in Herodotus to "Paid-Commercials" by court writers. The category of Bioi, however, had a somewhat more restricted focus, and had substantial overlap with a number of genres--esp. history. There were sub-genres under bios, such as political biography or philosophical biography (categorized by teaching and doctrine) [WAG:247].

    Aune draws attention to one of the main differences between history and bios [NTLE:30]:

    Plutarch and Nepos did not want to write complete accounts of the deeds of their subjects (that would be history), but wished to selectively emphasize sayings that reveal character (which is biography).
    and farther points to the progressive overlap between the genres--for good or ill [NTLE:30]:
    Distinctions between history and biography, however, were more theoretical than practical. During the late Hellenistic period history and biography moved closer together with the increasing emphasis on character in historiography. Biography and history became more and more difficult to distinguish; encomium (TN: "eulogy or praise") could and did pervade both. (TN: we will see why in a moment)
    (For a detailed discussion of the overlap of the genres, see the excellent discussion by the classicist Burridge in WAG:65-69.)

    In keeping with this closeness of genre, Bioi, while giving an author a little more artistic room to paint his character-canvas (BLOM:238), nonetheless was fact-and-accuracy oriented enough for writers to accuse OTHER writers of 'fraud'(!) or misrepresentation.

    For example, Grant [GRH:81ff] gives examples of where Lucian called a Bioi fraudulent and where Cicero urged his readers to watch out for "mere inventions of fact" in such writings.

    In short, since Bioi had an element of characterization, that was often best related by 'telling a story about the person', the elaboration of contextual elements was less "controlled." Vividness was important, but still, since the piece was generally historical (rather than rhetorical) the canons of accuracy and fidelity were still operative. (Indeed, the canons of 'detail' was actually heightened--due to the need for painting the picture...)

    But...could the ancients have every MET these high standards? Could they actually recover the past, so as to achieve these high standards of reliability?

    Absolutely.

    The difference in the genre-conventions of ethnography and history demanded it. So, Fornara [NHAGR:15]:

    ...the conventions of ethnography vitally differed from those of history. The laws of evidence and obedience to truth were at least in theory mandatory in history. Ethnography permitted the publication of the unconfirmed report of even the improbable.
    So, not only was accuracy in the genre MANDATORY, it was also ACHIEVABLE--cf. the statement by the outstanding historical scholar Momigliano, in EAMH:162-163:
    Methods had existed since the fifth century B.C.--that is, since the beginning of historiography in Greece--of getting correct information about the remote past. These methods were critical, in the sense that the user, after reflection and study, was satisfied as to their reliability. The first Greek historian, Hecataeus (end of the sixth century), had developed methods of correcting and rationalizing many mythical stories. Herodotus knew how to go about Egypt and other countries and to ask about their antiquities. Even Thucydides used ancient poetry and archaeological and epigraphical evidence to formulate conclusions about the state of archaic Greek society and about specific events of the past. Chronological problems were systematically dealt with by Hippias and Hellanicus at the end of the first century. Later, the practice of consulting ancient texts and of criticizing ancient traditions was vigorously pursued by Hellenistic scholars. The Romans themselves--as their antiquarian tradition shows, from Varro in the first century B.C. to Virgil's commentator Servious at the beginning of the first century A.D.--knew very well how to collect reliable facts about the past.
    In other words, they had both the attitude and ability for accuracy . They were "on the whole much more reliable than is usually supposed, and that, despite our pretensions, the principal difference between them and us is that most of them wrote a good deal better." [Robin Seager, review comment on back cover of NHAGR]

    ..........................................................................................................................

    There are THREE specific issues that come up in this arena, that I want to address. Two of them WILL impact subsequent discussions in this series.

  3. Issue ONE: The issue of "invented" speeches.

    We know that Herodotus (HI:AL:80) and Thucydides (GRH:47) "invented" speeches that might not have occurred--in spite of their emphasis on accuracy of reporting. So, the issue is: if their definition of 'accuracy' includes what we would consider "falsification", then isn't James' position correct?

    This is a common perception to moderns, as Fornara notes [NHAGR:142]:

    The fact that they [the speeches] are not direct quotations, but have the effrontery to masquerade as such, probably has much to do with the formation of this unshakable prejudice, for the practice, to modern eyes, approaches deliberate perjury. Nevertheless it seems to me that a much more positive view is indicated.
    There are several points to consider here:

  4. Issue TWO: The issue of historical "adornment" or "amplification".

    If the historical writer can re-create speeches "rigidly appropriate" to a setting, does the same apply to circumstantial details of the events? Can I take an event that happened in country X and displace it to country Y in the narrative, and it still be truth in the canons of historical accuracy?

    It would seem from the Thucydidean rules, that this would have been unacceptable, but the line needs exploring. If the author had the responsibility to "draw a picture" with vividness, he was virtually forced to add elements that were not explicit in his sources (as WE do everyday). This could be a huge license to creative fabrications, falsification, etc. (similar to many charges levied against the Gospel writers!), but a closer examination reveals the limitations placed upon this, and the inner-logic within those limitations.

    The theme in Herodotus/Thucy we have seen above of 'vivid' portrayal was expanded later by Duris of Samos (ca. 340 BC-240 BC). Although we are not sure of how closely together he tried to move history and poetry, it is generally accepted that he championed a "reader engagement" model. This idea shows up in Plutarch who defined the most successful historian as that writer who "paints" with "emotion and dramatic characters," "making the hearer a spectator (and) eagerly desiring to infuse the dizzying and upsetting emotions of the actual participants into the reader." [NHAGR:129]. For Plutarch, this involved the vivid and dramatic treatment of sudden reversals, dizzying sequences, and the unexpected in human events.

    Duris' addition to historiography was subtle but created a tension within mainstream historians:

    In Hellenistic times, the literary-historical vocabulary appears to have been substantially enriched by poetic terminology, and it is reasonable to seek the explanation in the popularity of Duris' theories among the critics. A special insistence on visual effects--that history should place a scene before your very eyes--is unmistakable. Thus Duris attempted to add the pleasure of poetry to history's own. The emotions were to be excited, especially pity and fear, by the use of vivid writing pointed toward the description of surprising turns and calamitous events. [NHAGR:130]
    Now it must be pointed out that the vividness of Duris is in the events themselves--not the setting or circumstance thereof. It is the 'shock of fate' that creates this vividness, so it would be incorrect to attribute 'circumstantial embellishment' ideas to him. Nevertheless, this notion of adding "details" that were not EXPLICIT in the sources (and hence unverifiable) provides some license to the historian--
    That Duris envisaged a technique involving the use of abundant and unverifiable circumstantial detail is a necessary implication of his theory of mimesis. He can only have done so, however, because it was long since an established principle that the bare historical facts required both supplementation and deductive interconnection in order to provide a narrative that was at once intellectually and artistically satisfying. From the beginning, with Herodotus and Thucydides, the historian assumed the right to picture a scene consistently with the reports of witnesses or common knowledge. [NHAGR:134]
    The need for imaginative recreation and inferential elaboration from the facts was the necessary consequence of the demands placed on all subsequent historians by Herodotus when he decided, following Homer, to present events with verisimilitude. [op.cit.]
    Now, if you inspect the above two quotes, you can see that what is involved is NOT the addition of 'foreign' elements into the narrative but an articulation of 'intrinsic and implicit' elements ALREADY THERE. It is not 'extraneous detail' but 'unverifiable detail' in the quotes. It is not 'rhetorical interconnection' but 'deductive interconnection' in the quotes. It is not 'irrespective of the reports of witnesses or common knowledge' but 'consistently with the reports of witnesses or common knowledge' in the quotes. It is not 'imaginative creation' but 'imaginative recreation' in the quotes. It is not 'creative elaboration' but 'inferential elaboration' in the quotes.

    The point should be clear--the historian was allowed to 'unpack' or 'unfold' the event, not hybridize it with foreign elements.

    In all this, the rules of historical responsibility were still in convention [NHAGR:13]:

    The process here described is irrelevant to the categories of "fact" and "fiction," "truth and falsity," "honest and dishonesty" so often applied to the discredit of the ancients. Certainly some writers will have been dishonest and others will have written fiction or approached it in their zeal to excite the emotions of the hearers and otherwise to please them. Such excess, however, for which there are enough modern parallels, was a gross evasion of the rules of historical responsibility, while the latter [TN: i.e., the "rules"] were entirely compatible with the process of the imaginative and intuitive reenactment of events. [Emphasis mine. Notice also that Fornara's application of the 'truth/falsity' axis is radically different than that of Still's: Still's would say entire sections would be 'imaginative'; Fornara would apply it only to unverified circumstantial/background details in an otherwise historically reliable report.)
    Cicero presents a good case study in this area, for he had feet planted both in rhetoric and in history, and there are a couple of 'theoretical and critical' passages that deal with this subject. Overall, Breisach notes that even in his 'adorning' of the truth, Cicero was still far from falsification [HAMM:58]:
    Cicero was diverted here from his demand for unadorned truth by a second ideal, the effectiveness of history as teacher, which required that historians must create artistic compositions and not dull annals. In doing so historians could, just as other writers, arrange and select their material in a manner which would produce a useful memory of the past and lead readers to act properly. Cicero's history still remained at a safe distance from fictional tales or falsifications.
    In De legibus 1.1-2, Cicero is responding to a criticism of his epic poem Marius from a historical purist, Atticus. Atticus questions Cicero as to whether Cicero invented salient details in the epic, reminding Cicero that there are readers who do not know the difference between truth and error. Cicero's response is instructive: he replies that a historical poem offers a poet's truth, not that of a witness, and adds that there are different laws and standards for poetry and history, namely, those of pleasure and those of truth, respectively. [NHAGR:135]

    In Brutus 11.44, Cicero criticizes Clitarchus and Stratocles for 'inventing' the dramatic suicide of Themistocles; that this is an improper 'ornating' of the narrative.

    Cicero uses the word ornare to designate this 'unfolding' or 'adorning' of a narrative in several places (De legibus 1.2.5; De oratore 12.54; Brutus 11.44). To explore this word is to see the limits and potential of this 'unfolding/adorning' process [NHAGR:136]:

    One must conclude that the Latin verb means something more than "adorn superficially," "decorate," "embellish." It implies description and amplification, and it extends considerably beyond the mere introduction of political commentary, praise and blame, and other common historical elements. Clitarchus, for example, did not merely brush in strokes but painted a scene, and he not only painted it but invented it [TN: for which he was censured by Cicero!]..Ornare in itself is to take a fact and from it to set a scene, developing its latent potentialities. But in a historical work ornare subserves the laws of history and is tested by the standard of the truth....
    Thus, if you develop the inherent possibilities of a true datum, ornare is legitimate; if from a fiction (where the psychology may be a delight to the reader), the practice is culpable.
    The NET of this is that development/amplification of a scene from WITHIN that scene (i.e. from within the historical datum) is legit, and that correspondingly, the introduction of 'foreign' elements--regardless of motive--was inappropriate, incorrect, anti-historical, and against the historiographical norms of the day.

  5. Issue THREE: The appearance of "rhetorical" history-writers in late antiquity..

    Under the empire, the issue of speech-reporting (discussed above), split the history-writing community in two.

    There developed the 'rhetorical' historians, who abandoned the Thucydidean restrictions on speech-introduction in favor of 'free invention' for purposes of rhetorical display (so Lucian, Curtius Rufus). The more traditional historians were still adverse to speechifying (and even less inclined to re-construct them at all in the narrative) and were represented by Tacitus and Ammianus. The actual practice of these traditional Roman historians conform to the careful Hellenic historiographical commitment to accuracy. So Fornara [NHAGR:154].

    The fact that most speeches in the Annales are brief reveals that Tacitus' intentional avoidance of rhetorical declaration and utter dissociation from the type of writer known from Curtius. If we discount his resort to the quotation of group opinion, a traditional exception to the rule, the little evidence we possess indicates that he presented speeches responsibly, refused to invent them, and searched them out when it was possible to do so. It is notable, for example, that he acquired a copy of the unadulterated speech of Otho's that he "inverted" in Historiae 1.90; he even knew that it was the product of a speechwriter. It is evident, therefore, that Tacitus stands in the tradition established by Duris [TN: of scarcity of speech production and inclusion] and, like Ammianus thereafter, he may be viewed as the heir of sound Hellenic theory. For the absence of rhetorical overstatement we perceive in the speeches of Ammianus carries the clear message, particularly from so rhetorical a writer, that he wished there to be no mistake about his faithful reproduction of the substance of the speeches.
    The only reason I bring this up, is that the "bad examples" of some of these 'history-looking' writers MIGHT be assumed to be the 'real and only historiography' of NT times--which WOULD diminish some of the force of the 'high accuracy' evidence I have presented. What I wanted to show was that mainstream history-writing stayed 'honest' and that the 'looseness' of the "rhetorical camp" was confined to speeches--not to events or circumstances. Indeed, one can look above at the quotes/examples from Lucian as to the fact that this group (despite its interest in rhetorical creativity) still held each other accountable to the basic norms. This can even be seen in those writers who were MORE rhetorical than historical, like Dionysius of Halicarnassus (50 BC-10ad), who faulted ANOTHER rhetorician, Xenophon, for putting philosophic speeches in the mouths of common people--inappropriately (AFCSALS:277,TN:this entire article by Gempf on the Speeches in Acts is work looking at closely.).

    In this way, it can be seen that this minority camp does NOT impact our analysis thus far.

    ...................................................................................................................

    What we have seen so far is that historical writing (contra Stills) was very concerned about accuracy and fact. It elaborated principles and canons that applied uniquely to history-writing. It even developed careful and logical principles dealing with the difficult subject of speech-recording and the issue of 'filling in the picture' in historical narrative. This commitment to accuracy was EXPLICIT and a definite convention of the time (contra Stills). Fornara states it clearly, in the area MOST DIFFICULT to be controlled [NHAGR:154-155]:

    ...we are not entitled to proceed on the assumption that the historians considered themselves at liberty to write up speeches out of their own heads. That some or many or most actually did so is perhaps hypothetically conceivable. We must recognize, however, that such a procedure would have been contrary to convention and not, as all too many moderns seem to suppose, a convention in its own right. [emphasis mine]
  6. The evidence for classifying the Gospels in the category Bioi.

    In this issue we have the magisterial work by the classicist Richard A. Burridge [WAG]. In a thorough-going analysis using genre criticism and literary theory (plus a classicist's approach to genre determination in the field of Greco-Roman history/biography), he builds a solid methodology for approaching the issue of identifying the genre of the Gospels.

    First, he delineates the features needed to identify a genre. He derives this list from literary criticism theory (for the widest possible set of features to analyze). His feature-list is [WAG:109-127]:

    1. Opening Features

      • Title
      • Opening formulae/prologue/preface

    2. Subject
      • Analysis of the verbs' subjects
      • Allocation of space

    3. External Features
      • Mode of presentation (e.g. oral, prose, drama, voice)
      • Metre
      • Size and length
      • Structure or sequence
      • Scale
      • Literary units
      • Use of Sources
      • Methods of Characterization
      • Summary

    4. Internal Features
      • Setting
      • Topics/topoi/motifs
      • Style
      • Tone/mood/attitude/values
      • Quality of characterization
      • Social setting and occasion
      • Authorial intention and purpose
      • Summary

    He then examines examples (i.e. actual documents called "bioi" by the ancients) to critically arrive at some description/concept of the genre 'bioi'. He uses five examples from early lit, and five from later (chapters 6 and 7). These are:

    1. Isocrates (436-338 BC) Evagoras
    2. Xenophon (427-354 BC) Agesilaus
    3. Satyrus (2nd century BC) Euripides
    4. Nepos (99 BC-24 BC) Atticus
    5. Philo (30 BC-45 AD) Moses

    6. Tacitus (56 AD-113 AD) Agricola
    7. Plutarch (45 AD-120 AD) Cato Minor
    8. Suetonius (69 AD-122? AD) Lives of the Caesars
    9. Lucian (120 AD-180+ AD) Demonax
    10. Philostratus (170 AD-250 AD) Apollonius of Tyrana

    He then examines the gospels for these features and concludes:

    Thus, there is a high degree of correlation between the generic features of Graeco-Roman Bioi and those of the synoptic gospels; in fact, they exhibit more of the features than are shown by works at the edges of the genre, such as those of Isocrates, Xenophon and Philostratus. This is surely a sufficient number of shared features for the genre of the synoptic gospels to be clear; while they may well form their own subgenre because of their shared content, the synoptic gospels belong within the overall genre of Bioi. [WAG:218f; emphasis his.]
    These results place the Fourth Gospel clearly in the same genre as the synoptic gospels, namely Bioi. [WAG:239, emphasis his.]

    Thus, the four gospels fall squarely into this genre--and all the conventions of accuracy and truth-commitments.

    .......................................................................................................

  7. Additional relevant evidence.

    What I want to do here is simply to relate a few bits of additional data related to Mark's and Luke's orientation, relative to 'facts and accuracy'.

    1. The recent study of the preface of Luke's Gospel by Loveday Alexander (PLG) concluded that it fits into the genre of prefaces of scientific/philosophical/medical treatises of the time. This genre distinguishes itself by a very deliberate lack of rhetoric, even in the writing. So, one of the earliest writers in this genre--Theophrastus (Aristotle's successor) puts it this way [cited in PLG:43]:
      Of the (two) forms of discourse, one concerns itself with the audience (tous akroatas), the other with the facts (ta pragmata): the former is [the one] pursued by poets and orators, the latter by philosophers (Fr.64 Witmer)
      What this would mean for us here, is that EVEN IF rhetoric had corrupted history significantly by Luke's time (which I demonstrated above was NOT the case), Luke's orientation is even MORE PURE--it has NO concern for artistic/rhetorical excellence--a "Just the facts, ma'am" kinda approach. This makes sense for Luke the physician, of course, and also fits his stated intention "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have learned"--and express statement of fact and accuracy.

    2. Also, the general identification of the gospels with Bioi of great individuals, and the "school" orientation of Luke's in particular, finds an interesting confirmation in the writings of Galen (Roman, 130 AD-200 AD). "For Galen, Christians were neither dangerous conspirators nor abominable cannibals, but they were rather adherents of a philosophical school..." [PREC:144]. Galen actually calls the Christians a "school" (meaning a philosophical school) [CRST:72-74]. This characterization fits well with the gospels as Bioi of a philosophical/religious leader.

    3. It is interesting that in the Papias story about Mark being Peter's interpreter, he makes a specific point that Mark did so in a VERY "Thucydidean" way: "For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them" (In Eusebius, HE 3.39.14f). There is no emphasis on rhetoric or vividness--just 'fact and accuracy'!

    4. Mark was a Hellenistic Jew, well educated and a resident of Palestine. Martin Hengel has identified that Mark conforms very closely to Greek standards of historie--especially in accordance with the notion of ornare, as developed above:
      Mark certainly does not deal with his material more freely than, say, Plutarch. He selects examples from the tradition and shapes it, and of course he has a theological bias, but he does not simply have to invent things out of thin air. [GAG:221]
      Mark does not narrate events and traditions simply by chance: what he selects and describes has a deeper significance, as a "typical ideal," from the call of the disciples up to Gethsemane and the crucifixion of Jesus as king of the Jews. However, this strictness in his overall plan does not simply dispense with historicity; Mark only reports history which has undergone the deliberate reflection of faith. Even apparent incidental remarks like 7:3f; 13:10, 14b; 14.9 and so on are significant as theological reflection. He does not create new narratives and sayings of Jesus in order to develop his own Christology and soteriology, but uses a very deliberate process of selecting and ordering material in which hardly anything is left to chance. [GAG:219, emphasis his]
      These two quotes from a German biblical scholar sound like they were pulled right out of Thucydides or Polybius! Mark has ordered his document in true historie style, and, in contrast to the 'rhetoricizing historian' movement that was nascent at the time, MINIMIZES the number of Jesus' speeches in his gospel! He is emulating (as a well-educated Hellenistic Jew) the best of the traditional Hellenic historiographical heritage.

............................................................................................................................................

Conclusion

Several things should be quite obvious from the mass of evidence above:

  1. The ancient history-writers WERE VERY concerned over 'fact and accuracy.'

  2. They consistently attacked one another for use of a-historical "poetic license."

  3. This "passion for accuracy" manifested itself in the difficult areas of historiographical method such as speech-reporting and setting-development/elaboration, and the discussion was so intense, because the foundation of fidelity was so firm.

  4. This convention of truthfulness in event and character was also reflected in the genre of Bioi.

  5. The 'relaxation' of standards in later antiquity was NOT a majority movement, and was not as methodologically 'deep' as might appear.

  6. The Gospel literature prove to be "members" of the Bioi genre, and hence partake of the general conventions of that genre, relative to accuracy and ornare.

  7. Additional data for Mark and Luke is available to suggest that their standards were in fact somewhat HIGHER than the prevailing norms.

In short, James Stills' remark, once again, shows a lack of the requisite familiarity with the literary and historical context in which the early Christian writings were formed. "Fact and Accuracy" WAS treasured (and sought after) both by the secular ancients and by the gospel writers.
.....................................................
[ --stil1720.html--  ]
The Christian ThinkTank...[https://www.Christianthinktank.com] (Reference Abbreviations)