Craig S. Keener

Источник

2. The Discourses of the Fourth Gospel

THAT THE SPEECH OF JESUS in the Fourth Gospel is usually quite different from that of Jesus in the Synoptics goes without saying. John certainly made no attempt to conceal his own pervasive idiom in this discourse materia1.474 In fact, if we omit Jesus» discourses, John's basic accounts about Jesus often resemble the traditions behind the Synoptics. It is Jesus» «teaching and self-presentation» which are most distinctive.475 Could these distinctive parts of John's Gospel function as theological commentary, analogous to the function of speeches in many ancient histories (especially among John's contemporaries, but even in some earlier biblical histories)?476 If so, to what extent do they reflect John's sources about Jesus, and to what extent do they simply reflect his interpretation of Jesus? To the extent that they reflect John's interpretation, to what degree would it have been consistent with the historical Jesus» perspectives, perhaps not emphasized or developed in the Markan stream of tradition?

These questions require careful examination. The Gospel assumes that the Paraclete develops but does not obliterate the historical source of Johannine Jesus tradition (14:26), but modern students may be dissatisfied with this claim. We return to some of these questions in the chapters on authorship (addressing eyewitness tradition) and Christology, but we must first investigate standard means of transmitting authoritative sayings as well as the function of speeches in Greco-Roman antiquity.

That even the contents and structure of the discourses diverge significantly from the Synoptics could indicate that John received his tradition through a different means of transmission. In this case, the Synoptics would reflect the more common forms used in transmission of teachers» deeds and sayings (shorter anecdotes rather than long discourses, except in whole epics), and John transmitted longer units of speech.477

But this solution appears problematic because students far more often transmitted sayings than the sort of discourses that appear in the Fourth Gospel (we will note exceptions below). John's apparent lack of dependence on prior tradition could imply that he was an eyewitness dependent on his own memory. Yet even eyewitnesses rarely transcribed entire speeches, although in some cases disciples» notes or trained memories may have preserved the main points. Rather than implying that John used tradition or remembered discourses in an unusual manner, the Fourth Gospel's discourses may imply that he developed his tradition or memories in a manner different from that of the Synoptics. Guided by the Paraclete (see pp. 115–22 on inspiration), John may have developed his material as would Jewish haggadists or targumists, or Greco-Roman authors practicing the rhetorical technique of elaboration. In this way he would remain faithful to his tradition while expounding its meaning for his own generation.

In this chapter we investigate how sayings traditions were usually preserved and speeches were usually composed, because writers derived these distinct forms of speech from different sources. Sayings of famous teachers were memorized and circulated, and often gathered into collections. Whole speeches, however, were usually preserved only in their general sense, hence redeveloped by historical writers according to basic rules of rhetoric and historical verisimilitude. Speeches could have a historical kernel, and John could have developed such a kernel, based on sayings, controversy-dialogues, or eyewitness notes or memories, without violating its basic sense. As in the case of John's narratives, his trustworthiness regarding the dialogues and discourses rests partly on his claim to eyewitness tradition, which we will address in the following chapter. Here we survey only the cultural possibilities for speech transmission.

Oral Traditions, Notes, and Memory

It has often been argued that oral tradition accounts for the preservation of many of Jesus» sayings in the Synoptics before they reached the written stage. To what degree is oral tradition an acceptable explanation for the preservation of Jesus tradition?

1. Oral Cultures

Oral traditioning is a highly developed art in many cultures, and can be very accurate:

In some parts of Africa the chants sung by the tribes at the annual round-up of the cattle record the history of the tribe for many generations, sometimes extending as far back as three centuries. While the chronology of such recollections is inevitably vague, the points on which they can be checked by some outside evidence–the testimony of some Portugese or Arab traveller or the like–has shown them to be remarkably accurate in essentials.478

In the circles of trained storytellers and sages, memories may preserve information accurately from one generation to the next. Indeed, oral traditioning might invite less redaction than written sources would.479 Folklorists have shown that some communities transmit traditions faithfully, with minimal modifications; storytellers create and vary within the constraints of community tradition. Some suggest that writers were far more likely to introduce substantial changes; thus the written gospels may have introduced more redaction than the relatively few decades of tradition behind them had.480

Not all cultures are equally careful about the substance of their oral traditions, although oral history can supplement written records both in orally skilled and orally unskilled societies.481 Some modern scholars, citing transmitters of folk ballads in the Balkans, have wrongly concluded that the gospel tradition censored much of Jesus» teaching. But this approach is wrong for several reasons: first, it fails to account for the earliest relevant sources (the Jesus tradition's often harsh demands show that the church did not censor many of Jesus» teachings that it found uncomfortable); second, it may underestimate Balkan tradition, which includes a measure of fixity as well as flexibility;482 finally, the accuracy of transmission varies from one oral culture to another, but sufficient evidence remains to comment more directly on the milieu in which Jesus taught.483

Centuries before John, the best professional reciters could recite all of Homer by heart (Xenophon Symp. 3.5–6). In the ancient Greek world, some writers felt free to add information from centuries-old oral traditions that did not appear in their written sources.484 Such oral tradition is difficult to guarantee;485 but within the first generation, while eyewitnesses lived, as in the case of Mark and Q, one would expect most of the widely circulated oral sources to remain accurate.

2. Note-Taking

We shall return to the question of disciples» memory, but should note at the outset that early Christians need not have depended solely on oral tradition, even at the beginning. Disciples of Greek teachers often took notes during their teachers» lectures,486 and from an early period they sometimes published them. For instance, the notes (hypomnemata) of rhetorical lectures by the fifth-century B.C.E. teachers Corax and Tisias, made by themselves or by their students, were published.487 The practice is attested far closer to the NT era by Arrian, disciple of Epictetus; his accounts of Epictetus's teaching in Koine Greek are so different from his own Atticizing diction in his other writings488 that he feels it necessary to apologize for the rough style of the Discourses:

But whatever I heard him say I used to write down, word for word, as best I could, endeavouring to preserve it as a memorial, for my own future use, of his way of thinking and the frankness of his speech. They are, accordingly, as you might expect, such remarks as one man might make offhand to another, not such as he would compose for men to read in after time.489

The potential accuracy of such a practice is inadvertently attested by Quintilian, the famous Roman teacher of rhetoric. He attests that the notes of his students were fairly accurate, though he clearly wished that he had had the opportunity to edit them:

… two books on the art of rhetoric are at present circulating under my name, although never published by me or composed for such a purpose. One is a two days» lecture which was taken down by the boys who were my audience. The other consists of such notes as my good pupils succeeded in taking down from a course of lectures on a somewhat more extensive scale: I appreciate their kindness, but they showed an excess of enthusiasm and a certain lack of discretion in doing my utterances the honour of publication. Consequently in the present work although some passages remain the same, you will find many alterations and still more additions, while the whole theme will be treated with greater system and with as great perfection as lies within my power.490

Hearers of speeches sometimes took notes to capture the gist of the speeches,491 although some speakers wanted their hearers too spellbound to be able to take notes.492 Full records of speeches from their authors are also possible in some cases: speakers sometimes prepared their own notes or even wrote out the entire speech in advance (Seneca Controv. 3.pref.6); more often, they wrote out and improved their full speech after its delivery (Cicero Brutus 24.91). While Jewish disciples may have taken fewer notes and emphasized orality much more highly, they also were able to take notes and use them as initial mnemonic devices to recall larger blocs of materia1.493

One could also takes notes from which one would later arrange onés material for a composition, again guarding memory (cf. Cicero Fin. 3.3.10; 5.5.12). Thus Aulus Gellius (pref.2) notes that whenever he came across information worth remembering he jotted down notes as an aid to memory; he was very selective, though working through innumerable scrolls (pref. 11–12), and ended up with twenty books of notes (pref.22). It is possible that some of Jesus» early hearers may have made notes, as some scholars have argued;494 at the very least, it is difficult to doubt that some would have made notes from their memories in the years following.495

3. Disciples, Learning, and Memorization

But written transmission was often secondary to oral transmission, which played an essential role in Greek circles and the primary role in later rabbinic circles.496 One philosopher reportedly reproved a friend who lamented losing his notes: «You should have inscribed them … on your mind instead of on paper.»497 Disciples had to be attentive; thus the philosopher Peregrinus rebuked an equestrian who seemed inattentive and yawning.498 Sayings attributed to founders of Greek schools were transmitted by members of each school from one generation to the next.499 The practice seems to have been encouraged by the founders of the schools themselves.500 As in the rest of Greco-Roman education,501 memorization was a paramount focus.502 (Whether the emphasis was on memorizing texts or the teacher s words depended on the particular ancient schoo1.)503 Some schools were known for practicing diligent training of their memories; the Pythagoreans reportedly would not rise from bed in the mornings until they had recited their previous days» works.504 Difficult as it may seem to most readers today,505 the elder Seneca testifies that in his younger days he could repeat 2000 names in exactly the sequence in which he had just heard them, or recite up to 200 verses given to him, in reverse (Seneca Controv. 1.pref.2). Even if his recollections of youthful prowess are exaggerated, they testify to an emphasis on memory that far exceeds standard expectations today. Seneca also reports that another man, hearing a poem recited by its author, recited it back to the author verbatim (facetiously claiming the poem to be his own); and that the famous Hortensius listed every purchaser and price at the end of a day-long auction, his accuracy attested by the bankers (Seneca Controv. 1.pref.19).

Although the emphasis lay on memorizing teachings, students also studied and emulated teachers» behavior.506 They also transmitted it. Thus, for example, Eunapius learned a story about Iamblichus from Eunapius's teacher Chrysanthius, who learned it from Aedesius the disciple of Iamblichus himself (Eunapius Lives 458). Philostratus has oral information about a teacher two generations earlier through an expert from the previous generation (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.524). Jews also learned from the behavior of their ancestors, that is, from lessons drawn from narratives (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.204), as students must also imitate their teachers (Life 11).507 (This reflects a broader practice; Greek disciples also often learned by imitating teachers» moral behavior.)508

Josephus likewise stressed memorization and understanding, though his focus was the law rather than earlier Greek authors.509 This method of learning was hardly limited to the circle of later rabbis; it was part of regular Jewish education in the home and basic school education all Jewish youths were to receive.510 But the most easily documented example, where the process was taken to its fullest extent and where we have the greatest volume of extant material, is among disciples of rabbis.

Rabbis lectured to their pupils and expected them to memorize their teachings by laborious repetition.511 There is also evidence that Jewish teachers sometimes spoke in easily memorizable forms, as did Jesus.512 There is much emphasis in both Tannaitic and Amoraic literature on careful traditioning.513 Because this traditioning in practice tended toward «net transmission» rather than «chain transmission» (i.e., the sayings became the property of the rabbinic community, and not just of a single disciple of a teacher), trans mission could be guarded more carefully in the first generation or two.514 At the same time, teachings could be condensed and abridged, as in Greek schools,515 and the very emphasis on careful attention to the tradition could lead a young rabbi to present his view as an amplification rather than a contradiction of his master's teaching,516 or could lead Amoraim to try to harmonize earlier contradictory opinions attributed to a given rabbi.517 As noted earlier, standard rhetorical practice included paraphrasing sayings, as evidenced by the rhetorical exercises in which it features prominently.518 (It is therefore not surprising that a writer would praise a sophist who both «received» disciple-instruction accurately and «passed it on» eloquently; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.29.621.) Thus both faithfulness to and adaptation of oral sources characterize early rabbinic use of earlier tradition,519 just as the exact wording of Jesus» sayings could vary, for instance, from Matthew to Luke to the Didache.520 E. P. Sanders concludes that «The gospel writers did not wildly invent material,» though «they developed it, shaped it and directed it in the ways they wished.»521

Disciples of Jesus undoubtedly learned and transmitted his teachings no less carefully than most ancient disciples transmitted the wisdom of their mentors.522 The views of radical form critics, which seem to presume that the church created rather than submitted to the substance of his teaching, contrasts with the results of our limited evidence about ancient Jewish traditioning. Gerhardsson overstated his case,523 but his severest critics have done the same.524 As we have noted, memorization and transmission of famous teachers» sayings was not only a later rabbinic practice; it characterized elementary education throughout the Mediterranean world! Further, most of the forms of traditions passed on in the Synoptic Gospels are the sort that would be passed on in circles less formal than Gerhardsson suggested but more controlled than Bultmann suggested.525

Examining the early Christian data supports this likelihood that Jesus» teachings would have been transmitted substantially accurately. Paul attests many of the purportedly «latest» developments of first-century Christian thought (such as wisdom Christology) within the first generation. He attests even some elements of the Jesus sayings tradition in occasional letters like 1Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians (though this was not his purpose),526 and his language suggests that he was passing on to his many readers what he had received.527 Paul seems to have known and expected his disciples to recognize that he knew the Jesus tradition; he explicitly distinguishes his teaching from that of Jesus (1Cor 7:10, 12, 25).528 Indeed, to assume that Paul did not know the Jesus tradition, because he does not cite it more explicitly and often, would be analogous to assuming that the writer of 1 John was unaware of the Johannine Jesus tradition because it presupposes rather than cites that tradition.529 The writer of a probably post-70 gospel also attests the abundance of sources already in writing (Luke 1:1–4). The exclusively oral stage of the Jesus tradition could not have been more than three decades,530 and occurred while the eyewitnesses maintained a dominant position in early Christianity.531 Had Gospel writers indulged in the sort of creativity some modern scholars have supposed, we would hardly have «Synoptic» Gospels today!532 It is thus when a scholar disputes a particular saying, rather than when he or she contends for its authenticity, that he or she must normally assume the burden of proof.533 But is this general rule applicable to the Fourth Gospel?

4. Memorization of Speeches

Like the Synoptics, John follows a broad chronological outline with major insertions of topically arranged materia1.534 But the sort of sayings, anecdotes, and collections of sayings one encounters in the Synoptics are quite different from the sustained discourses of the Fourth Gospe1.535 This difference does not modify John's basic genre; ancient biographies could also include long speeches, especially in the case of biographies of philosophers.536 Johns purpose, rather than his basic genre, requires the difference in specific forms; the centrality of John s exalted Christology naturally expands the encomiastic focus of his biography, hence the importance of the christologically interpretive discourses.537

In comparison with the Synoptic sayings traditions, how accurate are John's discourses likely to be? While orators would memorize their speeches–even speeches of several hours» duration538–it is difficult to attest disciples memorizing long speeches by their teachers. One exceptional rhetor memorized his speech as he was writing it out, never needing to read it again (Seneca Controv. 1.pref.17); he could remember every declamation he had ever delivered, word for word, making books unnecessary (Seneca Controv. 1.pref. 18). (Some teachers may have left their own written speeches, as we have mentioned. But it is unlikely that Jesus, a Galilean sage, would have done so.) Students could memorize epics with their long speech sections because these works became part of the course of literary study, but epics were transmitted differently from the sayings of famous teachers.539 Long discourses by teachers are closer to the sort of dialogues Plato wrote for his master Socrates, blending Socrates» ideas with his own.540 It should be noted, however, that Plato did not simply invent this literary form for Socrates: Xenophon's Memorabilia also includes lengthy dialogues for Socrates rather than the short scenes which characterize works such as the Synoptic Gospels.541 Xenophon likewise reports that all who write about Socrates reproduce his same lofty style (Apo1. 1). Xenophon's Socrates (Symp. passim) reasons with and interrogates people, as in Plato, though the latter (an eyewitness to more of the Socrates tradition) is probably more expansive and free.542 They do share some common topics, such as love by the soul greater than that of the body (Xenophon Symp. 8.12), and it is likely that Xenophon (as usually held regarding John in relation to the Synoptics) does not depend directly on Plato, but both independently go back to the historical Socrates and the first reports.543 Both interpret the spirit of Socrates somewhat differently. But the analogy should not be pushed too closely, given higher standards established by Polybius and others for biographies and histories. Xenophon elsewhere (in a historical romance) sometimes creates lengthy dialogues (e.g., Cyr. 1.3.2–18, even if anecdotes stand behind it), often to force readers to contemplate various values or ideas of virtue (e.g., 5.1.9–12). Dialogues became a standard convention for philosophic investigation.544 This evidence points where most other evidence points: that John may have had access to substantial, reliable tradition but also could feel the freedom to develop and shape it under the Paracletés guidance.

5. Sayings Traditions

Before returning to historians» composition of speeches in John's day, we should survey the sort of sayings traditions that could have provided some tradition behind his discourses. One writer cites twenty-six Synoptic parallels to sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, despite the probably independent lines of tradition.545 The long discourses of the Fourth Gospel cannot be explained simply by recourse to a prior collection of sayings upon which John draws, but he may draw on some sayings from such a collection.

Jewish sayings-collections like Proverbs and Pirke Aboth consist primarily of short, pithy sayings, and some of Jesus» sayings were no doubt remembered and circulated in such a form.546 Greco-Roman sayings-collections likewise included sayings and brief contexts for them when necessary, but not whole discourses.547 Outside such collections, sayings were often transmitted separately,548 which would take one still farther from a background for the Johannine discourses as a whole. Sayings for which context was necessary, as in a brief narrative climaxing in the protagonist's quip (a kind of chreia today sometimes classified as pronouncement story),549 were often transmitted with narrative contexts; but these are not large continuous discourses.550 (We use the term chreia in the modern sense of a particular rhetorical model identifiable from classroom exercises, rather than in the more precise ancient sense of those exercises themselves.) Pronouncement stories may have been more common in some streams of the Greek tradition551 than in most Jewish works,552 but they do appear in the latter, including rabbinic sources.553

Sayings traditions also may have grown, although in most cases this expansion became significant over a period of generations or centuries.554 Similar sayings could be attributed to different rabbis; sometimes this simply indicated that both had uttered the same idea,555 but in other cases sayings or even entire tales may have been transferred, deliberately (as common property cited by various teachers) or through mistake, from one teacher to another, as in Greek tradition.556

Sayings of teachers could be transferred and in rabbinic literature perhaps created, but the relevance of this practice to study of the Synoptic sayings traditions is limited.557 Such transfer and composition began to happen regularly only long after the teachers» death, usually a number of generations or even centuries later. By contrast, from the first generation the basic framework of the Jesus tradition was already established in the entire community that revered him, and was quickly fixed in various written texts.

Ignoring these limitations, many early form critics applied to the Gospel tradition the principles of form criticism that were culled from studies of OT traditions preserved for many centuries and from folk traditions similarly developed over centuries.558 Yet as Davies notes, probably only a single (long) lifespan

separates Jesus from the last New Testament document. And the tradition in the Gospels is not strictly a folk tradition, derived from long stretches of time, but a tradition preserved by believing communities who were guided by responsible leaders, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. The Gospels contain materials remembered recently, at least as compared with other traditional literatures, so that the rules which governed the transmission of folk tradition do not always apply to the tradition found in the Gospels.559

Benoit similarly protests that many rabbinic apophthegms preserve some genuine reminiscences, but that beyond this, recollections no more than thirty to forty years old cannot be compared with the rabbis» «oral tradition stretching over several centuries which only very late in its life received a fixed form.»560 Jesus taught publicly as well as privately, and a «radical amnesia» that allowed his followers to forget even the substance of his teachings is historically improbable.561

Further, early Christians did not indulge the temptation to create answers for their own situations in the Jesus tradition preserved in the Synoptics; «several of the major problems that the early church encountered» (such as conflict over circumcision) «never show up in the gospel materials.»562 Meanwhile, many sayings imply a Palestinian setting more relevant to Jesus than to the later church.563

Yet neither the accurate preservation of individual sayings nor the hypothesis of their transfer and composition explains large discourses like those found in the Fourth Gospe1. Perhaps more relevant, sayings of Jewish teachers could sometimes be expounded mid-rashically.564 This was less common with recent teachers than with Scripture, of course, and a difference between Scripture and tradition did exist. Although in time the body of earlier rabbinic opinion could be treated as «oral law,»565 the support for this perspective in our 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's claim to have «translated» the Bible (Ag. Ap. 1.1) includes considerable interpretation. earliest sources concerning Pharisaic and rabbinic tradition has been questioned,566 despite the importance of tradition in ancient Pharisaism.567 But if John treats Jesus» words (2:22) and works (20:31) as tantamount to Scripture, it is not impossible that he would have midrashically developed traditions available to him.568 This would have especially been true with regard to the discourses, since early midrash took special (though not exclusive) interest in teaching and, more importantly, ancient literature encouraged creativity in reporting discourse (see below).

But other factors must also be considered in the composition of large discourses in the Fourth Gospel, which constitute its most characteristic «form.»569 Because these discourses include both controversies and extended speech, we must briefly examine the characteristics of, and potential for, redaction in controversy narratives and extended speeches in Mediterranean antiquity.

Controversy Forms

Much of the speech material of the Fourth Gospel appears in controversy narratives. This form is much briefer in the Jesus tradition reported in the Synoptics, where it resembles other ancient controversy-chreiai–that is, short stories of conflict generally concluding with the protagonist's wise quip, the «pronouncement-stories» mentioned above.570 Because John's material has been transposed into his distinctive idiom it is «less amenable to form-critical analysis» than that of the Synoptics;571 shorter controversy traditions could stand behind his Gospel, but it is no longer possible to identify them on objective grounds.572

Greek dialectic was reportedly at least as old as Protagoras (481–411 B.C.E.),573 and Platós dialogues undoubtedly shaped the Greek convention of developing onés case by refuting a counterposition.574 (Plato may well have been the first to develop a case by question and answer, as some ancient writers thought.)575 The skill of witty repartee and success in debates came to be highly valued among Greek philosophers and statesmen.576 The best rhetoricians perfected the witty insults and sarcastic jests that drew laughter at their object's expense (though sometimes also injuring relations with the person insulted; Plutarch Cicero 38.2–6; 39.1; 40.3).Thus traditional stories praising specific characters often employed interlocutors» questions or objections as a literary foil for the protagonist's witty answer.577 The interlocutor's response, being irrelevant to the purpose of the account, was omitted or (rarely) used as an occasion for confirming the protagonist's rhetorical triumph.578 This rhetorical situation was ultimately simulated by the diatribés579 use of rhetorical interlocutors as foils to develop the speaker's case.580 Literary dialogues also continued to be composed in the imperial period (Plutarch, Lucian, and Hermetic dialogues);581 «conversation» did not need to involve conflict,582 but Greco-Roman rhetoric showed little interest in most kinds of verbal exchanges, which remained the domain of comedy and philosophy.583

Diaspora Jewish works often argue that the Greeks borrowed their philosophy's best ideas from Moses and Jewish tradition.584 Some such works, like the Letter of Aristeas, portray Jewish sages presenting their wisdom to an approving Hellenistic monarch, or impressing or besting Hellenistic philosophers.585 Whether such works were intended to convert Greeks, or more likely, to impress Greeks with Judaism's abilities and to educate less hellenized Jews, remains disputed.586 But these samples rarely include sustained debates or interlocution, wishing to harmonize Judaism and Greek thought. The only corpus of Jewish literature containing numerous examples of controversy dialogues and other controversy settings is rabbinic literature.587

In rabbinic controversy dialogues,588 the rabbis debate pagan interlocutors in general,589 pagan philosophers,590 including «Epicureans»591 (possibly used in the general denigrating sense of those who denied divine providence and judgment),592 Sadducees593 Samaritans,594 and minim (schismatics) in genera1.595 (Rabbinic controversy with the minim will be discussed in ch. 5, below.)

The existence of other controversy forms helps explain the Johannine form's appeal and function but neither confirms nor calls into question the likelihood that John's dialogues depend on traditional materia1. The rabbinic accounts are probably more formally stylized than the Synoptic accounts,596 but less developed (or at least shorter) than the Johannine forms. The Synoptic forms probably depict historical reality,597 which is less likely in the case of many of the rabbinic accounts, and not easily testable in the Fourth Gospe1. It can only be suggested that the great length of the Johannine controversies implies that, if John employs prior tradition, he has expanded it freely, perhaps as the Targum provided interpretive expansions of OT teaching.598

Johns controversy narratives often utilize argumentation similar to that of the rabbis599 and similarly employ the opponents as a foil to the protagonist's case. But John accounts are much longer than rabbinic, Synoptic, or other stereotypical accounts. Dodd suggests that «The Johannine dialogue is an original literary creation, having in some respects more affinity with Hellenistic models than with the dialogues of the Synoptic Gospels or their rabbinic analogues.»600 Given the hellenization of Palestinian as well as Diaspora Judaism,601 this dichotomy may be artificial, for Greco-Roman speech-writing conventions influenced Josephus and other educated Jews, and we cannot suppose that John, writing in Greek and probably addressing a Diaspora community, is isolated from their influence.602 But Dodd's point is well taken: John's discourses do not resemble the speech conventions of the Synoptic Jesus tradition, and we must ultimately look elsewhere for their final form.

John's Discourses and Ancient Speech-writing

Jesus» discourses in the Fourth Gospel fit a relatively uniform pattern. As Dodd and others have noted, John develops most of his discourses the same way: Jesus» statement, then the objection or question of a misunderstanding interlocutor, and finally a discourse (either complete in itself or including other interlocutions).603 John usually limits speaking characters to two (a unified group counting as a single chorus) in his major discourse sections, as in Greek drama.604 Repetitious patterns might provide analogy and unity of presentation, as in the speeches in Acts.605 Thus Ben Witherington suggests that, while there is likely some authentic material in the discourses, John took artistic liberties in expressing them, given the dramatic mode of biography in which he wrote.606 D. A. Carson suggests that John provided the substance rather than verbatim reports; the Fourth Evangelist used his material in his sermons before revising it for his Gospe1.607

Thus virtually all scholars concur that Jesus» discourses in the Fourth Gospel reflect Johannine editing or composition.

1. Speeches as Interpretive Events

Nor is structure the only indication of Johannine editing; the function of the discourses in their context supports such a probability. Although one would also expect the historical Jesus to address issues raised by the occasion, it is significant that John's discourses often interpret the events they accompany (e.g., 6:26–58 with 6:1–21). By doing so, they function as speeches in ancient narratives often did: to provide the writer's clues to the meaning of the historical narrative,608 as well as the writer's best reconstruction or, when sources were lacking, guess, of what the speaker would have said.609 (As in the Gospel of John, speeches could also constitute a large body of the narrative.)610 As in Greco-Roman historiography, some Palestinian Jewish haggadic works used the speech of reliable characters to illumine the narrativés significance. For example, speeches in Jubilees often interpret the events they accompany.611

Such stylistic adaptation and interpretive amplification did not violate the protocols of ancient historical writing. Those who expanded the historical kernel of a speech rather than composed it wholesale from probability were the more conservative historians. Cad-bury, Foakes-Jackson, and Lake observe that one could not publish onés history before putting the whole work into proper rhetorical style.612 Although we will use ancient rhetorical conventions to examine some of John's argumentation, none of his speeches follow standard rhetorical structures or display firsthand knowledge of rhetoric.613 Yet while John's style may not be that of a skilled rhetorician, it does reflect rhetorical consistency in both the narratives and the discourses.614 John makes abundant use of parallelism, probably because of Semitic linguistic patterns but relevant also in Greek rhetoric.615 As noted in our discussion of John's distinctive traits among the Gospels, many rhetors preferred a style that was simple and avoided what was enigmatic (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 2, 4), while John's language is simple but sometimes enigmatic because of its levels of meaning.616 This represents a different kind of mystery from that in Revelation, perhaps developing instead the kind of obscurity found in Jesus» Synoptic parables (which John clarifies for disciples in chs. 13–17).617 John is perfectly clear in other ways, however. Some earlier rhetors preferred using suspense to build to a climax (e.g., Cicero Verr. 2.5.5.10–11), as perhaps in the unveiling of the Messianic Secret in Mark; by contrast, John shows his christological hand more forthrightly from the beginning.

For this ultimate stage of composition it made little difference whether the historian was using the real documents and memoranda of research or merely the finished work of some predecessor. In either case he must make a new work, recasting all in his own style by the method of paraphrase.Verbatim copying of sources was not tolerated, for no matter how slavishly one followed the substance of his predecessor's narrative one must recast his own style.618

This stylistic unity normally obscures all signs of the redactional process, in which historical writers often added speeches at the final stage of composition;619 likewise, narrative and discourse are all of one literary cloth in the Fourth Gospe1.

Nor was interpretive amplification forbidden to historians; bound to the events they narrated, they had to fill out what they knew or could reasonably suppose about speeches on the basis of probability and proper rhetorical style. Scholars point out that writers were expected to compose the speeches they reported: Livy derives his narrativés events directly from Polybius, but adapts the speeches (though he does not create them ex nihilo); the portrayals of Otho in Tacitus and Plutarch agree closely but diverge entirely in his final speech; perhaps to avoid repetition when his Antiquities covers the same ground as the Jewish War, Josephus composes for his second work an entirely different speech for Herod on the same occasion; and so forth.620 Other scholars point to similar examples. For instance, Herodotus sometimes provides various accounts of events, but never of speeches, which he composed freely.621 Thus Cadbury can assert that «the ancient writers and their readers considered the speeches more as editorial and dramatic comment than as historical tradition.»622

Ancient historians could omit their discourse sources, a practice that was «(usually unthinkable)»; they could «faithfully transcribe them (almost unthinkable),» or they could «modify them,» the most common practice.623 Where no report of a speech's contents were available, historians could compose what they thought the speaker would have said, aiming for verisimilitude, following the standard rhetorical exercise of prosöpopoiia, composing speeches «in character.»624 (This exercise could also refer to speaking as if another merely to underline the point, for example, calling hearers to imagine that their ancestors addressed and reproached them; Demetrius 5.265–266.) Speeches should be appropriate to the local setting (Quintilian 3.7.24); thus rhetoricians criticized dramatists who used bombast in character's speeches, because it failed to resemble genuine speech (Longinus Subi 3.1–2).625

2. One Jewish Historians Speeches

Historians» use of speeches ranged from careful to careless, and some earned others» censure.626 Diodorus Siculus complains about some historians who take their liberties too far in an attempt to show off their rhetorical skills. Those who want to display their skills may do so, he says, by composing «public discourses and speeches for ambassadors, likewise orations of praise and blame and the like.»627 Many, however, fail to stay relevant to the occasions for which the speeches are written;628 he would not ban speeches from historical works,629 but demands that they be suitable.630

Josephus's speeches in his Antiquities of the Jews can provide a test case, because we can compare his speeches with his primary source, the Bible, which he expands at points either by other traditions or by his own creativity. Josephus considerably expands God's words of reproof to Adam in Genesis,631 and even invents speeches for biblical characters which alter the perspective of the biblical speech.632 As a good Hellenistic historian he must include such speeches. Thus he adds a speech for Moses in response to Korah's challenge (Ant. 4.25–34) because Moses was skillful in rhetoric (Ant. 4.25). He invents a seductive speech for the Midianite women (Ant. 4.134–138). Samuel the prophet sounds like a rhetorician in a Hellenistic history (Ant. 6.20–21). Josephus also adapts speeches in 1Maccabees, though he tends to adapt more than create.633 (Pseudo-Philo similarly composes speech material freely and interweaves it with the biblical narrative.)634

All 109 speeches in Josephus's Jewish War reflect his own style and communicate his own perspective.635 Josephus is more emotionally committed to much of his material than most other historians, because he has a personal stake in the matters about which he writes. Thus he includes three of his own orations, and others by his allies, all of which advance his own position and denounce his critics among the rebels.636 Josephus has Titus exhort his soldiers by talking about the Jewish God in the War (6.39–41). The speech given on the same occasion in the Antiquities (15.126ff.) is completely different. Few historians «would have praised or endorsed» Josephus's clumsiness.637

One of Josephus's speeches, that of Eleazar at Masada, fits a standard rhetorical tradition638 but is historically implausible: a Zealot's eloquent Hellenistic discourse on the soul's immortality probably heard by no surviving witnesses, it is nothing more than an opportunity for Josephus to show off his rhetoric, and no ancient reader would have assumed that it was a genuine speech.639 To be sure, the two surviving women (if not invented by Josephus for this purpose) must have heard something about the men's decision, and perhaps some speech given by Eleazar, before hiding themselves (War 7.399). Josephus says they supplied the information to the Romans (War 7.404). To have supplied anything like the extant speech, however, they would have needed a Hellenistic education, which is improbable! Archaeology confirms much of Josephus's report about Masada, but Eleazar's speech adds more drama than realism.640

Because Josephus composed a speech where he had no record does not mean that he lacked all genuine knowledge of speeches given on other occasions. For instance, it is likely that Agrippa spoke on the occasions when Josephus attributes public speeches to him, and Josephus's reconstructions of such speeches are plausible, even if he has made no attempt to give Agrippás exact sense.641

3. More Accurate Speeches

John's stylistic continuity, like that of Josephus, need not indicate that the contents of all their speeches were fabricated; nor is the comparison with Josephus necessarily adequate by itself. Josephus was more liberal in such composition than many of his peers. Historians varied in their accuracy, both in narratives (where Josephus and Herodotus tend to be more accurate than in their speeches) and in speeches.642 Some historians could be more accurate, and probably even Josephus sought to represent the substance of a speech when he knew what it was. Ancient texts attest that some hearers of speeches even took notes to capture the gist of those speeches.643 Provided they retained the gist, historians retained the freedom to fill out speeches plausibly and to recount them in their own words (often, in fact, they had no choice but to do so, given literary expectations for readable works).644

While some writers, like Isocrates and Josephus, displayed less concern for replicating the content of speeches, historians like Thucydides and Polybius sought to report the substance of speeches faithfully.645 Free invention of speeches seems to have been a last resort rather than a normal practice; Polybius expects his readers to be outraged, as he is, that Timaeus invents speeches.646 (This can hardly mean that Polybius himself never made up speech material, only that he was as accurate as possible, filling in with verisimilitude where he lacked sources for what was said.) Ancient historians recognized that the majority of their colleagues did retain speeches in their sources;647 even Livy, a rhetorical historian, retains the gist of speeches we find in Polybius.648

The fifth-century B.C.E. historian Thucydides, whose work became the formal model for speech composition in subsequent centuries,649 claims that he meticulously gathered data on all the facts of the war to offer a precise account (Thucydides 1.22.2). He contrasts this precision with his best efforts at accuracy or verisimilitude in his speeches; in an often quoted paragraph he notes (1.22.1; LCL):

As to the speeches that were made by different men, either when they were about to begin the war or when they were already engaged therein, it has been difficult to recall with strict accuracy the words actually spoken, both for me as regards that which I myself heard, and for those who from various other sources have brought me reports. Therefore the speeches are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.

That is, he strives to give the basic sense of his sources where he has them and otherwise offers what he thinks was probably said, based on what he does know. Of no less interest to the Fourth Gospel's dialogues (in which conflict sometimes escalates), Thucydides could also include lengthy dialogues (the alternating partners in the debate noted by abbreviations, 5.87–5.111.4), with increasing conflict culminating in a threat of war (5.112–113). Gellius seems to report Favorinus's speeches more precisely than Thucydides, «either verbatim or in indirect speech.»650 Gempf writes that «Livy treats the speeches in his sources with some respect, reproducing the content while changing the form, and almost always adding to the length of the speech considerably, without thereby adding fictitious topics, and what additions are there can often be chalked up to the attempt to give a convincing character study.»651 An inscription of Claudius indicates that Tacitus provides Claudius's «general sense,» even retaining elements of his style, while condensing greatly.652 Authors adapted the substance of historical speech-events to their own audiences; «A recorded speech is not a transcript, but woe betide the historian if the speech is not faithful to the alleged situation and speaker.» The author might not reproduce the exact words, but the basic lines of thought and results of a speech were essentia1.653

Writers may have had sources from which to reconstruct the content of many speeches. Because rhetoric was central in ancient Mediterranean culture, people were more apt to recall central elements of speeches on critical occasions, and historians were more apt to regard them as decisive events. Thus one might testify that he remembered elements of even some speeches he considered inferior, using a memory that could be strong enough even to quote or (in this case more likely) to supplement written sources (Eunapius Lives 494). If onés source could not recall many details of a speech, but only its essence, a biographer might merely summarize it (Eunapius Lives 484). Seneca the Elder, in his Controversiae (passim), claims to recall many long dialogues many decades after first hearing them and committing them to his memory. Though his memory may be exceptional, it testifies to skills cultivated in the period of the early empire. A deceased teacher's former disciples might also collectively remember bits and pieces of speeches, sewing them together (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.524). Further, just as many rhetors wrote out their basic speeches after the event (so Cicero Brutus 24.91), disciples could have taken notes after some events (also attested, above). An eyewitness tradition could thus include some historical substance, even in the speeches.

4. Stylistic Freedom

As noted above, however, accuracy in reporting the substance does not suggest anything in the nature of a verbatim transcript. Greek and Roman writers generally demand accuracy of content (where possible) but allow liberties in wording. Where we can check historians, apart from Josephus, they seem to have followed this principle.654 Ancients relied on their memory to retrieve and arrange information because the standard for accuracy was the «gist.»655 Like Josephus's speeches, those of Thucydides are stylistically uniform,656 and Thucydides plainly acknowledges that he provides speeches at points in his narrative where he knows that they occurred, thereby expounding critical issues.657 Indeed, from ancient drama through epics through most ancient historical writing, the characters» style rarely varied from that of the author.658

New Testament scholars have most often raised similar questions concerning the accuracy of speeches in the early Christian history called Acts, a work whose narration of events seems to be based on reliable sources.659 Scholars who have rightly noted the stylistic unity of the speeches in Acts660 have sometimes drawn from this unity the unnecessary conclusion that Luke freely composed all the speeches without sources.661 Yet Lukés style is relatively uniform in his narrative as well,662 and confirmations of Lukés historiographie restraint elsewhere suggest that his speeches may reflect a more accurate basis than has sometimes been supposed, like those of Thucydides.663

Luke does not use the speeches merely to show off his rhetorical skills, for some of them do appear more awkward–perhaps due to Semitisms–than his customary style.664 Of course, those who have drawn attention to the possible Semitisms665 and apparent reminiscences of the actual speakers in specific speeches666 may fail to take into account adequately the ancient practice of prosöpopoiia (composing speeches according with the purported speaker's known style and character).667 That Luke would know anything of the style of the speakers, however, suggests some historical tradition or eyewitness experience; and the attempt «to give an appropriate characterization of individual speakers … is the procedure which Lucian requires of the true historian: the words of the speaker should match his person and his concern.»668

A modern demand for verbatim accuracy in ancient speech reports would be historically naive; ancient readers never expected it.669 As Aune points out,

If public inscriptions of official documents conveyed only the general substance, why should historians aim at slavish imitation? The speech of Claudius reported by Tacitus (Annals 11.23–25) is half the length of the inscribed version. Similarly, when josephus copied the text of a treaty from 1Macc. 8:23–32, he boiled the Greek text down from 154 to 81 words (Antiquities 12.417f.).670

Luke himself similarly notes that he has abbreviated Peter's speech (Acts 2:40).

Speeches could be freely composed, or they could be based on historical data, or they could fall somewhere between these two poles. Because John regards Jesus» teaching as authoritative, and does not merely use it for rhetorical practice, it is likely that he would preserve this teaching where possible. That he has access to and uses some of Jesus» teaching is confirmed by his occasional overlap with Synoptic material and his apparent dependence on an independent tradition. As Bauckham notes, freedom in speech composition probably «applied less readily to historical figures who were remembered as authoritative teachers and whose teaching was preserved.»671 The extent to which one thinks John has accurate tradition will again depend on the question of his sources, a question we again defer until our discussion of authorship.

Special Factors in Johannine Discourse

If we bracket for the moment the question of transmission, it is possible that Jesus spoke in different ways on different occasions. The location and setting of most of John's discourses differ from those in which the Synoptics take interest. The action of most of the Fourth Gospel takes place in Judea rather than in Galilee. Such factors cannot explain all the differences, but they may have exercised more effect than we often assume. Thus F. F. Bruce points out that some variation in style may occur because in the Synoptics Jesus converses especially «with the country people of Galilee,» whereas «in the Fourth Gospel he disputes with the religious leaders of Jerusalem or talks intimately to the inner circle of His disciples.»672

Further, although only John reports lengthy interchanges between Jesus and Jerusalem leaders, there can be no question that interchanges occurred, especially during the Passion Week, and they were undoubtedly longer than the Synoptics report. Luke provides insight into Jesus» Perean and Judean ministries, and the Synoptists concur that Jesus vigorously debated the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Although most of the Synoptic records of Jesus» clashes with the authorities there fit the smaller units of tradition through which they came to the Gospels, it is intrinsically likely that some of Jesus» debates would have continued at more length.673

Some of Jesus» teachings in the Fourth Gospel are also directed especially to the disciples, including a form of the Messianic Secret. This, too, matches the record of the other gospels, perhaps independently confirming their tradition while providing fuller details concerning it.674 (In John, the secret does not affect Samaritans–4:25–26–as in Mark it does not affect Gentiles–Mark 5:19; it also involves divine hardening of the unbelieving in both–John 12:37–43; Mark 4:10–12.675 But John the Baptist s confession of Jesus becomes more explicit in the Fourth Gospel–1:29; similarly, Peter is no longer the first disciple to confess Jesus» messiahship–1:41, 49.) An eyewitness tradition might diverge particularly with respect to private teachings, providing a much fuller exposition of Jesus» teachings originally circulated only among his disciples. Nor is such private instruction intrinsically unlikely historically. Rabbis passed on different kinds of teachings in different settings; for instance, esoteric teachings might be circulated only privately among their disciples for fear of being misunderstood.676

It could also be pointed out that the same rhythmic patterns stand behind the Jesus of both John and the Synoptics,677 that some speech patterns such as «Amen, I say to you,»678 occur in both (though doubled in John),679 probably implying a special authority in both,680 and that Jesus occasionally speaks in so-called «Johannine idiom» even in the Synoptics (e.g., Mark 10:37; Matt. 11:27).681

Further, the geographical differences between the Synoptics and John mentioned above could account for linguistic differences as wel1. Although sages often practiced Hebrew among themselves (so the Mishnah and many Qumran scrolls), colloquial proverbs and burial inscriptions suggest that the Galilean peasants and artisans Jesus usually addresses in the Gospels spoke Aramaic more often than other languages. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the East before the advance of Hellenism in the second century B.C.E. (and among the less hellenized long after).682 Most scholars hold that Jesus used mainly Aramaic when he conducted his ministry in the rural parts of Galilee.683 But at times he probably taught in Greek, the regional trade language and language of the urban centers. He lived in a multilingual society,684 even if most people were not equally proficient in both Greek and Aramaic.685 More than likely, he spoke some Greek in urban Jerusalem; most Palestinian Jews were bilingual,686 and at least the upper classes in the urban areas seem to have used Greek more.687 (Some have argued for a widespread use of spoken Hebrew in Jesus» Jerusalem,688 which might make most sense in Jesus» debates with teachers of the law;689 but this has so far commanded limited support.) Thus the Synoptists could record mainly translation Greek from Jesus» Aramaic words in Galilee, whereas John's Greek in Jerusalem could be more authentic Greek.

But none of these objections is ultimately persuasive for all the discourses. The Synoptic Jesus also debates in Jerusalem (Mark 11:27–12par.), and the Johannine Jesus debates with a crowd in Galilee (John 6:22–59). Jesus privately provides secret teachings to his disciples in both streams of tradition (Mark 4:11). Although the Synoptic Jesus occasionally speaks in «Johannine idiom» (Q material in Matt 11:27/Luke 10:21),690 that style of speech is so titled because it is characteristic of and permeates the Fourth Gospel;691 in the Fourth Gospel, one is often scarce able to discern whether Jesus or the narrator is speaking692 (and perhaps for good reason, since the narrator believes himself inspired by the Paraclete who continues Jesus» mission). John's revelation of Jesus may not contradict the Synoptics, but the emphasis is quite different. Even where we have clear proof that John depends on earlier tradition (e.g., 6:1–21), John goes his own way, writing in his own idiom and connecting the events and teachings to theological motifs that run throughout his Gospe1.693

As F. F. Bruce notes, the Synoptics present what Jesus did and said; John, while also relying on historical tradition, is more concerned to tell us who Jesus was and what he meant. The Fourth Gospel is more than a mere eyewitness account; it also represents many decades of deep meditation on the meaning of what was witnessed, a meaning John hopes to share with his readers in his own historical situation.694 If the early Christian writer Origen exaggerated the differences between John and the Synoptics when he viewed John as a «spiritual gospel» (a diagnosis which Origen used to justify his extensive allegorization), he at least noticed a legitimate difference, which most readers of the Fourth Gospel since him have likewise recognized. John's Gospel is history; but it is a much more theological and homiletical history than the Synoptics. John seeks to be faithful to his historical tradition by articulating its implications afresh for his own generation.

Conclusion

Many studies have failed to take adequate account of the relevance of ancient speech-writing practices or the exceptional memories of many disciples (especially for teachers» sayings but also for the substance of their teachings and encounters on given occasions). Ancient sources were far more apt to recall and report the substance of speeches than modern memories do; they were also far more apt to adapt and develop them than modern historians would. On most readings, John's discourses contain some historical tradition, but are in John's style and expand on that tradition to expound the point. John may write biography, but it is a somewhat different kind of biography from that of the Synoptics (though closer to them than to proposed alternatives), and much less focused on Greek standards of historiography than, say, Luke. Because John includes some sayings confirmed from the Synoptics, he probably also includes many sayings of Jesus no longer extant from other sources. These are, however, so woven into the fabric of John's composition that it is difficult or impossible for critics to disentangle them by traditional methods. The historical method does suggest that historical tradition stands behind the narratives and discourses of the Fourth Gospe1. Literary analysis, however, confirms that, whatever traditions are there have been subordinated to the author's overall portrait of Jesus that they comprise.

In the end, then, we can make only a general statement that, given a reliable tradition (see chs. 1 and 3 of our introduction), the Fourth Gospel preserves genuine historical reminiscences of Jesus and an accurate portrait of events and essential teaching. By itself, however, this general conviction affects only the burden of proof and does not enable us to evaluate the historical worth of most smaller details in the narratives or discourses; disentangling history and theology in the Fourth Gospel's discourses by traditional critical methodologies is a particularly difficult task and one that is in most cases unhelpfully speculative. Although we will explore John's tradition where possible (usually where he overlaps with the Synoptics), attention to John's message to his own readers» situation is a more historically feasible task, one more in line with the author's purpose, and hence a more fruitful invitation for our inquiry in most of this commentary. Having raised the matter of historical tradition, however, we must examine the question of authorship and tradition.

* * *

474

Often noted, e.g., Goppelt, Theology, 1:15.

475

Smith, John (1999), 30; Culpepper, John, 21–22.

476

The speeches in Acts borrow considerable language from the LXX (Soards, Speeches, 160) and function similarly to interpretive speeches in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel-Kings (Soards, Speeches, 12–13,156–57). The same may well be true of John's discourses.

477

Some have suggested that Mark drew on complexes of tradition rather than merely individual sayings and stories (Jeremias, Theology, 37–38; Taylor, Mark, 90; cf. Dodd, Preaching, 46–51; idem, Studies, 10); while some general arrangements may have become traditional, however, it remains unclear that Mark drew on connected oral narratives, except perhaps on Q at points.

478

Lewis, History, 43; on a more popular level, cf. the accuracy of the griot's basic information in Alex Haley's popular work Roots (New York: Dell, 1976), 717–25.

479

Anthologists and others felt free to redact sacred cultural texts (e.g., Cicero Nat. d. 3.16.42 [concerning Homer Od. 11.600ff.; see esp. Cicero LCL 19:324–25 n. a]; Diogenes Laertius 1.48: Solon into Homer I1. 2.557), philosophical works (e.g., possibly Hierocles in Stobaeus; Malherbe, Exhortation, 85), although Jewish scribes were quite restrained in practicing this with Scripture (despite an occasional fourth-century Palestinian Amora who reportedly attempted some redaction criticism on Scripture: cf. Lev. Rab. 6:6; 15:2).

480

See Gundry, «Genre,» 102; Witherington, Christology, 22; contrast the older approach of Dibelius, Tradition, 3. Those who transmitted traditions would have preserved sayings with greater detail, allowing greater variation in recounting narratives (Pesch, «Jerusalem,» 107; cf. Culpepper, John, 21–22).

481

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»).

482

Though exact words are fixed only at the written stage, the basic story is already stable at the oral stage (Lord, Singer, 138).

483

See below; also Witherington, Christology, 8, 17–19, critiquing Kelber. Lampe and Luz, «Overview,» 404, provide one humorous example of an oral tradition transmitted probably accurately for over 140 years in the modern academy.

484

E.g., Pausanias 1.23.2; cf. also Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xc-xci. Some claim such centuries-long accuracy for rabbinic tradition (Hilton and Marshall, Gospels and Judaism, 15). While I suspect many customs and story lines were thus preserved, attributions might be more difficult.

485

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 (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.12).

486

Cf. Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.6; also Stowers, «Diatribe,» 74, on Arrian's notes on Epictetus; Lutz, «Musonius,» 7,10, on notes from Musonius's pupils. Cf. the brief discussion of Plutarch's notebooks in the Loeb introduction to Stoic Contradictions (LCL 13:369–603, pp. 398–99).

487

Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 19.

488

Loeb introduction to Epictetus, xii-xiii. Even in the Enchiridion, where Arrian organizes and summarizes his master's teaching, Epictetus's character dominates.

489

Epictetus Diatr. 1.pref. (LCL 1:4–5).

490

Quintilian 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 (Diodorus Siculus 40.8.1).

491

Gempf, «Speaking,» 299, citing especially Quintilian 11.2.2. Cf. also the less formal school setting of declamations (Seneca Suasoriae 3.2).

492

Zeno in Diogenes Laertius 7.1.20.

493

Gerhardsson, Memory, 160–62; cf. Safrai, «Education,» 966. Orality and literacy coexisted in Mediterranean school settings; see Gamble, «Literacy,» 646.

494

E.g., Blomberg, Reliability, 41, following Millard, Reading, 197–211, 223–29.

495

Cf. this practice alleged even among the far more secretive Pythagoreans (Iamblichus V.P. 23.104), whose initial reticence seems unusual (32.226).

496

Some early second-century fathers even preferred oral tradition, though cf. the preference in Eunapius Lives 459–460 for written sources when an event seemed incredible.

497

Antisthenes in Diogenes Laertius 6.1.5 (LCL).

498

Aulus Gellius 8.3.

499

Culpepper, School 193; Aulus Gellius 7.10.1; Socrates Ep. 20.

500

Diogenes Laertius 10.1.12, on Epicurus, according to Diocles; on followers of Pythagoras, cf. Culpepper, School 50.

501

Quintilian 1.3.1; Plutarch Educ. 13, Mor. 9E; Musonius Rufus frg. 51, p. 144.3–7; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.31; Koester, Introduction, 1:93; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 84; Heath, Hermogenes, 11; Watson, «Education,» 310, 312; examples were also memorized (Theon Progymn. 2.5–8). The youngest learned by pure memorization (Quintilian 2.4.15; Jeffers, World, 256), and higher education (after about age sixteen) included memorizing many speeches and passages useful for speeches (Jeffers, World, 256). But the ultimate goal was both understanding and remembering (Isocrates Demon. 18, Or. 1). Ancient theories on how memory worked varied (see Aristotle Mem.; Plato Meno 8ICD; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.523).

502

Gerhardsson, Memory, 124–25. Cf., e.g., Eunapius Lives 481.

503

Culpepper, School 177. The effectiveness of long-term memorization by a certain amount of repetition (beyond a certain point it is unnecessary) has been studied, e.g., by Thompson, Wenger, and Bartling, «Recall,» 210 (this source was supplied to me by M. Bradley, then a student at Duke University); for memorization by repetition, see Iamblichus V.P. 31.188.

504

Diodorus Siculus 10.5.1; Iamblichus V.P. 29.165; on their memories, see further ibid., 20.94; 29.164; 35.256. On memorization techniques, cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.22.35. See further Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 98.

505

Some mnemonic claims from much earlier periods (Valerius Maximus 8.7.ext.l6: Cyrus's knowledge of all his troops» names, or Mithridates» of the twenty-two languages of his subjects) are less credible.

506

See, e.g., Philostratus Vit. Apol1. 5.21; Liefeld, «Preacher,» 223; Robbins, Jesus, 64. Some writers emphasized that an internal inclination to virtue was superior to imitation (Philo Abraham 6, 38).

507

Amoraim underlined this principle with stories of rabbis who imitated even their masters» toilet habits and home life (b. Ber. 62a). Rabbis» behavior later established legal precedent (t. Piska 2:15–16; Sipre Deut. 221.1.1; p. B. Mesica 2:11, §1; Demai 1[22b]; Nid. 1:4, §2; Sanh. 7:2, §4; Yebam. 4:11, §8).

508

E.g., Xenophon Mem. 1.2.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.4. Writers cared about both the words and «deeds» of characters (e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 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 Vit. soph, intro. 452–453 refers in context to casual activities only–cf. Xenophon Symp. 1.1).

509

Josephus Life 8; Ag. Ap. 1.60; 2.171–173, 204. Josephus's statements on Jewish literacy, like that in m. "Abot 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,» 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.

510

See Riesner, «Education élémentaire»; idem, Jesus.

511

  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.»

512

See documentation in Keener, Matthew, 25–29. Greek and Roman philosophers also could do the same (Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.22.523), even using poetry to reinforce their teaching for early students (Seneca Ep. Luci1. 108.9–10), though not advanced ones (ibid. 108.12; poetry and song involved memorization, Apollodorus 1.3.1; Seneca Controv. 1.pref.2,19).

513

E.g., t. Yebam. 3:1; Mek. Pisha 1.135–136; Sipre Deut. 48.2.6; "Abot R. Nat. 24 A; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; b. Sukkah 28a; p. Šeqa1. 2:5; cf. m. cEd. 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).

514

This distinction between «net» and «chain» transmission (D. C. Rubin, «Transmission,» Chap. T, 1989) was pointed out to me by Margaret Bradley, a Duke student researching memory from a psychological perspective.

515

Gerhardsson, Memory, 136–48,173; Goulder, Midrash, 64–65. Similar sayings thus could appear in different words (m. Šabb. 9:1; cAbod. Zar. 3:6).

516

Simeon ben Azzai in Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.3.1, 3.

517

P. Sotah 5:6, §1; cf. p. Ketub. 3:1, §4. Of course, the rabbi may have issued several different opinions on a subject in his lifetime; cf. p. B. Qam. 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).

518

Theon Progymn. 1.93–171; cf., e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.23–25 with the Loeb note referring to Plato Apo1. 29C, 28E (LCL 1:70–71). Diodorus Siculus 20.1–2 allowed limited «rhetorical embellishment» in composing speeches for historical works (Aune, Environment, 93).

519

Davies, «Aboth,» 156.

520

Draper, «Didache.»

521

Sanders, Figure, 193.

522

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.

523

Others before him, such as Dibelius, Tradition, 39, had, however, already drawn less sustained comparisons between rabbinic and gospel traditioning.

524

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 do 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). As many observe (e.g., Hagner, Matthew, l:xlix; Boyd, Sage, 121), the later rabbinic method hardly arose ex nihilo after 70 C.E.

525

Bailey, «Tradition.» Cf., e.g., Xenophon Cyr. 1.2.1 for an example of long informal tra-ditioning by storytelling and song.

526

His primary basis for ethics was union with the risen Christ rather than the tradition (cf. Pfitzner, «School»), so such attestation was incidenta1.

527

1Cor 9:14; 11:2,23, 15:3; 1 Thess 4:1–2; cf. 1Cor 7:10–12; 1 Thess 4:15; 2 Thess 2:15; cf. perhaps Rom 6(Writers used terms like «receiving» and «passing on» for both teachings [e.g., Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.29.621; Iamblichus V.P. 28.148; 32.226] and customs [e.g., Thucydides 1.85.1; Iamblichus V.P. 28.149].) That these were generated by Christian prophecy is extremely unlikely; see our treatment of prophecy and the Johannine sayings tradition. Many also find Jesus tradition in Rom 12–14 (e.g., Thompson, Clothed; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 13), although many of these paraenetic themes were more widespread (Gerhardsson, «Path,» 81, argues that paraenesis was probably not the dominant reason for preserving the Jesus tradition).

528

Stanton, Gospel Truth, 97.

529

Theissen, Gospels, 3–4. Given the differing genres of «lives» and letters, it is not surprising that we lack more Jesus traditions in the letters (see Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 16–19; Gerhardsson, «Path»).

530

  Pace Koester, Gospels; idem, «Gospels.» Oral traditions of Jesus» sayings continued to circulate even after the written gospels were in existence, however; see John 21:25; Papias's collection; Hengel, «Problems,» 213; Hagner, «Sayings.»

531

Davids, «Tradition,» 89–90.

532

Gundry, Use, 191, also emphasizing the lack of «Pauline terminology in the gospels» and Paul distinguishing his teaching from that of Jesus.

533

Cf. Stein, «Criteria,» 225–28; Goetz and Blomberg, «Burden of Proof»; Bartnicki, «Zapowiedzi.»

534

Burridge, Gospels, 226.

535

This is not to deny that some individual sayings in John preserve an earlier form; but even most individual sayings appear more developed by Johannine idiom (cf. Ingelaere, «Tradition»).

536

Burridge, Gospels, 225,227, citing Philostratus Vit. Apoll; Satyrus Euripides; and Socratic literature; cf. the sayings section in Iamblichus V.P. 8–11.

537

Black, «Words,» 221–23, argues that Jesus» speech employs conventions of rhetorical grandeur appropriate to discussing the divine.

538

Quintilian 11.2.1–51. In first-century B.C.E. Roman courts, each defense speaker had «only» three hours (Cicero Brutus 93.324). Satterthwaite, «Acts,» 344, notes that one of the orator's five main tasks was memory, « (memoria), learning the speech by heart in preparation for delivery»; Olbricht, «Delivery and Memory» (esp. 159,163, citing Rhet. Ad Herenn. 1.3–5; Cicero De or. 2.351); Heath, Hermogenes, 7; cf. Eunapius Lives 502; ancient rhetoricians praised memory (Aeschines False Embassy 48,112).

539

Educated Greeks often delighted in rehearsing these stories; cf., e.g., Theon (a reliable character) in Plutarch Pleasant Life Impossible 10, Mor. 1093C; storytelling within stories (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 8.22; frequent as early as Homer) and literary fragments scattered throughout the papyri (cf. Avi-Yonah, Hellenism, 248) indicate the commonness of such transmission.

540

See similarly Streeter, Gospels, 370; though John differs from Plato and likely has «a tradition of events independent of the Synoptics» that presumably includes sayings (371–72), he charismatically interprets Jesus (372–73). Streeter mistakenly, however, contrasts collections of wise sayings (which he takes as Jewish) with speeches (which he takes as Greek); one may contrast Platós dialogues with the equally Greek short, pithy sayings and anecdotes in Diogenes Laertius 2.18–47. But while Xenophon seems to have known Socrates less well than Plato, some later claimed that he took notes (Diogenes Laertius 2.48).

541

Robbins, Teacher, 63.

542

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 23 rightly notes that Platós Apology is not actually Socrates» defense; though a forensic speech, it is not really what Socrates delivered.

543

Marchant, «Introduction,» ix-xv (who suggests 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.

544

See esp. Schenkeveld, «Prose,» 213–30. Cicero testifies that some of his friends wanted him to use their names as characters in his (probably mostly fictitious) dialogues (Cicero Att. 12.12; for other dialogues that likely are fictitious or at least contain considerable embellishment, see his Brutus 3.10–96.330; Fin. passim). But none of this is in a genre even resembling biography. Later writers also understood Xenophon s Cyropedia (like Platós Dialogues) as a pedagogic device, not primarily historical or biographic (Cicero Quint, fratr. 1.1.8.23). By the middle of the first century C.E., even a Stoic such as Musonius Rufus adapted some Socratic methods (see Lutz, «Musonius,» 27).

545

Watkins, John, 437. As Moody Smith rightly points out, however, the sayings are rarely in the same context, except where necessary to the story (Smith, John [1999], 122).

546

Cf. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 27, who thinks (certainly rightly) that Jesus as a Jewish teacher undoubtedly taught in such forms.

547

E.g., Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 172B-194E. Many of these sayings also occur in other sources, as the Loeb footnotes indicate (LCL 3:8–153). Such compilations of maxims were used in the progymnasmata, school rhetorical exercises in which the sayings were adapted (Malherbe, Exhortation, 109,117) and in the process their sense was learned (for the importance of learning maxims, cf. Isocrates Demon. 12, Or. 1; Aristotle Rhet. 2.21.15, 1395b; Petronius Sat. 4; Sir 18:29; Plutarch Poetry 14, Mor. 35EF; also Epicharmus Gnomai C.l-15 in Sei. Pap. 3:440–43); often they upheld aristocratic social values (Sinclair, "Sententia»).

548

E.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 94.27–28; also Aune, Environment, 34, on Platós sayings, gathered into Gnomologia (maxim collections) only in the fifth century C.E. Some also professed to know during what incidents various sayings were uttered, however (e.g., Plutarch Themistocles 11.2).

549

E.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.72, 6.2.51; Plutarch Agesilaus 21.4–5.

550

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, and others besides Cynics employed such forms (see Boyd, Sage, 160; Wright, People of God, 427–35; Theissen, Gospels, 120).

551

See Robbins, «Pronouncement Stories» (around 200 in Plutarch's Lives); Alsup, «Pronouncement Story» (in Plutarch's Moralia); Poulos, «Pronouncement Story» (close to 500 in Diogenes Laertius).

552

These seem to have been substantially rarer in strictly Jewish works; cf. VanderKam, «Pronouncement Stories» (finding only nineteen «intertestamental» examples, mainly in Γ. Job and Ahiqar); Porton, «Pronouncement Story» (few in the tannaitic stratum, though Porton may limit them too much, as Theissen, Gospels, 120 n. 143 also observes); Greenspoon, «Pronouncement Story» (Philo and Josephus did not add these to biblical narratives, and used them only rarely).

553

See Avery-Peck, «Argumentation.»

554

Bultmann, Tradition, 88–89, may, however, be too optimistic at how quickly it 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.

555

  «Abot R. Nat. 22, §46 B, on R. Akiba and Ben Azzai; m. »Abot 3:9,17 (R. Hanina ben Dosa and R. Elazar ben Azariah).

556

Cf. Diogenes Laertius 2.60; Ariston 1 in Plutarch Sayings of Spartans, Mor. 218A; Themistocles 2 in Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 185A, and Alexander in Dio Chrysotom Or. 2; Alcibiades 1 in Plutarch Sayings of Kings and Commanders, Mor. 186D, and a Spartan in Mor. 234E; Plutarch Marcus Cato 2.4; the story in Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.485; Athenaeus Deipn. 550; and Diogenes Laertius 4.37 (Philostratus 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, Exhortation, 100). Sometimes one teacher reused his own speeches; cf. Crosby's Loeb introduction to Dio Chrysostom Or. 66 (LCL 5:86–87).

557

Pace Funk, Gospels, 22–23.

558

Still, some of them, such as Taylor, Formation, passim; and Dibelius, Tradition, 62, saw much of the tradition as essentially historical; Bultmann, Tradition, passim, was more radica1.

559

Davies, Invitation, 115–16; cf. similarly Sanders, Tendencies, 28.

560

Benoit, Jesus, 1:33.

561

Witherington, Christology, 14, citing also Müller, Traditionsprozess.

562

Stein, «Criteria,» 225–28; see also Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60–61; Wright, People of God, 421.

563

Theissen, Gospels, 25–29. Cf. also the presence of Semitisms (e.g., Jeremias, Theology, passim;

564

Ben Zomás words in Pirke Aboth are expounded by biblical prooftexts in "Abot R. Nat. 23.

565

This image appears in Tannaitic sources (Sipra Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.14 [anonymous and R. Akiba]; Sipre Deut. 306.25.1 [perhaps an Amoraic gloss]; 313.2.4; 351.1.2–3 [anonymous and R. Gamaliel]; "Abot R. Nat. 15 A and 29, §§61–62 Β [attributed to Shammai and Hillel]) as well as later Amoraic ones (b. Ber. 5a; Meg. 19b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 4:7; 10:5; 15:5; Pesiq. Rab. 3:1; Num. Rab. 13:15–16; 14:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Song Rab. 1:2, §5; 1:3, §2; cf. Neusner, Sat, 73–74; Patte, Hermeneutic, 23,87–92). Because it completes it, oral law takes precedence over and is more precious than Scripture in later sources (e.g., b. cAbod. Zar. 35a; cErub. 21b; Menah. 29b; p. cAbod. Zar. 2:7, §3; Hor. 3:5, §3; Sanh. 11:4, §1; Song Rab. 1.2, §2; Pesiq. Rab. 3:2; cf. Sipra Behuq. par. 2.264.1.1; Sipre Deut. 115.1.1–2; 161.1.3; "Abot R. Nat. 2–3A; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Urbach, Sages, 1:305), but rarely in the earliest rabbinic sources (Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 115–125), and never in Josephus or early Christian comments (Bonsirven, Judaism, 85). «Oral law» may have developed the Pharisaic fence of tradition to counter Jewish Christian and gnostic use of Scripture; cf. Chernick, «Responses»; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 159.

566

Sanders, Jesus to Mishnah, 97–130; idem, Judaism, 424. The idea does appear in m. "Abot 1–2; this structure cannot be dated before the time of the last disciples mentioned, i.e., to end of the first century C.E. or later, but may derive support from earlier purported esoteric revelations to Moses on Sinai (cf. Charles, Jubilees, p. L, on Jubilees; cf. 4 Ezra 14:6). Sanders (Jesus to Mishnah, 126–27; Judaism, 424) thinks that the Essenes were closer to regarding their own tradition as law ( 11QT) than the Pharisees were (though Essene halakah, in contrast to Pharisaic halakah, was primarily written; see Baumgarten, «Unwritten Law»). Some groups, like Sadducees and Samaritans, pretended to reject postbiblical halakah (cf. Bowman, Documents, v-vi).

567

Josephus Ant. 13.297, 408. Beyond Pharisaism, cf. Sir 8:9; Jub. 7:38–39; 10:14; 45(testamentary); CD 3.3 (using the same Hebrew term as in the chain of tradition in m. "Abot 1:1); cf. the commonalities between Qumran and rabbinic scribes in Siegal, «Scribes,» 1–28; cf. Kugel and Greer, Interpretation, 69. Various teachers in the early second century seem to have differed in their evaluation of the role of tradition (Landman, «Aspects»).

568

Tradition naturally guided exegesis; see m. "Abot 3:11–13; cf. p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Gen. Rab. 56:6; Moore, Judaism, 1:428; Bonsirven, Judaism, 87; Strack, Introduction, 6–7.

569

Dodd, More Studies, 41; cf. Conzelmann, Theology, 324.

570

See above; on chreiai, e.g., Aphthonius 23.3R-4R; Nicolaus 4.17–18. On the social function of such stories in a Mediterranean honor-based context, see Malina and Neyrey, «Honor and Shame,» 30.

571

Aune, Environment, 51.

572

Cf. the criticism on stylistic grounds from Conzelmann, Theology, 324, against Bultmann's hypothesis of a pre-Christian gnostic discourse source.

573

Diogenes Laertius 9.8.51.

574

Platós Apo1. (e.g., 27C) shows that dialogue could be adapted into a speaker both representing and refuting his opponents. Although Platós interlocutors are often reduced to the absurd, he allows them some intelligence; cf. Lodge, Theory, 12–13.

575

Diogenes Laertius 3.24 (following Favorinus): Plato «was the first to introduce argument by means of question and answer» (LCL 1:299). Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 41, notes that this style distinguished Socrates from the sophists. On Platós dialectic see Sinaiko, Love.

576

Passim in sayings traditions (which constitute much of Diogenes Laertius; also, e.g., Plutarch Sayings of Spartan Women): e.g., Diogenes Laertius 6.2.33, 74–75 (Diogenes the Cynic); Plutarch Statecraft!, Mor. 803CD; see Dibelius, Tradition, 157; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlviii (citing Philostratus Hrt 33.5–12; 44–46; 48.20–22).

577

E.g., Diogenes Laertius 1.35 (Thaïes); 6.2.51 (Diogenes the Cynic); Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.25.540–542 (Polemo).

578

E.g., Diogenes Laertius 2.72.

579

We speak of diatribe as a classroom style rather than a coherent genre (in contrast to Bultmann's early work), though in the first century it appears in letters and transcriptions of lectures (Stowers, Diatribe, 175; idem, «Diatribe,» 73; Malherbe, Exhortation, 129; Kennedy, Interpretation, 155). The style was designed to hold the reader's attention (cf. Kustas, «Diatribe»).

580

Cf., e.g., Stowers, Diatribe, 86–93, 122–33. They function thus in both diatribe and other forms of literature: e.g., Cicero Tusc. 3.23.55; Macrobius Sat. 1:15.22 (Van der Horst, «Macrobius,» 227); Seneca Dia1. 3.6.1; Epictetus Diatr. 1.1.23–25; 1.2.19–24; 1.28; Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.16.23–24; Dio Chrysostom Or. 21, On Beauty passim; Or. 61, Chryseis passim; Or. 67, On Popular Opinion passim; Meh. Pisha 1.35; p. Sanh. 6:1, §1. Both within and outside diatribe, rhetorical questions (e.g., Seneca Ep. Luci1. 42.2; Epictetus Diatr. 1.6; 1.19.2–6; Pesiq. Rab. 13:7; cf. Safrai, «Education,» 966) may reflect this form's influence as wel1. Diatribe had employed interlocution even more in its early period (Malherbe, Exhortation, 129).

581

Dodd, Tradition, 319; cf. Plutarch Oracles at Delphi, Mor. 394D-409D; Epictetus Diatr. 1.11, where Epictetus's frequent imaginary interlocutor is replaced by a «real» one in a Platonic-like dialogue. This mode of discourse probably also affected discourse traditions peripheral to those of sages (see Aune, Prophecy, 64–65, for some evidence for «oracular dialogue»).

582

Lêvy, «Conversation.»

583

Pernot, «Rendez-Vous.» Rhetoricians were, however, trained to argue both sides of an issue eloquently (e.g., Cicero Or. Brut. 14.46).

584

Aristobulus frg. 3, 4 (Eusebius Praep. ev. 13.12.1–2; 13.13.3–8); Let. Arts. 312–316; the various citations in Stern, Authors, 1:8–11, 46, 50, 93–95; cf. 4 Macc 7:7, 9; Charlesworth, «Judeo-Hellenistic Works,» 775; Gager, Anti-Semitism, 39. Christians subsequently claimed Plato: Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.22.150 and Eusebius Praep. ev. 9.10.14, on Numenius (Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 59–60); Justin 1 Apo1. 59; Armstrong, «Platonism»; cf. Wright, «Faith,» 86), and appeared as a philosophical school (Wilken, «Interpretation,» 444–48; idem, «Christians,» 107–10; idem, «Collegia,» 277).

585

  Let. Arts. 200–201,235,296; cf. also, e.g., Acts 17:18–34; b. cAbod. Zar. 54b, bar.; the late tradition in Lam. Rab. 1.1.12–13. For the portrayal of Abraham as a philosopher in early Jewish texts, cf. Mayer, «Aspekte,» 125–26.

586

E.g., Sabugal, «Exegesis,» on Aristeas and Aristobulus; Tcherikover, «Ideology.»

587

Barrett, «Anecdotes,» helpfully assembles the accounts into five basic categories.

588

Cf. the similar forms in which angels discuss matters with God, e.g., b. Roi Has». 32b.

589

B. Sanh. 39a (the emperor and late first-century R. Gamaliel II); Bek. 8b (emperor Hadrian and second-century rabbi); p. Meg. 1:11, §3 (concerning a second-century Tanna); 3:2, §3 (ditto); Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1(R. Gamaliel); 4(concerning a Tanna, Johanan ben Zakkai, who then gives the correct answer privately to his disciples); Num. Rab. 4(Johanan ben Zakkai); 9(R. Eliezer, late first/early second century); Fed. Rab. 2.8, §2 (Hadrian and second-century rabbi). By observing that these reports concern Tannaim, we do not thereby claim their authenticity; many (such as debates with emperors) are demonstrably untrue.

590

  T. cAbod. Zar. 6:7 (in Rome); b. cAbod. Zar. 54b, bar. (Rome); Bek. 8b-9a (Athens); cf. b. Sanh. 39a (Zoroastrian magus).

591

  T. Sanh. 13:5; p. Sanh. 10:1, §7; cf. m. "Abot 2(R. Eleazar ben Arach, disciple of Johanan ben Zakkai), expounded in b. Sanh. 38b.

592

Cf. Geiger, «"pyqwrws.» Malherbe, Exhortation, 12, points out that other philosophers stereotypically accused Epicureans (and different competing schools) of «atheism, hedonism, and hatred of humanity» (some of which charges were also applied to Jews and Christians).

593

B. cErub. 101a.

594

  Ρ Macas. 4:6, §5; Yebam. 1:6, §1.

595

B. Sanh. 38b, 39a; Hu1. 84a; perhaps b. Yoma 56b-57a (if the Soncino note is correct concerning the possible corruption of min to Sadducee here); Herford, Christianity, 226–27, also lists Ecc1. Rab. 30:9,53cd; b. Hu1. 87a (sic?); Šabb. 152b; Sukkah 48b; cf. Bagatti, Church, 98ff. The baraita in b. Sanh. 43a is based on fanciful wordplays.

596

Bultmann, Tradition, 41–42.

597

Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 31, follows many form critics» skepticism here, possibly to maintain his role for Jesus as a charismatic teacher rather than a proto-rabbinic halakist or debater; but in this period the two need not have been mutually exclusive.

598

Howard, Gospel, 229; Taylor, Formation, 116. Chilton, «Transmission»; idem, «Synoptic Development,» suggests that many Gospel traditions were transmitted and developed in ways similar to targumic traditions.

599

Cf. Manns, «Exégèse.»

600

Dodd, More Studies, 41.

601

Although much has been written, a few references will suffice: Marcus, «Names»; Albright, Stone Age, 256–75; Lieberman, Hellenism; Tcherikover, Civilization; Hengel, Judaism; Avi-Yonah, Hellenism; cf. Goldstein, «Acceptance»; Simon, «Synkretismus»; Davies, «Aboth,» 138–51. Although some scholars above may have overdrawn their case–some regions were more hellenized than others (cf. Feldman, «Hellenism»; Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 26), most scholars today concur that substantial hellenization had occurred in Jewish Palestine.

602

Some scholars see even the speeches in Acts as an especially Jewish and Christian form of rhetoric (Wills, «Form»; Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 129), but these forms fit broader Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions (Black, «Form»). John includes more specifically Jewish features; Lukés are determined mainly by the kerygmás content.

603

Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 409; Ellis, Genius, 7.

604

Ellis, Genius, 8.

605

Soards, Speeches, 12–13, comparing also those of Joshua, Samuel, and others in the OT.

606

Witherington, Wisdom, 35–37.

607

Carson, John, 46. Cf. Feuillet, Studies, 146.

608

Lindner, «Geschichtsauffassung»; Attridge, «Historiography,» 326. Israelite historical works, like Acts, often used speeches to summarize a unit or move the narrative forward to the following unit (Rosner, «History,» 76).

609

Speeches also could function to show off the writer's polished rhetoric (Cadbury, Making, 184), but this is clearly not John's purpose (his sermons lack the rhetorical flourish of trained writers).

610

Aune, Environment, 124–25, estimates a frequent 20–35 percent for Greek historical works, 25 percent of Acts (74 percent if one includes their narrative frameworks).

611

Endres, Interpretation, 198–99.

612

Cadbury, Foakes Jackson, and Lake, «Traditions,» 13. For Josephus's use of rhetorical techniques in speech composition, see, e.g., Bunker, «Disposition.»

613

See Stamps, «Johannine Writings,» 618–19. We need not even look for it in dialogues, where rhetorical rules forbade displays of stylistic prowess (Schenkeveld, «Prose,» 230).

614

Kennedy, Interpretation, 115, praises Lukés speech composition skills, but observes that he rarely achieves the eloquence of the Fourth Gospe1.

615

On balanced clauses, see Anderson, Glossary, 90–91; while not rhetorically profound, parataxis was also recognizable in Greek (see comments in Anderson, Glossary, 39).

616

Smith, John (1999), 23, speaks of both John's simple vocabulary and his «grandeur»; compare the lofty style attributed to Socrates in Xenophon Apo1. 1

617

For riddles and obscure speech used by sages, see Keener, Matthew, 372–73, 378–79; in apocalyptic «mysteries,» e.g., 4Q300 1 2.1–4; 4Q301 frg. 1, line 2 (though others used them for pleasure, e.g., Athenaeus Deipn. 10.459b).

618

Cadbury, Foakes Jackson and Lake, «Traditions,» 13.

619

Cf. Aune, Environment, 127.

620

Cadbury, Foakes-Jackson, and Lake, «Traditions,» 13–14, with other examples and full documentation. Cf. Toynbee, Thought, 179–80; Whittaker, «Introduction,» lix.

621

Aune, Environment, 91. On Herodotus's special liberties, see Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, 110.

622

Cadbury, Making, 185.

623

Aune, Environment, 125.

624

Cf. ibid., 93,125; Johnson, Acts, 53 (though Witherington, Acts, 455, argues that wholesale creation of speeches was contrary to convention for historians). For the exercise, see esp. Theon Progymn. 8; for (fictitious, nonbiographic) examples, see, e.g., Alciphron Letters of Fishermen; Letters of Courtesans; Aelian Letters of Farmers; cf. Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xlix. Historians should make the language fit the character (Lucian Hist. 58). Mack, Lost Gospel, 198, wrongly applies this rhetorical exercise of speeches in character to the composition of individual sayings in the Jesus tradition.

625

Diversity was helpful: ideally, a rhetor should be able to address different kinds of assemblies differently (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 9), and one might praise a rhetor who used a more diverse array of arguments, ideas, and presentation, though many failed in this (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17; Isaeus 3).

626

E.g., in Diodorus Siculus 20.1.1.

627

Diodorus Siculus 20.1.2 (LCL 10:145).

628

Diodorus Siculus 20.1.3–4. History must be written in a way that is consistent and unified (Diodorus Siculus 20.1.5).

629

Diodorus Siculus 20.2.1.

630

Diodorus Siculus 20.2.2.

631

Josephus Ant. 1.46.

632

Mosley, «Reporting,» 24.

633

See Gafni, «Josephus,» esp. 126–27.

634

Bauckham, ««Midrash,»» 68.

635

Aune, Environment, 107; Rajak, Josephus, 81; cf. Mason, Josephus and NT, 192–94.

636

Rajak, Josephus, 80–82, 180.

637

Gempf, «Speaking,» 290. Josephus is often untrustworthy in names, numbers, and speeches (Gempf, «Speaking,» 289–90) though, as noted in our previous chapter, he can often provide accurate information. Some rhetoricians may have allowed more liberty with speeches than with narrative (Lucian Hist; Gempf, «Speaking,» 290); by contrast, individual sayings of sages like Jesus were probably transmitted more carefully than narratives (see Theissen, Gospels, 60; Witherington, Christology, 28–29).

638

It fits the ancient tradition (e.g., Tacitus) «of putting stirring and even anti-Roman words into the mouths of defeated enemies» (Rajak, Josephus, 80–81).

639

Luz, «Speech»; Cohen, «Masada»; Sanders, Judaism, 6. Contrast Bauernfeind and Michel, «Eleazarreden.» Cf. Paetus's poetic, dying lamentations–to which there were obviously no witnesses–in Propertius Eleg. 3.7.57–64.

640

See Cohen, «Masada.»

641

Cf. Josephus War 2.345–401.

642

Mosley, «Reporting,» 11–22.

643

Gempf, «Speaking,» 299, citing especially Quintilian 11.2.2.

644

Fornara, Nature of History, 143–54; Judge, «Rhetoric of Inscriptions,» 819. This should trouble us only if we evaluate such works by the standards of modern historiography; ancient historical speeches were a different genre (cf. Fornara, Nature of History, 142).

645

Gempf «Speaking,» ch. 10.

646

Ibid., 272; Hemer, Acts, 75.

647

Fornara, Nature of History, 154–68.

648

Ibid., Nature of History, 160–61 (also claiming that even Pompeius Trogus, the worst offender, avoids «free fiction»). Problems arose only when Romans tried to write «ancient» history for which they no longer had oral sources (pp. 166–67).

649

Other writers such as Sallust imitated Thucydides» use of speeches, but sometimes with less historical caution (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 263). On the general sense of, and debate surrounding, the quotation, see, e.g., Kennedy, «Survey of Rhetoric,» 15; Porter, Paul in Acts, 110–12; idem, «Thucydidean View?»

650

Hillard, Nobbs, and Winter, «Acts,» 212.

651

Gempf, «Speaking,» 283. Also Witherington, Acts, 40, who sees Livy as one of the more expansive writers (because he wished to demonstrate his rhetorical artistry).

652

Gempf, «Speaking,» 284.

653

Ibid., 264; see more fully the nuanced discussion in Fornara, Nature of History, 142–68, esp. 167–68.

654

Ibid., 299.

655

See Small, «Memory.»

656

Aune, Environment, 91–92,126.

657

Thucydides 1.22.1; Satterthwaite, «Acts,» 355–56. Public speeches, like battles, were viewed as crucial historical events (Gempf, «Speaking,» 261).

658

Aune, Environment, 91 (though rhetorical handbooks lead us to doubt this was ever the ideal).

659

Cf., e.g., the positions of Cadbury, Acts in History, 40–41; Hengel, Acts, 60; Blaiklock, «Acts.» For various views, see the summaries and evaluations in Gasque, History, esp. 306–9; Wilson, Gentiles, 255–57, 267.

660

Cf. consistent use of devices such as interruption (Horsley, «Speeches») and common structural patterns (cf., e.g., Goulder, Acts, 83; Zehnle, Discourse, 19–23). Such patterns need not indicate wholesale secondary composition, however (Ridderbos, «Speeches,» 9, compares Jesus» Matthean discourses). Robinson, Studies, 139–53, pointed to theological divergences in some speeches (Acts 3 reflecting very primitive features), suggesting prior tradition.

661

E.g., Townsend, «Speeches»; Schweizer, «Speeches»; Dibelius, Studies, 138–85; idem, Paul, 11; idem, Tradition, 16–18.

662

Cf. Dibelius, Studies, 2,184–85,201; Dupont, Sources, 166.

663

Dudley, «Speeches.»

664

Gasque, «Speeches,» 248–49; Bruce, Acts: Greek, 18.

665

Cf. Dodd, Preaching, 17–19; Martin, «Evidence,» 59; Payne, «Semitisms»; Ehrhardt, Acts, 1. Torrey, Composition, first argued for Aramaic sources throughout the first half of the book, especially in the speeches, but he may have underestimated the extent to which Koine, Semitic or «Jewish Greek,» and translation Greek overlap (cf. LXX; Jos. Asen.; «Jewish Greek» in Turner, «Thoughts,» 46; Nock, «Vocabulary,» 138–39; though for Rome contrast Leon, Jews, 92); further, an intentional Septuagintalizing (Hengel, Acts, 62; De Zwaan, «Language») or Semitizing to fit the character of his speakers, and perhaps the character of Acts 1–12 as a whole, is plausible. (Aune, Environment, 117, regards it as equivalent to Lukés contemporaries» Atticizing style; by contrast, Most, «Luke,» protests that this form of translation Greek differs from the LXX and reflects Luke following Hebrew sources.)

666

Selwyn, Peter, 33–36; Munck, Acts, xliii-xliv; Doeve, Hermeneutics, 176.

667

Cf. Theon Progymn. chap. 8.

668

Hengel, Acts, 61. With regard to Paul's speeches, an interested traveling companion could have learned from Paul's recollections the gist of those speeches he missed (Robertson, Luke, 228).

669

Nor do even most conservative biblical apologists today, including in the words of the Johannine Jesus; cf. Wenham, Bible, 92–95; Feinberg, «Meaning,» 299–301 (the exact voice, but not words, of Jesus); Bock, «Words,» 75–77; cf. Edersheim, Life, 203.

670

Aune, Environment, 82.

671

Bauckham, ««Midrash,»» 68; thus L.A.BI:s careful treatment of the Decalogue may provide a closer analogy than his composition of speeches.

672

Bruce, Documents, 57; cf. Carson, John, 22, though qualifying the argument.

673

Ridderbos, John, 382–83, cites Luke 19as implying that the Synoptics also recognize a fuller ministry outside Galilee, but the verse may refer simply to Galilean pilgrims present for the festiva1.

674

As plain as Mark's Messianic Secret has been since Wrede, its interpretation is no more obvious today than John's. Wrede, Secret, 228, explains it as a Markan cover for the fact that Jesus did not claim messiahship before the resurrection. Burkill, Light, 1–38, argues that it is pre-Markan and may go back to Jesus (Ellis, «Composition,» shows that Q also contained the motif). Longenecker, Christology, 70–73, argues that messiahship could be publicly confirmed only at the resurrection. Cullmann, State, 26, thinks Jesus avoided the title because of its political overtones. Theissen, Stories, 64,68–69, 141–42, compares the secrecy commands to prohibitions against revealing formulas in magical texts. Hooker, Message of Mark, 61, explains the secret as hiding Jesus» identity from those who will not believe. Jesus» danger from the authorities (see Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 87) could also explain the secret on a literary leve1. The Johannine version of the theme is addressed in more detail on John 3:4, below.

675

In both, the Isaiah text indicates that Jesus» word hardens the stubborn. On the text in Mark, cf. Evans, «Note.»

676

For esoteric teachings, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 14:45–47; t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a-14b; Pesah. 119a; Šabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; for other private teachings or those understood only within wisdom circles, cf., e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 89–90; various Qumran texts (lQpHab 7.4–5; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; 11.9–10, 16–17; 12.11–13; 13.13–14; 1QS 8.12; 9.17–19; cf. 1QS 8.1–2; 11.5; 1QM 17.9); Gen. Rab. 8:9; Num. Rab. 9:48; 19(purportedly from ben Zakkai); Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 22:2; perhaps Wis 2:21–22; 7:21; 2 Bar. 48:3; b. Sukkah 49b. In Pythagoreanism, cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.1.15; perhaps Plato in Diogenes Laertius 3.63; others in Eunapius Lives 456. Cf. also the passing on of esoteric books from Moses to Joshua in Γ. Mos. 1(possibly early first century C.E.).

677

Bruce, Documents, 57. Cf. Stein, Method, 27–32. By itself this would not demand authenticity. Goulder, Midrash, 89–92, thinks that Jesus gave some teaching in poetry but Matthew created it in many additional sayings.

678

«Amen» normally confirmed prayers, oaths, curses, or blessings. The Gospel usage in confirming Jesus» words as he speaks them is rare (against Jeremias, Theology, 35,79, it is not unique; see Aune, Prophecy, 165; Hill, Prophecy, 64–66); it is almost certainly authentic (with Aune; Hill; Burkitt, Sources, 18). (Boring, Sayings, 132–33, thinks it continued in early Christian prophetic usage, but even Rev 2–3 avoids it). Cf. Gen 18:13.

679

Bruce, Documents, 57–58. The introductory «amen» appears about 30 times in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 6 in Luke, and 50 in John (Smith, Parallels, 6). The double form appears rarely, e.g., in the current text of L.A.B. 22:6 (the answer of the people to Joshuás words); 26(response to Kenaz's curse invocation); PGM 22b.21, 25 (closing an invocation); and as an oath formula in p. Qidd. 1:5, §8. Culpepper, «Sayings,» argues that the double amen sayings in John frequently (though not always) reflect historical material, often «core sayings that generate the dialogue or discourse material that follows» (100).

680

It may ground authority in Jesus himself, in contrastic to a prophetic, «Thus says the Lord» (cf. the latter formula applied to Jesus in Rev 2–3); see Aune, Prophecy, 164–65; Witherington, Christology, 186–88; Marshall, Origins, 43–44.

681

Bruce, Documents, 58.

682

Horsley, Galilee, 247–49. Some hold that Aramaic prevailed in Upper Galilee, Greek in Lower Galilee (Goodman, State, 66–67; cf. also Meyers, «Judaism and Christianity,» 74); some others that Aramaic remained predominant throughout Palestine (Mussies, «Greek in Palestine,» 1060–64). Cf. the Targumim, and the Aramaic Qumran texts; even Josephus claims Aramaic, not Greek, as his tongue in War 1.3; cf. Ant. 1.7; 20.263–264.

683

Most (e.g., Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua; Black, Approach; idem, «Recovery»; Deissmann, Light, 64; Draper, «Greek»; Jeremias, Theology, 4; Sevenster, Greek, 37; Dibelius, Jesus, 25; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:255–68) have supported Jesus» use of Aramaic (some contending that he spoke Aramaic exclusively, others that it was his common language in rural Galilee), even using it as a criterion of authenticity (e.g., Barrett, Jesus, 6; Burkitt, Sources, 20; contrast Dibelius, Tradition, 34–35). Some «Semitisms» may stem from an Aramaized Greek in the eastern Mediterranean, though note the case against «Jewish Greek» in Horsley, Documents, 5:5–40.

684

E.g., Porter, «Greek.»

685

Horsley, Documents, 5:23–24.

686

Argyle, «Semitism»; idem, «Greek»; Mussies, «Vehicle»; Freyne, Galilee, 171–72; Stauffer, Jesus, 60. Especially the better off and educated knew Greek (educated Romans also sought fluency in both: e.g., Quintilian 1.1.12, 14), but others were undoubtedly acquainted with it, especially in urban areas.

687

Cf. Goodman, State, 64; Sevenster, Greek, passim; Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, 3–4; in a later period, cf. p. Sotah 7:1, §4; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:185; Cohen, Maccabees, 40; the evidence of Schwank, «Grabungen,» applies only to an urban area. Palestinian Jewish burial inscriptions, which are the safest indicators of the common language, are often in Greek (Leon, Jews, 75), though for the poorer majority of Jerusalem Aramaic probably remained the dominant language (cf. Levine, Hellenism, 80–84).

688

Rabin, «Hebrew»; Carmon, Inscriptions, 73; cf. Let. Arts. 11, 30, 38; Jub. 12:25–27. Lindsey, Jesus, argues that Matthew and Luke depend substantially on Hebrew originals.

689

Hebrew was used in Torah memorization (e.g., Sipre Deut. 46.1.2) and early rabbinic discussions (the Mishnah is in Hebrew), though Aramaic as a popular language is at least as early as Daniel and Ezra. That rabbinic arguments continue in Hebrew through the second century does not suggest that public debates in Jerusalem need have been in Hebrew or Aramaic, especially not if the Diaspora components of festal crowds were to understand the thrust of such conversations.

690

Pryor, «Thanksgiving,» thinks Johannine idiom developed the language of the Q saying.

691

Indeed, Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 83–84, suggests that the Johannine parallel brings the authenticity of this Q passage into question; but cf. Gundry, Matthew, 218; Manson, Sayings, 79; Jeremias, Prayers, 45–48. Both this Q saying and John reflect a pervasive Wisdom Christology (cf. Tuckett, History, 209–82, on Q's Christology in general).

692

This is also conceded by Bruce, Documents, 57.

693

John's tradition here is probably independent of the Synoptics (cf. Johnston, «Version,» 154; Higgins, Historicity, 30, 38), though correspondences indicate a common source, probably in Jesus» life.

694

Bruce, Documents, 61.


Источник: The Gospel of John : a commentary : Volumes 1-2 / Craig S. Keener – Massachusetts : Baker Academic, 2003. – 1636 pages.

Комментарии для сайта Cackle