The Rhetoric of Interruption: Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and Ancient Greek Narrative 311029642X, 9783110296426

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature
1.1 Introduction
1.2 The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship
1.3 Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship
1.4 Defining Interruption
1.4.1 Discerning Claims of Interruption
1.4.2 Identifying the Interrupter
1.5 Rhetorical Analysis of Interruption
1.6 Project Overview
Chapter 2 Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography: From Homer to Appian
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Iliad and Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)
2.2.1 Turn-Taking in Homer
2.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Iliad
2.2.3 Interrupted Speech in the Odyssey
2.2.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Homer
2.3 The Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.)
2.3.1 Turn-Taking in Herodotus
2.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Histories
2.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Herodotus
2.4 The History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides (5th century B.C.E.)
2.4.1 Turn-Taking in Thucydides
2.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the History of the Peloponnesian War
2.4.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Thucydides
2.5 The Hellenica and Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)
2.5.1 Turn-Taking in Xenophon
2.5.2 Interrupted Speech in the Hellenica
2.5.3 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis
2.5.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon
2.6 The Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)
2.6.1 Turn-Taking in Polybius
2.6.2 Interrupted Speech in the Histories
2.6.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Polybius
2.7 The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.)
2.7.1 Turn-Taking in Diodorus Siculus
2.7.2 Interrupted Speech in the Library of History
2.7.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Diodorus Siculus
2.8 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)
2.8.1 Turn-Taking in Dionysius of Halicarnassus
2.8.2 Interrupted Speech in the Roman Antiquities
2.8.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Dionysius of Halicarnassus
2.9 The Anabasis of Alexander and Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.)
2.9.1 Turn-Taking in Arrian
2.9.2 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis of Alexander
2.9.3 Interrupted Speech in the Indica
2.9.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Arrian
2.10 The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria
2.10.1 Turn-Taking in Appian
2.10.2 Interrupted Speech in the Roman History
2.10.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Appian
2.11 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography
2.11.1 Summary of Individual Authors’ Use of Rhetorical Interruption
2.11.2 The Various Functions of Interruption
Chapter 3 Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography: From Job to Josephus
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Septuagint (LXX)
3.2.1 Turn-Taking in the LXX
3.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the LXX
3.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in the LXX
3.3 Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Historians
3.4 Josephus
3.4.1 Turn-Taking in Josephus
3.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish War
3.4.3 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish Antiquities
3.4.4 Interrupted Speech in the Life
3.4.5 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Josephus
3.5 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Jewish Historiography
Chapter 4 Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)
4.2.1 Turn-Taking in Xenophon
4.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Cyropaedia
4.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon
4.3 The Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.)
4.3.1 Turn-Taking in Chariton
4.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Callirhoe
4.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Chariton
4.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Novels
Chapter 5 The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke
5.2.1 Interruption in the Gospel according to Mark
5.2.2 Interruption in the Gospel according to Matthew
5.2.3 Summary of Interruptions in Mark and Matthew
5.3 Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke
5.3.1 Turn-Taking in the Gospel of Luke
5.3.2 Luke 4:28
5.3.3 Luke 9:34
5.3.4 Luke 11:27
5.3.5 Luke 11:37
5.3.6 Luke 16:14
5.3.7 Luke 21:5
5.3.8 Luke 22:47
5.3.9 Luke 22:60
5.3.10 Luke 24:36
5.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Luke’s Gospel
Chapter 6 Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Sources of the Acts of the Apostles
6.3 "Interrupted Speeches" in the Acts of the Apostles
6.3.1 Turn-Taking in the Acts of the Apostles
6.3.2 Acts 2:37
6.3.3 Acts 4:1
6.3.4 Acts 7:54-57
6.3.5 Acts 10:44
6.3.6 Acts 13:48
6.3.7 Acts 17:32
6.3.8 Acts 19:28
6.3.9 Acts 22:22
6.3.10 Acts 23:7
6.3.11 Acts 24:25
6.3.12 Acts 26:24
6.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Acts
Chapter 7 Conclusions
7.1 Summary of Findings
7.2 Implications, Limitations, and Further Research
Appendix 1 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography
Appendix 2 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography
Appendix 3 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels
Appendix 4 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts
Bibliography
Index of Ancient Sources
Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Daniel Lynwood Smith The Rhetoric of Interruption

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 193

De Gruyter

Daniel Lynwood Smith

The Rhetoric of Interruption Speech-Making, Turn-Taking, and Rule-Breaking in Luke-Acts and Ancient Greek Narrative

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-029642-6 e-ISBN 978-3-11-029651-8 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. 쑔 2012 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

To the new Sarah Smith of Golders Green

Acknowledgments There are many who deserve to be acknowledged in these opening paragraphs, One in particular. Were I to turn now to an exhaustive listing of debts, I would run the risk of boring my reader and offending those omitted. I will thus limit myself to a few paragraphs, fully aware that much more could be said. This monograph is a lightly revised version of my doctoral dissertation, written at the University of Notre Dame under the direction of (now Emeritus) Professor David E. Aune. I am most grateful to David for introducing me to the intriguing profusion of interrupted speech in Luke-Acts. He encouraged me, offered detailed feedback in conversation and on written drafts, and worked in many other ways to help bring this project to its successful conclusion. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Professor Christopher Baron and Dean Gregory Sterling, who offered timely and insightful feedback, frequently alerting me to further sources that have greatly enriched the content of this volume. While neither has read a word of this volume, Father Brian Daley and Professor John Cavadini have also played key roles in its genesis. Their mentoring and guidance have been a great blessing to me. Fr. Daley was the reason that I first came to Notre Dame, and his guidance during my first few years was a lifeline. Professor Cavadini served as my teaching mentor, and I have been both inspired by his example and edified by his counsel. The writing and editing of this monograph has not been a solitary endeavor. I have been blessed with companions on the way, and I have learned much from and alongside my Notre Dame colleagues. I am especially grateful for the friendship and support that I received from Matthew Bates, Josephine Dru, Michael Francis, Joshua Robinson, Eric Rowe, Joél Schmidt, Todd Walatka, and others who shared the hallways of Hesburgh Library and Malloy Hall. Having mentioned Hesburgh Library, I would also like to express my appreciation for the indefatigable library staff, especially Susan Feirick and Kristie Clark. The vast majority of the books in the Bibliography have passed through the hands of Susan or Kristie, and I am thankful for their humor and their competence.

viii

Acknowledgments

On the other side of the ocean, Sabina Dabrowski, my production editor at de Gruyter, has also been a competent ally. I am grateful to her and to Dr. Albrecht Döhnert for seeing this volume through to completion. Lastly, I would like to thank the twenty-first-century Sarah Smith of Golders Green, to whom this monograph is dedicated. Sarah has walked with me every step of the way. She has brought much joy into my life, and we have taken turns carrying each other’s burdens. Without Sarah, this monograph, as well as its author, would likely be “standing in a busy queue by the side of a long, mean street.” Instead, I am grateful to be journeying onward, towards the mountains. Daniel Lynwood Smith 4 July 2012 East Washington, New Hampshire

Contents Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature ........................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship .............................. 3 1.3 Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship ...... 8 1.4 Defining Interruption .................................................................... 16 1.4.1 Discerning Claims of Interruption ............................................... 17 1.4.2 Identifying the Interrupter ............................................................ 23 1.5 Rhetorical Analysis of Interruption ............................................. 24 1.6 Project Overview ............................................................................ 25 Chapter 2 Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography: From Homer to Appian .......................................................................................................... 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.2 The Iliad and Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)............ 2.2.1 Turn-Taking in Homer .................................................................. 2.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Iliad ..................................................... 2.2.3 Interrupted Speech in the Odyssey ............................................... 2.2.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Homer ................................ 2.3 The Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.) .......................... 2.3.1 Turn-Taking in Herodotus............................................................ 2.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Histories .............................................. 2.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Herodotus ......................... 2.4 The History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides (5th century B.C.E.) ................................................................................ 2.4.1 Turn-Taking in Thucydides .......................................................... 2.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the History of the Peloponnesian War ...... 2.4.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Thucydides ........................

27 27 28 29 30 36 41 42 43 45 48 49 50 51 52

x 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 2.8 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.8.3 2.9 2.9.1 2.9.2 2.9.3 2.9.4 2.10 2.10.1 2.10.2 2.10.3 2.11 2.11.1 2.11.2

Table of Contents

The Hellenica and Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.) ... 53 Turn-Taking in Xenophon ............................................................ 53 Interrupted Speech in the Hellenica.............................................. 54 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis .............................................. 55 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon .......................... 58 The Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.) ............................. 58 Turn-Taking in Polybius ............................................................... 59 Interrupted Speech in the Histories .............................................. 60 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Polybius ............................. 69 The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.) .............................................................................................. 72 Turn-Taking in Diodorus Siculus ................................................ 72 Interrupted Speech in the Library of History ............................... 73 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Diodorus Siculus .............. 80 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.) ................................................................................ 81 Turn-Taking in Dionysius of Halicarnassus ............................... 82 Interrupted Speech in the Roman Antiquities .............................. 83 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Dionysius of Halicarnassus .................................................................................. 94 The Anabasis of Alexander and Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.) .................................................................................................. 95 Turn-Taking in Arrian ................................................................... 96 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis of Alexander ......................... 97 Interrupted Speech in the Indica................................................... 98 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Arrian ................................. 99 The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria ............................ 100 Turn-Taking in Appian ............................................................... 101 Interrupted Speech in the Roman History .................................. 102 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Appian ............................. 110 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography ............................................................................. 112 Summary of Individual Authors‘ Use of Rhetorical Interruption................................................................................... 113 The Various Functions of Interruption ..................................... 116

Table of Contents

Chapter 3 Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography: From Job to Josephus...................................................................................................... 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 3.2 The Septuagint (LXX) .................................................................. 3.2.1 Turn-Taking in the LXX .............................................................. 3.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the LXX ................................................... 3.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in the LXX ............................ 3.3 Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Historians .............................. 3.4 Josephus ........................................................................................ 3.4.1 Turn-Taking in Josephus ............................................................. 3.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish War ........................................ 3.4.3 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish Antiquities ............................. 3.4.4 Interrupted Speech in the Life ..................................................... 3.4.5 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Josephus ........................... 3.5 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Jewish Historiography .............................................................................

xi

121 121 124 125 128 136 139 141 142 144 148 159 161 163

Chapter 4 Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels ...................................................... 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 4.2 The Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.) ..................... 4.2.1 Turn-Taking in Xenophon .......................................................... 4.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Cyropaedia......................................... 4.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon ........................ 4.3 The Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.) ............................... 4.3.1 Turn-Taking in Chariton ............................................................. 4.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Callirhoe ............................................ 4.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Chariton ........................... 4.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Novels ............................................................................................

183

Chapter 5 The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke ........ 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 5.2 The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke .......................... 5.2.1 Interruption in the Gospel according to Mark .........................

186 186 187 188

167 167 169 171 171 174 175 176 177 182

xii 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 5.3.8 5.3.9 5.3.10 5.4

Table of Contents

Interruption in the Gospel according to Matthew ................... Summary of Interruptions in Mark and Matthew ................... Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke .............. Turn-Taking in the Gospel of Luke ........................................... Luke 4:28 ....................................................................................... Luke 9:34 ....................................................................................... Luke 11:27 ..................................................................................... Luke 11:37 ..................................................................................... Luke 16:14 ..................................................................................... Luke 21:5 ....................................................................................... Luke 22:47 ..................................................................................... Luke 22:60 ..................................................................................... Luke 24:36 ..................................................................................... Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Luke’s Gospel ............................................................................................

Chapter 6 Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles ..................................... 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 6.2 Sources of the Acts of the Apostles ............................................ 6.3 “Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles ................ 6.3.1 Turn-Taking in the Acts of the Apostles ................................... 6.3.2 Acts 2:37......................................................................................... 6.3.3 Acts 4:1........................................................................................... 6.3.4 Acts 7:54-57 ................................................................................... 6.3.5 Acts 10:44....................................................................................... 6.3.6 Acts 13:48....................................................................................... 6.3.7 Acts 17:32....................................................................................... 6.3.8 Acts 19:28....................................................................................... 6.3.9 Acts 22:22....................................................................................... 6.3.10 Acts 23:7......................................................................................... 6.3.11 Acts 24:25....................................................................................... 6.3.12 Acts 26:24....................................................................................... 6.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Acts .................

189 191 192 193 194 198 200 201 203 204 205 207 207 208

211 211 213 215 216 218 221 223 227 229 231 232 232 234 235 236 240

Table of Contents

xiii

Chapter 7 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 244 7.1 Summary of Findings .................................................................. 244 7.2 Implications, Limitations, and Further Research ..................... 249 Appendix 1 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography ................ 252 Appendix 2 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography ............... 279 Appendix 3 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels ............................... 291 Appendix 4 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts ..................................... 296 Bibliography............................................................................................... Index of Ancient Sources.......................................................................... Index of Modern Authors ........................................................................ Index of Subjects ........................................................................................

300 313 329 333

Tables Table 1: Interruptions in Luke-Acts according to Modern Scholars .... 15 Table 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography ......................... 113 Table 3: Interrupted Speech in the LXX ................................................. 137 Table 4: Interrupted Speech in Josephus ................................................ 162 Table 5: Claims of Interruption in Matt 26:47 // Mark 14:43 // Luke 22:47 .................................................................................... 206 Table 6: The Cock Crow in the Four Canonical Gospels ..................... 207 Table 7: Who Uses Interrupted Speech Most Frequently? ................... 246

Chapter 1 Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature 1.1 Introduction Interruption is a relatively common feature of our quotidian conversations in the United States. Interruption is not, however, simply a private affair; televised political debates frequently include numerous instances of overlapping speech. Mirroring private and public reality, contemporary novels commonly feature mid-sentence interruptions. Interruption is so widespread nowadays that its presence in ancient Greek literature might seem unremarkable. Interrupted speech was certainly not an unknown phenomenon in the ancient world, at least in some venues. 1 For instance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes how, following a contentious debate between consuls and tribunes, one of the latter introduces a law specifically forbidding the interruption of a tribune.2 While interruption may have been a common feature of Greek and Roman political discourse, ancient Greek literature did not always reflect this reality. Interrupted speech is comparatively rare in ancient Greek narratives. Typically, a speech is allowed to run its course. For example, Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War includes among its many famous speeches only one interrupted speech.3 Xenophon’s Hellenica likewise has only one interrupted discourse. 4 Speeches abound in ancient Greek narratives; interruptions do not. When viewed against this background, the high concentration of interruption in the Acts of the Apostles calls for an explanation. For decades, scholars have been commenting upon the several “interrupted

1 2 3 4

For an account of the role of θόρυβος in ancient Greek assemblies, see Victor Bers, “Dikastic Thorubos,” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 1-15. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.17.5. This passage will be treated further in Chapter 2. Thucydides, Hist. 4.96.1. Xenophon, Hell. 3.1.19.

2

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

speeches” (or Redeunterbrechungen) of Acts, usually devoting a stray sentence or footnote to this peculiar phenomenon. In response to the question of why the speeches are interrupted, answers vary from Dibelius’ claim that interruption is a “literary device” that is unique to Acts, to Bauernfeind’s hypothesis that interrupted speeches reflect the historical experience of early Christian preachers, to Pervo’s observation that Luke’s frequent use of interruption is similar to that of ancient novelists.5 Scholarship is divided over which speeches in Acts should be classified as interrupted and whether interruption should be considered a literary device or a historical accident. The central question is this: why are there so many interrupted speeches in Acts? In order to expand and refine the conversation, we first need to reframe the question. Rather than examining “interrupted speeches,” this study investigates “interrupted speech” in ancient Greek literature. Not only will we address interrupted speech in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, but we will also make sense of Luke’s usage of interruption within its wider literary context. We will temper Dibelius’ assertion that interruption is “rarely to be observed elsewhere in the work of the ancient historians.” While most speeches are depicted as complete, interrupted speech is present throughout Greek epics, histories, and novels from Homer’s Iliad onward.6 With this wider context in mind, we will argue that careful attention to the frequency, form, and function of interruption in Luke-Acts shows how our author makes systematic use of a long-standing literary device to highlight the ways in which different audiences receive the early Christian preaching about Jesus and the salvation he makes available to Jews and Gentiles. From the beginning of the Gospel to the end of Acts, Luke uses intentional interruption to underscore the rhetorical effect of this preaching on different audiences within the narrative, an effect that can be positive or negative. While interruptions can occasionally signify enthusiastic agreement, interruption typically marks conflict. Armed conflict plays a central or otherwise significant role in works from Homer’s Iliad to Herodotus’ Histories to Chariton’s Callirhoe. Unlike many other ancient Greek histories, Luke-Acts does not recount the sacking of cities or the clash of phalanxes. However, Luke-Acts is full of “contests of words,” where speakers engage their audiences with dynamic dis5

6

Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 161; Otto Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (ed. Volker Metelmann; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980), 404n79; Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 76. Dibelius, Studies, 161.

The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship

3

courses.7 In these verbal conflicts, which do occasionally result in physical violence (e.g., Acts 7), interruption functions both to emphasize the essential content of a discourse and to mark key conflicts between speakers and hearers for the audience of the narrative. Thus, we will attend to two levels of rhetorical function, distinguishing between the rhetorical effects of speeches on audiences within the narrative on the one hand, and the rhetorical effect of interrupted speech on the audience of the narrative on the other. This latter function of interrupted speech falls into the category of what Tannehill labels Luke’s “narrative rhetoric.”8 Our rhetorical analysis of different interruptions within Luke-Acts will allow us a window into the narrative rhetoric of Luke-Acts as a whole.

1.2 The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship Although our treatment will include interruptions in both Luke and Acts, the scholarly discussion of interrupted speeches has centered on the discourses of the latter volume. Hence, we will start with the history of scholarship on the speeches of Acts. While scholars have been studying the speeches of Acts for centuries, there is little agreement about which discourses qualify as “speeches.” 9 Cadbury, for example,

7

8 9

In Book 16 of the Jewish Antiquities, King Herod’s siblings Salome and Pheroras take part in what Josephus calls ἡ τῶν λόγων...ἅμιλλα (“the contest of words”). See Josephus, A.J. 16.217. Similar phrases occur in Homer, Il. 1.304; Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1; Chariton, Call. 5.8.4-6. In his Studies, Dibelius would restrict the label ἅμιλλα λόγων to scenes featuring “an exchange of speeches,” such as Acts 24 (150). With regard to the difference between Lukan theological aims and the typical subject matter of ancient Greek historiography, Dibelius also observes that, in Luke-Acts, the “political aim of ancient history is supplanted here by the desire to preach and to teach” (166). Robert C. Tannehill, The Gospel according to Luke (vol. 1 of The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 8. Richard Pervo remarks upon “the lack of agreement about just how many speeches Acts includes” in his “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre,” JSNT 28 (2006): 285-307, here 288. For a general review of scholarship on Acts from Chrysostom to the 1960s, see W. Ward Gasque, A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989). For a review of nineteenth-century scholarship on the speeches of Acts, see the helpful summary in Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 2-5. A more recent work is Osvaldo Padilla, The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography (SNTSMS 144; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); see esp. his comments on the history of scholarship on pp. 16-38.

4

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

treats twenty-four “principal speeches.”10 Dibelius also counts “about twenty-four” speeches, including only speeches that “are addressed to, or are known to have claimed the attention of a large number of people in some other way.”11 Kennedy arbitrarily chooses to treat the twentyfive “discourses in Acts consisting of four or more verses,” thus excluding some discourses included by Dibelius (e.g., Acts 14:15-17), while adding others excluded by Dibelius (e.g., the prayer in 4:24-30).12 In the following years, scholarly estimates fluctuated dramatically. Horsley considers only “the ten set speeches of reasonable length (judging this by the criterion of the overall size of Acts).”13 Aune, on the other hand, counts the “thirty-two speeches of Acts (excluding short statements).”14 More conservatively, Hemer refers to “twelve major speeches,” apparently along the lines of Horsley’s proposed “ten set speeches.”15 In his monograph on the speeches of Acts, Soards points out that scholars “routinely refer to twenty-four speeches…but, in fact, there are twenty-seven or twenty-eight speeches, seven or more ‘partial speeches,’ and at least three ‘dialogues.’”16 Surprisingly, what looks like a corrective to scholarly imprecision is merely a perpetuation of the same: Soards never defines what he means by “partial speeches,” nor does he explain why there are “twenty-seven or twenty-eight” speeches. He defines “speech” as follows: “A speech is a deliberately formulated address made to a group of listeners.” 17 However, the first “speech” on Soards’ list is “The words of the risen Jesus and the angels to the apostles (1:4b-5, 7-8, 11).” It is hard to see how these verses constitute “a deliberately formulated address.” In the end, Soards lives up to his goal of being “as inclusive as possible.” 18 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Henry J. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts,” in Additional Notes to the Commentary (ed. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury; vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: Macmillan, 1933), 402-27, here 403. Dibelius, Studies, 150. Dibelius is followed by Gerhard Schneider, who counts „24 Reden“ in Die Apostelgeschichte (HTKNT 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 1980-1982), 1:96. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 116. G. H. R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32 (1986): 609-14, here 610. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 124-25. Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 415. Soards, Speeches, 1. Soards, Speeches, 20. Soards has apparently borrowed the description “partial speeches” from Schneider, who refers to „Redestücke” in Apostelgeschichte, 1:96. Soards, Speeches, 20-21.

The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship

5

Fitzmyer whittles Soards’ list down to twenty-eight speeches, yet he offers no precise criteria beyond the statement that these are “the passages of Acts that I think should be considered as speeches or discourses.”19 This honest assessment reveals the inherently subjective nature of defining the “speeches” of Acts. Hence, while we will continue to explore scholarship on the “speeches” of Acts, this study will make no attempt to categorize what is or is not a “speech,” instead examining all direct and indirect discourse in Luke-Acts for the presence of interruption; our focus is on “interrupted speech” rather than “interrupted speeches.” However many speeches there are in Acts, scholars are inclined to agree upon their cumulative significance. Yet, the precise nature of this significance is controversial. For some scholars, the speeches have been primarily of historical interest, whereas others have seen the speeches more as reflections of Luke’s literary-theological program than as repositories of apostolic preaching. Before we turn to an examination of interrupted discourses and their rhetorical function, we should first examine the role of historical investigation in scholarship on the speeches of Acts. One of the earliest publications devoted solely to the speeches of Acts was the printed version of Bruce’s 1942 Tyndale New Testament Lecture.20 Bruce argues for the historicity of the speeches. To support his claim, he turns, as do many scholars before and after him, to a discussion of Thucydides’ famous comment on speeches: And as far as what each one said in a speech, either when they were about to do battle, or when they were already engaged in battle, it was difficult to record with precision the words that were spoken (χαλεπὸν τὴν ἀκρίβειαν αὐτὴν τῶν λεχθέντων διαμνημονεῦσαι), both those that I heard and those that have been reported to me from some place or another. Just as it seemed to me that each one would have said the most necessary things concerning their state of affairs, considering that these things are closest to the general sense of what was truly spoken (ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς λεχθέντων), so I have written.21

19 20 21

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 104. F. F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale, 1942). Thucydides, Hist. 1.22.1. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this chapter are my own. Citations and translations from the History are based on the text of C. Hude, ed., Thucydidis Historiae (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1898-1901). In his short study on the speeches of Acts, Horsley remarks, “It is almost de rigueur for those commenting upon the speeches as a distinctive element in Acts to refer to Thucydides 1.22” (609).

6

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

This passage has been interpreted in various ways. Scholars can agree that Thucydides and his sources found giving a verbatim report of “the words that were spoken” impossible, and thus he substituted “the most necessary things concerning their state of affairs” (περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων τὰ δέοντα μάλιστα). But does this amount to an attempt at “recording what was actually said,” or is it “recording what the historian thought the speakers would have said” on that occasion?22 Between the poles of faithful reproduction and free invention lies a range of intermediate views and, in at least one classicist’s opinion, the truth: “Thus elements both of fidelity and invention are present here. Moderns, not surprisingly, tend to choose one strand over the other, although Thucydides does not.”23 Bruce clearly tends toward the strand of fidelity: “there is little doubt that Thucydides conscientiously kept his promise to the best of his power, ‘adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.’” 24 By implication, Luke the historian preserves what Bruce calls a “historical conscience,” and Bruce bolsters this characterization by noting Luke’s fairly scrupulous preservation of Mark.25 While Bruce concedes that the speeches of Acts are not “verbatim reports,” he sees good grounds “for believing these speeches to be, not inventions of the historian, but condensed accounts of speeches actually made, and therefore valuable and independent sources for the history and theology of the primitive Church.” 26 Like Bruce, Dibelius begins his discussion of Luke’s speeches with a comparison to Greco-Roman historiography. Dibelius, however, emphasizes examples that tend to imply that speeches were more the result of free invention. In keeping with this view, he points to the contradictions between a speech of the Emperor Claudius preserved in an inscription and the (supposedly) same speech recorded by Tacitus in his Annals.27 Dibelius mentions Thucydides’ comments on speeches, but he criticizes the historian’s “crudeness and obscurity of style,” which 22 23

24 25 26

27

F. W. Walbank, Speeches in Greek Historians (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 4. John Marincola, “Speeches in Classical Historiography,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2011), 118-32, here 121. Bruce, Speeches, 6. Bruce, Speeches, 7-8. Bruce, Speeches, 27. For one earlier and similarly positive assessment of the historical value of certain kerygmatic speeches in Acts, see C. H. Dodd, who suggests that “the author of Acts used his historian’s privilege with considerable restraint” in his The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures with an Appendix on Eschatology and History (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), 30. Dibelius, Studies, 139. Dibelius also cites Josephus’ divergent accounts of a Herodian speech in B.J. 1.373-379 and in A.J. 15.127-146.

The Speeches of Acts in Modern Scholarship

7

repelled “representatives of a new, dramatic method of presentation, and of rhetorical arts.” 28 Dibelius concludes that Luke was influenced by this latter class. While Luke the evangelist may have faithfully preserved tradition, the author of Acts adopted “different methods,” including a “literary freedom” whereby he felt free to compose the speeches of his second volume.29 Whereas earlier scholars like Dodd had seen the missionary speeches of Acts as evidence for the earliest Christian preaching, Wilckens advanced further towards the pole of “invention.” For Wilckens, the missionary speeches did indeed follow an outline, but the outline was no relic from the early apostolic period. Luke created his own outline.30 This posited degree of authorial freedom is a far cry from Bruce’s assessment. Over time, though, the discussion has moved away from a preoccupation with the historical value of the speeches of Acts. Scholars began to pay more attention to the literary value of the speeches and the (rhetorical) education of their author. In the past, Dibelius’ view had been fairly representative: Luke is classed with other New Testament authors who “have not yet become literati.”31 Estimations of Luke’s rhetorical abilities have since risen. In his analysis of the speeches of Acts, Kennedy characterizes Luke as “a reasonably skilled writer of speeches.”32 Satterthwaite credits Luke with an awareness of various rhetorical conventions: “At point after point Acts can be shown to operate according to conventions similar to those outlined in classical rhetorical treatises.”33 Parsons suggests that “Luke was more than competent in the handbook tradition,” and Penner also assumes that

28 29

30

31 32 33

Dibelius, Studies, 142. Dibelius, Studies, 185. Padilla, however, points out that “Dibelius had emphasised that his aim was not to inquire into the historicity of the speeches” in Speeches, 31. While Dibelius did not focus on historicity, his findings are certainly relevant to the question of the historicity of the speeches. See Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (3rd ed.; WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974). Wilckens states his point clearly: „das Schema dieser judenchristlichen Missionspredigten von Lukas selbst gebildet worden ist“ (100, Wilckens’ emphasis). Dibelius, Studies, 145. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 115. Philip E. Satterthwaite, “Acts against the Background of Classical Rhetoric,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clarke; vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; ed. Bruce W. Winter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 337-79, here 378.

8

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

Luke should be read with the progymnasmata in mind.34 More recently, Padilla has played the skeptic, pointing out that the progymnasmata constitute the tertiary level of Hellenistic education and suggesting that Luke’s rhetorical education was likely restricted to the primary or secondary level.35 The interruption of speeches within a narrative is not a device that is noted or described in Quintilian’s Institutes or Aelius Theon’s Progymnasmata. Hence, its presence in Luke does not reveal anything about the level of rhetorical education of the author. Still, our discussion of intentional interruption relies on a view of Luke as someone who, even if he “did not completely become an historian,” was an accomplished and creative „hellenistischer Schriftsteller,“ to borrow a phrase from Plümacher.36

1.3 Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship Before delving into the many conflicting scholarly viewpoints on interruption, we should note that the convoluted discussion is primarily a result of widespread failure to define one’s terms. Just as scholars frequently fail to define “speech” in their treatment of speeches, so scholars tend not to define what they mean by “interruption.” A brief look at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals a range of options. On the one hand, we first find “interrupt” defined as “break in upon (an action, process, or condition, esp. speech or discourse).” An alternative definition is to “break the continuity of” or “to make an interval or breach between the parts of (something continuous).”37 As explained in Section 1.4, we will work strictly with the definition of interruption as “breaking in upon” a discourse. In the scholarship that we will now discuss,

34

35 36

37

Mikeal C. Parsons, “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the Preliminary Exercises,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (ed. Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele; SBLSymS 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 43-63, here 44; Todd Penner, “Reconfiguring the Rhetorical Study of Acts: Reflections on the Method in and Learning of a Progymnastic Poetics,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 425-439. Osvaldo Padilla, “Hellenistic παιδεία and Luke’s Education: A Critique of Recent Approaches,” NTS 55 (2009): 416-37. Dibelius, Studies, 185. See Eckhard Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), esp. 137-39. OED, s.v. “interrupt, v.”

Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship

9

very few scholars define what they mean by “interruption,” and they often treat “breaking in upon” a discourse and “breaking the continuity of” a discourse as fully interchangeable. For example, in 1933, Henry Cadbury offered one of the earliest analyses of the interrupted speeches in Acts. His brief comments provide a good example of treating interruption as a break in continuity: We note, for example, how often he has the speakers interrupted, only to continue with a final word. This certainly gives a lifelike impression which a more formal ending would not do. In several instances the interruption follows close upon some special word in the speech, e.g. ii. 36 ‘you crucified,’ vii. 51-53 ending ‘you did not keep it [the law],’ xvii. 31 ‘raising him from the dead,’ xxii. 21 ‘Gentiles,’ xxiii. 6 ‘hope and resurrection of the dead,’ xxvi. 23 ‘resurrection’ (?) or ‘Gentiles’ (?).38

For Cadbury, interruption is clearly a break in continuity: the speakers are interrupted and then “continue with a final word.” This definition is clear; however, he does not adhere to it. True, Peter continues after 2:36, Stephen continues after 7:53, and Paul continues after 26:23. However, the other examples each mark the end of a discourse that is not continued (17:31, 22:21, and 23:6). Although Cadbury fails to adhere to his own criteria for determining which speeches are interrupted, he nevertheless makes an important contribution. In addition to offering one of the earliest attempts to explain why the speeches are interrupted, he also draws attention to the significance of the closing words of interrupted discourses, the presence of “some special word in the speech.” As we will see, this observation merits further consideration, even if his working definition of interruption must be discarded. Eleven years later, Martin Dibelius delivered a lecture on the speeches of Acts and their relation to Greco-Roman historiography. Unlike Cadbury, Dibelius describes interruption as the premature ending of a discourse. However, the ending only appears to be premature; referring to Acts 22:21, he explains: In order to let the speech end at this important point and so to emphasise the meaning of the final words, the author again employs a literary device, that of an intentional interruption of the speaker by the hearers. … The fact that these interruptions each occur at a significant point suggests literary technique; the speech is always allowed to reach just that point which is important to the author. We should certainly miss the author’s intention

38

Cadbury, “Speeches,” 425-26.

10

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

were we to suppose that each of these speeches did in fact lack a concluding section.39

For Dibelius, then, interruption is the premature ending of a speech. However, Luke is not actually recording the interruption of his characters, but rather using interruption as a literary device to highlight the final words of the speakers. In addition to describing the literary device of “intentional interruption of the speaker by the hearers,” Dibelius also described another type of interruption. He notes that “on other occasions, the significant conclusion to a speech is supplied by Luke in external events.” 40 Later scholars have paid less attention to this second type of interruption noted by Dibelius, but we will find this distinction between intentional interruption by one’s hearers and interruption by external events to be quite useful. Dibelius makes one last point that is quite misleading. He suggests that the use of interruption as a literary device is unique to Luke. While we will argue that Luke’s use of interruption is certainly innovative, it is not true that there is “no parallel in the writings of the historians.” 41 As we will demonstrate in later chapters, parallels appear in a variety of genres, including historiography. In the late 1950s, Otto Bauernfeind was writing on Lukan theology. In his comments on Acts 22:22, he includes a lengthy footnote that engages Dibelius on the topic of “speech interruptions” (Redeunterbrechungen).42 Bauernfeind hones in on Dibelius’ assertion that interruption was “a technique peculiar to our author” and takes Dibelius’ (faulty) insight in a historicizing direction.43 If Luke did not learn this device from other historians, then perhaps Luke was reflecting the actual missionary experiences of the early Christians.44 Bauernfeind con39

40 41 42

43 44

Dibelius, Studies, 160. In his original 1944 treatise, Dibelius speaks of „eines literarischen Mittels, der sinnvollen Unterbrechung des Redners durch die Hörer.“ See “Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung,” in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 35 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1949), 28. Dibelius, Studies, 161. Dibelius, Studies, 183. Otto Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (ed. Volker Metelmann; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980), 404n79. Bauernfeind also refers to interruption as „Nichtausredenlassen.“ Metelmann notes that Bauernfeind’s “Vorfragen zur Theologie des Lukas” was written „in der 2. Hälfte der fünfziger Jahre“ (383). Dibelius, Studies, 161. See Chapter 2 for examples of interruption in Greek histories. These interruptions were familiar „aus den Missionserfahrungen der Christen.“ Bauernfeind, Kommentar, 404-5n79.

Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship

11

nects Dibelius’ literary fiction with what he considers to be an ancient historical reality. Later German scholars have been largely content to echo Dibelius’ conclusions. For Haenchen, “Dibelius…has shown that the interruption of the speaker by the listeners is a literary device peculiar to Luke.” 45 Conzelmann follows suit: “Occasionally Luke allows the speaker to be interrupted. This is, of course, a literary device. The interruption takes place after everything essential has been said.”46 Plümacher describes interruption as a „Kunstmittel“ and offers a list of Greco-Roman parallels identical to the list found in Dibelius. 47 More than fifty years after Dibelius first treated the interruptions, Jervell cites his predecessor’s work as the standard; in reference to Acts 22:22, he explains: „Die Unterbrechung ist lukanisches Stilmittel, sie erfolgt, als das Entscheidende gesagt ist.“48 English-speaking scholarship has not remained similarly tethered to Dibelius’ conclusions. In 1978, Fred Veltman analyzed the defense speeches of Acts, comparing them with contemporary defense speeches in Greek and Latin.49 In his survey of defense speeches in ancient literature, Veltman notes in passing that speeches in Q. Curtius Rufus, Tacitus, and Chariton are interrupted.50 He then observes that Paul’s defense speeches are interrupted in Acts 22:22 and 26:24.51 However, Veltman argues against the conclusions of earlier German scholars: “The claim by Dibelius…and Haenchen…that the interruption [in 22:22] is a ‘literary device’ of Luke’s invention has not been verified by this study.”52 For Veltman, there is no literary artistry in 26:24, for example: “If the writer intends for the reader to see the speech as inter45

46

47 48

49 50 51 52

Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 628; trans. of Die Apostelgeschichte (14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1965). Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xliv; trans. of Die Apostelgeschichte (2d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972). Eckhard Plümacher, “Lukas als griechischer Historiker,” PWSup 14 (1974): cols. 23564, here 249. Plümacher also cites Dibelius in Lukas, 88n34. Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 549n95. Later in the footnote, Jervell also directs his readers explicitly to Dibelius’ work. Fred Veltman, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. Charles H. Talbert; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 243-56. Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 247-48, 251. Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 254-55. Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 254n44.

12

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

rupted, it is more likely that the interruption would take place in the body of the speech than within the conclusion.”53 Veltman is obviously working with a definition of interruption as a break in continuity; he acknowledges that the narrative framework indicates that Festus breaks in upon Paul, but he is still unwilling to describe this activity as interruption. A few years later, George Kennedy devoted a lengthy chapter to the speeches of Acts in his New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism.54 Commenting on each discourse “of four or more verses,” Kennedy switches back and forth between historical and rhetorical analysis. Sometimes, the speeches are the rhetorical compositions of the author of Acts: “Paul’s addresses were almost certainly longer than what is usually attributed to him in Acts.” 55 However, when addressing the interruption in Acts 22:22, Kennedy appears to assume historicity: Paul is interrupted by the crowd at the first reference to the gentiles. If he had been allowed to continue he would presumably have cited evidence from Scripture, and if the Holy Spirit had warmed the hearts of the crowd he might even have hoped to conclude with an exhortation to repent and be saved. That proved impossible.56

While this description assumes a definition of interruption as breaking in upon or cutting off, Kennedy also describes 2:37 as an interruption, a verse that appears to be more of a (hoped-for) reaction than a rude interruption. In 1986, G. H. R. Horsley devoted a full two pages to Luke’s “interruption device.” Apart from the current study, Horsley’s treatment represents the most significant attempt to synthesize the function of the various interrupted speeches in Acts. For Horsley, interruption was a literary device used by Luke to hide the fact that the speeches in Acts are synopses rather than full reports: But that [Luke] was also concerned to veil the unreal brevity of space which he could afford to allocate to the speeches is evident from his adoption of a device which, if noticed before, has not been emphasized sufficiently to draw attention to the care he has taken both to ensure the coherence of his work and to avoid imbalance between narrative and discourse. Of the ten set speeches of reasonable length (judging this by the criterion of the overall size of Acts) eight are either interrupted or concluded

53 54 55 56

Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 255. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 114-40. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 132. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 134-35. Kennedy’s line of thought appears to be similar in his treatment of Acts 26:24 on pp. 137-38.

Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship

13

with a statement from the author that the speaker has more to say in similar vein.57

For Horsley, interruption was one tool for disguising the “brevity” of a given speech; another equally serviceable tool was what Dibelius once described as “the indication that the speaker said more than has actually been imparted.”58 Horsley toys with the idea that interruption may also have been used to convey certain content, but he wishes to focus on the stylistic function of interruption: “In this note, however, style as a feature has been deliberately emphasized at the expense of content to draw attention to my view that it is rarely given sufficient weight.”59 Richard Pervo, on the other hand, described Luke’s use of interrupted speech as “a dramatic device,” seeking to align the Acts of the Apostles with ancient Greek and Latin novels. 60 In a footnote, Pervo mentions Dibelius’ treatment of interrupted speeches and lists a variety of examples from Acts. Pervo also references Veltman to show that interruption is “common in defense speeches,” and he notes that “the technique was employed by historians.” However, Pervo punctuates his footnote with a list of references to interrupted speeches in the novels of Chariton, Petronius, and Heliodorus.61 For Pervo, the widespread use of interruption in novels and in Acts constitutes another piece of evidence that the latter should be classified with the former. In a review of Profit with Delight, David Aune criticizes Pervo’s “one-sided” approach to the question of genre, an approach that led Pervo to highlight novelistic parallels to various features of Acts while simultaneously ignoring relevant historiographical parallels. Aune thus draws attention to Pervo’s admission that historians also used the technique of interruption: “he tucks this admission away in a footnote (absent from the dissertation) and fails to provide specific examples, of which there are many.”62 While Aune did not offer any examples in his book review, he offers a variety of examples in The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, published in 1987.63 While Aune does not cite Horsley, he also points to Luke’s twin literary devices of intentional interruption and the indication “that further remarks were made.” 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

Horsley, “Speeches,” 610. Dibelius, Studies, 178. Horsley, “Speeches,” 614n6. Pervo, Profit, 76. Pervo, Profit, 166n108. David E. Aune, review of Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles, JR 69 (1989): 399-400, here 399. Aune, New Testament, 127. Aune lists parallels in Josephus, Herodian, and the novelist Achilles Tatius.

14

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

Aune moves beyond Horsley’s stylistic focus, suggesting that the function of interrupted speech may be either to signal anger or to “heighten the drama of particular episodes.”64 Finally, Aune’s most important contribution to the exploration of interrupted speech in Acts is to observe that intentional interruption is also present in the Gospel of Luke (e.g., 4:28). In 1994, Marion Soards published a monograph on the speeches of Acts. He notes instances of interruption throughout Acts, identifying eight interrupted speeches in all.65 Soards follows Conzelmann (who follows Dibelius) in labeling interruption a “literary device.” He then criticizes Horsley: “[Horsley’s] suggestion…that there are interruptions at 13:42 and 20:36 seems doubtful.” 66 However, Horsley made no such “doubtful” suggestion; contrary to Soards’ accusation, the former had labeled Acts 13:42 and 20:36 as the two set speeches that were “allowed to run their course.”67 While Soards contributes to our overall understanding of the speeches of Acts, his comments on interrupted speeches do not move the conversation forward. Four decades after Bauernfeind, Ben Witherington again suggested a historical basis for the interrupted speeches of Acts. Commenting on Acts 4:1, he elaborates: One of the regular features of the way Luke handles his speech material is that speeches tend to be concluded by way of interruption, or at least they appear to be unfinished (cf. 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 26:24). Doubtless such speeches were sometimes interrupted since the message of early Jewish Christians was seen as inflammatory by various early non-Christian Jews.68

Although he resurrects Bauernfeind’s view, Witherington is not suggesting that every interruption reflects an actual historical event. Like Dibelius, Witherington also notes the artificiality of the interruptions; the speeches only “appear to be unfinished.” In 2009, over twenty years after his Profit with Delight, Richard Pervo published his Hermeneia commentary on Acts. Pervo again picks up the interrupted speeches of Acts, commenting on their function and origin. While Bauernfeind and Witherington propose a histori64 65

66 67 68

Aune, New Testament, 127. Soards, Speeches, 37. He lists the following: 4:1; 7:54; 7:57; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 26:24; 26:28. He includes a question mark beside 17:32, indicating his uncertainty about its proper classification. Soards should have questioned 26:28, which looks more like a response to a question than an interruption. Soards, Speeches, 37n68. Horsley, “Speeches,” 610. Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 188

Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts: A History of Scholarship

15

cal basis in the early Christian missionary experience, Pervo suggests a literary origin for the interrupted speeches: “Mark 14:43 is one possible inspiration for the practice.”69 While we would agree that Luke knew the Gospel of Mark, the presence of one solitary interruption by external events in Mark seems an unlikely source for Luke’s methodical use of intentional interruption of speakers by their hearers. Pervo’s more helpful suggestion concerns the function of interrupted speech: “Interruptions serve as the equivalent of a double underline. The formal speech has concluded at the moment desired by the author.”70 Pervo thus returns to the point made by Cadbury some eighty years earlier: Luke uses interruption to underscore the final words of the speaker. As we will see, this rhetorical “double underline” is uniquely exploited by Luke to highlight key themes in each of his two volumes. However, before we can begin to examine the use of interruption in Luke-Acts and other Greek histories and novels, we must define interruption more clearly. As Table 1 illustrates, the systematic failure to define what they mean by “interrupted speech” has led Acts scholars to widely divergent conclusions. To begin to remedy this failing, we will now proceed to define interruption.

Table 1: Interruptions in Luke-Acts according to Modern Scholars Scholar Cadbury (1933) Dibelius (1944) Bauernfeind (1950s) Veltman (1978) Kennedy (1984) Horsley (1986) Aune (1987) Soards (1994) Witherington (1998) Pervo (2009)

69 70

Verses Identified as Interruptions Acts 2:37; 7:54; 17:32; 22:22; 23:7; 26:24 Acts 4:1; 4:31; 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 19:28; 22:22; 23:7; 26:24 Acts 7:54; 17:32; 22:22 Acts 22:22; 26:24 (?) Acts 2:37; 22:22; 26:24 Acts 4:1; 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 24:22; 24:25; 26:24 Luke 4:28; Acts 2:37; 4:1; 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 19:28; 22:22; 23:7; 26:24 Acts 4:1; 7:54; 7:57; 10:44; 17:32 (?); 22:22; 26:24; 26:28 Acts 4:1; 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 26:24 Luke 22:47; Acts 2:37; 5:33; 7:54; 10:44; 17:32; 22:22; 24:25; 26:24

Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 282n188. Pervo, Acts, 635.

16

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

1.4 Defining Interruption Although we possess a number of revealing works on rhetorical theory from antiquity, including some which specifically address literary style (Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria), the composition of narratives (Theon’s Progymnasmata), and even the writing of history (Lucian’s De historia conscribenda), not one of these authors specifically addresses the device of intentional interruption.71 Thus, we turn to modern theory to refine our discussion. Following the lead of classicist Elizabeth Minchin, we will utilize conversation analysis, a subfield of discourse analysis, as the theoretical framework for our definition of interruption.72 Conversation analyst Jack Bilmes offers a useful definition of interruption as the “violation of the interrupted party’s speaking rights, or at least an attempt at such violation.”73 This deviation from normal turn-taking is easy enough to define, yet conversation analysts have encountered widespread difficulty in applying this definition to actual conversations.74 Researchers can record conversations and note instances of simultaneous speech, but not all simultaneous speech is interruptive. Overlapping speech can be accidental or even cooperative. 75 For example, interjections such as “yeah” and “uh huh” may be uttered during another speaker’s turn without infringing upon that individu-

71 72

73

74

75

Nor does Polybius refer to interruption in his comments on the composition of speeches in historiographical narratives; see Hist. 3.20.1; 12.25a.3-5; 12.25i.3-9; 36.1.7. For her treatment of interruption in Homer, see Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 222-44. For another application of conversation analysis to Homer, see Deborah Beck, Homeric Conversation (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2005). Jack Bilmes, “Being Interrupted,” Language in Society 26 (1997): 507-31, here 508. Bilmes follows the turn-taking model proposed in Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of TurnTaking for Conversation,” Language 50 (1974): 696-735. For a range of attempts to measure interruptions objectively, see Don Zimmerman and Candace West, “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation,” in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance (ed. Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley; Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1975), 105-29; Stephen O. Murray, “Toward a Model of Members’ Methods for Recognizing Interruptions,” Language in Society 14 (1985): 3140; Dina Okamoto, Lisa Slattery Rashotte, and Lynn Smith-Lovin, “Measuring Interruption: Syntactic and Contextual Methods of Coding Conversation,” Social Psychology Quarterly 65 (2002): 38-55. See the discussion of simultaneous speech in Jennifer Coates, “Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups,” in Language and Gender: A Reader (ed. Jennifer Coates; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), 226-53, esp. 238-44.

Defining Interruption

17

al’s speaking rights.76 More problematic are ambiguous situations where violations and violators are unclear. If a speaker seems to be interrupted yet continues speaking, have the speaker’s rights been violated? If a speaker pauses, then restarts as another speaker begins, who is violating whose rights? Bilmes concludes that the frequency and variety of overlapping speech in normal conversations renders conversation analysts unable to determine instances of interruption objectively. What they can discern are “claims of interruption.” 77 That is, only the indignant reaction of the interrupted speaker or the apology of the interrupting interlocutor can shed light on what might be considered an interruption. As modern readers of ancient texts, how then can we ascertain the presence of intentional interruption? First, by taking into account the role of the narrator, we will explore below how to discern claims of interruption within narratives of the Greek historiographical tradition. Furthermore, adhering to the terms of the definition put forth by Dibelius, let us remember that the rhetorical function of this literary device of intentional interruption is restricted to the interruption of speakers by their hearers.78 The major elements of our definition, then, are the violation of a speaking turn, which we might now rephrase as the presence of a claim of interruption, and the identity of the one(s) interrupting. These two elements will be the criteria used to analyze interrupted speech in the following chapters.

1.4.1 Discerning Claims of Interruption Discerning the presence of an interruption frequently proves to be challenging, yet distinguishing interruptive reactions from immediate responses is extremely important for methodological rigor. As stated above, we will rely on the presence (or absence) of a claim of interruption. This use of Bilmes’ criteria may seem problematic, for two reasons. First, Bilmes is dealing with conversations between twentiethcentury English-speakers, not speeches in first-century Greece. Second, there are obvious differences between the spoken and written word.

76

77 78

These “minimal responses” are discussed in Zimmerman and West, “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation,” 108-9. The closest example in our literature is the mutual exhortation of the seven brothers in 4 Macc 13:11-12. Bilmes, “Being Interrupted,” 527. Dibelius, Studies, 160.

18

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

In response to the first possible difficulty, we must acknowledge the contextual, chronological, and linguistic dissimilarity between the speeches of Roman patricians and the modern conversations studied by Bilmes. The pioneering conversation analyst Harvey Sacks once wrote about “one basic rule for conversation in this society,” the rule that “not more than one party should speak at a time.”79 Is this rule only relevant to “this society,” or does it have broader application? Some scholars have criticized Sacks for his assumption of the universality of this rule; not all cultures follow the same turn-taking model.80 Other scholars point to striking similarities across cultural boundaries. 81 While the specific turn-taking practices of the ancient Greek assembly and the modern American political debate differ significantly, the same basic model of “one speaker at a time” appears to be in effect for both. Below, we will show that ancient Greek authors were aware of turn-taking rules and that they were capable of depicting the violation of those rules in a variety of rhetorical situations.82 Second, we must address differences between the spoken conversations studied by modern conversation analysts and the written discourses present in ancient narratives. Unlike the overlaps of recorded (or live) conversations, actual simultaneous speech is not possible in a written text. Ancient authors were indeed capable of depicting simultaneous events, but our concern is not with narratological simultaneity.83 Instead, we are concentrating on the ways in which speaking rights are shown to be recognized and violated.

79 80 81

82

83

Harvey Sacks, Lectures on Conversation (ed. Gail Jefferson; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1992), 1:633 (Sacks’s emphasis). See, e.g., the critique of Sacks in Margaret L. McLaughlin, Conversation: How Talk is Organized (SSIC 3; Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984), 99-111, esp. 103. See, e.g., the similarities between American and Thai conversations noted in Michael Moerman, Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 20. Moerman also acknowledges cultural differences (28). As an obvious example of ancient awareness of turn-taking rules and their violation, see the law against interrupting tribunes in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.17.5. For a narratological treatment of simultaneity, see Robert S. Kawashima, Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), 129-60. For an ancient discussion of historiography and the depiction of simultaneous events, see Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 20.43.7. For an example of the difficulty of narrating simultaneous events, see Josephus’ parallel accounts of the kings of Israel and Judah in Book 8 of the Jewish Antiquities.

Defining Interruption

19

In ancient Greek historiographical literature, speakers rarely make a straightforward claim of interruption in direct discourse.84 Instead, the responsibility for designating speaking turns, as well as their violation, generally falls to the narrator. Thus, the relationship between speeches and their narrative frameworks will occupy much of our attention. Generally, a transition from narrative to discourse marks the beginning of a speaking turn. As long as the discourse continues, the speaker has the floor, and ancient authors tend not to interrupt the narration of a discourse in order to interject friendly or hostile overlapping utterances like “uh huh” and “yeah.” As a result, in situations where speaking rights are contested, we will look for evidence of speaking rights not at the beginning or middle of a discourse, but rather primarily at its end. Cadbury remarks upon one aspect of the difficulty we encounter when trying to analyze the end of a speech: One slight problem of composition that scarcely occurs to the modern reader, or even to the commentator, is that of indicating the close of formal quotations. The beginning of the quotation is easily indicated by words like ‘saying’ or ‘as follows.’ But the ancient writer could not indicate even by punctuation the end of the quoted passage, and of course he neither knew nor would have used our modern ‘end of quotation’ or the telegraphic ‘unquote.’85

Cadbury goes on to indicate that the author could draw on a variety of closing formulae, which can be found in most narratives that include direct or indirect discourse.86 These formulae can be plain, simply marking the end of a speaking turn. For instance, Homer regularly marks the end of a speech with “So he spoke.” 87 Similarly, Matthew often uses a closing formula to mark the end of a large block of Jesus’ teaching.88

84

85 86

87 88

For a noteworthy exception, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.5. Another possible instance is Agamemnon’s complaint in Homer, Iliad 19.79-80. Identifying the interruption to which his claim refers is another matter, treated below in Chapter 2. Cadbury, “Speeches,” 426. Cadbury does not refer to these narrative markers as closing formulae. Our use of the term “closing formula” is not intended to suggest a strictly defined “formula,” such as that found in Beck, Homeric Conversation, 30. Instead, we are simply acknowledging that there are only so many ways of saying “So he spoke,” “After these words,” “When she had finished,” etc. “Transitional formula” would be an equally acceptable option, drawing attention to the transition from discourse to narrative. E.g., Homer, Il. 1.33, 43, 188, 245, 357, 457, etc. Matt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1.

20

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

While closing formulae may seem almost trivial, their absence can create exegetical confusion. The Gospel of John provides two examples. John 3 begins with a nocturnal conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, and the speakers in the dialogue are clearly introduced.89 However, the first ambiguity appears in Jesus’ response in 3:10-21, which lacks a closing formula. For some scholars, the resumption of the narrative in 3:22 naturally indicates the end of his discourse. Others attribute 3:13-21 or 3:16-21 to the evangelist. The lack of a closing formula forces modern readers to resort to more ambiguous evidence, such as literary style, in order to make their decisions about who is speaking. 90 The narrative continues with a discussion of the baptismal activity of Jesus and John the Baptist. When John is told that Jesus is also baptizing, his response begins in 3:27. However, nowhere does the author clearly signal the end of John’s answer, until the narrative picks up in 4:1. As a result, 3:27-36 could be attributed entirely to John the Baptist.91 Nevertheless, many modern translations mark the end of John’s discourse at 3:30, assigning 3:31-36 to the narrator.92 Fortunately, this degree of ambiguity is rare, and most passages surveyed in the following pages include clearly marked speaking turns. As we survey ancient Greek literature for claims of interruption, we will examine closely the various ways in which ancient authors mark the end of a discourse. Generally, one of the following three methods is used: a closing formula (“So he spoke”), introduction of the next speaker in a dialogue (“Jesus answered him”), or simply resumption of the narrative (“Now when they went to…”). The latter two techniques generally assume an orderly turn-taking process, where the end of a discourse is followed by a respondent (in dialogue) or by subsequent events (in narrative). One exception is possible: if the next speaker in a dialogue is explicitly described by the narrator as “interrupting” the previous speaker, we have our claim of interruption. Otherwise, within 89 90

91 92

Nicodemus is marked as the speaker in 3:2, 4, and 9, and Jesus answers him in 3:3, 5, and 10. For a helpful discussion of the various theories, see Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 29; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), 149. For Brown, “The attempt to attribute a certain number of verses to Jesus and a certain number to the evangelist is, in our opinion, impossible” (136). The JB, NIV, NJB, and NKJV all attribute 3:27-36 to John the Baptist. The ESV, NAB, NRSV, and RSV close John’s quotation at 3:30. Raymond Brown supports the idea that Jesus is the actual speaker of 3:31-36 in Gospel According to John, 159-60. In the end, having been printed before the use of quotation marks came into fashion, the KJV may give the most faithful reproduction of the ambiguous Greek text both here and in 3:10-21.

Defining Interruption

21

the narrative itself, only a closing formula can provide insight into whether the speaker’s rights have been respected or violated. Practically speaking, then, what constitutes evidence for a claim of interruption? Very rarely, a claim of interruption will surface in discourse, from either an aggrieved speaker or an apologetic interrupter. Occasionally, a narrator will describe an interruption in explicit terms, obviating the need for further evidence.93 Most common is the narrator’s use of a closing formula, such as “While he was still speaking,” which can indicate that the speaker had not yet finished his or her turn. Finally, and most rarely, an interruption could be otherwise unmarked except for the incomplete content of the discourse itself. Let us now turn to a fuller explanation of claims of interruption as found in closing formulae and as indicated by more subtle indications within the content of the discourse itself. First, let us apply our discussion of claims of interruption to closing formulae, which form part of the narrative framework surrounding a discourse. Whereas a modern conversation analyst is able to listen to a speaker’s recorded words for subtle evidence of a claim of interruption, our survey will deal only with discourses that are in written form. This apparent disadvantage is mitigated by our focus on the rhetorical function of intentional interruption as a literary device. Our intent is not to discern whether Agamemnon is “really” interrupted by Achilles in Book 1 of the Iliad, for example, but rather why Homer describes Achilles as interrupting Agamemnon. This task is, in a sense, easier than that of the conversation analyst, for we can rely on the author (or editor) as our authority. If neither the narrator nor the characters make a claim of interruption, then we need not concern ourselves any further with questions of the intended rhetorical effect. What closing formulae do authors use to mark an interruption, a violation of speaking rights? If the author wishes to show that the subsequent response (in dialogue) or action (in narrative) violated the speaker’s rights, then the speaker’s turn must be represented as ongoing at the time of the interruption. To translate this language into Greek grammatical parlance, the aspect of the speaker’s action might be classified as “progressive” or “imperfective.” As a result, the author will most likely employ a present tense or imperfect tense verb, both of which are well-suited to describing activities “as in process (or in pro-

93

E.g., in Homer, Il. 1.292. Here, the word ὑποβλήδην is used to mark the interruption. Other possibilities include forms of ὑποβάλλω, ὑποτέμνω, and μεσολαβέω.

22

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

gress).”94 While we cannot rule out the use of aorist verbs to mark violations of speaking rights in closing formulae, the perfective aspect of the aorist is more commonly used to describe “a series of complete events.”95 Consequently, we may logically expect most instances of interruption to be marked either by genitive absolutes featuring present participles (ἔτι αὐτοῦ λέγοντος) or by imperfect main verbs (ἤκουον δὲ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι τούτου τοῦ λόγου). Again, we will examine each possible instance individually; the key element is the explicit evidence that the speaker had not willingly given up his or her turn at the time of the interruption. A subtler means of indicating interruption is through the incomplete content of a discourse. The simplest case would be an incomplete final sentence of a discourse. Recurring throughout modern English novels, the mid-sentence break is not, however, a common feature of ancient Greek literature.96 In fact, while one might argue that a midsentence interruption is more vivid and “realistic,” the ancient author generally allowed even a supposedly interrupted speech to run its course.97 Other possibilities include forensic speeches that might be expected to include a proem (prooemium), narrative (narratio), proof (probatio), refutation (refutatio), and epilogue (peroratio).98 A defense speech missing a refutation and epilogue could well signify the presence of an interruption, even in the absence of a closing formula. However, as we will argue, ancient Greek authors typically use interruption for rhetorical or dramatic purposes. Overly subtle markers 94

95

96

97

98

K. L. McKay, “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,” NovT 34 (1992): 209-28, here 225. For further discussion of imperfective or progressive aspect, see Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 101-3, 24044; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 499-501, 518-19, 541-44. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 206. For another discussion of perfective or completed aspect, see also Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 89-92. For an example of a mid-sentence break that is not interruptive, see Matt 9:6 // Mark 2:10 // Luke 5:24. The only mid-sentence interruption treated in the course of this study is in a fragment of Justus of Tiberias preserved in Diogenes Laertius 2.41 (see Chapter 3), but see also the 2nd-century C.E. novel of Achilles Tatius (8.7.1). Dibelius, Studies, 160-61. Furthermore, Homer generally begins his speeches at the start of a verse and concludes his speeches at the close of a verse, with only two exceptions: Iliad 2.70 (speech ends mid-verse); 23.855 (speech begins mid-verse). For a discussion of the relationship between speech and narrative in Greco-Roman poetry, see William J. Dominik, Speech and Rhetoric in Statius’ Thebaid (Hildesheim: OlmsWeidmann, 1994), 17-19. Quintilian, Inst. 3.9.1.

Defining Interruption

23

of interruption may be difficult for the author’s audience to discern, diminishing the dramatic effect. Thus, while we touch upon possible content-based interruptions in our survey, their rhetorical function is less pronounced.99 Hence, while both explicit and implicit interruptions will be addressed, we will follow Bilmes in restricting our focus to claims of interruption, both those described in the narrative framework and those forming part of the discourses themselves. Before we address the interrupting audience, let us summarize our approach to recognizing an interruption: a speech or other discourse may be characterized as interrupted if there is evidence of a claim of interruption, that is, a claim that the speaker’s rights have been violated. Occasionally, the narrator will flag interruptions clearly (“he interrupted him”), or a character will make a claim (“neither is it fitting to interrupt”). Typically, though, this claim will consist of a closing formula that describes the violation, or involuntary completion, of a speaker’s turn by suggesting that the speaker was still speaking (or still being heard) at the time of interruption.

1.4.2 Identifying the Interrupter Interrupted discourse is not an uncommon phenomenon in ancient Greek literature, and, as described above, it can take a variety of forms. With Dibelius, we can divide interruptions into two categories: interruption by the hearers and interruption by external events. We will reserve the label of intentional or rhetorical interruption for the former category of interruption by the speaker’s audience. The latter category would include all interruptions by natural events and by humans who are not part of the audience.100 Due to their frequent occurrence, we will note examples from the category of interruption by external events. However, because our goal is to illuminate the rhetorical function of intentional interruptions in Luke-Acts, we will focus on the specific and more common phenomenon of the interruption of speakers by their hearers, or audience. Minchin would include a third category of “self-interruption.”101 While this category makes sense descriptively, our definition of inter-

99

For a possible example of unmarked interruption, with correspondingly lesser rhetorical effect, see Homer, Il. 18.95-99, which is treated below. 100 Dibelius, Studies, 161. 101 Minchin, Homeric Voices, 228. In her discussion of Odyssey 11.330-332, Minchin describes how this “self-interruption” can be used as a tactic for gaining another

24

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

ruption precludes its consideration in this study: How could a speaker violate his or her own speaking rights? Depending on the narrator’s description, cases in which a speaker’s emotions overwhelm him or her will generally be excluded from our study; if included, they will be classified with other interruptions by (external) events.

1.5 Rhetorical Analysis of Interruption This emphasis on the interruption of a speaker by his or her audience in literary works lends itself to rhetorical analysis. As we look for violations of speaking rights by the speaker’s audience, a rhetorical treatment requires us also to look at the content of the discourse itself, as well as the context of the discourse.102 In the discussions of intentional interruption below, we will carefully observe the relationship between interrupted speaker and interrupting audience, the content of the interrupted discourse, and the narrative context in which the discourse and interruption are located. When intentional interruption is used to its greatest effect, we will find all four components (speaker, audience, discourse, and context) clearly described by the narrator. Consequently, the reader will easily be able to identify speaker and audience, and vivid speeches will be communicated in direct discourse. Furthermore, the narrator will explicitly mark the interruption. For a powerful example of this clearly marked rhetorical interruption, see the interruption of Agamemnon by Achilles in Iliad 1.292, treated at length in Chapter Two. We will also note interruptions of discourses that are reported in oratio obliqua, but these and other more lightly marked cases will receive less attention. For instance, in the opening books of Appian’s Civil Wars, there are multiple examples of these lightly marked interruptions, where the interrupted discourse is not even reported; these instances are also discussed in Chapter Two. Because our focus is on how various authors used the literary device of rhetorical interruption, we will privilege the

“lengthy speaking turn” (242). Robert Rabel also addresses self-interruption in his “Interruption in the Odyssey,” Colby Quarterly 38 (2002): 77-93. 102 For Aristotle, every speech has three parts: the speaker, the content of the speech, and the audience (Rhet. 1.3.1). Over two millennia later, speaker, audience, and discourse are still characterized as the “three universal factors in any rhetorical or persuasive situation.” Eighteenth century rhetoricians supplemented these three with a fourth: “the occasion or context in which the work is composed or delivered.” See Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 15.

Project Overview

25

clearest examples. Instances that are less clearly marked will be judged to be correspondingly less important to the ancient authors’ aims.

1.6 Project Overview What is the function of the interrupted discourses of Luke-Acts? To answer this question, we need to examine each possible instance of interrupted speech in the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostles. However, to restrict ourselves to these two texts is to ignore the larger cultural context in which Luke-Acts took shape. The author of these two volumes worked with existing literary forms (see, e.g., Luke 1:1-4) and cited earlier texts (see, e.g., Luke 3:4-6 or Acts 17:28), thus demonstrating a familiarity with a wider literary culture. In order to understand Luke as a “hellenistischer Schriftsteller,” we must look at other Greek narratives that may have either influenced Luke directly or helped to shape the culture in which Luke thought and wrote. In Chapter Two, then, we will survey a wide swath of Greek historiography, beginning with Homer, whose epics reveal a nascent desire to preserve a record of things past. We will then continue with Herodotus and all other Greek historians down to the second century C.E., omitting only those historians whose works are too fragmentary to allow for thorough analysis. We will evaluate each author’s use of interrupted speech, drawing conclusions about the function of intentional interruption in Greek historiography. In Chapter Three, we turn to one sub-set of Greek historiography, focusing more narrowly on Jewish historiography. First, we will survey the sacred writings preserved by various groups as the Septuagint (LXX), examining the use of interruption in prophetic and historical narratives. Then, we will examine the two instances of interrupted speech that have been preserved in the fragments of Hellenistic Jewish historians. Finally, we will evaluate the frequency and function of interrupted speech in Josephus. Chapter Four constitutes a brief survey of interrupted speech in Greek novels. There, we will evaluate the frequency and function of interruption in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Chariton’s Callirhoe, the only two extant novels likely to predate Luke-Acts. The high frequency of intentional interruption in Callirhoe will offer some support for Pervo’s earlier thesis of novelistic influence on Acts, but we will see that the function of interruption in Callirhoe and in Luke-Acts diverges rather dramatically.

26

Chapter 1: Interruption and Rhetoric in Ancient Greek Literature

Chapter Five will follow Aune’s lead by exploring the interrupted discourses of the Gospel according to Luke. We will first look at the few examples of interrupted speech in Matthew and Mark, before turning our full attention to Luke’s Gospel. We will find that, just as in Acts, there are eight interruptions in the Gospel. While there are more instances of interruption by external events in the Gospel, the interruption by Jesus’ hearers in Luke 4:28 will serve as an important model for later interruptions in Acts. Chapter Six will examine both the interrupted discourses of Acts and the speeches that have been, in our view, mistakenly considered by various scholars to be interrupted. After establishing which passages meet our criteria, we will consider the frequency, form, and function of interrupted speech in Acts. We will mark the similarities between the use of interruption in the Gospel and in Acts, and we will show that, while Luke was not the first author to employ intentional interruption as a literary device, his innovative and systematic use of interruption is unparalleled in earlier Greek historians and novelists. 103

103 For one aspect of Lukan uniqueness, observe the frequency of interruption in LukeActs compared with other authors; see Table 7 in Chapter 7.

Chapter 2 Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography: From Homer to Appian 2.1 Introduction On the one hand, we are indebted to Dibelius for our definition of intentional interruption as “a literary device” featuring “interruption of the speaker by the hearers.”1 On the other hand, this chapter directly contradicts another assertion of Dibelius, who claims that this device of intentional interruption “is rarely to be observed elsewhere in the work of the ancient historians, and it seems therefore to be a technique peculiar to our author.”2 As Appendix 1 demonstrates, there are at least eighty instances of the intentional interruption of a speaker by his or her audience in Greek historiographical literature.3 Even then, Luke’s particular use of this literary device might still be considered innovative, but only a thorough survey of earlier usage of intentional interruption will enable us to determine the extent of his innovation. We shall concentrate primarily on texts belonging to the Greek historiographical tradition, broadly defined. Simon Hornblower’s retelling of the “Story of Greek Historiography” begins with Homer, due to the presence within the Iliad of both “a preoccupation with the past” and

1

2

3

Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 160. In his original 1944 treatise, Dibelius speaks of „eines literarischen Mittels, der sinnvollen Unterbrechung des Redners durch die Hörer.“ See “Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung,” in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 35 (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1949), 28. Dibelius, Studies, 161. He offers only two examples of interruption: Xenophon, Hell. 6.5.37, and Josephus, A.J. 16.384-386 (161n51). In his conclusion, Dibelius makes his claim even more explicit, asserting that Lukan use of intentional interruption has “no parallel in the writings of the historians” (183). Appendix 1 lists each of the intentional interruptions, identifying the speaker, the content of the discourse, the rhetorical situation, the interruptive audience, the claim of interruption, and the subsequent action.

28

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

“the urge to transmit it to future generations.”4 Thus, we shall begin with interrupted speech in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Continuing with the fifth-century historian Herodotus, we will move chronologically through six hundred years of Greek historiography: Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Arrian, and Appian of Alexandria.5 Although Josephus and the Maccabean histories could properly be grouped under the general heading of Greek historiography, they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate treatment in Chapter Three. Likewise, the novels of Xenophon and Chariton also could be included within a very broad conception of the Greek historiographical tradition, but they will form the subject of Chapter Four. If these works do not exhaust the riches of ancient Greek historiography, they should be judged sufficiently representative to support general conclusions about the use of intentional interruption in that time period.

2.2 The Iliad and Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.) Even if the Iliad and the Odyssey may not properly be classified as history, their pervasive influence on the development of Greek historiography is undeniable, and the two epic poems thus form the starting point of our survey. Furthermore, speeches abound in the two works, and direct discourse constitutes more than half of the two epics. 6 By means of frequent closing formulae and the inclusion of other signs of turn-taking (such as standing to take the floor), Homer clearly establishes orderly respect of speaking rights as a norm in his poems. 7 As a result, even though interruptions are not widespread, intentional interruption is used to great effect. In the treatment that follows, we will first explain how Homer depicts turn-taking, and then we will explore 4

5 6

7

Simon Hornblower, “Introduction,” in Greek Historiography (ed. Simon Hornblower; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 7. As evidence for this nascent impulse to preserve the past, Hornblower cites Iliad 3.125-128; 6.357-358; 9.189, 194; 22.304-305. Arrian and Appian wrote in the second century C.E. For some scholars (e.g., Pervo), their works would thus be contemporary with Luke-Acts. According to one set of calculations, 7,018 of the 15,690 lines of the Iliad consist of direct speech, as well as 8,225 of the 12,103 lines of the Odyssey. Wilhelm Schmid and Otto Stählin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (5 vols.; Munich: C. H. Beck, 19591961), 1:92n7. We follow the traditional attribution of the Iliad and Odyssey to the same ancient poet, and thus we will refer to “Homer” as the author of both. For a brief discussion of the “Homeric Question,” see Simon Pulleyn, Homer: Iliad I (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 3-8.

The Iliad Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.) Iliad and Odyssey

29

various violations of speaking rights, classifying them either as intentional interruption by the hearers or as interruption by external events.

2.2.1 Turn-Taking in Homer Speakers in Homer tend to take turns, and Homer makes extensive use of closing formulae to depict this orderly approach to discourse. Because the formulae must be metrically appropriate, the same formulae often appear verbatim at various points in the epics.8 By far the most common ending to a speech is either ὣς ἔφατο (“so he spoke”) or one of its variants: ὣς ἔφατ᾽, ὣς ἔφαθ᾽, or ὣς φάτο.9 These narrative markers clearly indicate that the speaker has finished his or her turn. An even clearer affirmation of turn-taking rules is found in a formula that appears six times in Homer: ἤτοι ὅ γ᾽ ὣς εἰπὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἕζετο· τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνέστη (“After he spoke, he sat down, and among them arose…”). 10 In this formula, the speaker is depicted as physically acknowledging the end of his speaking turn by seating himself and allowing another to take the floor.11 This specific formula appears repeatedly in the context of councils, where a series of speakers give deliberative speeches promoting certain courses of action for the group to take. Orderly closing formulae, however, are not limited to the policy proposals of mortals. The Olympian council at the beginning of Book 4 of the Iliad features an argument between Hera and Zeus, but these irate deities are shown taking turns in lines 30, 50, and 68.12 Perhaps even more impressive is the sight of enemy warriors who, as they advance against each other with lethal intent, take turns speaking. 13 Quarrels between the gods, as well as dual threats between dueling 8 9 10

11

12 13

For a frequency list of full-verse closing formulae in Homer, see “Appendix IV: FullVerse Speech Concluding Formulas” in Beck, Homeric Conversation, 290-94. In Book 1 of the Iliad alone, see lines 33, 43, 188, 245, 345, 357, 457, 511, 568, 595. Il. 1.68, 101; 2.76; 7.354, 365; Od. 2.224. Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this chapter are my own. Citations from the Iliad are based on the text of Martin L. West, ed., Homeri Ilias (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1998-2000). For an even clearer illustration of the procedures of speech-making in the assembly, see Od. 2.36-38, where Telemachus is handed a staff (σκῆπτρον) to signify that it is his turn to speak. Arguing gods are also depicted as respecting speaking rights in Od. 1.44, 63, 80. E.g., the Greek Diomedes son of Tydeus and the Trojan Glaucus son of Hippolochus take turns in Il. 6.144, 212. Another example is the pre-combat dialogue between Hector and Ajax in 7.226-246. By way of contrast, cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.31.1-5, where Neoptolemus and Eumenes engage in single combat without exchanging a word.

30

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

warriors, respect the turn-taking rules. Minchin summarizes the clearcut nature of most speaking turns in Homer: “There are in the epics no instances of minimal response, and no representations of overlap, whether accidental or collaborative. … The result is that they sound almost always as though they are attending a meeting—no matter what the context is.”14 We now turn to an examination of the various rhetorically motivated breaches of this rule.

2.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Iliad The Iliad begins with an invocation to the Muse: Μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος (“Sing the wrath, O goddess, of Achilles son of Peleus”).15 The goddess is asked to begin from the time when Agamemnon and Achilles began to contend against each other. 16 Thus, the Iliad does not present itself as an account of the Trojan War; instead, the epic revolves around the story of the vexed and violent relationship between Agamemnon and Achilles. The same wrath of Achilles that is thematized in the opening lines explodes later in Book 1, when Achilles clashes with Agamemnon. Their quarrel develops as follows: To satisfy the priest Chryses, and thus to avert the wrath of Apollo,17 Agamemnon must relinquish his claim on Chryseis the daughter of Chryses, whom he had taken as his prize. As restitution, Agamemnon proposes taking Achilles’ prize Briseis.18 At this point, Athena must intervene to prevent Achilles from killing Agamemnon on the spot, and Achilles instead launches a verbal assault on Agamemnon’s character in 1.225-244. Achilles’ furious rant leaves Agamemnon livid: Ἀτρεΐδης δ᾽ ἑτέρωθεν ἐμήνιε (“[The son of Atreus] was nursing his wrath on the other side”).19 After Nestor’s diplomatic attempt at intervention, Agamemnon accuses Achilles of arrogance and asks, εἰ δέ μιν αἰχμητὴν ἔθεσαν θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες, τούνεκά οἱ προθέουσιν ὀνείδεα μυθήσασθαι; (“If the eternal gods made him a spearman, is it for that reason that his reproaches run ahead to be spoken forth?”).20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Minchin, Homeric Voices, 229. Il. 1.1. Il. 1.6-7. μῆνιν Ἀπόλλωνος, Il. 1.75. Il. 1.184-185. Il. 1.247. Il. 1.290-291. Pulleyn supports this translation of the troublesome προθέουσιν from the A scholia in his Homer, 202.

The Iliad Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.) Iliad and Odyssey

31

This caustic question remains unanswered, as Achilles abandons any pretense of civility and interrupts Agamemnon. Instead of a typical closing formula, we find the following narrative marker of Achilles’ incursion into Agamemnon’s speaking turn: τὸν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑποβλήδην ἡμείβετο δῖος Ἀχιλλεύς (“Then, interrupting, noble Achilles answered him”).21 The use of the hapax legomenon ὑποβλήδην, probably derived from the verb ὑποβάλλω, is glossed as “interruptingly” by Kirk and Pulleyn, and LSJ defines it as “by way of interruption.” 22 This explicit description is the clearest instance of intentional interruption of a speaker by his audience in all of Homer’s poetry. Rhetorically speaking, can Achilles properly be considered part of the audience of Agamemnon’s response to Nestor? Even though Agamemnon directs his words to Nestor, the perceived insubordination of Achilles formed the content of the interrupted speech. More decisively, Achilles’ presence in the assembly qualifies him as part of Agamemnon’s audience. Homer has clearly marked an intentional interruption of a speaker by his hearer, and we will now explore the rhetorical effect. Given the prolonged exchange of speeches, why would Achilles choose to interrupt this particular speech? Agamemnon’s final words were not especially harsh; they barely seem to merit a response. For Minchin, Achilles’ interruption has nothing to do with the content of the king’s speech; rather, he intends “to disrupt the king’s speaking turn,” “to dominate the quarrel,” and thus “to force Agamemnon into submission.”23 However, we find among the bT scholia evidence of another view, wherein the accusatory nature of Agamemnon’s words does play a role.24 One scholion defines ὑποβλήδην as follows: σύμβολον θυμοῦ μὴ ἀνέχεσθαι διεξοδικῆς κατηγορίας (“[it is] a to-

21

22 23 24

Il. 1.292. Beck notes the rarity of the unanswered question in Homeric Conversation, 219. Interestingly, William Wyatt’s translation of Achilles’ speech suggests that Achilles is actually answering Agamemnon’s question affirmatively: “Yes, for I should be called a coward and a nobody, if I am to yield to you in every matter whatever you say.” Il. 1.293-294 (Wyatt, LCL). G. S. Kirk, The Iliad: A Commentary (ed. G. S. Kirk; 6 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985-1993), 1:82; Pulleyn, Homer, 202; LSJ, s.v. ὑποβλήδην. Minchin, Homeric Voices, 233. The scholia found in the eleventh-century manuscript T and in the descendants of the lost sixth-century manuscript b are known as the “bT” scholia, and their content is largely exegetical. See Eleanor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 19-20.

32

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

ken of anger not to suffer a detailed accusation”).25 For bT, interruption is linked to the refusal to tolerate an accusation. It is worth noting, moreover, that anger forms part of this definition of interruption. Both Minchin and the bT tradition agree that this use of interruption rhetorically underscores the conflict between the domineering king and the infuriated warrior, a conflict that governs the plot for much of the next eighteen books.26 The council ends shortly after the climactic intentional interruption of Agamemnon by Achilles, and Achilles immediately abandons the Achaeans. His absence looming over the next seventeen books, Achilles will not return to the Achaean camp until Book 19. At last, grieved by the death of his friend Patroclus, Achilles finally appears before the Greeks and gives a speech, renouncing his fury, or at least redirecting his wrath towards the Trojans. 27 Strikingly, in spite of the centrality of the conflict between warrior and king, these are Achilles’ first words to Agamemnon since the end of his interruptive rebuke in Book 1, and Agamemnon correspondingly replies with an apparent reference to Achilles’ earlier interruption.28 These are the only two references to interruption in all of the Iliad, and their presence solely at these two foci of the narrative underscores the pivotal importance of interruption in Homer. Minchin concludes rightly that “it is clear that Homer did not wish to dilute their force by excessive use.”29 Given the importance of this confrontation in Book 19, a closer look is in order. Achilles’ address is marked by an orderly start to his speaking turn, as he stands to take the floor.30 At the end of the address appears a typical closing formula: ὣς ἔφαθ᾽ (“So he spoke”).31 As the Greeks celebrate Achilles’ return, Agamemnon apparently struggles to seize the floor; it is unclear whether he speaks from a seated position or while standing off to the side.32 Any way the ambiguous text is read, 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

From schol. bT Il. 1.292 ex. Text from the edition of Hartmut Erbse, ed., Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera) (7 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969-1988), 1:90. In Homeric Conversations, 220, Beck notes that Achilles’ rejection of the turn-taking conventions of the assembly is paralleled by Achilles’ physical departure from the assembly and from the Greek camp. In his speech, Achilles renounces his χόλον (19.67), but in the subsequent narrative, the Greeks rejoice that he has renounced his μῆνιν (19.75). The two do not exchange a single word between the end of Achilles’ diatribe in 1.303 and his reproach of Agamemnon in 19.56. Minchin, Homeric Voices, 243. Il. 19.55. Il. 19.74. Lines 76-79 are problematic. For a helpful discussion of the various options, see Mark W. Edwards, The Iliad: A Commentary (ed. G. S. Kirk; 6 vols.; Cambridge: Cam-

The Iliad Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.) Iliad and Odyssey

33

Agamemnon is clearly frustrated that the Greeks have so eagerly welcomed Achilles. Towards the beginning of his speech, the annoyed king remarks that οὐδὲ ἔοικεν ὑββάλλειν (“neither is it fitting to interrupt”).33 This mention of interruption lacks support from the immediate context: Achilles had first taken the floor legitimately, and there is no sign that the cheering Greeks had violated their hero’s speaking rights. In fact, there is no intentional interruption in Book 19. Agamemnon’s speech may seem at first glance to be a criticism of “his men for interrupting him.”34 Although this interpretation is possible, a closer look reveals that Agamemnon’s accusation may not be directed at his comrades. He speaks in general terms, using impersonal expressions like καλόν (“it is good”), ἔοικεν (“it is fitting”), and χαλεπόν (“it is difficult”).35 Agamemnon clearly wants the Greeks to quiet down and heed his words, but he seems to be fighting to gain the floor rather than defending his own speaking turn. In view of the lack of any evidence for interruption in the immediate narrative context, we might follow Mark Edwards, who suggests that Agamemnon’s mention of ὑββάλλειν does not constitute a recent claim of interruption but instead refers back to the incident in Book 1: The only other use of this compound in the sense of ‘interrupt’ was the hapax ὑποβλήδην at 1.292, where [Achilles] rudely interrupted Agamemnon in the final exchange of the quarrel. This was the last time they met. Agamemnon has not forgotten the insult, and alludes pointedly to it here.36

Instead of examining Agamemnon’s speech for hints about who might have interrupted whom, we can instead interpret his mention of interruption as further evidence that the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon is not yet resolved, demonstrating the lasting effect of Achilles’ interruption in Book 1. There are other instances of interruption in the Iliad; however, none meet our criteria for intentional interruption. Minchin suggests that there may be an interruption at 9.224, and Edwards follows Dieter

33 34

35 36

bridge University Press, 1985-1993), 5:243-45. Edwards concludes that Agamemnon remains seated due to the wound he received in battle (cf. Il. 11.252-272), and he suggests that the king thus draws attention to his own valor in battle, compared to Achilles’ languor. Il. 19.79-80. Pace Minchin, Homeric Voices, 232. Minchin also suggests that Agamemnon has “impolitely” interrupted the crowd. Agamemnon indeed reproaches the Greeks, but we find no evidence that the speaking rights of the king or of the crowd were violated. Il. 19.79-80. Edwards, Iliad, 5:244.

34

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Lohmann in suggesting that 18.97 provides yet another example of Achilles’ “propensity for interruption.” 37 Other possibilities might include the sudden arrival of Diomedes and Odysseus in 10.540, as well as various instances of the common concluding formula ὣς οἳ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον (“As they were saying such things to one another”).38 We will deal with each in turn. In Book 9, Agamemnon follows Nestor’s advice and sends an embassy consisting of Phoenix, Ajax, and Odysseus to entreat Achilles to return. After a lavish meal, Ajax nods to Phoenix, and noticing this gesture, Odysseus addresses Achilles with a speech. Minchin interprets the words νεῦσ᾽ Αἴας Φοίνικι (“Ajax nodded to Phoenix”) as Ajax telling Phoenix to speak.39 When Odysseus “seizes the floor,” Minchin accuses him of an interruption.40 To accuse Odysseus of violating Phoenix’s speaking turn seems unnecessary, however, for two reasons. First, Phoenix himself makes no claim of interruption; the old man will not say a word until after a silence that follows Achilles’ response to Odysseus. Second, Phoenix has not yet begun to speak when Odysseus starts, so there is no speaking turn to be violated.41 Thus, we will not classify this instance as an intentional interruption. Lohmann’s posited interruption occurs in Book 18, when Achilles learns of Patroclus’ death, and his mother Thetis quickly comes to comfort him. When she hears his plan to slay Hector, she warns Achilles: αὐτίκα γάρ τοι ἔπειτα μεθ᾽ Ἕκτορα πότμος ἑτοῖμος (“For immediately, then, after Hector is your death at hand”). 42 Achilles responds with an agitated αὐτίκα τεθναίην (“Let me die immediately!”).43 The fact that an emotional Achilles echoes the αὐτίκα just spoken by his mother leads Lohmann to the conclusion that Achilles has interrupted Thetis, 37 38

39 40 41

42 43

Minchin, Homeric Voices, 234; Edwards, Iliad, 5:244; Dieter Lohmann, Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), 145. According to Beck, this is the most common “speech concluding formula” in all of Homer, appearing 23 times by her count (8 in the Iliad and 15 in the Odyssey). See Homeric Conversations, 290. Il. 9.223. For a similar scene, see Josephus, B.J. 1.629. In both passages, a meaningful nod is intercepted by a quick-witted individual who immediately seizes the floor. Homeric Voices, 234. As Eustathius of Thessalonica notes, ὑποβάλλειν δέ ἐστι τὸ ἄλλου λέγοντος μὴ ἀνασχέσθαι ἀπαρτισθῆναι τοὺς λόγους (“To interrupt is not to suffer the completion of the words of another speaker”). Commentary, 106.2. See the edition of Marchinus Van der Valk, ed., Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971-1987), 1:165. Eustathius’ definition presupposes that the interrupted speaker had already begun speaking. Il. 18.96. Il. 18.98.

The Iliad Iliad and Odyssey Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)

35

cutting his mother off and repeating one of her final words. 44 Edwards counts the brevity of Thetis’ discourse as further support for its characterization as interrupted.45 Still, as attractive as these points are, there is no evidence of a claim of interruption. A sharp emotional reaction redolent with pathos does not constitute an interruption, unless this reaction also violates the speaking rights of another. Book 10 yields the only other instance of interruption in the Iliad. Nestor addresses the Greeks, worried about the fate of Diomedes and Odysseus, who have gone to spy out the Trojan camp. 46 His speech is dramatically interrupted by the arrival of the triumphant pair: οὔ πω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος, ὅτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἤλυθον αὐτοί (“Not yet was the word fully spoken, when they themselves arrived”). 47 The narrator informs us that Nestor had not yet finished speaking, and the subsequent action could be considered a violation of Nestor’s speaking turn. However, it is not Nestor’s audience that interrupts him. Therefore, this interruption falls into the category of interruption by external events, a feature that adds drama to a situation without shedding any further light on the relationship between speaker and audience. Finally, let us examine the common concluding formula ὣς οἳ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον (“As they were saying such things to one another”), which appears eight times in the Iliad.48 The progressive aspect of the imperfect tense main verb ἀγόρευον could be used to flag a continuing speaking turn that would then be interrupted. However, nowhere is this formula followed by an interruptive activity, whether word or deed. Instead, the formula, which includes the particle μέν, generally forms the beginning of a transition, which is followed by a notice of the subsequent activity, marked with the corresponding δέ. A brief examination of one instance will suffice to illustrate the function of this μέν…δέ construction. In Book 5, after Diomedes slays Pandarus, he hits Aeneas, a favorite of the goddess Aphrodite, with a stone.49 Aphrodite comes to rescue Aeneas, but Diomedes wounds her as well.50 The wounded goddess flees to Mount Olympus, where Zeus

44

45 46 47 48 49 50

Lohmann, Komposition, 145. Lohmann draws on the description of Achilles’ emotional state in 18.97 as further evidence: τὴν δὲ μέγ᾽ ὀχθήσας προσέφη (“greatly infuriated, he answered”). Edwards, Iliad, 5:159. Il. 10.533-539. Il. 10.540. Il. 5.274, 431; 7.464; 8.212; 13.81; 16.101; 18.368; 21.514. Il. 5.305. Il. 5.336-337.

36

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

eventually rebukes her.51 “As they were saying such things to one another” on Olympus (μέν), Diomedes continues his assault on Aeneas (δέ).52 Obviously, Diomedes’ attack in no way interrupts the divine discourse, and we may conclude that Homer does not use this closing formula to signal interruption, but rather transition. In all of the Iliad, then, we find but one intentional interruption of a speaker (Agamemnon) by his audience (Achilles), as well as one interruption by external events. 53 While the content of Agamemnon’s interrupted speech was, no doubt, offensive to Achilles, the conflict between the two men had been building throughout their speeches. The narrative appears to frame Achilles’ interruption less as triggered by that particular speech and more as a final violent release of pent-up emotions that had been building since before the narration begins. 54 Minchin summarizes interruption in the Iliad as “an impolite discourse strategy” to be used “in a competitive world.”55 As stated above, we might emphasize the wide-ranging impact of this “discourse strategy” on the larger narrative, for the interruption in Book 1 and its mention in Book 19 frame the entire plot of the epic, as summarized in the opening lines.

2.2.3 Interrupted Speech in the Odyssey Interruption in the Odyssey has received far more scholarly attention than interruption in the Iliad, but the secondary literature tends to focus on the interruption of narratives rather than the interruption of discourses. Accordingly, Rabel distinguishes between the “interruption of the Odyssey” that Bernard Fenik explores (interruption of the narration of a particular scene) and the “interruption within the Odyssey” discussed by Milman Parry (interruption of discourse).56 In his literary treatment of “interruption sequences” in the Odyssey, Fenik concedes

51 52 53 54

55 56

Il. 5.428-430. Il. 5.431-432. Il. 1.292 and 10.540, respectively. Achilles’ promise to protect Calchas the seer from Agamemnon in Il. 1.85-91 implies mutual distrust and bad feeling prior to Agamemnon’s proposal to seize Briseis in 1.131-147. Minchin, Homeric Voices, 244. Rabel, “Interruption,” 77. See Bernard Fenik, Studies in the Odyssey (Hermes Einzelschriften 30; Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1974), 61-104; Milman Parry, The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry (ed. Adam Parry; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 456-60.

The Iliad Iliad and Odyssey Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)

37

that he is not addressing interruption “in the strictest sense.” 57 Working with a definition of interruption closer to our own, Parry’s work, however, attends to “the theme of the interrupted song.” 58 While we share Parry’s interest in interrupted discourse, our rhetorical interests diverge from his practical interests—he, after all, was primarily interested in the poetic tradition, or in the literal “making” of Homeric verse. Parry’s observations on the life of minstrels thus revolutionized Homeric studies, and his first-hand remarks, such as the observation that “the poet is at the convenience of his hearers,” tell us much about the precarious social position of bards ancient and modern; still, his work does little to explain the rhetorical function of intentional interruption as a literary device.59 As in the Iliad, Book 1 of the Odyssey features an intentional interruption. However, this interruption, like the rest of those found in the Odyssey, does not carry the same plot-framing significance or violent explosiveness as Achilles’ outbreak. Instead, Penelope’s interruption of the minstrel Phemius serves to introduce Odysseus’ grieving wife, who cannot bear to hear Phemius singing of the “baneful return of the Achaeans.”60 This reminder of her husband’s misfortune causes Penelope to weep, and she asks the poet to “cease from this mournful song.”61 Unlike the interruptions in the Iliad, there is no telling closing formula or explicit mention of interruption, perhaps because we are not given the words of Phemius’ actual utterance. Still, Penelope’s request recognizes that Phemius has the floor, and her son Telemachus reproaches his mother’s imposition in 1.346-359.62 Rebuffed, Penelope returns to her chamber, though she attains a measure of success in that Phemius is not said to reclaim the floor. This incident provides yet another example of a pathos-induced interruption: Achilles interrupts

57

58 59 60

61 62

Fenik, Studies, 72. Fenik concludes that the narrative pattern of interruption is “directly related to, in fact derived from, the well-known device of ring-composition” (92). Furthermore, the extensive use of interruption sequences in the Odyssey adds suspense to the poem (98). Parry, Making, 457. Parry, Making, 457. Od. 1.326-327. Citations and translations from the Odyssey are based on the text of Helmut van Thiel, ed., Homeri Odyssea (Bibliotheca Weidmanniana; Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1991). Od. 1.340-341. Note his especially blunt rebuke in 1.358-359: “But speech (μῦθος) will be for men— all men—but above all for me.” Telemachus rebukes her with similar words in 21.344-353.

38

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Agamemnon in a rage, whereas Penelope interrupts Phemius out of grief over her lost husband. A trio of Odyssean monologues in Book 5 deserves consideration. In each case, Odysseus talks to himself while adrift, and his speech (or pondering) is brought to a close by means of a great wave, courtesy of Poseidon.63 Odysseus is his own audience: ὀχθήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὅν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν (“troubled, he spoke to his great-hearted soul”).64 In the first soliloquy, as a great wave approaches, Odysseus wishes that he had died in Troy, instead of perishing at sea. The end of his speech coincides with the arrival of the wave: ὣς ἄρα μιν εἰπόντ᾽ ἔλασεν μέγα κῦμα κατ᾽ ἄκρης (“As soon as he had spoken, the great wave struck him from above”).65 While it is unclear whether Odysseus was still speaking when the wave struck, the emphasis appears to be on the hero’s perilous situation, not his loss of speaking rights. Thus, in the absence of further evidence, we would refrain from categorizing 5.313 as interruption by external events. The next two monologues are introduced with the same formula as the first (ὀχθήσας δ᾽ ἄρα εἶπε πρὸς ὅν μεγαλήτορα θυμόν), but the closing formulas differ. In each speech, Odysseus sums up his current situation and deliberates about what to do when a wave strikes his raft (in the second monologue) or his body (in the third). In both cases, the foreseen event brings his musings to an end: ἕως ὁ ταῦθ᾽ ὥρμαινε κατὰ φρένα καὶ κατὰ θυμόν (“While he was pondering these things in his mind and heart”).66 The use of the imperfect implies that Poseidon’s waves indeed brought Odysseus’ speaking turn to an end, so we may classify these two dramatic interruptions with the similarly forecast interruption of Iliad 10.540 as interruptions by external events. 67 Book 8 brings us to another instance of Parry’s “interrupted song.” This time, it is the minstrel Demodocus who is cut short. When his song of the quarrel between Achilles and Odysseus causes Odysseus to weep, his gracious host Alcinous diverts the attention of his guests in order to spare the unknown, grieving stranger.68 However, there is no 63 64 65 66 67

68

Od. 5.313, 365-366, 424-425. Fenik discusses this scene as part of a larger discussion of “Scenes with Repeated Elements” in his Studies, 143-45. Od. 5.298, 355, 407. Od. 5.313. Od. 5.365, 424. These verses can also be described in narratological terms as the “pathetic use of the device of simultaneity.” Irene J. F. de Jong, A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 145. For Jong, simultaneity often “creates a special effect, such as pathos, tension, or dramatic irony” (212). Od. 8.94-103.

The Iliad Iliad and Odyssey Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)

39

claim of interruption, no signal that Demodocus was stopped midverse. Another song of Demodocus is interrupted by Alcinous later in Book 8, and this intervention also appears to be framed to emphasize Odysseus’ continuing sorrow at his own fate. 69 In this case, the violation of the minstrel’s speaking turn is clear from the interrupting words; still, the narrator seems to be emphasizing not the violation of Demodocus’ speaking or singing turn, but the grief of Odysseus. Thus, we do not hear any of Demodocus’ verses, as the narrator summarizes his songs. The fact that these interruptions are left unmarked, with no explicit mention of speaking rights, suggests that they were not being used to highlight any unusual dynamic between speaker and audience; after all, the master of a house clearly had the authority to silence a local minstrel. As a result, we find little evidence of any specific rhetorical effect.70 In addition to the interrupted songs of Phemius and Demodocus, we also find an interrupted prayer. In Book 15, Telemachus’ prayers for a safe return home are interrupted by the friendly inquiry of the newly arrived seer Theoclymenus.71 As with the interrupted songs, the words of the interrupted prayer are not recorded, attenuating the rhetorical effect. Still, this might be classified as an interruption by external events. Two other events in Book 15 resemble interruptions, but both would be better classified as instances of simultaneity. Shortly before leaving the home of Menelaus, Telemachus thanks his host, expressing his desire to find his father back in Ithaca. He receives a confirmatory sign: ὣς ἄρα οἱ εἰπόντι ἐπέπτατο δεξιὸς ὄρνις (“As soon as he had spoken, a bird of good omen flew”).72 Later on, Telemachus is speaking to Theoclymenus, and he questions whether his mother will marry Eurymachus. Again, his words are confirmed immediately by means of a bird omen.73 In both cases, although an argument could be made for interruption by external events, there is no sign of a violation of speaking rights. Rather, Telemachus speaks, and the gods appear to react instantly by sending a favorable omen. 69 70

71 72 73

Od. 8.536-543. See Appendix 1 for further details. Minchin is hesitant even to label this an interruption: “But since we do not hear his words we are not witnessing an actual interruption; we are not so acutely aware of the singer being cut short.” Homeric Voices, 237-38. Od. 15.259-264. For a more severe interruption of a prayer, see 1 Kgdms 1:14 (LXX). Od. 15.160. The wording in Od. 15.525 and in 15.160 is identical. For more omens, see 20.100-119, where Zeus sends thunder and a woman utters a prophetic word. For a brief discussion of the bird omens, see Jong, Narratological Commentary, 370.

40

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Simultaneity and interruption twice converge in Book 16. In the first instance, Odysseus remarks to Eumaeus that someone is approaching. The arrival of his son Telemachus apparently interrupts his prescient speech: οὔ πω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος, ὅτε οἱ φίλος υἱὸς / ἔστη ἐνὶ προθύροισι (“Not yet was the word fully spoken, when his dear son / stood in the doorway”).74 Clearly, this interruption by external events is designed to dramatize Telemachus’ arrival.75 The narrative will continue to build suspense, as Telemachus does not address Odysseus for another thirty lines, and the son does not recognize the father until Athena gives him a rejuvenating makeover. The second interruption by external events occurs later in Book 16. Eurymachus proposes that messengers be sent to summon home the suitors who failed to ambush Telemachus.76 However, he will shortly rescind his suggestion, for the outwitted suitors arrive at the harbor even as he makes his proposal: οὔ πω πᾶν εἴρηθ᾽, ὅτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἀμφίνομος ἴδε νῆα (“Not yet had he fully spoken, when Amphinomus saw a ship”).77 Here, the interruption adds comic relief, as the instant obsolescence of Eurymachus’ suggestion causes laughter. 78 The final interruption is a grim interruption of a speaker by his audience in Book 22. Odysseus is engaged in the slaughter of the suitors, when the seer Leiodes falls at his feet to beg mercy. Odysseus accuses the seer of praying for his demise, and he denies Leiodes’ appeal: φθεγγομένου δ᾽ ἄρα τοῦ γε κάρη κονίῃσιν ἐμίχθη (“While he was speaking, his head was mixed with the dust”). 79 Clearly, Leiodes’ speaking rights were violated, and Odysseus’ bitter accusation suggests that anger motivated the interruption. Other proposed interruptions fail to meet the criteria we have set forth. Scholars show themselves eager to discuss Odysseus’ “selfinterruption” of 11.330-332, but again, a speaker cannot properly be said to violate his or her own speaking rights. 80 Furthermore, we find numerous instances of the closing formula ὣς οἳ μὲν τοιαῦτα πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀγόρευον (“As they were saying such things to one anoth-

74 75 76 77 78 79 80

Od. 16.11-12. For Jong, the interruption of a speaker by external events (here and in 16.351) simply “suggests a quick succession of events” (388). Od. 16.346-350. Od. 16.351. Od. 16.354. Od. 22.329. See Rabel, “Interruption,” 81, 85-89; Minchin, Homeric Voices, 242-43.

The Iliad Iliad and Odyssey Odyssey of Homer (ca. 8th century B.C.E.)

41

er”), which also appears frequently in the Iliad.81 As discussed earlier, the formula generally serves to mark a transition, not an interruption of a speech, song, or prayer.

2.2.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Homer We began our treatment of Homeric discourse by noting the presence of an established norm of turn-taking, a rule which makes the exceptions all the more striking. Foremost among these exceptions is the furious interruption of Agamemnon by Achilles in Book 1 of the Iliad. In the Odyssey, we find two clear examples of intentional interruption of a speaker by an emotional audience: Penelope’s tearful interruption of Phemius in Book 1, and Odysseus’ brutal denial of Leiodes’ appeal in Book 22. The lightly marked interruption of Demodocus by Alcinous in Book 8 might also be considered, but the narrative focuses more on Odysseus’ grief than on his host Alcinous’ sympathetic intervention. We also find numerous examples of interruption by external events. Interestingly, many of these intruding events, even if they are said to infringe upon a speaking turn, appear to follow as the fulfillment or expected consequence of the discourse. The lone contrasting example is Theoclymenus’ interruption of the praying Telemachus, but this interruption is relatively unmarked and correspondingly of less interest for our survey.82 A better starting point is found in Book 10 of the Iliad, where Nestor’s words of concern for Odysseus and Diomedes are broken off by the arrival of the same two men. 83 A similar closing formula draws to a close Odysseus’ musings about an approaching figure; the interrupting individual turns out to be his own son Telemachus.84 Later in the same book, the arrival of the boat of the outwitted suitors ends the speech of Eurymachus, who had argued in favor of summoning the same men back to Ithaca. 85 Finally, we might also add Odysseus’ two deliberative monologues about what courses of action

81

82 83 84 85

In the Odyssey, we find this formula used sixteen times: 4.620; 7.334; 8.333; 14.409; 15.493; 16.321; 17.166, 290; 18.243; 20.172, 240; 22.160; 23.288; 24.98, 203, 383 (pace Beck, who counts only 15 occurrences in Homeric Conversations, 290). In the Iliad, it is used eight times: 5.274, 431; 7.464; 8.212; 13.81; 16.101; 18.368; 21.514. Od. 15.259-264. Il. 10.540. Od. 16.8-12. Od. 16.351-353.

42

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

he might take in response to Poseidon’s fury. Both come to a crashing halt, as a mighty wave strikes.86 Several conclusions follow. First, it is clear that Homer makes occasional use of interruption in each of the two epics. Most frequently, interruption by external events is used to link direct discourse with related events in the narrative, often to dramatic or comedic effect. Interruption of a speaker by his or her audience, on the other hand, has a range of outcomes. Lightly marked interruptions, such as those of Demodocus by Alcinous, have negligible rhetorical function. However, more clearly marked interruptions have correspondingly more significance. Thus, the explicit nature of Achilles’ interruption of Agamemnon highlights the bitter rivalry between the two men that will control much of the plot of the Iliad. In the Odyssey, while no interruption carries that degree of significance, we do find intentional interruption being used to illuminate both the depth of Penelope’s sorrow and the extent of Odysseus’ drive for revenge against the suitors.87 From Homeric usage, then, we may surmise that the rhetorical device of intentional interruption can be used to illustrate the high level of emotion involved in relationships between speakers and their audiences. Furthermore, the emotions thus highlighted by rhetorical interruptions are no passing passions; rather, intentional interruption highlights the emotional forces that fuel the narratives of the Iliad and Odyssey: the wrath of Achilles, the sorrow of Penelope, and the vengeance of Odysseus. As we will see, Homer was perhaps the first, but certainly not the last, author to use interruption to great rhetorical effect.

2.3 The Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.) With Herodotus of Halicarnassus, we move from epic poetry to historiographical prose. On the one hand, this transition was not overly abrupt—a later writer considered Herodotus to be “Homeric in the highest.”88 On the other hand, Herodotus merits his title as innovator: Father of History.89 In addition to eschewing dactylic hexameter, He86 87 88

89

Od. 5.365-367, 424-425. In Books 1 and 22, respectively. “Longinus” asks whether Herodotus alone was Ὁμηρικώτατος? “Longinus,” On the Sublime 13.3 (Fyfe, LCL). Herodotus refers to Homer in Histories, 2.23.1; 2.53.2-3; 2.116.1-120.5; 4.29.1; 4.32.1; 5.67.1; 7.161.3. Cicero was the first to label Herodotus patrem historiae; see Cicero, De legibus 1.1.5. Given his emphasis on method, Herodotus reserves the right to this title, even if Hecataeus of Miletus preceded him in writing historical prose.

The Histories Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.)

43

rodotus has far less direct speech than Homer, showing a preference for lengthier narrative descriptions and more extensive use of oratio obliqua.90 Still, we do find dramatic scenes (especially in the final books of the Histories), and as his tale reaches its denouement, Herodotus includes four intentional interruptions, as described below.

2.3.1 Turn-Taking in Herodotus As in Homer’s poetry, we find plentiful evidence for turn-taking in the Histories. For instance, the Persian council towards the beginning of Book 7 features a series of speeches by King Xerxes, his cousin Mardonius, and the king’s uncle Artabanus. 91 Each speaker takes his turn and then voluntarily cedes his speaking rights to the next. Thus, Xerxes closes his opening remarks, and ταῦτα εἴπας ἐπαύετο (“Having said these things, he ceased”).92 Mardonius speaks μετ’ αὐτόν (“after [Xerxes]”), and the end of his speaking turn is also clearly designated: ἐπέπαυτο.93 Artabanus then offers his unpopular opinion. Despite being enraged, Xerxes does not interrupt: Ἀρτάβανος μὲν ταῦτα ἔλεξε, Ξέρξης δὲ θυμωθείς ἀμείβεται τοῖσδε (“Artabanus said these things, but Xerxes was enraged and replied with these words”). 94 The aorist ἔλεξε signifies that Artabanus had finished speaking, and the μέν…δέ construction marks an orderly, albeit emotional, transition. Later in Book 7, we find another example of attention paid to speaking rights, where an Athenian envoy seizes a speaking turn in an unsuccessful attempt to win the cooperation of Gelon, King of Syracuse. When Gelon offers to share leadership of the Greek armies with the Spartans, the Athenian ambassador interjects: Γέλων μὲν δὴ ταῦτα προετείνετο, φθάσας δὲ ὁ Ἀθηναίων ἄγγελος τὸν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀμείβετό μιν τοῖσδε (“Gelon offered these things, but the Athenian 90

91

92 93 94

E.g., in Herodotus, Hist. 3.124.2, an entire dialogue between Polycrates and his daughter is reported as indirect discourse. For running commentary on the speeches of the Histories, see Paavo Hohti, The Interrelation of Speech and Action in the Histories of Herodotus (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 57; Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1976), 11-79. Though primarily concerned with how speeches lead audiences to take action, Hohti is silent on Herodotean interruptions. Herodotus, Hist. 7.8α.1-11.4. Citations and translations from the Histories are based on the text of Haiim B. Rosén, ed., Herodoti Historiae (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1987-1997). Herodotus, Hist., 7.8δ.2. Herodotus, Hist. 7.9.1-10.1. Herodotus, Hist. 7.11.1. Xerxes and his uncle Artabanus also have a lengthy conversation in 7.46.1-52.2, with speaking turns clearly marked.

44

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

envoy, preempting the Lacedaemonian [envoy], answered him with these words”).95 In responding to Gelon’s offer, the Athenian could be said to usurp the Lacedaemonian’s speaking rights. However, as in the case of Odysseus and Phoenix, we are never told that the Spartan envoy began to speak, so we cannot properly speak of a violation of his speaking turn.96 In this passage, Herodotus makes his readers aware of the dynamics of speaking turns, and thus we can justify further attention to their violations in the Histories. Another phenomenon that frequently draws attention to speaking turns is acclamation. In Herodotus and in later authors, a speaker may find his or her views endorsed immediately and unequivocally. To emphasize the positive reception, an author can indicate that this response occurs during the speaker’s turn. For example, in Book 4, Histiaeus of Miletus makes a brief speech in a council of the Ionians, and his words meet with instant approval: Ἱστιαίου δὲ γνώμην ταύτην ἀποδεικνυμένου αὐτίκα πάντες ἦσαν τετραμμένοι πρὸς ταύτην τὴν γνώμην πρότερον τὴν Μιλτιάδεω αἱρεόμενοι (“But when Histiaeus proposed this motion, all were immediately turned towards his opinion, in spite of their earlier endorsements of Miltiades’ view”).97 This endorsement is not a violation of the speaking rights of Histiaeus, but a very similar phenomenon is taking place, as Herodotus is using the concept of speaking rights to dramatic effect.98 One reason for the widespread respect for speaking rights, especially in the earlier books of the Histories, is that much of the direct discourse reports the weighty words of oracles. The plot often revolves around particular oracles, and characters show respect for these oracles by heeding their words and sending offerings.99 Consequently, the sayings of prophets and oracles are never interrupted. After all, Greek envoys who make the journey to Delphi are unlikely to cut off the Πυθίη before she completes her utterance.100

95 96

Herodotus, Hist. 7.161.1. Cf. Il. 9.223. These examples will be raised again in conjunction with Paul’s missed speaking turn in Acts 18:14. 97 Herodotus, Hist. 4.137.3. 98 For other examples, see the swift acceptance of marriage proposals in Hist. 5.40.2 and 6.130.2. The best example is in 9.28.1, where an entire army shouts its acceptance of an Athenian proposition. 99 E.g., Gyges in 1.14.1-4 and Croesus in 1.50.1-51.5; 1.54.1; 1.92.1-2. 100 Herodotus, Hist. 1.67.3-4. For other oracles, see 1.47.3; 1.53.2; 1.55.2; 1.62.4; 1.65.3; 1.66.2; 1.85.2; 1.91.1-6; 1.174.5; etc. One noteworthy exception is the visit of Battus to Delphi in 4.155.3-4. The oracle commands Battus to found a colony in Libya. In response to his question of how to perform such a demanding task, the oracle keeps on

The Histories Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.)

45

Overall, we find that most of the speaking turns in the Histories are respected by the audiences. That is not to say that the Histories are less dramatic than the Odyssey; Herodotus does include various interruptions, but he is more inclined to include violent reactions to speeches that have run their course.101 Speeches can trigger heavy emotions and lethal violence.102 Generally speaking, drama in the Histories comes in the form of these reactions rather than through interruptions.

2.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Histories Unlike the Iliad and Odyssey, Herodotus refrains from using an interruption in his first book; the reader must wait until Book 3 for the first interruption, and even this instance is not a rhetorical interruption. In Book 3, Darius and his six co-conspirators are debating the timing of their coup, when they are interrupted by a bird omen: ὠθιζομένων δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐφάνη ἰρήκων ἑπτὰ [ζεύγη] δύο αἰγυπιῶν ζεύγεα διώκοντα καὶ τίλλοντά τε καὶ ἀμύσσοντα (“while they were arguing, there appeared seven [pairs of] hawks pursuing and plucking the feathers of and scratching two pairs of vultures”).103 The seven men interpret this as an auspicious omen, and they carry out their plan successfully.104 Still, while the present participle ὠθιζομένων implies that the usurpers’ conversation was ongoing at the time of the omen, the dramatic effect of this event is much more striking than its rhetorical significance. The actual dispute of the arguing conspirators is summarized with indirect discourse, which makes it difficult to connect any specific content of the discourse with the interruption. Herodotus has used interruption by external events here to highlight the importance of the favorable sign in dramatic fashion. 105 In Book 4, we find another lightly marked interruption by external events. Again, it is a dispute reported in indirect discourse: καὶ τοῦτον μὲν ἐντεταμένως ἀμφισβητέειν, τοὺς δὲ προσήκοντας τῷ νεκρῷ ἐπὶ τὸ κναφήιον παρεῖναι ἕχοντας τὰ πρόσφορα ὡς ἀναιρησομένους

101 102 103 104 105

repeating the same advice, and Battus is so frustrated that he simply departs while the oracle is still speaking. These reactions are often marked with aorist participles (e.g., ἀκούσαντες in Hist. 7.141.1). For lethal consequences of speeches, see Hist. 3.32.3-4 (execution and homicide) and 3.75.3 (suicide). For other emotional reactions, see Hist. 3.64.1-2; 7.11.1; 7.159.1; 9.94.3. 3.76.3. Hist. 3.77.1-79.2. Compare the bird omens of Od. 15.160, 525.

46

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

(“and while this one was vehemently arguing, the family of the dead man arrived at the fuller’s shop with the things necessary for burial”).106 The bereaved family members enter the fuller’s shop, only to find no trace of their departed Aristeas. Thus, they vindicate the man who was disputing his death, proving him right shortly after interrupting his argument. This unintentional interruption by external events is fairly common in the Histories, occurring also at 8.50 and 8.90.107 In Books 8 and 9, Herodotus tells of the great battles of Salamis and Plataea. As might be expected, based on Homer’s linking of interruption with climaxes in the Iliad and Odyssey, Herodotus has waited until these books to deploy his rhetorical interruptions. Early on in Book 8, Arcadian deserters are brought before King Xerxes to inform on their Greek compatriots, and they reveal that the rest of the Greeks are celebrating the Olympic games. Upon hearing of the prizes awarded, a Persian interrupts the speaker out of astonishment: πυθόμενος γὰρ τὸ ἄεθλον ἐὸν στέφανον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ χρήματα, οὔτε ἠνέσχετο σιγῶν εἶπέ τε ἐς πάντας, τάδε «παπαῖ, Μαρδόνιε, κοίους ἐπ᾽ ἄνδρας ἤγαγες μαχησομένους ἡμέας, οἳ οὐ περὶ χρημάτων τὸν ἀγῶνα ποιεῦνται, ἀλλὰ περὶ ἀρετῆς.» (“For learning that the prize was a crown, rather than money, he could not bear to remain silent and said to everyone, ‘Are you kidding me, Mardonius? What kind of men did you bring us to fight with, who compete not for money, but for glory!’”). 108 Although πυθόμενος is an aorist participle, which could signify a reaction to instead of an interruption of the Arcadians’ words, the violation of a speaking turn is made clear by the phrase οὔτε ἠνέσχετο σιγῶν. The incredulous Persian hearer cannot suffer the Greeks to continue with their speaking turn, and he expresses his disbelief to the commander Mardonius. Although the interrupted discourse is oratio obliqua, and although the interrupting speech is addressed to someone other than the interrupted speakers, this rhetorical interruption features a clear connection between the content of the discourse and the act of interruption (the repetition of χρήματα). The wartime context further illumi-

106 Hist. 4.14.2. 107 In 8.50.1, a debate between the Peloponnesian commanders is interrupted by the arrival of an Athenian messenger bearing news of the Persian invasion of Attica. In 8.90.2, the Phoenician accusations of treason against the Ionians are thoroughly undermined by a valiant Samothracian attack on a Greek ship. 108 Hist. 8.26.3. Rosén’s text identifies the speaker as Τριτανταίχμης ὁ Ἀρταβάνου, but some manuscripts read Τιγράνης ὁ Ἀρταβάνου. For discussion, see A. M. Bowie, Herodotus: Histories VIII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 118.

The Histories Histories of Herodotus (5th century B.C.E.)

47

nates the interruption, as a powerful Persian freely interrupts vagabond Greeks. As Book 8 continues, the conflict intensifies, and Athens is sacked by the Persians.109 The Greek navy must decide whether to remain at Salamis or retreat to the Isthmus to defend the Peloponnese, so Eurybiades, the Spartan admiral, convenes a council and lays out the matter at hand. Themistocles immediately launches into a lengthy speech in favor of remaining at Salamis. Apparently, at least one other admiral finds Themistocles to be speaking out of turn: λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Κορίνθιος στρατηγὸς Ἀδείμαντος ὁ Ὠκύτου εἶπεν· «ὦ Θεμιστόκλεες, ἐν τοῖσιν ἀγῶσιν οἱ προεξανιστάμενοι ῥαπίζονται.» (“But while [Themistocles] was still speaking, the Corinthian admiral Adeimantus son of Ocytus said, ‘O Themistocles, at the games those who start before the signal are beaten with rods’”).110 The use of the present participle λέγοντος in the genitive absolute indicates that Adeimantus is interrupting Themistocles. This interruption marks the beginning of strife between the Athenian Themistocles and the Corinthian Adeimantus, who will trade barbs and give contrasting counsel throughout 8.59-61.111 After responding to the first jibe from Adeimantus, Themistocles addresses a longer speech to Eurybiades. However, Adeimantus will have none of it, and he interrupts Themistocles a second time: ταῦτα λέγοντος Θεμιστοκλέος αὖτις ὁ Κορίνθιος Ἀδείμαντος ἐπεφέρετο σιγᾶν τε κελεύων (“While Themistocles said these things, the Corinthian Adeimantus again attacked, commanding him to be silent”).112 Again, a genitive absolute featuring the present participle λέγοντος signals that Themistocles had not yielded his speaking turn, and Adeimantus’ bid to silence the Athenian underscores this fact. This second violation of Themistocles’ speaking rights by Adeimantus shows that this is no minor dispute; with Athens taken, there is an element of desperation present, heightening the drama of this council. The dispute between Themistocles and Adeimantus offers a clear example of how the concept of speaking rights can be used to dramatic effect. Herodotus confirms the intensity of the council’s deliberations in his summary statement: Οὕτω μὲν οἱ περὶ Σαλαμῖνα ἔπεσι 109 Herodotus, Hist. 8.53.2. 110 Hist. 8.59.1. For more details on the rebuke of Adeimantus, see the comments and references given in W. W. How and J. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus with Introduction and Appendixes (2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1928), 2:254-55. 111 Diodorus Siculus summarizes this council, omitting all interruptions, in Bibl. hist. 11.15.3-4. 112 Herodotus, Hist. 8.61.1.

48

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

ἀκροβολισάμενοι (“Thus, after those who were at Salamis fought this war of words…”).113 In Book 1 of the Iliad, one intentional interruption brought a provisional end to the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon. By contrast, here in Book 8 of the Histories, two intentional interruptions trigger the outbreak of a quarrel and prolong the dispute. Book 8 records how Themistocles and the Greeks eventually triumphed on sea, and Book 9 continues with the war on land, culminating at Plataea. In Book 9, another quarrel among the Greeks yields ananother interruption. This time, the Athenian envoys arrive in Sparta to berate their supposed allies for celebrating a festival instead of sending the promised troops: ταῦτα λεγόντων τῶν ἀγγέλων οἱ ἔφοροι εἶπαν ἐφ᾽ ὅρκου καὶ δὴ δοκέειν εἶναι ἐν Ὀρεσθείῳ στίχοντας ἐπὶ τοὺς ξείνους (“While the envoys said these things, the ephors swore with an oath that they supposed them to be at Orestheion, marching against the foreigners”).114 This interruption, again marked with a present participle, is intentional, as the Spartans deny the Athenian allegations with an oath. However, the interruption actually serves to diffuse the tension at this point in the narrative, for this affirmation of Spartan cooperation is precisely what the Athenian envoys desired. In the end, these Greek allies will carry the day at Plataea, finally expelling the Persian menace.

2.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Herodotus In the end, then, we find four interruptions by external events and four instances of rhetorical interruption in Herodotus. Notably, all four of the latter are located in the final two books of the Histories, suggesting that, like Homer, Herodotus reserved the use of intentional interruption for major turning points in the plot. The connection between interruption and major crisis is not as closely preserved in Herodotus, though, as interruptions occur in the general vicinity of significant plot developments, rather than precipitating crises. Interestingly, in three of the four cases, Greeks interrupt fellow Greeks, cutting off their own allies; as in Homer, interruption more frequently occurs between rivals, rather than between mortal enemies. Overall, the more extensive use of indirect discourse drains some of the drama from Herodotean interruptions, and intentional interruption, while present, is not as central a feature to the Histories as it is in the Iliad. 113 Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1. Cf. the very similar phrase in Homer, Il. 1.304. 114 Herodotus, Hist. 9.11.2.

The History History of of the the Peloponnesian Peloponnesian War War of Thucydides (5th century B.C.E.)

49

2.4 The History of the Peloponnesian War of Thucydides (5th century B.C.E.) Unlike Herodotus, who delighted in ethnographic descriptions and humorous anecdotes, Thucydides is much more interested in troop movements and strategic decisions.115 The Athenian historiographer is also much more straightforward about the gaps in his knowledge. Acknowledging that he does not have access to the ipsissima verba of the speeches he records, Thucydides does make clear his intention to give a reasonably accurate report.116 This effort is visible in what H. D. Westlake refers to as the “postscripts” to the speeches.117 That is, if a speech is embedded within a narrative framework, then Westlake’s postscript is the part of the narrative framework that follows the speech, which would include any closing formulae. In Herodotus, a postscript or closing formula will often include a phrase such as ταῦτα λέγοντος (“while…said these things”).118 In Thucydides, a different demonstrative pronoun is more common: τοιαῦτα εἰπόντος (“after…said such things”).119 Whereas the Herodotean pronoun suggests that precisely “these things” were spoken, the Thucydidean τοιαῦτα serves as a reminder that “things such as these, but not necessarily identical to these,” were spoken. As might be ex115 Cf. Thucydides, Hist. 1.22.4. 116 See Thucydides’ famous comments on speeches in 1.22.1, discussed above in Chapter 1. For commentary, see F. W. Walbank, Speeches in Greek Historians (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), esp. pp. 3-4; Simon Hornblower, A Commentary on Thucydides (3 vols.; vols. 1-2, Oxford: Clarendon, 1991-1996; vol. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 1:59-60. For an application of Thucydides’ general discussion of speeches to one specific speech, see A. E. Raubitschek, “The Speech of the Athenians at Sparta,” in The Speeches in Thucydides: A Collection of Original Studies with a Bibliography (ed. Philip A. Stadter; Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973), 32-48. Older bibliography can be found in the same volume: William C. West III, “A Bibliography of Scholarship on the Speeches in Thucydides: 1873-1970,” in The Speeches in Thucydides, 124-65. For a recent treatment of 1.22.1 with bibliography, see Leone Porciani, “The Enigma of Discourse: A View of Thucydides,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; Malden, Mass.: WileyBlackwell, 2011), 328-35. 117 H. D. Westlake, “The Settings of Thucydidean Speeches,” in The Speeches in Thucydides: A Collection of Original Studies with a Bibliography (ed. Philip A. Stadter; Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973), 90-108. 118 E.g., Herodotus, Hist. 8.61.1. Even more common are the pairings ταῦτα ἀκούσας and ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες. For examples, see Hist. 1.121.1; 1.125.1; 1.206.3; 3.141.1; 6.86γ.2; 7.141.1; 7.159.1; etc. 119 E.g., Thucydides, Hist. 4.65.1. Citations and translations from the History are based on the text of C. Hude, ed., Thucydidis Historiae (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1898-1901).

50

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

pected, the lively discourses of Herodotus also featured more interruptions than the more staid prose of Thucydides. In the words of Westlake, “Nor does Thucydides normally choose to exploit the dramatic possibilities of the situations before or after each debate was held.”120 As might be expected, then, rhetorical interruption is entirely absent from Thucydides’ History.

2.4.1 Turn-Taking in Thucydides Given the care with which Thucydides has crafted his speeches, we are not surprised to find the discourses framed neatly with the “preambles” and “postscripts” discussed by Westlake. 121 Nowhere in Thucydides do we find an interruption of one of his masterpieces of oratio recta. Nonetheless, Thucydides still shows himself to be aware of the give and take of oral discourse, and thus we find references to the preservation and violation of speaking turns in his History. In Book 3, Cleon berates the Athenians for considering more lenient treatment of the Mytilenaeans, who had earlier been condemned to death. In the course of his rebuke, Cleon ridicules those who desire ὀξέως δέ τι λέγοντος προεπαινέσαι (“to praise a keen saying before it is spoken”).122 The praise described by Cleon would thus infringe on his hypothetical speaker’s turn. Speaking turns also receive treatment in Book 5, in the first short speech of the lengthy Melian dialogue.123 The Athenian envoys propose this dialogue as an alternative to presenting their case before the people of Melos. The Athenians presumably would have preferred to lay out their arguments ξυνεχεῖ ῥήσει (“in a single continuous speech”) in order to persuade the people, but instead they allow the Melian commissioners the opportunity to respond to each point.124 What ensues is a formal dialogue with clearly marked speaking turns and no interruptions. One final example of attention to speaking turns merits discussion. In Book 8, the Athenians are in utter disarray, and the newly instituted oligarchy is clashing with the obstinately democratic army. When en-

120 Westlake, “Settings,” 91. 121 Westlake, “Settings,” 91. 122 Thucydides, Hist. 3.38.6. For a more colorful translation, see that of Charles Forster Smith: “to applaud a smart saying before it is out of the speaker’s mouth” (LCL). 123 This Melian dialogue extends from 5.85.1 to 5.103.1. 124 Thucydides, Hist. 5.85.1.

The History History of of the thePeloponnesian Peloponnesian War of Thucydides (5th century B.C.E.)

51

voys from the oligarchy arrive and attempt to speak, the soldiers are so infuriated that they refuse them a speaking turn: οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὐκ ἤθελον ἀκούειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀποκτείνειν ἐβόων τοὺς τὸν δῆμον καταλύοντας (“the soldiers initially refused to listen, but shouted death threats at the destroyers of democracy”). 125 The soldiers show their disdain for the oligarchs by refusing their representatives a speaking turn, and it is only with difficulty that the representatives finally take the floor (only to fail miserably). As we enter into our survey of interruption in the History, we may conclude that Thucydides is indeed attentive to the dramatic power of speaking rights.

2.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the History of the Peloponnesian War The only interrupted speech in the History is a short exhortation by Hippocrates in Book 4, immediately prior to the rout of his Athenian troops. Thucydides, who has just described certain failures in the Athenian preparations for this battle at Delium, highlights this poor planning by depicting Hippocrates’ speech as being cut off by the Boeotian assault: Τοιαῦτα τοῦ Ἱπποκράτους παρακελευομένου καὶ μέχρι μὲν μέσου τοῦ στρατοπέδου ἐπελθόντος, τὸ δὲ πλέον οὐκέτι φθάσαντος, οἱ Βοιωτοί, παρακελευσαμένου καὶ σφίσιν ὡς διὰ ταχέων καὶ ἐνταῦθα Παγώνδου, παιανίσαντες ἐπῇσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ λόφου (“While Hippocrates was encouraging [the troops] with such words, he had reached the center of the army, but he could proceed no further, for the Boeotians, after Pagondas had then hastily encouraged them, raised the paean and attacked from the hill”).126 Hippocrates’ speech was not interrupted by his hearers, for the Boeotians had received their own exhortation immediately prior to the attack. Consequently, this speech falls under the heading of interruption by external events. Not until Book 8 do we find anything else vaguely resembling an interruption in Thucydides’ History. Two cases involve speeches in indirect discourse, and both involve the tensions between the new oligarchy at Athens and the firmly democratic army at Samos. In the first case, Chaereas gives an exaggerated report of the Athenian revolution to the soldiers at Samos: οἱ δὲ ἀκούοντες ἐπὶ τοὺς τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν μάλιστα ποιήσαντας καὶ ἐπὶ τὼν ἄλλων τοὺς μετασχόντας τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ὥρμησαν βάλλειν (“But as they heard, they first rushed to throw [stones] at those who were foremost in making the oligarchy and 125 Thucydides, Hist. 8.86.2. 126 Thucydides, Hist. 4.96.1.

52

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

at some of the others that participated in it”).127 While the question of what the soldiers actually threw is left unclear, the instant and dramatic response to the words of Chaereas is evident. While the present participle ἀκούοντες suggests that the soldiers did not patiently wait until Chaereas was finished speaking, the harmony between the response of the soldiers and the intent of Chaereas suggests that the speaking rights of Chaereas were not violated. The political turmoil in Samos yields a reaction that is closer to interruption shortly thereafter. A speech of Alcibiades arguing for the end of his banishment is brought to a successful conclusion by the assembly: οἱ δὲ ἀκούοντες ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ στρατηγόν τε αὐτὸν εὐθὺς εἵλοντο μετὰ τῶν προτέρων καὶ τὰ πράγματα πάντα ἀνετίθεσαν (“But when they heard these and many other things, they immediately elected him general with those chosen earlier, and they entrusted all their affairs to him”).128 Again, there is little emphasis on the violation of Alcibiades’ speaking rights, and the friendly reception of his speech better fits the category of acclamation, discussed earlier in connection with Herodotus.

2.4.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Thucydides Thucydides did not make use of intentional interruption as a rhetorical device.129 If he had had the opportunity to revise Book 8, then he might have employed the device to greater effect. However, limiting our conclusions to his surviving work, we can point to only one interruption by external events and no interruptions of a speaker by his hearers. Given the limited use of interruption in his History, we may conclude that later use of intentional interruption was not influenced by Thucydides.

127 Thucydides, Hist. 8.75.1. For a discussion of what was thrown, see Hornblower, Commentary, 3:992. 128 Thucydides, Hist. 8.82.1. 129 G. H. R. Horsley would agree with this assessment, even if he would reach this conclusion by a different route. He claims that there is only one interruption in Thucydides, namely, at 2.72, in his “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32 (1986): 60914, see esp. 614n5. Apparently, he understands ὑπολαβών to mean “interrupting,” rather than “replying,” as it is more commonly translated here (2.72.1). The context suggests the latter.

The Hellenica Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.) Hellenica and Anabasis

53

2.5 The Hellenica and Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.) Unlike Polybius or Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote lengthy histories that have not been fully preserved, Xenophon produced a series of shorter works that have survived complete. A prolific author, Xenophon wrote historical treatises (Hellenica and Anabasis), literary dialogues (Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, and Hiero), and even technical works (e.g., Cynegeticus). In this chapter, we will restrict ourselves to his two historiographical works; in Chapter Four, we will treat his Cyropaedia, a conglomerate of history, biography, novel, and philosophical dialogue.130

2.5.1 Turn-Taking in Xenophon Like the authors previously discussed, Xenophon regularly marks the beginning and ending of speaking turns. In the Hellenica, when the exiled Alcibiades finally returns to Athens and gives his defense, Xenophon notes that he does so οὐδενὸς ἀντειπόντος (“with no one speaking against him”).131 More impressive is the trial of Theramenes in Book 2 of the Hellenica. After Critias makes a speech in favor of executing Theramenes, he sits down and yields the floor to the accused. 132 Theramenes then makes his defense and voluntarily cedes the floor: Ὡς δὲ εἰπὼν ταῦτα ἐπαύσατο (“When he had spoken these words, he ceased”).133 When he is seized impiously and executed, Theramenes’ speaking rights are respected, even if his legal rights are thoroughly compromised. Throughout the entire Hellenica and the majority of the Anabasis, Xenophon depicts an orderly sequence of speaking turns.134

130 For a helpful overview of Xenophon’s opera, see the Introduction to Vivienne J. Gray, ed., Xenophon (Oxford Readings in Classical Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1-6. 131 Xenophon, Hell. 1.4.20. Citations and translations from the Hellenica are based on the text of C. Hude, ed., Xenophontis Historia Graeca (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1969). 132 Compare the line Ὁ μὲν ταῦτ᾽ εἰπὼν ἐκαθέζετο· Θηραμένης δὲ ἀναστὰς ἔλεξεν in Hell. 2.3.35, with the similar Homeric formula ἤτοι ὅ γ᾽ ὣς εἰπὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἕζετο· τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνέστη found in Il. 1.68, 101; 2.76; 7.354, 365; Od. 2.224. 133 Xenophon, Hell. 2.3.50. 134 In the Anabasis, e.g., note 1.3.12-19.

54

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

2.5.2 Interrupted Speech in the Hellenica The Hellenica picks up the thread of Greek political history where Thucydides left off, and Xenophon dutifully provides a general account of the various campaigns and intrigues that took place during the times of Spartan and then Theban dominance. Although he will digress from time to time, Xenophon finds it necessary to justify such departures from his tale.135 As a result, his history tends to hover above the reported events, offering a somewhat detached narrative that seldom stirs emotions. Among the scattered speeches, we find no instances of rhetorical interruption in the Hellenica and only one interruption by external events. The only interruption takes place in Book 3, as the Lacedaemonian general Dercylidas lays siege to the city of Cebren. Dismayed after an unsuccessful assault, he is encouraged by heralds from the city, who offer to betray Cebren. Dercylidas receives further encouragement before the heralds finish making their proposal: ἔτι δὲ διαλεγομένων αὐτῶν ταῦτα, παρὰ τοῦ ἄρχοντος αὐτῶν ἧκε (“But while they were still discussing these things, [a message] arrived from their leader”).136 As in many instances of interruption by external events, the interrupting event is related to the interrupted discourse. In this case, the proposal by some Greeks to betray the Persian-controlled city is bolstered by the welcome message that the Cebrenian military commander supports their efforts. Before moving on to the Anabasis, we must address one passage treated by Dibelius. In his discussion of interruption in the Acts of the Apostles, he offers two examples of interruption, one of which is from the Hellenica. Specifically, Dibelius suggests that the Athenian shouts of acclamation in 6.5.37 are interruptive.137 An examination of this text reveals otherwise. At this point in Book 6, the Thebans are threatening to conquer the Lacedaemonians, who send ambassadors to Athens to seek support. At the assembly, Cleiteles the Corinthian points out that the Thebans have also invaded Corinth and that the Athenians are 135 See Xenophon, Hell. 5.1.4, where he describes the popularity of a Lacedaemonian commander before returning to his main task. Note also the comments in 7.2.1. 136 Xenophon, Hell. 3.1.19. 137 Dibelius, Studies, 161n51. Dibelius claims that the use of interruption by ancient Greek historians was rare, and the only example that he offers besides this one from Xenophon is the supposed interruption of Tiro by Herod in Josephus, A. J. 16.384386. Apparently drawing on Dibelius, Charles Talbert offers the same two examples in Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 110.

The Hellenica Hellenica and Anabasis Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)

55

bound by oaths to come to their defense. At this reminder of the oaths they have sworn, the Athenians voice their approval: ἐνταῦθα μέντοι οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι ἐπεθορύβησαν ὡς ὀρθῶς τε καὶ δίκαια εἰρηκότος τοῦ Κλειτέλους.138 If we translate ἐνταῦθα with its temporal meaning and understand μέντοι in its adversative sense, then we can offer a translation that might lend some credence to Dibelius’ view: “At that very moment, though, the Athenians gave a shout, [affirming] that what Cleiteles had said was both accurate and just.” 139 However, if we translate ἐνταῦθα with the sequential meaning of “thereupon” or “next” and μέντοι as an asseverative particle, then we have the following: “Then, indeed, the Athenians gave a shout, [affirming] that what Cleiteles had said was both accurate and just.” While the former translation could indicate an interruption, we have no evidence that Cleiteles’ speaking turn was still ongoing at the time of the shout. Thus, it seems best to note this as an instance of acclamation, but not necessarily interruption.

2.5.3 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis In the Anabasis, Xenophon is involved in a much more personal drama, and this autobiographical account features more direct discourse than the Hellenica.140 Still, for the most part, speakers’ rights are preserved. Only at one key juncture do we find interruption. At this point, the Persians have treacherously seized the Greek generals, leaving the mercenaries devoid of leadership, and Xenophon himself takes command. The series of speeches inserted at this turning point feature three interruptions, which will be discussed below. 138 Xenophon, Hell. 6.5.37. For comments on the participial construction in the latter half of this clause, see G. E. Underhill, A Commentary with Introduction and Appendix on the Hellenica of Xenophon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1900), 264-65. For a discussion of the role of θόρυβος in the ancient Greek assembly, see Victor Bers, “Dikastic Thorubos,” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 1-15. Although Bers draws primarily from Demosthenes, he also discusses θόρυβος in comedies, tragedies, and historiography (3-5). 139 LSJ notes both a sequential and a temporal meaning for ἐνταῦθα, and Smyth categorizes the postpositive μέντοι as an “asseverative and adversative particle.” See Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920), §2917. 140 For a discussion of the autobiographical nature of the Anabasis, see Arnaldo Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biography (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 57-58. Momigliano also notes Xenophon’s attempt to attribute this apologetic autobiography “to a non-existent Themistogenes” (57); see the reference to “Themistogenes the Syracusan” in Xenophon, Hell. 3.1.2.

56

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

For the Greek mercenaries in Persia, all went according to plan, until the death of their employer Cyrus the Younger in the otherwise successful battle against King Artaxerxes. Even at this point, the triumphant Greek army is intact at the beginning of Book 2 of the Anabasis. By the end of Book 2, however, the victorious generals have been captured and executed, and the situation at the beginning of Book 3 is looking rather grim. On the night after the Persian treachery, a leaderless and despondent Greek army lies restlessly encamped. As our author Xenophon narrates his overnight rise from being friend of General Proxenus to becoming his deceased friend’s successor, we find a series of interruptions accompanying the major turning point in the narrative. In the course of that night, Xenophon has an auspicious dream from Zeus, which inspires him to address the captains of Proxenus. In the course of this speech, he encourages them to embolden themselves, to take action, and ἐξορμῆσαι καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρετήν (“to urge on the others to excellence”).141 The captains all agree to put Xenophon in charge, except for Apollonides, who makes an alternate proposal to submit to the King. Xenophon finds the notion of surrender utterly unpalatable, and he cuts off Apollonides: ὁ μέντοι Ξενοφῶν μεταξὺ ὑπολαβὼν ἔλεξεν ὧδε (“However, Xenophon meanwhile interrupted him and spoke as follows”).142 This interruption is the most clearly marked instance that we have seen since the explicit description of Achilles’ interruption of Agamemnon in Book 1 of the Iliad. Xenophon the narrator makes clear that Xenophon the character broke in on Apollonides’ speaking turn, and the content of Apollonides’ discourse readily explains our protagonist’s impatience. Although Apollonides’ words are reported in indirect discourse, the rhetorical effect of the interruption is not thus weakened. Xenophon tells us that Apollonides ἦν βοιωτιάζων (“was speaking in the Boeotian dialect”), which likely explains why his ipsissima verba are not recorded.143 This intentional interruption at a critical point is soon followed by yet another. Xenophon’s impolite rebuke of Apollonides, lambasting his suggestion of appeasement and arguing for this captain’s demotion, is interrupted by the Stymphalian captain Agasias: ἐντεῦθεν ὑπο141 Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.15-25. The quotation is from 3.1.24. Citations and translations from the Anabasis are based on the text of C. Hude, ed., Xenophontis Expeditio Cyri (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1969). For a discussion of the role of Greek ἀρετή in the Anabasis, see Tim Rood, “Panhellenism and Self-Presentation: Xenophon’s Speeches,” in The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand (ed. Robin Lane Fox; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 305-29, esp. pp. 313-14. 142 Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.27. 143 Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.26.

The Hellenica Hellenica and Anabasis Anabasis of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)

57

λαβὼν Ἀγασίας Στυμφάλιος εἶπεν (“Agasias the Stymphalian then interrupted [him] and said”).144 Marked with the same ὑπολαβών as the preceding occurrence, there is little doubt about the intentionality of this interruption. Likewise, the content of the interrupted discourse clearly triggers the interrupting speech. Xenophon had just finished describing how Apollonides was a disgrace to πᾶσαν τὴν Ἑλλάδα (“all of Greece”).145 Agasias interrupts not in order to contradict or oppose Xenophon, but rather to affirm and even extend Xenophon’s counsel. Agasias points out that Apollonides has pierced ears, a rarity among Greeks. The Stymphalian captain’s suggestion that Apollonides is not even Greek, but rather Lydian, results in the expulsion of Apollonides from the camp.146 Whether this interruption is viewed as cooperative (in agreeing with and furthering Xenophon’s proposal) or competitive (by seeking to outdo Xenophon in punishing the foreigner) is an open question, but the desperate circumstances surely contribute to the tenuous nature of speaking turns. Following the expulsion of Apollonides and the assembly of all the generals and captains, the Athenian Xenophon gives another speech in favor of reorganizing the army. 147 Cheirisophus the Lacedaemonian commends Xenophon’s words, and the army elects new generals, including Xenophon.148 Following two other speeches, Xenophon again takes the floor and argues for reliance upon arms rather than appeasement. Only in this manner, he says, can the Greeks have καλαὶ ἐλπίδες…σωτηρίας (“noble hopes for deliverance”).149 Xenophon is then interrupted: τοῦτο δὲ λέγοντος αὐτοῦ πτάρνυταί τις (“As [Xenophon] was saying this, someone sneezed”). This sneeze of unidentified origin causes all the soldiers to bow in worship to Zeus, and Xenophon quickly recognizes the sneeze as οἰωνὸς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ σωτῆρος (“an omen from Zeus the Savior”).150 Thus, this interruption by external events shows itself to be no mere coincidence, as the auspicious οἰωνὸς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ σωτῆρος arrives immediately following the mention of

144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.31. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.30. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.31-32. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.35-44. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.45-47. Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.8. Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.9.

58

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

σωτηρία. Apparently, this omen seals the army’s resolve to fight their way homeward, and no interruptions occur from this point on.151

2.5.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon While the slightly longer Hellenica yields only one interruption by external events, the Anabasis packs three interruptions into one pivotal twenty-four hour period. In all three cases, Xenophon himself is involved. In a complete breakdown of turn-taking, he begins by interrupting Apollonides, and his interrupting speech is then interrupted by Agasias. This dramatic scene results in the expulsion of the advocate of surrender and the election of Xenophon, the proponent of a fighting retreat, as general. Divine assent then arrives in the form of a sneeze omen, an interruption by external events. Their hopes for deliverance thus confirmed, the Greeks begin their march. While this march is regularly interrupted, speaking turns remain inviolate.

2.6 The Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.) Polybius consciously distinguishes his universal history from its predecessors that dealt with only one nation, such as Greece or Persia, or only one war, such as that between the Romans and Philip.152 Similarly, he distances himself from earlier authors who exaggerate tragic scenes and who invent imaginary discourses καθάπερ οἱ τραγῳδιογράφοι (“like the tragic poets”).153 In spite of his outspoken disdain for such practices, Polybius does include speeches in his history. 154 According to Walbank, “Of these some are based on authentic material, while others, despite the principles here laid down, seem to give a mere rhetorical

151 For further discussion of Xenophon’s concern for divine favor in his Anabasis, see John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 207-8. 152 For the Histories of Polybius as universal in their geographic scope, see 2.37.4. For his discussion of the superiority of his general history over the histories of specific wars, see 3.32.7-9. 153 Polybius, Hist. 2.56.10. Citations and translations from the Histories are based on the text of Theodor Büttner-Wobst, ed., Polybii Historiae (5 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 18881905). 154 For other examples of Polybius’ disapproval of invented speeches in historiography, see Hist. 3.20.1; 12.25a.3-5; 36.1.7.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

59

exposition suitable to the occasion.”155 Indeed, the speeches of Polybius have little of the gravity of the Thucydidean discourses, and we find numerous interruptions in the surviving books of his Histories.156

2.6.1 Turn-Taking in Polybius In Polybius, we find ample attention devoted to speaking turns, especially to contention about speaking turns. On the one hand, Polybius marks the beginning and ending of speaking turns.157 Furthermore, we find evidence of the familiar Greek practice of standing up in an assembly in order to take the floor.158 Still, as numerous passages demonstrate, speaking rights are not easily granted. In Book 1 alone, there are two instances of would-be speakers who are violently deprived of their speaking rights. First, during the Roman siege of Lilybaeum, a group of Carthaginian mercenaries deserts to the besieging Romans. The Carthaginian general bribes the remaining mercenaries to stand fast, and when the deserters return in order to win over their comrades, the faithful mercenaries will not grant them a hearing: οὐχ οἷον προσεῖχον αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὐδ᾽ ἀκούειν ἠξίουν, βάλλοντες δὲ τοῖς λίθοις καὶ συνακοντίζοντες ἀπεδίωξαν ἀπὸ τοῦ τείχους (“not only did they pay no attention to them, but they did not even deign to listen; instead, they drove them away from the wall by throwing rocks and javelins”).159 Later in Book 1, at a mutinous assembly held by Spendius and Mathos, all who attempted to speak against the conspirators’ plans meet a similar fate: εἰ δέ τις ἕτερος προπορευθείη συμβουλεύσων, οὐδ’ αὐτὸ τοῦτο περιμείναντες ἕως τοῦ γνῶναι πότερον ἀντερῶν ἢ συνηγορήσων πάρεστι τοῖς περὶ τὸν Σπένδιον, παραχρῆμα βάλλοντες τοῖς λίθοις ἀπέκτεινον (“…but if someone else came forward to give counsel, they did not wait to figure out whether he was there to oppose or to support Spendius, but immediately killed him by throwing stones”).160 Whether in political assemblies, war councils, or

155 F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1957-1979), 1:261. 156 Of the forty books Polybius refers to in Hist. 3.32.2, only the first five have come down to us in their entirety. Fragments of most of the remaining books have survived, in varying lengths. 157 E.g., Polybius, Hist. 3.109.13; 3.111.11; 9.32.1. 158 Polybius, Hist. 22.8.1, 9; 22.9.5; 22.10.4. Cf. Homer, Il. 1.68. 159 Polybius, Hist. 1.43.6. 160 Polybius, Hist. 1.69.10. The stoning continues in 1.69.13.

60

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

mutinous meetings, securing a speaking turn can be both difficult and deadly.161

2.6.2 Interrupted Speech in the Histories Interestingly, after condemning rival historians as τραγῳδιογράφοι, Polybius delivers an abundance of drama in his Histories. Even though a fraction of his original composition remains, he features many more interruptions than his predecessors; the extant work of Polybius includes nineteen instances of rhetorical interruption, as well as three instances of interruption by external events. Below, we will discuss some of the functions of rhetorical interruption in the Histories. In Book 1, we find a choreographed interruption by external events. Spendius, a Roman runaway slave who is leading a group of mercenaries, has called an assembly of all the mercenaries and Libyans. Fearful that Hamilcar and the Carthaginians will win back the mercenaries, he arranges for forged dispatches to arrive during the meeting. As Spendius inveighs against the Carthaginians, another messenger arrives: ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντος αὐτοῦ παρῆν ἄλλος γραμματοφόρος (“But while he was still saying these things, another messenger arrived”).162 The messenger bears a letter from Tunis that confirms Spendius’ discourse. While the interruptive arrival of a confirmatory messenger had been a common feature of earlier Greek historiography, this instance is unusual in that the artifice is the work of the characters themselves, not the author.163 Our first example of rhetorical interruption in Polybius occurs in the course of the same council convened by Spendius. After Spendius’ deceitful charges against the Carthaginians, Autaritus the Gaul echoes the call to abandon the Carthaginians and to torture and kill all Cartha-

161 In Polybius, Hist. 3.82.5-6, the Roman consul Flaminius refuses to listen to his subordinate officers’ contrary opinions. In 4.81.10, Cheilon’s failed coup leaves him unable to claim the floor in the Spartan agora. In 28.4.13, after the Romans rebuke Thoas on account of his ingratitude, the latter attempts to defend himself. His unsuccessful attempts to speak are met with shouts and stones. Likewise, in 30.29.6, Callicrates and Andronidas have become so unpopular that anyone attempting to recognize their success at the games is shouted down. 162 Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14. Colin Hemer also identifies this speech as interrupted in The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; WUNT 49; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 417n9. 163 For other interruptions by recently arrived messengers, see Herodotus, Hist. 8.50.1; Xenophon, Hell. 3.1.19. Cf. also Il. 10.540, and Od. 16.11-12; 16.351.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

61

ginian prisoners.164 Other speakers arise to oppose these severe measures, but they are cut short: ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ παρεγυμνώθη διότι τὴν τιμωρίαν παραιτοῦνται, καί τις ἐκ τῶν καθημένων εἶπεν βάλλε, πάντας ἅμα κατέλευσαν τοὺς προπορευθέντας (“But when it was revealed that they were opposing the penalty, and someone among those seated said, ‘Throw,’ they immediately stoned to death all who had come forward [to speak]”).165 The advocates of leniency, who have legitimately claimed the floor by coming forward, thus fall victim to the lawless followers of Spendius, and the Carthaginian captives are mutilated. In Polybius, we will frequently see speakers of greater ethos both interrupting and being interrupted by their moral inferiors. The next instance of rhetorical interruption in the Histories does not originate with Polybius, but rather with a previous historian, Phylarchus. In presenting an example of Phylarchus’ supposedly inferior historiography, Polybius reproduces an episode where Cleomenes, the rogue king of Sparta, captures Megalopolis. After taking the city, Cleomenes sends a letter to certain Megalopolitan refugees who were at Messene, offering to restore their city if they join his enterprise. The Megalopolitans, however, refuse. According to Polybius, Phylarchus’ history explains ἔτι δὲ πῶς οἱ Μεγαλοπολῖται τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀναγινωσκομένης οὐκ ἐάσαιεν εἰς τέλος ἀναγνωσθῆναι, μικροῦ δὲ καταλεύσαιεν τοὺς γραμματοφόρους (“how, while the letter was still being read, the Megalopolitans would not suffer it to be finished, and they almost stoned those who brought the letter”).166 Apparently insulted by Cleomenes’ offer, the gallant Megalopolitans suffer the loss of their city in order to avoid breaking faith with the Achaeans. Although this interruption belongs to Phylarchus rather than Polybius, we may draw two conclusions. First, we may note the presence of interruption in yet another Greek historian. More importantly, we again observe an interruption taking place in a rhetorical situation involving a speaker and an audience who occupy opposite ends of a moral spectrum. Here, the faithful Megalopolitans interrupt the unscrupulous letter of Cleomenes. Earlier, the vengeful followers of Spendius interrupted the conscientious objectors to torture. Throughout the Histories, we will see Polybius highlighting the morality and immorality of various persons, and frequently, either the impious will interrupt the morally upright, or vice versa.

164 Polybius, Hist. 1.80.1-4. 165 Polybius, Hist. 1.80.9. 166 Polybius, Hist. 2.61.5.

62

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

For another rhetorical interruption that carries moral overtones, we may turn to Book 4. After authorizing a series of raids on the Messenian countryside, Dorimachus the Aetolian has allowed his brigands to pillage various country houses. The Messenian ephors, unable to tolerate any further intimidation or harassment, summon Dorimachus to their council and demand justice. Dorimachus threatens them, but his tirade falls on deaf ears: ὁμιλοῦντος οὖν [αὐτοῦ] ἀνατατικῶς τότε καὶ μάλ᾽ ὑπερηφάνως τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις, περιοργισθεὶς ὁ Σκύρων “Νομίζεις γὰρ ἡμῖν” ἔφη “σοῦ μέλειν ἢ τῆς σῆς ἀνατάσεως, Βαβύρτα;” (“While [he] thus spoke threateningly and very arrogantly to the Messenians, Scyron grew very angry and said, ‘Do you think that you or your threats matter at all to us, Babyrtas?’”). 167 Scyron, one of the ephors, thus compares the menacing Dorimachus to the town buffoon, a “lewd” (ἀσυρής) man named Babyrtas.168 While this interrupting jibe serves as a catalyst for war between Aetolia and Messene, the incident also shows a representative of justice interrupting the speaking turn of a man whose conduct has been shown to be lawless and rude. Yet another interruption originating from political intrigue appears later in Book 4. Having miscalculated the power of the Macedonian king, three Lacedaemonian ephors wish to side with the Aetolians. The unexpected arrival of King Philip in the Peloponnese frustrates their designs, and the scheming trio decides to remove one of the other ephors, Adeimantus, who was aware of their plans yet who did not agree with them. The three ephors call an assembly immediately prior to the arrival of Philip, and Adeimantus makes a speech in which he condemns the nature of the gathering. His speech is swiftly interrupted: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτ᾽ ἀνακρουομένου, προσπεσόντες οἱ παρακεκλημένοι τῶν νέων τοῦτόν τε συνεκέντησαν (“While he was still beginning his speech, the young men who had been chosen for the task fell on [Adeimantus] and stabbed him to death”). 169 Here, a lawful magistrate is silenced by his unscrupulous political opponents, providing yet another example of a lethal interruption. Interestingly, we also find here our first evidence that an interrupted speech might have actually continued. Often, the discourses we find interrupted seem to be relatively complete. They never break off in mid-sentence, and the content often stands alone rather well, suggesting the use of interruption as a

167 Polybius, Hist. 4.4.7. 168 Babyrtas is described as ἀσυρής in Hist. 4.4.5. 169 Polybius, Hist. 4.22.11.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

63

literary technique, not a historical reminiscence. 170 In this speech of Adeimantus, his words appear to be complete, but the narrator himself implies that there was more to come than what was reported: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτ᾽ ἀνακρουομένου (“While he was still beginning his speech”).171 Still, the reported speech of Adeimantus maintains its integrity, both of content and of moral character. Later in Book 4, we return to the interruption of an immoral individual, one whom Polybius has previously characterized as dishonest, slanderous, and scheming.172 Apelles, a guardian of the young Macedonian king, is accusing one of the impediments to his plan, Aratus of Sicyon. However, Aratus, whom Polybius will later show to be blameless, will not tolerate the slander of Apelles: ὁ δὲ πρεσβύτερος Ἄρατος ὑπολαβὼν καθόλου μὲν ἠξἰου τὸν Φίλιππον μηδενὶ τῶν λεγομένων ὀξέως μηδ᾽ ἀκρίτως μηδέποτε πιστεύειν (“But the elder Aratus interrupted [Apelles] and asked Philip never to believe hastily or uncritically whatever was reported to him”).173 Just as the morally dissolute characters in the Histories freely violate the speaking turns of the upright, so the honorable characters feel no compunction when interrupting the discourses of the schemers and brigands. In Book 5, we find Hermeias as the head of the Seleucid government, and he is introduced as a man to be feared on account of his ὠμότητα καὶ κακοπραγμοσύνην (“cruelty and evil-doing”).174 His chief opponent is Epigenes, described by Polybius as a man capable in word and deed who was also popular with the soldiers.175 At a royal council dealing with the revolt of Molon, Epigenes is the first to take the floor, but Hermeias cuts his speaking turn short: ταῦτα λέγοντος ἔτι τοῦ προειρημένου διοργισθεὶς Ἑρμείας πολὺν ἔφησεν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἐπίβουλον ὄντα καὶ προδότην τῆς βασιλείας διαλεληθέναι (“While [Epigenes] was still saying these things, Hermeias was enraged; he said that [Epigenes] had long escaped notice as a plotter 170 No speeches surveyed in this chapter are interrupted mid-sentence; the only midsentence interruption treated in this study occurs in a fragment of Justus of Tiberias, preserved in Diogenes Laertius 2.41. 171 According to LSJ, the verb ἀνακρούω can be used in music with the meaning “to strike up” (e.g., one might “strike up the band”), and from this usage derived the further meaning “to begin” with reference to speeches. 172 Cf. Hist. 4.82.2-4; 4.84.7. 173 Polybius, Hist. 4.85.4. While ὑπολαβών here clearly means “interrupt,” the verb can also carry the meaning of “answer” or “reply.” For a clear example of the latter meaning, see Hist. 7.3.8. 174 Polybius, Hist. 5.41.1. Walbank identifies the position of Hermeias as that of “grand vizier,” citing 2 Macc 3:24 as a parallel. See his Historical Commentary, 1:571. 175 Polybius, Hist. 5.41.4.

64

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

against and traitor to the kingdom”).176 After thus interrupting Epigenes, accusing him of treachery, and pushing through an alternate proposal, Hermeias leaves his foe alone for a time. However, at a second council called by the king in order to solicit advice regarding the growing menace of Molon, Epigenes again speaks forth in favor of swift action. Hermeias again interrupts Epigenes’ counsel: οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ νῦν ἔτι φάσκοντος δεῖν ἔχεσθαι τῶν πραγμάτων, πάλιν Ἑρμείας ἀκρίτως καὶ προπετῶς ἐξοργισθεὶς ἤρχατο λοιδορεῖν τὸν εἰρημένον (“while [Epigenes] was still asserting that not just then, but even now, it was necessary to take matters firmly into hand, Hermeias again flew into a senseless rage and began to heap reproach upon [Epigenes]”).177 Whereas Hermeias had followed his first interruption with an alternate proposal, this time, he continues to harass Epigenes. His rash behavior upsets the king and other council members, and Epigenes’ counsel wins the day.178 Both of Hermeias’ interruptions are essentially power plays, whereby the conspirator seeks to overthrow the sound advice of another council member. A more innocuous interruption appears in Book 11. As Philopoemen of Megalopolis addresses his troops before battle, he encounters difficulty in maintaining his speaking turn: τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν λεγομένων ἀσαφῆ συνέβαινε γίνεσθαι· διὰ γὰρ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν εὔνοιαν καὶ πίστιν τῶν ὄχλων εἰς τοιαύτην ὁρμὴν καὶ προθυμίαν παρέστη τὸ πλῆθος ὥστε παραπλησίαν ἐνθουσιασμῷ τὴν ἀντιπαράκλησιν γίνεσθαι τῶν δυνάμεων (“The majority of what was spoken turned out to be unclear; for, on account of the good will and loyalty that the multitudes had towards him, the army showed such zeal and eagerness that the soldiers were inspired to give a sort of mutual exhortation”).179 In their zeal to respond to their beloved commander, the Achaean troops and their allies upstage Philopoemen and infringe upon his speaking turn. This type of rhetorical interruption might best be viewed with instances of acclamation. Later in Book 11, we find another interruption of a commander by his troops. Scipio, the Roman commander, is censuring a group of mutineers, when he is loudly interrupted: Ἀκμὴν δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγε καὶ κύκλῳ μὲν οἱ στρατιῶται περιεστῶτες ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις ἀπὸ παραγγέλματος συνεψόφησαν ταῖς μαχαίραις τοὺς θυρεούς, ἅμα δὲ

176 Polybius, Hist. 5.42.1. 177 Polybius, Hist. 5.49.2-3. 178 Hermeias triumphs in the end by framing Epigenes and having him executed in 5.50.13. 179 Polybius, Hist. 11.12.2.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

65

τούτοις δεδεμένοι γυμνοὶ * * * οἱ τῆς στάσεως αἴτιοι γεγονότες εἰσήγοντο (“While he was still saying these things, the armed soldiers standing around him received the signal and clashed their swords against their shields; simultaneously, the men who had led the mutiny were brought in bound and naked…”).180 While the subsequent action was carried out by individuals who could hear Scipio’s speech, thus creating the appearance of an interruption by Scipio’s hearers, his discourse was actually directed at the mutineers. Thus, this interruption is better classified as due to external events, for the interruption was not at all a reaction by a member or members of Scipio’s audience. Rather, the clashing of arms and introduction of the ringleaders were dramatically timed to coincide with the end of Scipio’s address. A more obvious interruption by external events occurs in Book 15. While an envoy of Philip is defending him in the theater at Rhodes, a messenger arrives at the Prytaneum with a report of Philip’s cruel conduct at Cius. One of the magistrates rushes over to the theater to spread the news, interrupting Philip’s envoy: ἔτι μεταξὺ τοῦ πρεσβευτοῦ τὰ προειρημένα λέγοντος, ἐπεὶ προελθὼν ὁ πρύτανις διεσάφει τὰ προσηγγελμένα (“while the envoy was still in the middle of his discourse, when the magistrate stepped forward and announced the news [of Philip’s conduct at Cius]”).181 This interruption is used to great dramatic effect, as the πρύτανις exposes Philip’s double-dealing for all the Rhodians to see. While it is Philip’s envoy who is cut off in Book 15, Philip himself is interrupted in Book 16. Having heard about Philip’s latest actions, the Romans send Marcus Aemilius to meet the king near Abydus. After hearing the Roman demands, King Philip attempts to justify himself by blaming the Rhodians: τοῦ δὲ Φιλίππου βουλομένου διδάσκειν ὅτι Ῥόδιοι τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιβάλοιεν αὐτῷ, μεσολαβήσας ὁ Μάρκος ἤρετο “Τί δαὶ Ἀθηναῖοι; τί δαὶ Κιανοί; τί δαὶ νῦν Ἀβυδηνοί; καὶ τούτῶν τίς … σοὶ πρότερος ἐπέβαλε τὰς χεῖρας;” (“While Philip wanted to prove that the Rhodians initiated hostilities, Marcus interrupted him and asked, ‘And what about the Athenians? What about the Cianians? What about the Abydenes now? Which one of these was the first to commence hostilities?’”).182 The blunt response of Marcus puts an end to the king’s excuses and makes known that the Romans will not stand for Philip’s tyranny. Furthermore, we might classify this instance of

180 Polybius, Hist. 11.30.1. For a discussion of the possible lacuna, see Walbank, Historical Commentary, 2:309. 181 Polybius, Hist. 15.23.4. 182 Polybius, Hist. 16.34.5.

66

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

rhetorical interruption with the interruptions of Apelles by Aratus of Sicyon and of Dorimachus the Aetolian by Scyron the Messenian ephor, cases where an individual of elevated status and unimpeachable morals freely violates the speaking turn of an impious person. 183 In spite of its fragmentary nature, Book 18 yields a number of interruptions. First, the book opens with an account of a conference at Nicaea, attended by Macedonians, Romans, Achaeans, Rhodians, Aetolians, and others.184 After a number of accusations against Philip, the Macedonian king begins to answer the charges, only to be interrupted yet again: ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ βασιλέως ὁ Φαινέας, ἠλαττωμένος τοῖς ὄμμασιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον, ὑπέκρουε τὸν Φίλιππον, φάσκων αὐτὸν ληρεῖν (“While the king was still speaking these things, Phaeneas, whose eyesight was very weakened, interrupted Philip and asserted that he was being foolish…”).185 While Phaeneas tries to stake out the moral high ground, Philip dismisses his interruption with a jibe at the Aetolian general’s failing eyesight. 186 Here, we see yet another “war of words,” as Philip must defend both his past conduct and his speaking rights.187 Shortly thereafter, Phaeneas himself experiences the violability of speaking turns, at yet another conference. When Flamininus describes the Roman proposal for peace with King Philip, the Aetolian general Phaeneas bemoans this decision as excessively lenient. Flamininus will not tolerate Phaeneas’ complaint: ὁ Τίτος αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρας καὶ θυμικῶς “Παῦσαι” φησὶ “Φαινέα, ληρῶν…” (“Titus [Flamininus] angrily spoke from his seat: ‘Cease your foolishness, Phaeneas! …’”). 188 Whereas Phaeneas’ interruption of Philip was contested by the latter, Flamininus’ response carries the weight of Rome behind it, and Phaeneas makes no reply. Later in Book 18, we find our clearest example of interruptive acclamation. When a herald at the Isthmian games announces the Roman decision to grant freedom to the Greeks, the crowd breaks in on the herald’s clearly established speaking turn: κρότου δ᾽ ἐν ἀρχαῖς εὐθέως ἐξαισίου γενομένου τινὲς μὲν οὐδ᾽ ἤκουσαν τοῦ κηρύγματος, τινὲς δὲ πάλιν ἀκούειν ἐβούλοντο (“At the start, as excessive applause broke out immediately, some could not hear the proclamation, and 183 For the interruption of Apelles by Aratus, see Hist. 4.85.4. For the interruption of Dorimachus by Scyron, see 4.4.7. For a similar situation, see 2.61.5. 184 Polybius, Hist. 18.1.1-5. 185 Polybius, Hist. 18.4.3. 186 Polybius, Hist. 18.4.4. 187 Cf. Homer, Il. 1.304; Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1. 188 Polybius, Hist. 18.37.12.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

67

others wanted to hear it again”).189 While this is a clear example of a speaking turn being violated by the speaker’s audience, the nature of the interruption is not competitive, as most interruptions in the Histories are. Instead, we might refer to this interruption as another instance of acclamation.190 Henceforth, the interruptions in the Histories return to their competitive nature. Still in Book 18, we find a clear example of a status-based interruption. Three Roman commissioners confront King Antiochus in Lysimachia, and they summon envoys from Smyrna and Lampsacus to give them a hearing. Antiochus, after listening to the envoys’ charges for a while, decides to end the hearing by silencing Parmenion, a Lampsacene delegate: μεσολαβήσας τὸν Παρμενίωνα “παῦσαι” φησὶ “τῶν πολλῶν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ Ῥωμαίων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ Ῥοδίων ὑμῖν εὐδοκῶ διακριθῆναι περὶ τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων” (“[Antiochus] interrupted Parmenion and said, ‘Enough of all of this! I think that these disputes should be decided for you by the Rhodians, not the Romans!’”). 191 As a king, Antiochus cannot bear to hear these lowly envoys speak μετὰ παρρησίας (“with freedom”) against him. Consequently, he cuts short their speaking turn and soon dissolves the conference. A similar dynamic takes place in Book 20, where authoritative figures twice interrupt speakers of lesser standing. First, when envoys from Phaeneas the Aetolian general come before the Roman general Manius Acilius Glabrio, their lengthy presentation meets the same end as that of Parmenion: μεσολαβηθέντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἔντευξιν ἐκωλύθησαν (“but after being interrupted, they were prevented from further conversation”).192 Then, the thwarted Aetolians take up their case with Lucius Valerius Flaccus, but their listing of kindnesses to Rome likewise ends in interruption: ὁ δὲ Λεύκιος ἐπιτεμὼν αὐτῶν τὴν ὁρμὴν οὐκ ἔφη τοῖς παροῦσι καιροῖς ἁρμόζειν τοῦτο τὸ γένος τῆς δικαιολογίας (“Lucius cut short their verbal onslaught and said that this type of pleading did not fit the present circumstances”). 193 An increase in Roman representatives’ control over speaking turns apparently accompanies increasing Roman military strength. However, the Aetolians are willing to cede neither their political independence nor their native παρρησία. Thus, when Phaeneas their 189 Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6. Cf. the parallel passage in Appian, Hist. rom. 9.9.4, which describes a rapturous response, rather than a violation of the herald’s speaking turn. 190 For a non-interruptive instance of acclamation, observe the crowd’s later reaction to the repeated proclamation in 18.46.9. 191 Polybius, Hist. 18.52.3. Cf. 16.34.5 and 18.37.12 for similarly worded interruptions. 192 Polybius, Hist. 20.9.3. 193 Polybius, Hist. 20.9.8.

68

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

general meets with Glabrio to discuss terms of peace, there is a contest for speaking rights. Upon hearing the Aetolian offer, Glabrio begins to state the Roman demands, but Phaeneas finds these terms to be intolerable: ὁ δὲ Φαινέας μεσολαβήσας “Ἀλλ᾽ οὔτε δίκαιον,” ἔφησεν, “οὔθ᾽ Ἑλληνικόν ἐστιν, ὦ στρατηγέ, τὸ παρακαλούμενον” (“Phaeneas interrupted [him] and said, ‘But, O General, what is required is neither just nor Greek’”).194 Phaeneas is cognizant of his inferior position, but he is willing to interrupt the Roman speaking turn on the basis of what he perceives as Roman injustice. This rationale brings to mind yet again the role of justice in relation to speaking turns. Even as the extant books grow more and more fragmentary, interruptions continue to appear. Accordingly, in the remnants of Book 28, another instance of royal rhetorical interruption occurs. Praxon, an envoy from Rhodes, comes before King Antiochus in order to encourage him to make peace with King Ptolemy. Praxon soon finds his speaking turn interrupted: ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἔτι λέγοντα τὸν πρεσβευτὴν ἐπιτεμὼν οὐκ ἔφη προσδεῖσθαι πολλῶν λόγων (“But while the [Rhodian] envoy was still speaking, the king cut him off and said that there was no need of many words”).195 Although Antiochus does not respect Praxon’s speaking rights, the nature of this interruption is a bit more gentle than earlier examples; the king affirms that he is already minded to come to peace, so further argumentation would be superfluous.196 In Book 31, we find an even more affirming interruption, as Polybius narrates how he himself was interrupted by Scipio Aemilianus. As the two were walking together, the latter asks Polybius why he only speaks with Scipio’s older brother Fabius. Polybius is quick to explain that he addresses himself to Fabius due to Fabius’ seniority, but the Achaean adds that he would be very willing to assist the young Roman. In his excitement, Scipio cuts off his new mentor’s speaking turn: ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Πολυβίου, λαβόμενος ἀμφοτέραις χερσὶ τῆς δεξιᾶς αὐτοῦ καὶ πιέσας ἐμπαθῶς…φησίν (“But while Polybius was still speaking, [Scipio] took his right hand in both of his own and clasped it excitedly, saying…”).197 Polybius is keenly aware of Scipio’s higher social status, but the interruption is by no means a power

194 Polybius, Hist. 20.10.6. 195 Polybius, Hist. 28.23.3. 196 For Polybius, then, the interruption is cooperative. However, regarding the accuracy of Polybius’ report, see Walbank, Historical Commentary, 3:359-60. 197 Polybius, Hist. 31.24.9.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

69

play.198 The interruption rather demonstrates the eagerness of Scipio to gain Polybius’ support. Whereas interruptions most commonly signify rivalry or hostile rejection on the part of the audience, this interruption of a discourse by a hearer signifies enthusiastic acceptance. The final extant rhetorical interruption takes place in Book 38, at an assembly of the Achaeans in Corinth.199 Critolaus had been working to incite rebellion against Rome, setting up a hostile reception for the Roman legates who came to Corinth. When these envoys take the floor to urge a peaceful resolution, the people are loathe to comply: ὧν οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ διακούοντες οὐδαμῶς ἀνείχοντο, χλευάζοντες δὲ τοὺς πρέσβεις μετὰ θορύβου καὶ κραυγῆς ἐξέβαλον (“As the people were listening to them, they could not stand it, and scoffing at the envoys, they drove them out in a tumultuous uproar”).200 Thus, the common people, having been stirred up by Critolaus, deprive the conciliatory Romans of their speaking turn. Polybius emphasizes both the magnanimity of the Romans and the depravity of the madding crowd.201 Thus, we find a moral aspect in this confrontation, as a base mob interrupts the representatives of justice and mercy.

2.6.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Polybius While conclusions must remain tentative when discussing a largely fragmentary work, the sheer quantity of surviving interruptions calls for some attempt at synthesis. On the one hand, Polybius only features a handful of interruptions by external events. In two of the cases, the interruption is arranged beforehand by the speaker, in order to confirm the message being presented, and in one instance, a newly arrived messenger dramatically disproves the ongoing discourse.202 On the other hand, the nineteen rhetorical interruptions in Polybius’ Histories vastly outnumber those of earlier works. Unlike the Iliad of Homer or the Anabasis of Xenophon, there does not appear to be any connection at all between rhetorical interruptions 198 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 31.24.11. 199 The elders make an unsuccessful bid to interrupt Critolaus in Hist. 38.13.1, but there is no evidence that they are able to infringe on his speaking rights. 200 Polybius, Hist. 38.12.4. 201 For the φιλανθρωπία of the Romans, see Polybius, Hist. 38.12.2. For an uncomplimentary description of the Corinthian crowd, see 38.12.5-7. 202 For confirmatory interruptions, see Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14 and 11.30.1. For an interruption by external events that disproves the speaker’s words, see Polybius, Hist. 15.23.4; cf. Homer, Od. 16.351.

70

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

and key turning points in the narrative. Instead, the violation of speaking turns appears to surround two types of conflict: first, conflicts between unscrupulous persons and persons of impressive moral character, and second, conflicts between persons of lower social status and their superiors.203 In the first kind, the interrupting audience seeks either to re-establish or to overthrow justice, with Polybius always making clear which interlocutor is just and which one is unjust; in the latter, the interrupting audience claims the authority to violate their social inferiors. In disputes between figures of varying scruples, the reader is not left to pronounce judgment; Polybius clearly identifies the representatives of justice and integrity on one side and the demagogues, conspirators, and brigands on the other. In keeping with their character, unscrupulous persons have no qualms about violating the speaking turns of others. Thus, an assembly of bloodthirsty soldiers interrupts and executes the voices of leniency.204 Conspirators interrupt and murder potential obstacles.205 A scheming royal official interrupts and corrupts the counsel of the wise.206 However, persons of integrity treat the speaking turns of the immoral in similarly cavalier fashion. The faithful Megalopolitan refugees interrupt those who offer them the opportunity to preserve their city by breaking faith with their allies.207 A Messenian ephor interrupts and insults a brigand leader. 208 A just man interrupts his slanderer.209 And even a king finds himself interrupted when his ludicrous claims are questioned by a representative of Rome. 210 Those who have abandoned the virtuous life freely violate the speaking turns of others, and those who seek justice do not respect the speaking turns of the unjust.211

203 While we can readily acknowledge the links that Greeks and Romans perceived between high social status and morality, Polybius writes about a time when, to his dismay, the two are not closely linked. Cf. Hist. 31.24.2-8. Interestingly, interruption occurs with high frequency in the works of those historians who write about Rome: Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian of Alexandria, and Flavius Josephus. 204 Polybius, Hist. 1.80.9. 205 Polybius, Hist. 4.22.11. 206 Polybius, Hist. 5.42.1; 5.49.2-3. 207 Polybius, Hist. 2.61.5. 208 Polybius, Hist. 4.4.7. 209 Polybius, Hist. 4.85.4. 210 Polybius, Hist. 16.34.5. 211 For further instances of rhetorical interruption on moral or immoral grounds, see Polybius, Hist. 18.4.3; 20.10.6; 38.12.4.

The Histories Histories of Polybius (2nd century B.C.E.)

71

Other interruptions seem to be based more on status than comparative morality. Seleucid kings, for example, apparently grew impatient with the discourses of envoys sent to them. Thus, Antiochus III summarily silences a Lampsacene envoy in Book 18, and his son Antiochus IV Epiphanes later interrupts a Rhodian ambassador. 212 Even greater than the Seleucids, of course, were the Romans. On three occasions, we find representatives of Roman authority interrupting the discourses of others. First, when a Roman decision is questioned by an Aetolian general, Titus Flamininus abruptly orders him to stop talking.213 Later, on two different occasions, Roman representatives cut off the pleas of Aetolian envoys who are suing for peace. 214 In all five cases, figures of authority unhesitatingly cut off the displeasing discourses of their suppliants.215 Finally, we may mention three instances of rhetorical interruption that are intended to endorse, not reject, the interrupted discourse. In Book 11, General Philopoemen’s exhortation is cut off by his own enthusiastic troops.216 In Book 18, an ecstatic crowd interrupts the good tidings brought by a Roman herald.217 Lastly, in Book 31, Scipio is so eager to accept Polybius’ support that he interrupts the latter. 218 These cooperative interruptions might loosely be categorized with instances of acclamation. In summary, we find not only a higher quantity of interruptions in the Histories than in earlier Greek historiographic works, but also a much higher proportion of intentional interruptions. Given the relatively even distribution of interruptions over the extant work, we may conjecture that the original Histories might have included as many as triple the number of interruptions than those that survive in the remaining text. In addition to increased quantity, we also find a different range of functions. In Polybius, rhetorical interruptions can function as signs of the lawless times, as claims to authority, or as zealous endorsements of a speaker’s message.

212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Polybius, Hist. 18.52.3 and 28.23.3. Polybius, Hist. 18.37.12. Polybius, Hist. 20.9.3, 8. For another interruption based on status, cf. Od. 8.94-103. Polybius, Hist. 11.12.2. Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6. Polybius, Hist. 31.24.9.

72

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

2.7 The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.) Diodorus of Sicily’s Library of History was a monumental undertaking: after beginning with various mythological accounts and theogonies, he then guides his readers through more than a thousand years of history, from the Trojan War down to the beginnings of the Roman Empire. This massive scope requires him to compress his narrative and to cover his material much more concisely than the earlier authors surveyed. Almost annalistic in form, his Library focuses primarily on military and diplomatic actions across Africa, Sicily, Italy, Greece, and Asia; in times of peace, Diodorus has little to say.219 This primacy of military action exists in tandem with a lesser emphasis on speech. Hence, Diodorus includes only a few longer speeches in his Library of History, generally inserting only a handful of shorter discourses into each book of his Library.220 He explicitly criticizes other historians who make extensive use of long speeches.221 As Diodorus adheres to his own counsel, it is unsurprising to find relatively few interrupted discourses in the extant work of Diodorus.222

2.7.1 Turn-Taking in Diodorus Siculus When Diodorus slows down the pace of the narrative in order to incorporate speeches short or long, the speakers generally take turns. For example, in Book 13, the competing speeches of Nicolaus and Gylippus in a Syracusan assembly are orderly, and speaking turns are clearly marked. After a previous speaker has been interrupted, Nicolaus takes 219 E.g., Chapter 26 of Book 12, describing a time (442 B.C.E.) when the Greeks, Persians, Sicilians, and Carthaginians were all at peace, is very short, for πολεμικὴ μὲν καὶ ἀξία μνήμης πρᾶξις οὐδεμία συνετελέσθη κατὰ τούτους τοὺς χρόνους (“no military action worthy of remembrance was carried out in these times”), Bibl. hist. 12.26.4. Citations and translations from the Library of History are based on the text of F. Vogel and C. T. Fischer, eds., Diodori Bibliotheca Historica (6 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1888-1906). 220 For one instance of longer speeches in the Library, see the competing orations of Nicolaus (13.20.1-27.6) and Gylippus (13.28.2-32.6). Kenneth Sacks counts roughly five “speeches of paragraph length” per book of the Library in his Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 98. 221 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 20.1.1. For a defense of Diodorus as the author of the proem to Book 20, see Sacks, Diodorus, 94-98. 222 Of the forty books of his Library, Books 1-5 and 11-20 have survived in their entirety. Books 6-10 and 21-40, however, survive only in fragments.

The Library Library of of History History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.)

73

the floor and waits for silence before beginning his turn: ἀνέβαινεν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα…γενομένης οὖν σιωπῆς…ἤρξατο τῶν λόγων (“[Nicolaus] ascended the platform…then, when it became silent, [he] began to speak”).223 Nicolaus finishes speaking and voluntarily relinquishes the floor. Gylippus the Laconian then marks the beginning of his speaking turn: ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα τῶν λόγων τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐντεῦθεν ἐποιήσατο (“ascending the platform, he then began his speech”).224 As another example of orderly and explicit turn-taking, we might cite the example of Diomedon, who παρῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μέσον (“came forward into the midst [of the people]”), and σιωπησάντων δὲ πάντων εἶπεν (“when all grew silent, [he] spoke”).225 Finally, for an example of speaking turns used to dramatic effect, we might look at Book 19, when Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, takes the floor before an assembled crowd in Old Gaza. A hush sweeps over the boisterous crowd as soon as the young man ascends the platform: πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κήρυκα καταπαῦσαι τοὺς θορυβοῦντας ἅπαντες σιωπὴν παρείχοντο (“before the herald put an end to the commotion, all became silent”).226 Diodorus thus uses the concept of turn-taking to establish the young man’s commanding presence. As we have seen in other historiographical works, turn-taking can be graphically demonstrated both through intervening silences and through turn-taking conventions like rising from a seated position to a standing position, taking hold of a staff (σκῆπτρον), or moving to a certain area designated for speakers (τὸ βῆμα or τὸ μέσον).

2.7.2 Interrupted Speech in the Library of History Examples of interruption in Diodorus Siculus are few and far between. Only eleven instances of rhetorical interruption survive, and there are two interruptions by external events. Furthermore, of the rhetorical interruptions, most are very lightly marked by the narrator. That is, the interrupted discourse is usually recorded as oratio obliqua, and the only hint at ongoing discourse in some cases is the imperfect tense of the verb of speaking. The first example of a weakly rhetorical interruption is in Book 1 of the Library. King Psammetichus of Egypt has dishonored his native sol-

223 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.19.6. For a discussion of the interruption of the previous speaker, see below. 224 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.28.1. 225 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.102.1-2. 226 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 19.81.2.

74

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

diers by assigning them to the left wing of the phalanx, which leads the Egyptian troops to revolt and to retreat to Ethiopia. The king ἐδεῖτο μετανοῆσαι (“was entreating [them] to change [their] minds”), reminding them of their forsaken homes and families. 227 The rebels are not at all persuaded: οἱ δ᾽ ἅμα πάντες ἀναβοήσαντες καὶ τοῖς κοντοῖς τὰς ἀσπίδας πατάξαντες (“But they all simultaneously shouted and clashed their spears on their shields”).228 The rowdy response of the soldiers is certainly in keeping with other interruptions, and the imperfect tense may well imply that the king’s speaking turn was violated. However, even if we characterize the soldiers’ reply as a rhetorical interruption, there is little evidence that Diodorus was interested in emphasizing this interaction as an interruption. There are no other extant interruptions in Books 1-12, but the chaotic events of Book 13, spanning 415 to 405 B.C.E., feature several interruptions. First, when the Syracusans capture thousands of defeated Athenian troops, the people of Syracuse gather to debate the fate of the captives. Diocles suggests executing the generals and selling the soldiers as slaves.229 Hermocrates, however, takes the floor and proposes a more lenient course of action; Diodorus summarizes this speech in indirect discourse. The Syracusans shout down Hermocrates, bringing his turn to an involuntary end: θορυβοῦντος δὲ τοῦ δήμου καὶ τὴν δημηγορίαν οὐχ ὑπομένοντος (“but as the people caused a tumult and refused to endure [Hermocrates’] speech”).230 This interruption of Hermocrates by his hearers is rhetorically significant. Diodorus Siculus constantly emphasizes the importance of moderation in his Library of History, and Hermocrates is anathema to the crowd precisely because of his exhortation to bear victory ἀνθρωπίνως (“humanely” or “moderately”).231 Time and again, Diodorus will portray arrogant victors behaving immoderately, only to fall themselves when Fortune changes.232

227 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 1.67.5. 228 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 1.67.6. The soldiers go on to explain that their possession of weapons and reproductive organs will enable them easily to acquire new homes and families. 229 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.19.4. 230 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.19.6. 231 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.19.5. For the theme of moderation in Diodorus Siculus, especially as shown in his speeches, see Sacks, Diodorus, 101-5. 232 This cycle is described at length in the subsequent speech of Nicolaus (13.20.1-27.6), who has lost two children in the war and thus has earned the right to elaborate on the things that Hermocrates presumably wished to say. Cf. esp. 13.21.4-5 and the historical examples of 13.22.1-8.

The Library Library of of History History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.)

75

Later in Book 13, we find two peculiar interruptions of audiences by speakers. First, following the discourses of Diocles, Hermocrates, and Nicolaus, the Laconian Gylippus addresses the Syracusan assembly. A foe of the Athenians, he hopes to dissuade the audience from the lenient proposals of Hermocrates and Nicolaus. Gylippus is eager to inquire after the number of people assembled who have lost children to the Athenians. Upon his querying, many cry out in reply, bewailing their losses: πολλοὶ [οὖν] τῶν καθημένων ἐθορύβησαν (“Many of those seated raised an uproar”).233 Gylippus gleefully interrupts the tumult to make his point to Nicolaus: ὁ δ᾽ ἐπιβαλών, Ὁρᾷς, φησί (“But [Gylippus] interrupted and said, ‘Do you see?’”).234 The audience did not interrupt Gylippus, for he had asked them a question. Rather, Diodorus indicates that Gylippus interrupts his own audience; this interruption of an audience by a speaker is without parallel in the earlier sources we have surveyed. While this same phenomenon occurs repeatedly in Diodorus, we will not classify this interaction as an interrupted speech. Gylippus indeed “interrupts” the uproar; however, he is not violating anyone’s speaking turn, but rather reclaiming his own speaking turn. Later in Book 13, we find another example of a speaker interrupting an audience. Tellias, a wealthy man of Acragas in Sicily, goes as an envoy to Centoripa. When Tellias stands before the assembled people of Centoripa, the crowd considers him to be physically unattractive and breaks into laughter. Tellias is not cowed by this reception: ὁ δ᾽ ὑπολαβὼν εἶπε… (“But he interrupted [them] and said…”).235 Like Gylippus, Tellias interrupts his audience. Whereas Gylippus freely reclaims a speaking turn that he had voluntarily laid down, Tellias forcibly commands the audience’s attention. Furthermore, Diodorus elaborates on the crowd’s laughter: τὸ μὲν πλῆθος προέπεσεν εἰς ἄκαιρον γέλωτα, θεωροῦν καταδεέστερον τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ δόξης (“The crowd burst forth into inopportune laughter, when they saw that he did not measure up to their expectations”).236 While this is not, strictly speaking, the interruption of a speech, the audience’s laughter is conveying a message, as Diodorus explains. The reply of Tellias demonstrates that this wealthy Acragantine fully understands his audience’s disdainful reaction, and he explains that the Acragantines are

233 234 235 236

Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.28.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.28.5. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.83.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.83.4.

76

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

accustomed to sending unimpressive envoys to unimpressive cities.237 We might, then, consider this interaction along with other showdowns between persons of impressive moral character and their moral inferiors. More easily classified is the interruption by external events in Book 16. Timoleon the Corinthian, general of Syracusan army, assembles his troops and arouses them to attack the Carthaginians. A favorable omen interrupts his army’s cries of assent: πάντων δὲ καθάπερ τινὶ μιᾷ φωνῇ βοώντων ἐπιθέσθαι τοῖς βαρβάροις καὶ κατάρχεσθαι τῆς μάχης, κατὰ τύχην ὑποζυγίων σέλινα κομιζόντων εἰς τὰς στιβάδας (“While all, as if with one voice, were shouting to attack the barbarians and to begin the battle, some donkeys happened to be bringing wild celery for their beds”).238 Crowns of wild celery (σέλινον) were awarded to victors at the Isthmian and Nemean games, and Timoleon consequently interprets the beasts’ bedding as an omen of victory.239 Yet again, the interrupted discourse is oratio obliqua. Book 17 essentially constitutes a biography of Alexander the Great. As the narrative zooms in on one particular person, Diodorus inserts more discourse, including an anecdote where Alexander himself interrupts another speaker. At a council convened by Alexander to discuss an offer made by King Darius of the Persians, only the general Parmenion is willing to voice an opinion. In his opinion, Alexander should accept the offer: Ἐγὼ μὲν ὢν Ἀλέξανδρος ἔλαβον ἂν τὰ διδόμενα καὶ τὴν σύνθεσιν ἐποιησάμην (“If I were Alexander, I would accept what is given and make a treaty”). 240 Alexander disagrees: ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν, Κἀγω εἰ Παρμενίων ἦν ἔλαβον ἄν (“But Alexander interrupted [him] and said, ‘If I were Parmenion, I would too!’”).241 The invincible general bridles at his subordinate’s words and quickly puts him in his place; interruption here is a power play.242 This intentional interruption might be compared with other interruptions of subordinates by individuals of higher social status or authority. One angry Athenian mob produces a slew of intentional interruptions in Book 18. When Polyperchon of Macedonia sends Phocion and other exiles back to Athens, the people gather for a trial. The opponents 237 238 239 240 241 242

Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.83.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 16.79.3. LSJ, s.v. σέλινον. Cf., e.g., Josephus, C. Ap. 2.217. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.5. Arrian preserves the same anecdote in Anab. 2.25.2. In Arrian’s account, however, Alexander clearly “answers” (ἀποκρίνασθαι) rather than “interrupts” Parmenion.

The Library Library of History History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.)

77

of the exiles seek the death penalty, and the assembly shows its agreement by interrupting the defendants and their supporters over and over again: ὡς δὲ τοῖς ἀπολογουμένοις ὁ καιρὸς παρεδόθη τῆς ἀπολογίας, ὁ μὲν Φωκίων ἤρξατο ποιεῖσθαι τὸν ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος τοῖς θορύβοις ἐξέσεισε τὴν ἀπολογίαν (“When the opportunity was given to the defendants to present their case, Phocion began to give his defense, but the crowd rejected it with an uproar”). 243 Phocion is granted a speaking turn – he “began” (ἤρξατο) to plead his case – but the hostile crowd shouts him down. As the tumult dies down, Phocion makes a second, and equally unsuccessful, attempt to defend himself: λήξαντος δὲ τοῦ θορύβου πάλιν ὁ μὲν Φωκίων ἀπελογεῖτο, ὁ δὲ ὄχλος κατεβόα καὶ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ κινδυνεύοντος ἐκώλυεν ἐξακούεσθαι (“When the hubbub died down, Phocion again began to plead his case, but the crowd cried out and prevented the voice of the defendant from being heard”).244 This situation continues until Phocion gives up hope and consents to being executed. Some of his friends try to defend him, but they too are interrupted by the crowd: ὧν τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς τῶν λόγων ἤκουον, ὁπότε δὲ προβαίνοντες φανεροὶ καθίσταντο τὴν ἀπολογίαν διεξιόντες, ἐξεβάλλοντο τοῖς θορυβοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐναντιουμέναις κραυγαῖς (“[the crowd] would listen to their first words, but when [the friends] continued and made clear that they were elaborating his defense, [the crowd] would drive them out with loud shouts of opposition”).245 In every case, the speakers are clearly making a defense on behalf of Phocion, but no details are given; the precise content of the discourse is not reported. Instead, through these three rhetorical interruptions, Diodorus demonstrates the Athenian passion for independence and democracy, as the Athenians vent their outrage upon the supporters of surrender and oligarchy, refusing them even a fair trial.246 In Book 19, envoys from King Ptolemy arrive in Cyrene to quell a recent revolt. The rebels bring the envoys’ speaking turn to a lethal end: παραγενομένων δὲ πρεσβευτῶν ἐκ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας καὶ παρακαλούντων παύσασθαι τῆς φιλοτιμίας τούτους μὲν ἀπέκτειναν, τὴν δ’ ἄκραν ἐνεργέστερον ἐπολιόρκουν (“but when ambassadors from Alexandria arrived and were exhorting them to give up their ambitions, [the people of Cyrene] killed them and continued to besiege the 243 244 245 246

Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.5. Cf. Acts 19:33 for a similar failed attempt. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.6. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.67.2. For Phocion’s part in surrendering Athens to Antipater at the end of the Lamian War, see 18.18.2-3. As Diodorus tells the story, Phocion was a victim of circumstances, not a conspirator against Athens.

78

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

citadel even more vigorously”).247 The envoys’ speaking turn is dramatically violated, and this is a clear instance of interruption of speakers by their hearers. However, the drama of the scene is likely rooted less in the rhetorical interruption than in the fact that the envoys were put to death. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, ambassadors were generally guaranteed safe conduct, so this violence would have constituted a gross breach of ancient diplomatic customs.248 Books 21 to 40 survive only in fragments. One of the earliest extant manuscripts containing these fragments dates to the tenth century – about a thousand years after the publication of the Library of History, and others are centuries later. We would be wise not to rely too heavily on these “sorry fragments,” but we will briefly address the five interruptions that are present, keeping in mind that they may or may not come from Diodorus’ own hand.249 In a passage that may be an amalgam of Diodorus and another historian, the famous mathematician and inventor Archimedes is slain. Intent on his work, Archimedes does not initially realize that the person who is dragging him from his work is a Roman: συστραφεὶς καὶ γνοὺς Ῥωμαῖον εἶναι, ἐβόα Τὶ μηχάνημά τις τῶν ἐμῶν μοι δότω (“when Archimedes turned around and recognized that he was a Roman, he began to cry out, ‘Somebody give me one of my devices!’”).250 The use of the imperfect ἐβόα implies that the Roman soldier’s immediately subsequent action terminated both Archimedes’ life and his utterance. Whereas Polybius narrated the interruption of an Aetolian commander by the Roman consul Flamininus, Book 28 of the Library shows Flamininus being interrupted by King Philip V.251 When Flamininus informs Philip of the severe conditions of the Roman offer of peace, Philip interrupts: ὐπολαβὼν ὁ Φίλιππος, Καὶ τί τούτου βαρύτερόν, φησί, προσέταξαν ἄν μοι πολέμῳ κρατήσαντες; (“Philip interrupted and said, “And what more burdensome condition than this would they have prescribed, had they prevailed over me in battle?”).252 Like Achil247 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 19.79.1. 248 For violence against envoys as violation of a “sacred law,” see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.51.3-52.1. Cf. also Josephus, B.J. 1.378; A.J. 14.346. 249 For an overview of what he calls the “sorry fragments,” see Francis Walton, Introduction to Diodorus of Sicily (12 vols.; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933-1967), 11:vii-xxiv. 250 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 26.18.1. This passage is excerpted from the twelfthcentury author John Tzetzes, Chiliades 2.103-149. 251 For the Polybian interruption, see Hist. 18.37.12. 252 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 28.11.1.

The Library Library of of History History of Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.E.)

79

les, Philip interrupts someone who is making unwelcome and unavoidable demands, and like Achilles, Philip immediately leaves the scene. This intentional interruption is Philip’s last grasp at control over a situation that is ultimately out of Philip’s hands. In Book 33, a pair of fragments is preserved, both recounting the same story of the Aradians and the Marathenes. The parallel accounts both describe the Aradian animosity towards the inhabitants of Marathus, and both include the Marathene embassy to the city of Aradus. In the first account, the envoys are treated disrespectfully and imprisoned.253 In the second account, they are interrupted and executed: ἐπιβοωμένων δὲ τῶν ἀτυχούντων τὴν ἱερὰν τῶν ἱκετῶν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν ἄδειαν τῆς τῶν πρεσβευτῶν ἀσυλίας, παροξυνθέντες οἱ τολμηρότατοι τῶν νέων ἐξεκέντησαν τοὺς ἱκέτας (“as the unfortunate ones were invoking the sacred office of suppliants and the inviolable right to safe conduct for envoys, the most audacious of the youths stabbed them to death”).254 Like the Alexandrian envoys in Book 19, the Marathene envoys are fatally interrupted, and Diodorus (or his excerpter) makes clear the impiety of this intentional interruption. The fragments of Books 34 and 35 include a poignant interruption by external events. When Gorgus of Morgantina is being chased by bandits, his father Gorgus appears on horseback and tries to rescue his son. The elder Gorgus and the younger Gorgus argue over who will escape on the horse, until the brigands callously interrupt their pleas: δεομένων δὲ ἀλλήλων μετὰ δακρύων καὶ διαφιλοτιμουμένων ὑπὲρ εὐσεβείας τε καὶ φιλοστοργίας … συνέβη τοὺς λῃστὰς ἐπιφανέντας ἀμφοτέρους ἀνελεῖν (“While they were entreating one another with tears and earnestly striving on behalf of piety and affection…the brigands appeared and killed them both.”). 255 The pious pair is interrupted by a murderous band of fugitive slaves; as with many other interrupted discourses, death brings an end to the speaking turn. The final interruption is, literally, the most dramatic. At a festival in Italy, a comedian expresses his hostility towards Rome, and his unhappy audience brings his speaking turn to an end: κωμῳδὸν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἀγωνιζόμενον κατέσφαξαν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, φήσαντες οὐκ ἀκολούθως αὐτὸν ὑποκρίνασθαι τῇ περιστάσει (“they killed a comic actor, who was contending [with them] on stage, in the theater, saying that he did not play his part in keeping with the circumstances”).256 The

253 254 255 256

Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 33.5.3. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 33.5.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 34/35.11.1. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 37.12.1.

80

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

fragmentary nature of the passage prevents full analysis of the content of the actor’s speech, but the Roman audience clearly interrupted the unfortunate speaker.

2.7.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Diodorus Siculus Diodorus openly acknowledges the massive scope of his composition and freely admits that he compressed his sources. 257 This determination led him frequently to omit speeches from his narrative; for example, when Diodorus transmits the speech of the Lacedaemonian Endius, he notes this deviation from normal practice: ἐξουσίας δ᾽ αὐτῷ δοθείσης παρελθὼν συντόμως καὶ λακονικῶς διελέχθη· διόπερ ἔκρινα μὴ παραλιπεῖν τοὺς ῥηθέντας λόγους (“When permission was granted to him, he came forward and spoke concisely and laconically; therefore, I have decided not to omit what he said”).258 As illustrated here and mentioned earlier, Diodorus preserves very few speeches. Hence, interrupted speeches are rare. Most of the interruptions in the Library of History involve discourses that are either reported in oratio obliqua or not reported at all. Only two instances of direct discourse are interrupted: one is the ill-fated remark of Parmenion (twelve words), and the other is the final command of Archimedes of Syracuse (seven words). All the remaining interruptions by hearers and by external events involve oratio obliqua or discourses of which the content is not reported. When Diodorus actually recounts a longer speech, he always lets it run its course without interruption. The relatively rare use of intentional interruption in Diodorus Siculus, whose Library is the longest extant history we will survey, appears to be less a function of his desire (or lack thereof) to dramatize controversial speeches, and more a function of the nature of his task. Unlike Homer’s tale of the Trojan War or Xenophon’s account of a long march home, Diodorus chooses to write universal history, spanning over a thousand years of the intertwined histories of Africa, Europe, and Asia. This bird’s-eye view of history is obviously more likely to skim over individual speeches – and even more so over the endings of particular speeches.259 Hence, while we have noted various similarities 257 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.1.2. 258 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.52.2. 259 E.g., compare the different accounts of Herodotus and Diodorus regarding the Greek council that was convened to decide whether or not to fight the Persians at Salamis. Herodotus, in Hist. 8.59.1-63.1, describes the council at length, recounting the speeches of Themistocles and Adeimantus before reporting the decision of

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

81

between certain interrupted discourses in the Library of History and those in other historiographical texts, we will refrain from theorizing further about a systematic use of intentional interruption by Diodorus, for based on his extant work, he appears not to have consciously or consistently deployed it as a literary device.

2.8 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.) Unlike the wide-ranging efforts of Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus is limited both geographically, to the affairs of Italy, and chronologically, to the events prior to the First Punic War.260 Whereas the military histories of Thucydides and Xenophon could serve as tactical handbooks for aspiring generals, Dionysius gives relatively little detail about the many armed campaigns of the Romans. The stated purpose of the Roman Antiquities is to demonstrate to Dionysius’ fellow Greeks that their Roman overlords are from good Greek stock, and Dionysius fills twenty volumes with his evidence.261 Although he cites scores of other historians as sources for his account and notes the various battles fought and the cities reduced by siege, Dionysius devotes most of his attention to the development of Roman government, as it mutates from monarchy into a volatile combination of oligarchical and democratic elements. His focus, then, is not on the foreign wars, but on the warring words launched in the plebeian and patrician assemblies. Dionysius, whose rhetorical treatises still survive, deserves most of the credit (or blame) for the numerous lengthy speeches that constitute a substantial portion of the Roman Antiquities.262 Discounting his predecessors’ obses-

Eurybiades. Diodorus, in Bibl. hist. 11.15.3-4, summarizes Themistocles in indirect discourse, makes no mention of Adeimantus, and moves on to preparations for the battle. 260 Dionysius lays out the scope of his work in Ant. rom. 1.8.1-2. Citations and translations from the Roman Antiquities are based on the text of C. Jacoby, ed., Dionysi Halicarnasensis Antiquitatum Romanarum Quae Supersunt (4 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1885-1905). 261 For a statement of his purpose, see Ant. rom. 1.5.1. Of the twenty volumes, only Books 1-10 survive in their entirety. Most of Book 11 is also extant, but only fragments of Books 12-20 remain. 262 By one count, “the speeches occupy very nearly one-third of the total text” of Books 3-20. See the Introduction to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, The Roman Antiquities

82

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

sions with troop movements, Dionysius expresses his surprise that earlier historians, πολιτικὰς δὲ κινήσεις καὶ στάσεις ἀναγράφοντες οὐκ οἴονται δεῖν ἀπαγγέλλειν τοὺς λόγους, δι᾽ ὧν αἱ παράδοξοι καὶ θαυμασταὶ πράξεις ἐπετελέσθησαν (“when writing about political revolutions and civil discord, do not think it necessary to report the speeches through which incredible and amazing deeds were accomplished”).263 In keeping with this emphasis on speeches, Dionysius’ patricians wax eloquent in the senate, plebeians rouse the masses in the Forum, and political turmoil frequently leads to the violation of speaking turns.

2.8.1 Turn-Taking in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Dionysius shows himself well aware of the dynamics of speaking turns, and it is not at all uncommon for the characters of his history to speak explicitly about turn-taking rules. In the senate, for example, there is a customary sequence of speaking turns, with the oldest senators preceding their younger colleagues. In times of domestic peace, speaking turns are seldom violated. However, domestic peace is a rare commodity in the years covered by Dionysius. For a clear example of characters showing themselves aware of speaking turns, we may turn to Book 11, which narrates the fall of the decemvirate. After summoning the senate with great difficulty, the chief decemvir, Appius Claudius, is interrupted by Lucius Valerius, who rises to take the floor prematurely. We will discuss this interruption in greater detail below. For now, we may simply point out that Appius, unwilling to relinquish his speaking turn, provides a concise summary of senatorial etiquette in his indignant reaction to Valerius: Οὐχ οὗτος ὁ τόπος, εἶπεν, ὦ Οὐαλέριε, σός, οὐδὲ προσήκει σοι νῦν λέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν οἵδε οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ τιμιώτεροί σου γνώμην ἀγορεύσωσι, τότε καὶ σὺ κληθεὶς ἐρεῖς ὅ τι σοι δοκεῖ (“It is not your turn, Valerius,” he said, “nor is it fitting for you to speak now; but when these men who are older and more honored than you have declared their opinions, then you too will be called on and will say what

(trans. Earnest Cary; 7 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19371950), 1:xvi. For Dionysius’ views on the use of speeches in historiography, see his De Thucydide 14, 17-18, 34-49. For a modern take on Dionysius’ historiographical use of speeches, see Emilio Gabba, Dionysius and The History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 70-71, 153. 263 Ant. rom. 7.66.3.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

83

seems right to you”).264 Disdaining the words of the illicit decemvir, Valerius begins a contested speaking turn.265 An even livelier assembly in Book 7 provides another example of attention to speaking turns. When Brutus, an aedile, begins to threaten the patricians, the consuls convene the senate. After a polarized debate, the consuls assemble the Roman people in the Forum to announce the decision of the senators. However, the tribunes oppose the consuls, and both parties speak οὐκ … ἐν μέρει οὐδ᾽ ἐν κόσμῳ (“out of turn and out of order”).266 The next day, the tribunes assemble the Roman people in the Forum, and Sicinius the tribune introduces a new law: Δημάρχου γνώμην ἀγορεύοντος ἐν δήμῳ μηδεὶς λεγέτω μηδὲν ἐναντίον μηδὲ μεσολαβείτω τὸν λόγον (“When a tribune is declaring his opinion to the people, let no one speak anything against him, and do not let anyone interrupt him”).267 Not only are the tribunes aware of speaking turns, but they actually pass a law forbidding hearers from interrupting tribunes! Finally, we should note that Dionysius includes many instances of cooperative overlapping speech that is best described as acclamation, rather than interruption. For instance, in Book 4, when King Servius Tullius learns of a conspiracy, he gives a speech in defense of his actions; the assembled people praise him while he is speaking: Τοιαῦτα λέγοντος αὐτοῦ πολὺς ἔπαινος ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐγένετο (“While he was saying such things, the assembly praised him greatly”). 268 There is no sign that the speaking turn of Tullius ended prematurely. Consequently, this and many similar episodes will not be classified as interruptions.269

2.8.2 Interrupted Speech in the Roman Antiquities Without further ado, then, let us turn to the many interrupted discourses of the Roman Antiquities. Most frequent are the interruptions by a speaker’s audience – there are nineteen in all, but Dionysius also features five interruptions by external events. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Dionysius sees fit to preserve a law against interruption of 264 265 266 267 268 269

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.5-5.1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.15.4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.17.5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.10.1. For other instances of overlapping speech that is not interruptive, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.12.1; 4.84.1-2; 8.2.1; 8.9.1; 8.13.3; 9.10.1.

84

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

tribunician speech. The proliferation of interrupted speech in Dionysius’ work appears to be due largely to his fascination with the development of Roman government; most of the interruptions take place among the assemblies in the senate and in the Forum. In Book 1, a collection of stories and legends about Greek origins of later Roman practices and inhabitants, Dionysius tells how Heracles came to build an altar on territory that would later become Rome. As Heracles is completing one of his labors, driving the cattle of Geryon back to Greece, a robber (quite appropriately) named Κάκος tries to steal a few of the cows. Heracles discovers this attempt and confronts the thief, who τοὺς εἰωθότας αὐτῷ συναγραυλεῖν ἀνεκάλει (“began to call out to his fellow country-dwellers”). The appeal for help is cut short: Ἡρακλῆς δὲ ἀλοιῶν αὐτὸν τῷ ῥοπάλῳ κτείνει (“Heracles, however, struck him with his club and killed him”).270 Because Cacus was appealing to his fellow brigands for assistance, his interruption by Heracles should be classified as an interruption by external events. 271 In Book 2, before we find an interrupted speech, we come upon a reference to interrupted speech. Dionysius elaborates upon the power of the Roman paterfamilias, focusing on the legal power of fathers over their sons. As an example of this law, Dionysius notes that ἄνδρες ἐπιφανεῖς δημηγορίας διεξιόντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἐμβόλων ἐναντίας μὲν τῇ βουλῇ, κεχαρισμένας δὲ τοῖς δημοτικοῖς, … κατασπασθέντες ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος ἀπήχθησεν ὑπὸ τῶν πατέρων, ἣν ἄν ἐκείνοις φανῇ τιμωρίαν ὑφέξοντες (“distinguished men who were delivering from the rostra speeches hostile to the senate, but pleasing to the people, have been pulled down from the rostra and carried off by their fathers, so that [the men] might undergo the punishment thought best by [their fathers]”).272 Dionysius is not narrating an actual interrupted speech, even if the observation implies that he has heard of many such occasions; rather, he is describing the wide-ranging power of Roman fathers over their sons, including their sons’ speaking rights. Later in Book 2, Dionysius passes down various accounts of the end of Romulus’ earthly life. In two versions, Romulus disappears ἐκκλησιάζοντα (“while addressing [an assembly]”). In the first account, some say that ἐκκλησιάζοντα…αὐτὸν ἐπὶ στρατοπέδου ζόφου κατασκήψαντος ἐξ αἰθρίας καὶ χειμῶνος μεγάλου καταρραγέντος ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι (“while he was addressing the camp, darkness fell

270 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.39.4. 271 By contrast, when Odysseus killed the pleading Leiodes in Od. 22.329, it was an interruption by the hearer. 272 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.26.5.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

85

from a clear sky and a great storm broke out, and [Romulus] disappeared”).273 Romulus is interrupted by external events, and the supporters of this account attributed the interruption to Romulus’ father Mars. In another version, they say that ἐκκλησιάζοντα μὲν αὐτὸν… ὑπὸ τῶν νεοπολιτῶν Ῥωμαίων ἀναιρεθῆναι (“while he was addressing the assembly, he was killed by those recently granted Roman citizenship”).274 The brevity of this second account obscures whether these new citizens were part of the crowd or not, and the content of Romulus’ speech is similarly doubtful. Whether translated or murdered, Romulus appears to have ended his final speaking turn involuntarily. In Book 3, as well as in the following books, Dionysius rarely leaves the content of a speech doubtful; lengthy set pieces abound. Here, we find our first clear instance of rhetorical interruption, when Tullus Hostilius, the third king of Rome, confronts the treacherous Albans, led by Mettius Fufetius.275 Having learned of their deceit, Tullus summons the unsuspecting Albans to an assembly and proceeds to reproach them for μετὰ τῶν ἐχθίστων τε καὶ πολεμιωτάτων στάντες (“siding with [our] most hateful and hostile enemies”).276 The Albans protest before Tullus can continue: Ταῦτα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος οἰμωγαί τε τῶν Ἀλβανῶν ἐγίνοντο καὶ παντοδαπαὶ δεήσεις τοῦ μὲν δήμου μηδὲν ἐγνωκέναι λέγοντος ὧν ὁ Μέττιος ἐμηχανᾶτο (“While he said these things, the Albans made lamentations and entreaties of every kind, and the people said that they knew nothing about the schemes of Mettius”).277 The assembly has taken on a forensic character, and the Alban hearers thus interrupt the accusations of Tullus Hostilius. Tullus explains that he has foreseen these objections and announces the Roman judgment: Alba will be destroyed, but the majority of the Albans will be granted land in Rome.278 With most of the Albans gratified by the leniency of the Romans, Mettius Fufetius must make his defense, and he tries to stir up the crowd, only to be stopped by Tullus. Mettius endeavors to stir up the crowd again: τὸν δὲ Φουφέττιον ἀγανακτοῦντα ἔτι καὶ κεκραγότα μόνον τάς τε συνθήκας ἀνακαλούμενον (“but Fufetius alone was still 273 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2. The parallels between Josephus, A.J. 4.326, this passage, and Luke 9:34 will be discussed in Chapter 5. 274 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.5. 275 For historical background to the dispute between Tullius Hostilius and Mettius Fufetius, see Gabba, Dionysius, 209-10. 276 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.28.10. 277 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.29.1. For a similar scene, see Appian, Hist. rom. 8.81.379. 278 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.29.2-7.

86

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

upset and shouted, appealing to the treaty”).279 His judge, Tullus, hastens to punish the perpetrator: οἱ ῥαβδοῦχοι κελεύσαντος τοῦ βασιλέως Τύλλου συλλαβόντες καὶ τὴν ἐσθῆτα περικαταρρήξαντες ἔξαινον τὸ σῶμα μάστιξι πάνυ πολλαῖς (“at the command of King Tullus, the lictors seized [Mettius], stripped off his clothes, and began to scourge his body with many lashes”). 280 On the one hand, the interrupting lictors were not his target audience, so this could be classified as an interruption by external events. However, the lictors here function as instruments of King Tullus, who was clearly displeased with Mettius and who intentionally interrupted the latter’s speech. In Book 4, King Servius Tullius is interrupted by his audience. Threatened by Lucius Tarquinius, the grandson of the previous king, Tullius seeks to win over the people by delivering a speech in the Forum. After elaborating on his own achievements, Tullius turns to the accusations of Tarquinius: τὸν δὲ δῆμον οὐκ εἶναι κύριον τἀλλότρια ἑτέρῳ διδόναι (“that the people did not have the authority to give to someone the things that did not belong to them”).281 This slight against the people had its intended effect: κραυγῆς δὲ καὶ ἀγανακτήσεως ἐξ ἁπάντων ἐπὶ τούτῳ γενομένης σιωπῆσαι κελεύσας αὐτούς (“when this raised an irritated cry from all the people, [Tullius] ordered them to be silent”).282 Presumably, Tullius approves of the people’s sentiments, as his words appeared to be calculated to raise their indignation. However, the king is not ready to relinquish his speaking turn, and so he silences the crowd. In Book 5, at an assembly of the people, the consuls are embroiled in controversy. The sons of both Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus have been part of a conspiracy to bring back the tyrants. Upon discovering this plot, Brutus puts his sons to death, but Collatinus prefers not to punish his own sons. Brutus is incensed, and he speaks against Collatinus in the Forum, proposing his removal from the consulship. Dionysius reports Brutus’ speech in direct discourse in its entirety; only then does he disclose Collatinus’ response: Τοιαῦτα δὲ λέγοντος αὐτοῦ βοῶν καὶ δεινοπαθῶν ὁ Κολλατῖνος ἐπίβουλόν τε καὶ προδότην τῶν φίλων αὐτὸν παρ᾽ ἕκαστα ἀποκαλῶν (“While [Brutus] was speaking such things, Collatinus cried out and complained loudly, denouncing him at every word as a plotter and a traitor

279 280 281 282

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.30.5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.30.5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.37.3. This speech is given in oratio obliqua. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.37.4.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

87

to his friends”).283 As Dionysius narrates the scene, Brutus continues with his speech even as Collatinus shouts at and defames his fellow consul. While Brutus never relinquishes his speaking turn, Dionysius indicates that Collatinus has indeed infringed upon Brutus’ speaking turn. This mode of narration separates the discourse, preserved in its entirety, from its narrative framework; the overlapping utterances of Collatinus and Brutus are narrated in turn, with no attempt by Dionysius to insert the intentionally interruptive catcalls of Collatinus into the midst of Brutus’ address. We might say, then, that Dionysius’ use of interruption here reduces, rather than heightens, the drama of the scene. When Collatinus continues to defend himself loudly, the people attempt to silence him: χαλεπώτερον ἐποίει τὸν δῆμον καὶ δεινοὺς ἤγειρεν ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς λεγομένοις θορύβους (“[Collatinus] made the people even more irate and stirred up a frightful clamor at all the things he was saying”).284 Not only do the people drown out Collatinus’ cries, but they eventually deprive him of his speaking turn: οὔτ᾽ ἀπολογίαν ὑπομενόντων οὔτε δέησιν προσιεμένων, ἀλλὰ τὰς ψήφους ἀναδοθῆναι σφίσι κελευσάντων (“neither putting up with his defense nor admitting any entreaty, but rather demanding that their votes be taken”).285 Collatinus, who had been the first to speak out of turn, introduces a chaos that culminates in Collatinus himself being interrupted by his hearers. Eventually, he will resign his consulship in disgrace. Later in Book 5, we find examples of the two most common kinds of interruptions by external events: interruption by omen and interruption by messenger. First, as the encamped Roman army is grieving after a difficult battle with the Tyrrhenians, a voice interrupts their commiseration: τοιαῦτα δ᾽ αὐτῶν διανοουμένων καὶ διαλεγομένων πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ τὴν πρώτην που μάλιστα φυλακὴν ἐκ τοὺ δρυμοῦ, παρ᾽ ὃν ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο, φωνή τις ἠκούσθη (“As they pondered and discussed such things with each other, around the first watch, a voice was heard from the thicket by which they had camped”).286 This interruptive divine voice announces that the Romans won the day’s battle and encourages them to take heart; this pep talk leads to an overnight victory.287 Later, when the Tyrrhenians and Romans seek to

283 284 285 286 287

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.11.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.11.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.11.2. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.16.2. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.16.3.

88

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

come to terms, the Romans give the Tyrrhenians twenty hostages, the sons and daughters of prominent Romans. As negotiations continue, a messenger suddenly arrives on the scene: Ἔτι δὲ τῆς δικαιολογίας γινομένης ἧκέ τις ἀπαγγέλλων τὴν φυγὴν τῶν ὁμηρευουσῶν παρθένων (“While the [oldest Roman senators] were pleading their case, a messenger arrived and announced the flight of the maidens who were given as hostages”).288 As always, the interrupting messenger brings news that is highly relevant to the interrupted speech. In Book 6, an unusual interruption of a speaker by his hearers takes place. Aulus Postumius, dictator of the Romans, is about to lead his troops into battle against the forces of the Tarquinii. His troops are said to interrupt the dictator’s lengthy pre-battle harangue: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τὰ εἰς τὸ γενναῖον ἐπαγωγὰ θάρσος τι δαιμόνιον ἐμπίπτει τῇ στρατιᾷ, καὶ ὥσπερ ἐκ μιᾶς ψυχῆς ἅπαντες ἀνεβόησαν ἅμα· Θάρσει τε καὶ ἄγε (“While he was still saying things that call forth nobility, a heaven-sent boldness fell upon the army, and they all cried out at once, as if from one heart: ‘Be bold and lead!’”). 289 The divine initiation of the troops’ interruption could lead this to be classified as an interruption by external events, but it is the troops themselves who interrupt their leader Postumius. Their cooperative interruption leads Postumius to commend them, and the Roman army then goes forth to victory. Later in Book 6, we find Dionysius again postponing his description of audience reactions, as we first noticed in Book 5. In the camp of the deserters, Lucius Junius, also known as Brutus, makes a long speech to his fellow plebeians, exhorting them not to accept the offer of amnesty from the patrician envoys. After reporting the entire speech, Dionysius notes that Brutus ἐπαύσατο (“ceased”).290 Then, Dionysius describes the audience’s reactions to the speech, elaborating on how different portions of the speech affected different hearers. According to our narrator Dionysius, when Brutus had described how the moneylenders abused the plebeians, all who were present wept: οὐδεὶς ἦν στερρὸς οὕτω τὴν διάνοιαν, ὃς οὐκ ἐξεχεῖτο τοῖς δάκρυσι καὶ ἀνεκλαίετο τὰς κοινὰς συμφοράς (“no one was so impassive as to resist pouring out streams of tears and weeping for the common misfortune”).291 Again, the speech itself, as recorded by Dionysius, is not interrupted; rather, Dionysius the rhetorician is much more attuned to

288 289 290 291

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.33.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.10.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.81.1. The speech lasts from 6.72.2 to 6.80.4. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.81.1.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

89

audience reactions than previous historians, and these accounts of overlapping utterances should not be interpreted as rhetorical interruptions. At the same assembly, the patrician Menenius Agrippa delivers a speech calling on the plebeians to return to Rome. His lengthy address is also reported as a complete whole, and the reader again learns of overlapping speech afterwards. However, Dionysius makes a closer connection between the speech and its aftermath: Τοιαῦτα λέγοντος τοῦ Μενηνίου πολλαὶ καὶ ποικίλαι παρ᾽ ὅλην ἐγίγνοντο τὴν δημηγορίαν ἐκ τῶν παρόντων φωναί (“As Menenius said such things, a great variety of voices arose from those present throughout the whole address”).292 Dionysius highlights one strain of these voices in particular: καὶ μιᾷ βοῇ συμφρονήσαντες ἀνεβόησαν ἀπάγειν σφᾶς εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ μὴ τρίβειν τὸν χρόνον (“and unified in mind and voice, they cried out to lead them back into the city – and not to waste any time”).293 While the overlapping speech is again largely cooperative, Dionysius more closely connects the reaction to the speech itself. Thus, Menenius is interrupted by his hearers, our seventh instance of intentional interruption in the Roman Antiquities. In Book 7, Marcius Coriolanus makes his defense in the Forum, having been summoned by the tribunes. Employing oratio obliqua, Dionysius describes Marcius as showing contempt for the plebeians, who respond predictably: Τοιγάρτοι λέγοντός τ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεταξὺ πολὺς θόρυβος ἐγίνετο (“Accordingly, while he was still speaking, a great uproar arose”).294 The addition of μεταξύ makes clear that the uproar took place while Marcius was still making his plea, and we find yet another example of a plebeian assembly intentionally interrupting a patrician. Interruption again marks one of the basic conflicts of the Roman Antiquities. Marcius is put on trial again later in Book 7; this time, he faces the charge of having attempted to establish a tyranny. As he makes his defense in the Forum, his battle scars and past achievements win over the crowd: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅσον μὲν ἦν τοῦ δημοτικοῦ μέρους ἐπιεικὲς καὶ φιλόχρηστον ἀπολύειν ἐβόα τὸν ἄνδρα (“while he was still speaking, those of the plebeians who were reasonable and benevolent cried out to release the man”).295 The eagerness of Marcius’ sup292 Stylistically, we may also note that the main verb ἐγίγνοντο interrupts the phrase παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν δημηγορίαν. I am grateful to Dr. Christopher Baron for pointing out how Dionysius thus reflects the action of the narrative in his word order. 293 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.87.1. 294 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.35.1. 295 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.62.3.

90

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

porters leads them to interrupt their hero with calls for his acquittal. This outburst is cooperative, but the hearers’ zeal leads them to infringe upon the speaking rights of Marcius, who will be convicted and banished. However, in Book 8, Marcius has returned with a large army, which encamps near the city of Rome. At the request of the other women of Rome and with the reluctant permission of the senate, Veturia, the mother of Marcius, approaches her son to plead with him to spare Rome. Initially, her demand is unsuccessful: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτῆς λεγούσης ὑπολαβὼν ὁ Μάρκιος (“While she was still speaking, Marcius interrupted her”).296 While he will eventually accede to his mother’s demands, his first impulse is to refuse. His willingness to violate his own mother’s speaking turn displays the depth of his enmity towards Rome. In Book 8, Spurius Cassius, a consul, first assembles the senate and then insists that they distribute public land to the plebeians and that they refund the money of plebeians who purchased corn that had come as a gift from Gelon of Sicily.297 These proposals are not palatable to most senators: Εὐθὺς μὲν οὖν ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ θόρυβος ἦν πολύς (“Immediately, while he was still speaking, there was a great uproar”).298 The senators, suspecting Cassius of aiming at a tyranny, do not allow the would-be champion of the plebeians to finish his speaking turn. This instance of intentional interruption is similar to many other interruptions of the immoral by the representatives of law and order. In Book 10, the tribunes again propose legislation that is opposed by the patricians. The people gather in the Forum to hear speeches in favor of the legislation on one day, and the next day is set aside for speeches against the legislation. This orderly arrangement is derailed by the rowdy assembly: πολλῶν δὲ καὶ ἀγαθῶν ἀνδρῶν παριόντων οὐθενὸς ἐξάκουστος ἦν ὁ λόγος ὑπὸ τοῦ θορύβου τε καὶ τῆς ἀκοσμίας τῶν ἐκκλησιαζόντων (“although many good men came forward to speak, not one of them could be heard, due to the disorderly clamor of the assembly”).299 In spite of the patricians’ efforts to occupy the Forum beforehand with their clients, there were sufficient plebeians on hand to forestall them. Yet, when the legislation is brought to a vote, the patricians disrupt the process and prevent the legislation from be-

296 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.47.1. 297 For a detailed overview of the distribution and use of the public land in the Roman Antiquities and in its sources, see Gabba, Dionysius, 166-89. 298 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.71.1. 299 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.41.1.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

91

ing passed. The rhetorical interruptions are thus emblematic of the discord and hostility between patricians and plebeians. Further civil strife is prevented by a timely assault by Aequians on the allied city of Tusculum, and an army is raised to go to the defense of the Tusculans. While the force is primarily composed of patricians, some plebeians volunteer, among them Lucius Siccius Dentatus. Siccius had supported the contested legislation vocally, and one of the consuls, Titus Romilius, decides to exact vengeance on Siccius by sending him on a perilous mission. When Siccius points out the folly of the attempt, Romilius silences him: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ βουλομένου λέγειν τἀκόλουθα ὑπολαβὼν ὁ ὕπατος εἶπεν· Οὐ πολλῶν δεῖ λόγων (“While [Siccius] wanted to finish speaking, the consul interrupted him and said, ‘Many words are not necessary’”).300 Cut off by his commanding officer, Siccius is sent on a fool’s errand, apparently deprived of both speaking rights and hope of life.301 This rhetorical interruption is both an instance of an individual being interrupted by someone of superior social status and authority and another example of the patrician-plebeian feuding that runs through so much of the Antiquities. In Book 11, Dionysius narrates the demise of the decemvirate. As the enemies of Rome threaten to attack, the decemvirs call upon the senate to raise an army. First, however, they have to summon the senators, who have retreated to the countryside to escape the wantonness of the decemvirs. Once they are assembled, Appius Claudius Sabinus, chief of the decemvirs, gives a speech, calling upon the senators to vote to raise an army. Lucius Valerius Potitus wordlessly interrupts the chief decemvir by standing up: ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἀνίσταται Λεύκιος Οὐαλέριος ἐπωνυμίαν Ποτῖτος (“while he was saying these things, Lucius Valerius, surnamed Potitus, stood up…”). 302 Appius Claudius recognizes Valerius’ action as a violation of his speaking turn, and for the first time, we find a character making a clear claim of interruption on his own behalf: Οὐχ οὗτος ὁ τόπος, εἶπεν, ὦ Οὐαλέριε, σός, οὐδὲ προσήκει σοι νῦν λέγειν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν οἵδε οἱ πρεσβύτεροι καὶ τιμιώτεροί σου γνώμην ἀγορεύσωσι, τότε καὶ σὺ κληθεὶς ἐρεῖς ὅ τι σοι δοκεῖ· νῦν δὲ σιώπα καὶ κάθησο (“It is not your turn, Valerius,” he said, “nor is it fitting for you to speak now; but when these men who are older and more honored than you have declared their opinions, then you too will be called on and will say what seems right to you.

300 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.45.1. 301 Siccius survives and is later elected tribune in Ant. rom. 10.47.6; he is finally assassinated in 11.26.4. 302 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.4.

92

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Now be quiet and sit down!”).303 Appius Claudius clearly recognizes the interruption of Valerius as disrespectful; for Valerius, however, interruption is an acceptable means towards an end of the utmost importance. He speaks περὶ σωτηρίας τῆς πόλεως (“about the preservation of the state”).304 As we have seen before, intentional interruption again coincides with a major crisis, as the inviolability of speaking turns falls victim to matters of ultimate concern.305 After Valerius interrupts Appius’ speech, chaos breaks out in the senate chamber, and another senator, Marcus Horatius Barbatus, stands up and takes the floor. First, he scolds Appius and the other decemvirs for their treatment of Valerius, and he then proposes putting the decemvirate to a popular vote. The decemvirs then violate his speaking turn: Ἔτι δ’ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος οἱ δέκα περιίστανται κεκραγότες καὶ τὴν δημαρχικὴν ἐπανασείοντες ἐξουσίαν καὶ ῥίψειν αὐτὸν ἀπειλοῦντες κατὰ τῆς πέτρας εἰ μὴ σιωπήσει (“But while he was still speaking, the decemvirs surrounded him, giving a shout, threatening him with the tribunician power, and promising to throw him down the [Tarpeian] rock if he did not become silent”).306 This second rhetorical interruption, triggered again by the hostility between the senators and the decemvirs, leads to another outbreak of shouting, and Appius Claudius is able to restore some degree of order only by promising to grant Ὁρατίῳ καὶ Οὐαλερίῳ καὶ παντὶ ἄλλῳ γνώμην ἀγορεύειν ἐν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ τόπῳ κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον ἐθισμὸν καὶ κόσμον (“to Horatius and to Valerius and to every other the opportunity to speak his mind in his turn, according to the ancient custom and order”).307 As the decemvirs meet further resistance, more interruptions follow. The catalyst for the fall of the decemvirate, according to Dionysius, is the illicit seizure of a young girl by Appius Claudius Sabinus. Claiming that Verginia is actually the daughter of the slave of one of his clients, Appius Claudius declares that she is a ward of the state and asks her uncle to hand over the girl. Verginia’s betrothed, Lucius Icilius, then steps in and vows to protect Verginia to the death. Appius Claudius robs the man not of his life, but of his speaking turn: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ βουλομένου λέγειν οἱ μὲν ῥαβδοῦχοι κελευσθέντες ὑπὸ τῆς ἐξουσίας ἀνεῖργον αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος καὶ πειθαρχεῖν τοῖς κεκριμένοις ἐκέλευον (“But while he still wanted to continue speak-

303 304 305 306 307

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.4.6. For a situation of similar magnitude, see, e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.27. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.6.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.6.3.

The Roman Roman Antiquities Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century B.C.E.)

93

ing, the lictors, having been ordered by the decemvir, forced them back from the platform and ordered them to obey the decision”).308 In the previous interruption, the decemvirs interrupt a senator; in this rhetorical interruption, a decemvir orders the interruption of a plebeian. Even though Icilius is cut off and Verginia is led away, the subsequent outrage of the crowd leads to Verginia’s release, and a second kangaroo trial is scheduled for the next day. While Appius Claudius apparently expected this second hearing to be a mere formality, the friends of Verginia’s father successfully outwit the decemvir and bring Lucius Verginius back to the city in time for the trial. Verginius and his relatives make a strong defense, presenting a thorough rebuttal of the charge that Verginia had been the daughter of a slave. Up until this point, Appius Claudius had allowed his client to prosecute the case, but the chief decemvir now grows impatient and silences the defendants: Ἔτι γὰρ αὐτῶν λεγόντων ἡσυχίαν γενέσθαι κελεύσας (“While they were still speaking, he ordered them to be quiet”).309 As Icilius had been interrupted, now Verginia’s family members are interrupted by Appius Claudius, who exercises his power as chief decemvir and judge to silence the defendants. In spite of overseeing this miscarriage of justice, Appius Claudius still fails to gain custody over the object of his desires, for Verginius slays his own daughter.310 After committing filicide, he rides to the Roman military camp and rallies his fellow soldiers, only to be interrupted a second time: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἀνεβόησαν οἱ πολλοὶ τιμωρήσειν ὑπισχνούμενοι (“While he was still speaking, the majority [of the soldiers] shouted and promised to avenge him”).311 Verginius is thus interrupted a second time by his audience, but this interruption is cooperative. The soldiers are joining Verginius in his attempt to overthrow the decemvirs. After the five extant rhetorical interruptions in Book 11, no interruptions survive in the fragments of Books 12 to 18. In the remnants of Books 19 and 20, we find two interruptions. First, in Book 19, Meton of Tarentum wishes to dissuade the Tarentines from inviting King Pyrrhus to assist them in their war against Rome. When he delivers a diatribe against the evils of inviting a king and a garrison into the city, his opponents cut him short: ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος οἱ τῶν κακῶν αἴτιοι συλλαβόντες αὐτὸν κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἐξωθοῦσιν ἐκ τοῦ θεάτρου (“but

308 309 310 311

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.32.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.36.1. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.37.6. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.42.1.

94

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

while he was still speaking, those responsible for the evils seized him and tossed him head over heels out of the theater”). 312 Meton was addressing a crowd assembled in the theater, and his opponents were likely members of the audience. This interruption of a speaker by his hearers should be classified with other instances that take place during times of civil discord and that feature the interruption of a speaker by his or her moral inferiors. The final interruption survives in the extant fragments of Book 20. The people of Rhegium, fearful of Tarentine aggression, have requested a Roman garrison. Fabricius, the Roman consul, grants them 1,200 troops, who are led by Decius. Impressed by the wealth of the Rhegians, Decius eventually grows envious and plots to seize the city. As part of his plot, Decius summons prominent Rhegians to a council, ostensibly to warn them about a conspiracy. He then stages an interruption by external events: ἔτι ταῦτα λέγοντος αὐτοῦ παρῆν τις ἐγκάθετος, αὐχμηρὸς ὡς ἐξ ὁδοῦ, γράμματα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Δεκίου κατεσκευασμένα κομίζων (“while he was still saying these things, a man who had been secretly bribed appeared, covered in dust as if from a journey, bearing a letter that had been prepared by Decius himself”).313 This planned interruption has parallels in Polybius, where we find three arranged interruptions.314 Book 1 of Polybius’ Histories provides the clearest parallel, when the runaway slave Spendius tries to win over a group of mercenaries by arranging for forged letters to arrive in the midst of a council.315 Like Decius, Spendius is a rogue ringleader who seeks to build credibility by arranging for counterfeit evidence to arrive via timely messengers.316

2.8.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Like Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus features nineteen rhetorical interruptions. Like Polybius, Dionysius narrates a turbulent period of history, where political turmoil manifests itself in both physical violence and violated speaking turns. Dionysius, however, shows a much greater interest in the spoken word than Polybius or any other of his

312 313 314 315 316

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 19.8.3. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.4.5. Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14; 4.22.11; 11.30.1. Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14. For other staged interruptions, see 3 Kgdms 1:14, 22 (preserved also in Josephus, A.J. 7.351), and A.J. 18.58, 61.

The Anabasis Anabasis of Alexander Alexander and Indica Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.)

95

predecessors.317 Aside from the tremendous number and length of the speeches in the Roman Antiquities, we find further evidence of the importance of discourse to Dionysius’ narrative in Book 7, where Sicinius the tribune serves as a Dionysian mouthpiece: ἄρχουσι γὰρ δήπου παντὸς ἔργου λόγοι (“words make a beginning, I suppose, for every deed”).318 It is not surprising, then, to find such careful attention to the relationship between discourses and their narrative contexts. Dionysius not only employs his rhetorical abilities in fashioning suitable speeches, but he also reveals his rhetorical acuity in attending to how these speeches were received. As we discussed above, in addition to giving audience reactions to completed speeches, Dionysius also describes how different parts of speeches elicited varying audience reactions. 319 Given the consistent attention to the interplay between speeches and audiences, we are justified in concluding that Dionysius consciously employed intentional interruption to highlight the core conflicts of his narrative. Whereas Polybius employed a diverse vocabulary to mark various interruptions, Dionysius generally makes his interruptions unmistakably clear, employing genitive absolutes with a present participle (usually λέγοντος) and adding a clarifying ἔτι to ensure that his own reading audience is aware that his character or characters were still speaking at the time of subsequent words or deeds. In this manner, kings and consuls are interrupted, patricians and plebeians are interrupted, and even the authoritarian decemvir Appius Claudius finds his speaking rights violated, as Rome morphs from monarchy to oligarchy to decemvirate and beyond.

2.9 The Anabasis of Alexander and Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.) In addition to serving as a Roman senator, consul, and governor, Lucius Flavius Arrianus was a prolific author. 320 Of his extant works, the two that might be considered historiographical are his Anabasis of Alexander and Indica, both of which were composed in the early or mid-

317 318 319 320

See his critique of Thucydides’ use of speeches in Thuc. 14, 17-18, 34-49. Ant. rom. 7.17.3. Cf. Ant. rom. 5.11.1; 6.81.1. For details on Arrian’s political offices, see A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s ‘History of Alexander’ (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1980-1995), 1:1-3.

96

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

second century.321 The former work has gained more attention by far, both for its account of the famous Macedonian and for its apparently conscious modeling after the Anabasis of Xenophon. Either Arrian himself titled his history of Alexander ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΑΝΑΒΑΣΕΩΣ, or later critics were unable to resist assigning this label to a work in seven books by a man who styled himself as a new Xenophon.322 Arrian actually compares his history to the famous Anabasis of his predecessor; as Xenophon made famous the exploits of the Ten Thousand, so Arrian will bring praise to Alexander by making known ἐς ἀνθρώπους τὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔργα (“among men the deeds of Alexander”).323 In a similar vein, Arrian pays homage to the Father of History by writing his Indica in the Ionic dialect used by Herodotus. 324 We are not surprised, then, to find Arrian making bold claims about his literary prowess: οὐκ ἀπαξιῶ ἐμαυτὸν τῶν πρώτων ἐν τῇ φωνῇ τῇ Ἑλλάδι, εἴπερ οὖν καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὅπλοις (“I do not consider myself unworthy of mention among the foremost Greek writers, if indeed Alexander was also among the foremost in bearing arms”). 325 Much more interested in narrating the many military victories of Alexander than in composing speeches, Arrian employed interruption very sparingly in these two works.

2.9.1 Turn-Taking in Arrian Arrian’s narratives include very little discourse, direct or indirect. Rarely, then, do we see turn-taking depicted. One such instance is in Book 7 of the Anabasis, when Alexander begins to disband his army at Opis. The troops judged unfit for continued service grow discontent. After executing thirteen of the disgruntled protesters, Alexander mounts the βῆμα (“platform”) to address them. 326 He expresses his frustration with

321 See the detailed discussion in Philip A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 8-11. Regarding the Anabasis, Stadter “suggests a date of composition before 125, when Arrian was in his thirties” (11). 322 For a discussion of the manuscript evidence, see Bosworth, Historical Commentary, 1:7-8. 323 Arrian, Anab. 1.12.4. Citations and translations from the Anabasis of Alexander and Indica are based on the text of A. G. Roos and G. Wirth, eds., Flavii Arriani Quae Exstant Omnia (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1967-1968). 324 Stadter, Arrian, 116-17. 325 Arrian, Anab. 1.12.5. 326 Arrian, Anab. 7.8.3.

The Anabasis Anabasis of of Alexander Alexander and Indica Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.)

97

the troops, then jumps down from the βῆμα, and storms off into his palace. The stunned troops remain at the foot of the βῆμα in silence.327 Also telling is Arrian’s use of his source materials. At the outset of the Anabasis, Arrian identifies Ptolemy son of Lagus and Aristobulus son of Aristobulus as his two primary sources.328 Much of Arrian’s material also appears to come from “the so-called vulgate tradition,” shared by Diodorus Siculus and others. 329 In Book 17 of Diodorus’ Library of History, a book that constituted a biography of Alexander the Great, we found one instance of rhetorical interruption. In a council convened to discuss the offer made by King Darius of the Persians, one of Alexander’s generals, Parmenion, suggests accepting the apparently generous offer. Alexander is disgusted by Parmenion’s readiness to come to terms, and he interrupts the advice of his subordinate: ὁ δ᾽ Ἀλέξανδρος ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν, Κἀγω εἰ Παρμενίων ἦν ἔλαβον ἄν (“But Alexander interrupted [him] and said, ‘If I were Parmenion, I would too!’”).330 Arrian likely had access to this version of the story, with its lively direct discourse and interruptive power play. However, his account of this same interaction is given in muted indirect discourse, and Alexander answers rather than interrupts Parmenion: Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ Παρμενίωνι ἀποκρίνασθαι (“But Alexander answered Parmenion”).331 If Arrian did have access to the same vulgate tradition found in Diodorus Siculus, then he chose to eliminate both the direct discourse and the interruption from his narrative.

2.9.2 Interrupted Speech in the Anabasis of Alexander In the entire Anabasis, there is only one interruption. Above, we discussed an interruption in Diodorus Siculus that was apparently omitted by Arrian. In Book 7 of the Anabasis, on the other hand, we find an interruption in Arrian that is not present in Diodorus. Returning to the scene at Opis, where Alexander had berated his unruly troops and then left them in silence, we find that the soldiers quickly renewed their affection for their general. When they arrive at the palace, Alexander 327 Arrian, Anab. 7.11.2. 328 The prooemium to Book 1 of the Anabasis begins as follows: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Λάγου καὶ Ἀριστόβουλος ὁ Ἀριστοβούλου […]. 329 Stadter, Arrian, 29. For Cleitarchus as the probable source of the vulgate tradition, see A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 9-13. 330 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.5. 331 Arrian, Anab. 2.25.2.

98

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

appears, and an old soldier named Callines explains the army’s grievance. When he accuses Alexander of showing favoritism toward the Persians and of letting them be called συγγενεῖς Ἀλεξάνδρου (“Alexander’s kinsmen”), the Macedonian leader rebukes him: ἔνθα δὴ ὑπολαβὼν Ἀλέξανδρος, ἀλλ’ ὑμᾶς τε, ἔφη, ξύμπαντας ἐμαυτῷ τίθεμαι συγγενεῖς (“At just that point, Alexander interrupted and said, ‘But I count you all as my kinsmen!’”). 332 Alexander’s response wins over the soldiers, and all are reconciled as a result of this interruption of a soldier by his general. It is interesting also to note that this interruption does not occur in the middle of Arrian’s Anabasis, like the interruptions in Xenophon’s Anabasis.333 Instead, like the interruptions in the final books of Herodotus and Thucydides, the interruption in Arrian’s Anabasis appears in the final book, in proximity to the climax of the overall plot.334

2.9.3 Interrupted Speech in the Indica This pattern of reserving interruptions for the endings of texts continues in the Indica of Arrian, a treatise that he had promised the readers of the Anabasis he would write.335 The Indica is a blend of ethnographical description and historical narrative. Arrian begins with a lengthy description of Indian geography, customs, and origins; although this material constitutes more than a third of the work, Arrian labels it as an ἐκβολή.336 The majority of the remainder of the account details the voyage of Alexander’s navy under the leadership of Nearchus. 337 After narrating the exploits and trials of Nearchus’ fleet, Arrian finally tells how Nearchus learns of his ships’ proximity to the camp of the land-based troops. When Nearchus and a few companions meet Alexander, the Macedonian general is delighted and relieved, vowing never to let Nearchus again depart on such a risky errand. Nearchus is not content quietly to obey his king’s command: Νέαρχος δὲ ὑπο-

332 Arrian, Anab. 7.11.7. See Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.109.3 for the compressed parallel account, which is devoid of any direct discourse. 333 All of the interruptions in Xenophon’s Anabasis are found in Book 3. 334 Rhetorical interruptions appear in Books 8-9 of Herodotus and in Book 8 of Thucydides. 335 See Arrian, Anab. 5.5.1. 336 Arrian, Ind. 17.7. This “digression” extends from 1.1 to 17.7. 337 Arrian explains that his narrative is largely based on Nearchus’ account, which he references multiple times: e.g., Ind. 20.1.

The Anabasis Anabasis of of Alexander Alexander and Indica Indica of Arrian (2nd century C.E.)

99

λαβὼν λέγει (“But Nearchus interrupted and said…”).338 Nearchus interrupts the king and, while he affirms his loyalty to Alexander, he begs to be allowed to continue in his command. Alexander is quick to oblige: ἔτι λέγοντα παύει αὐτὸν Ἀλέξανδρος (“Alexander stopped him while he was still speaking”).339 Nearchus interrupts his superior, only to be interrupted in turn by Alexander. Yet, these interruptions are again cooperative; they spring not from a desire to dominate but from a desire to serve and to please.

2.9.4 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Arrian There are only three rhetorical interruptions in Arrian’s works, and they all take place in dialogue between Macedonians. Alexander is involved in each instance, either interrupting or being interrupted. The explanation may be found in a relevant observation by A. B. Bosworth: “The bias towards encomium explains much of Arrian’s work.” 340 Arrian’s fixation on Alexander explains why the Macedonian is involved in every instance of rhetorical interruption; the encomiastic quality of his work explains why Alexander always interrupts or is interrupted cooperatively. The great general was so eager to please his troops, and his officers were so loyal to him, that turn-taking could be set aside when needed. In addition to the cooperative nature of Arrian’s interruptions, we should also attend to the placement of these interruptions. As in the Anabasis, so in the Indica, interrupted discourses are placed towards the end of the work, near decisive points in the plot. This general pattern was also present in Herodotus and Thucydides, who wrote monographs about specific wars, just as Arrian writes about a specific individual (in the Anabasis) and a specific voyage (in the Indica). Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, on the other hand, wrote longer histories that were less focused, and we find interruptions scattered throughout their works. At this point in our survey, it seems justifiable to posit a correlation between the appearance of rhetorical interruption and key narrative turning points. In works with a more universal scope and no single climax (Polybius, Diodorus, Dionysius), interruptions are scattered throughout. In works treating one specific subject (Homer’s Iliad, Herodotus’ Histories, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and 338 Arrian, Ind. 36.5. 339 Arrian, Ind. 36.7. 340 Bosworth, Historical Commentary, 1:15.

100

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Arrian’s Anabasis and Indica, as well as Books 8 (ΛΙΒΥΚΗ) and 12 (ΜΙΘΡΙΔΑΤΕΙΟΣ) of Appian’s Roman History), interruptions tend to be clustered around climactic events in the plot.

2.10 The Roman History of Appian of Alexandria Desiring to write yet another history of Rome, Appian of Alexandria chooses a novel scheme to justify his work.341 Instead of narrating events in chronological order, Appian organizes his history geographically: συγγράφω κατὰ ἔθνος ἕκαστον· ὅσα δὲ ἐν μέσῳ πρὸς ἑτέρους αὐτοῖς ἐγένετο, ἐξαίρω καὶ εἰς τὰ ἐκείνων μετατίθημι (“I write about each nation separately; as to contemporary events in other nations, I skip over them for the time being and transfer them to where they belong”).342 Thus, Appian will treat the Italians in Book 2, the Samnites in Book 3, the Gauls in Book 4, and so on. However, he does not adhere exclusively to the geographical principle of organization: Book 1 is entitled ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗΣ, treating the early kings of Rome, and the final five books of his Roman History retell the period of civil strife from the time of Tiberius Gracchus (133 B.C.E.) down to the death of Sextus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great (35 B.C.E.).343 Otherwise, Appian is generally faithful to his geographical plan, perhaps to a fault. If Dionysius of Halicarnassus criticized Thucydides for his rigid structuring by summers and winters, then the same rhetorician likely would not have approved of Appian’s Iberica (Book 6), which begins to tell the story of Hannibal, only to break off as soon as Hannibal leaves Spain! 344 In addition to these interrupted stories, Appian’s Roman History includes eighteen rhetorical interruptions and four interruptions by external events. 341 Appian of Alexandria and Lucius Flavius Arrianus were contemporaries, and it is difficult to date their major works absolutely. However, the evidence suggests that Appian used Arrian’s Anabasis as one of his sources: see A. B. Bosworth, “Arrian’s Literary Development,” Classical Quarterly 22 (1972): 163-85, esp. 176-8. 342 Appian, Hist. rom. Prooem.13.49. Citations and translations from the first twelve books of the Roman History are based on the text of P. Viereck, A. G. Roos, and E. Gabba, eds., Appiani Historia Romana I (Leipzig: Teubner, 1962); citations and translations from the Civil Wars will be based on L. Mendelssohn and P. Viereck, eds., Appiani Historia Romana II (Leipzig: Teubner, 1905). 343 Although these final five books of Civil Wars are part of Appian’s Historia romana (Hist. rom.), they will be cited separately as the Bella civilia (Bell. civ.). 344 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 9. Of course, any artificial scheme is prone to disrupt the naturally interlocking web of human events, so such criticism would seem overly harsh.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

101

2.10.1 Turn-Taking in Appian Although the surviving books are grouped together as Appian’s Roman History, the individual books devoted to various nations are somewhat uneven in their length and in their use of discourse. For instance, there is not a word of direct discourse in Book 10 (ΙΛΛΥΡΙΚΗ), whereas several lengthy speeches are found in the Civil Wars.345 Still, we find contested speaking turns present throughout the Roman History, offering ample evidence that Appian was aware of speaking rights and their significance. In the fragments of the Macedonian history, for instance, Appian reports that the Roman Sulpicius cannot gain the speaking floor to respond against the accusations of the various ambassadors speaking against him: ὁ μὲν Σουλπίκιος ἀντιλέξων ἀνίστατο, τὸ δὲ πλῆθος οὐκ ἤκουσεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεκράγεσαν τοὺς πρέσβεις εὖ λέγειν (“Sulpicius arose to respond; the crowd would not heed him, but cried out that the ambassadors had spoken well”).346 Overmatched, Sulpicius yields, and the Greeks make peace with Philip apart from Roman arbitration. There are also instances of failed attempts to gain the floor in the Civil Wars.347 More striking is the use of turn-taking to highlight the popularity of Julius Caesar in Book 2 of the Civil Wars. When his army mutinies, demanding a discharge, Caesar calls their bluff and discharges them, stating that he will pay them when he triumphs with another army.348 Caesar turns to leave, but his soldiers resist: ἀποστρεφομένου τε τοῦ Καίσαρος καὶ ἀπιόντος ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος, οἳ δὲ σὺν ἐπείξει πλέονι βοῶντες ἐνέκειντο παραμεῖναί τε αὐτὸν καὶ κολάζειν σφῶν τοὺς ἁμαρτόντας (“And when Caesar turned away and was leaving the platform, they cried out with greater urgency and insisted that he remain and chastise those among them who had done wrong”). 349 A new speaking turn is thrust upon him. After a short time, the oncemutinous troops successfully entreat Caesar to restore them to his good graces, and he leads his forces to Africa against Cato.

345 See, for example, Brutus’ public defense in Bell. civ. 2.137.570-141.591, or the lengthy pre-battle harangue of Cassius in Bell. civ. 4.90.377-100.422. 346 Appian, Hist. rom. 9.3.4. For a similar instance, see the vain attempts of Mithridates to gain a speaking turn in Hist. rom. 12.81.365. 347 E.g., Bell. civ. 1.25.111; 2.142.594. 348 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.93.391. 349 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.94.393.

102

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

2.10.2 Interrupted Speech in the Roman History The assorted fragments of Book 1 preserve no interruptions, but the equally scant remnants of Appian’s second book, ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΙΤΑΛΙΚΗΣ, do contain one interruption from a familiar scene. The longest extant fragment retells the famous embassy of Veturia to her son, Marcius Coriolanus.350 In Appian’s account, Marcius tries to dissuade his mother from her errand, urging her to join him instead. His entreaties are unsuccessful: ἣ δὲ ἔτι λέγοντος ἀγανακτήσασα καὶ τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνασχοῦσα θεοὺς γενεθλίους ἐμαρτύρατο (“But while [Marcius] was still speaking, she grew irritated and, lifting her hands up to heaven, she invoked the family gods”).351 After bewailing her fate, Veturia throws herself on the ground. Her power play succeeds: stunned by his mother’s actions, Marcius immediately relents and withdraws his army. The fragmentary history of the Samnites in Book 3 passes without interruption, but a surviving excerpt from Book 4’s history of the Gauls features a rhetorical interruption. The Roman consul Camillus had led successful campaigns against the Faliscans and Veii. However, he was then fined by the tribunes; consequently, he left Rome.352 When the Gauls besiege the city, Caedicius is appointed commander of the Roman Army, and bearing a decree of the Roman senate, he seeks out Camillus to enjoin the latter to deliver Rome. Camillus is so eager to accept that he interrupts Caedicius: ὃ δὲ ἐπισχὼν αὐτὸν ἔτι λέγοντα εἶπεν (“but he stopped him while he was still speaking and said”).353 This cooperative interruption highlights the nobility of Camillus, who is quick to forgive his country’s wrongs against him. A more violent interruption occurs in Book 6, ΙΒΗΡΙΚΗ. When Scipio’s army mutinies, the sickly Roman general invites the troops to return to the camp, promising compensation. Scipio then assembles the rebels and punishes only the ringleaders. Just as Odysseus slew the suitors, so Scipio puts a violent end to the organizers of the mutiny: τοὺς ἐπιφθεγγομένους εὐθὺς ἔκτεινον οἱ χιλίαρχοι (“the military 350 Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.1-13. Cf. the parallel account of Veturia’s mission and the end of Coriolanus in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.39.1-59.4. 351 Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.12. Note the differences between the accounts of Dionysius and Appian. According to Dionysius, Coriolanus interrupts his mother’s initial speaking turn (8.47.1), and following his response, she waits silently until the applause at his words has ended (8.48.1). Appian’s account gives the reverse: Marcius respects her speaking turn (2.5.11), and she interrupts him (2.5.12). 352 Fragments of Dionysius’ account of Camillus survive in Ant. rom. 13.1.1-6.5. 353 Appian, Hist. rom. 4.5.1.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

103

tribunes immediately killed those who were speaking”). 354 The agents of justice, at Scipio’s command, put to death the faithless leaders of the mutiny, denying their appeals for help. As in the previous two cases, the interrupted discourse is given in oratio obliqua. In his retelling of the Third Punic War in Book 8 (ΛΙΒΥΚΗ), Appian introduces more direct discourse into his narrative, and here we find our first intentional interruption of oratio recta. Having decided to destroy Carthage, the Romans first order the Carthaginians to give hostages, and then to give up their arms. When the Carthaginians swiftly comply with both demands, the Roman consul L. Marcius Censorinus then adds that they must abandon the city of Carthage and settle elsewhere. Upon learning of the Roman plan to raze their city, the Carthaginian envoys are appalled: οἳ δ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τὰς χεῖρας ἐς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνέσχον μετὰ βοῆς καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ὡς ἠπατημένοι κατεκάλουν (“and while he was still speaking, they raised their hands toward heaven with a shout and called upon the gods as having been cheated”).355 After full cooperation with the Romans, the Carthaginians are stunned to hear that the Romans still intend to raze their city. In fact, the final word of Censorinus’ discourse is κατασκάψαι (“to raze”), and the claim of interruption, ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ, connects this threat to the Carthaginian envoys’ impassioned response. When the Carthaginians recover and ask the Romans to reconsider their plan, Censorinus rebukes them and dispels any hope that the Romans will relent. The envoys eventually ask for one final speaking turn, which is granted, and they go on to explain to the Romans that, as bearers of bad news, they expect to be killed upon their return to the city: ἐλπίζομεν…ὑπὸ Καρχηδονίων ἔτι λέγοντες ἀπολεῖσθαι (“we expect…to be killed by the Carthaginians while we are still speaking”).356 The envoys here provide us with our first instance of predicted rhetorical interruption. The failed ambassadors prove to be slightly more successful as prophets: οἱ δὲ πρέσβεις ἀπήγγελλον πρῶτα μὲν τὸ κέλευσμα τῶν ὑπάτων· καὶ εὐθὺς ἦν βοὴ τῆς γερουσίας, καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἔξω συνεβόα (“The envoys were first announcing the command of the consuls; and immediately there was an outcry in the senate, and the people outside cried out too”).357 On one hand, Appian has not underscored the interruption by the addition of a word like ἔτι or μεταξύ. 354 Appian, Hist. rom. 6.36.145. Cf. the death of Leiodes, who was killed φθεγγομένου (“while he was speaking”), in Homer, Od. 22.329. The parallel account of this mutiny in Polybius does not include a rhetorical interruption (Hist. 11.30.1-4). 355 Appian, Hist. rom. 8.81.379. 356 Appian, Hist. rom. 8.90.424. 357 Appian, Hist. rom. 8.91.431.

104

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

On the other, the imperfect ἀπήγγελλον does imply that the envoys’ speaking turn was ongoing when the senate “immediately” (εὐθύς) cried out. Thus, just as the envoys had interrupted the Romans in order to express their shock and dismay, so the senate now expresses its distress without regard to speaking rights. Soon, the envoys will be in danger of losing more than their speaking rights; the senate only interrupted them, but the people soon seize and stone the envoys. 358 The interruption of the Roman Censorinus by the Carthaginian envoys in Book 8 came during the final diplomatic interchange prior to the destruction of Carthage. Similarly, the next interruption occurs during the final negotiations between the Roman Sulla and King Mithridates of Pontus in Book 12 (ΜΙΘΡΙΔΑΤΕΙΟΣ), negotiations which brought to an end the First Mithridatic War. Following the defeat of Mithridates’ forces at Orchomenus, Mithridates sends his general Archelaus to sue for peace. The Roman consul, Cornelius Sulla, receives Archelaus, rejects Mithridates’ excuses, and reminds Archelaus of the king’s past betrayals. At this intimation, Archelaus interrupts Sulla: ὃ δ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τὴν πεῖραν ἀπεσείετο καὶ δυσχεράνας ἔφη τὸν ἐγχειρίσαντά οἱ τὴν στρατηγίαν οὔ ποτε προδώσειν (“while [Sulla] was still speaking, [Archelaus] rejected his offer and said with disgust that he would never turn traitor against the one who entrusted him with the generalship”).359 As the Carthaginian envoys interrupted a Roman consul at the mention of the razing of their city, so the general of Mithridates interrupts a Roman consul at the suggestion of treachery against the King. Nevertheless, Archelaus eventually accepts Sulla’s terms, referring them to King Mithridates. When the King shows himself reluctant to give in, Sulla confronts him and rebukes him. Sulla’s speech is quite effective: τοσαῦτα τοῦ Σύλλα μετ᾽ ὀργῆς ἔτι λέγοντος μετέπιπτεν ὁ βασιλεύς (“While Sulla was still saying such things in an angry manner, the king repented”).360 In this conclusion to the First Mithridatic War, the king does not infringe upon Sulla’s speaking turn, but rather capitulates meekly, bringing hostilities to an end, for a short time. As Appian’s account of the Civil Wars begins, the concentration of interruptions increases. After a short proem that summarizes his history, Appian begins with the introduction of a new round of agrarian legislation by a Roman tribune, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. When Gracchus orders the clerk to read his proposed law to the assembled 358 Appian, Hist. rom. 8.92.433. 359 Appian, Hist. rom. 12.55.221. 360 Appian, Hist. rom. 12.58.240.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

105

people, another tribune, Marcus Octavius, orders the clerk to be silent. The next day, the clerk is again ordered to read; he begins, but Octavius interrupts the reading: καὶ ἀνεγίνωσκε καὶ Ὀκταουίου κωλύοντος ἐσιώπα (“And [the clerk] began to read, but he was silent when Octavius checked him”).361 The law cannot come to a vote if it is not read out to the people, and the controversy between Gracchus and Octavius results in the latter tribune being deposed from his office by the people. Although indicative of civil conflict, the interruption of the clerk should be classified with other instances of a person of lower social status being silenced by their superior.362 Later in Book 1 of the Civil Wars, Appian narrates how, following the close of the Social War, the discord in Rome transitions from occasional rioting to full-blown battles. At the behest of Gaius Marius, a tribune, Publius Sulpicius, summons the two consuls, Cornelius Sulla and Quintus Pompeius, to force them to enact new legislation, but both consuls quickly realize that the assembly is turning into a lynch mob. The consuls escape, but Pompeius’ son remains behind. As he speaks his mind, he is killed: παρρησιαζόμενόν τι καὶ λέγοντα κτείνουσιν οἱ τοῦ Σουλπικίου στασιῶται (“the partisans of Sulpicius killed him while he was speaking rather freely”).363 This interruption of a speaker by his hearers is comparable to many other occasions of violent interruption by the unjust of the just, frequently during periods of widespread chaos and disorder. A very similar interruption occurs shortly thereafter, as another victim of the στάσεις succumbs while speaking. The famed orator and former consul Marcus Antonius takes refuge in a house, and when soldiers are sent to kill him, he attempts to survive by means of his rhetorical prowess. The soldiers’ commander grows impatient, and when he comes to investigate, he finds Antonius succeeding in his designs: τοὺς στρατιώτας εὑρὼν ἀκροωμένους ἔκτεινε τὸν Ἀντώνιον ῥητορεύοντα ἔτι καὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἔπεμψε τῷ Μαρίῳ (“finding his soldiers listening, [he] killed Antonius while the latter was still holding forth and sent his head to Marius”).364 Given that Antonius was addressing the soldiers, the interruptive actions of their commander should be considered external events; Antonius is not interrupted by

361 362 363 364

Appian, Bell. civ. 1.12.49. Cf., e.g., the interruptions of poets in Homer, Od. 1.340-41; 8.94-103. Appian, Bell. civ. 1.56.247. Appian, Bell. civ. 1.72.335.

106

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

his hearers. Instead, another innocent victim falls to the murderous supporters of Marius.365 Another interruption by external events takes place in Book 2, when Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey join together to form the first triumvirate. Early in the process, Caesar is the only one of the three to hold the consulship. Caesar holds an assembly to promote his agrarian legislation, but his colleague Lucius Bibulus conspires with the senate to counteract Caesar. Moving quickly, Bibulus interrupts Caesar’s popular harangue: ὁ Βύβλος ἐνέβαλεν ἐς τὴν ἀγορὰν δημηγοροῦντος ἔτι τοῦ Καίσαρος (“Bibulus rushed into the Forum while Caesar was still addressing the people”).366 Violence breaks out, and Bibulus is forced to flee. When Bibulus departs, Cato comes to continue opposition against Caesar. Whereas Bibulus interrupted Caesar, Cato finds himself interrupted: δημηγορεῖν ἤρχετο, μετέωρος δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν Καίσαρος ἀρθεὶς ἐξεφέρετο (“he began to address the people, but he was lifted into the air by Caesar’s partisans and carried away”). 367 When Cato secretively returns to make another speech, he is interrupted yet again: τοῦ δὲ Καίσαρος ἀγροίκως κατεβόα, μέχρι καὶ τότε μετέωρος ἐξερρίφη (“he was rudely denouncing Caesar until he was picked up and cast out again”).368 Cato twice fails to preserve his speaking turn, as the powerful partisans of Caesar are willing to employ any means to achieve their ends. Cato is ejected, and Caesar enacts the agrarian legislation. Further threats quell dissent, and Caesar continues his legislative agenda unimpeded by further contests over speaking turns. 369 The interruptions of Julius Caesar and of Cato the Younger are followed by the interruption of Marcus Tullius Cicero, who is accused by the tribune Clodius Pulcher of putting citizens to death without a trial. Cicero is afraid of going on trial; debasing himself, he dons dirty clothes and takes his appeal to the streets of Rome. There, he is interrupted by Clodius himself: Κλωδίου δὲ καὶ τὰς παρακλήσεις αὐτῷ σὺν ὕβρει διακόπτοντος (“But when Clodius arrogantly interrupted [Cicero’s] appeals…”).370 The presence of the pronoun αὐτῷ suggests that Clodius was Cicero’s audience at the time of interruption. As the 365 Gowing attributes the inclusion of this anecdote to Appian’s “fundamental ethical concerns” in Alain M. Gowing, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), 265. 366 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.11.38. 367 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.11.40. 368 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.11.41. 369 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.12.42-13.46. 370 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.15.57.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

107

social unrest continues, Clodius takes advantage of his status as a tribune to violate Cicero’s speaking rights, and the latter flees Rome. Thus, this interruption is both a power play and a symptom of the chaotic political conditions in Rome. When the political situation in Rome further deteriorates following the death of Crassus, the contest for the consulship descends into violence. Milo kills his fellow tribune Clodius Pulcher, and he then tries to clear himself by bribing a tribune and hiring a jury. However, Milo’s defense speech, in which he maintains that the act was not premeditated and accuses Clodius of wanton behavior and of keeping bad company, is interrupted by external events: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος οἵ τε λοιποὶ δήμαρχοι καὶ τοῦ δήμου τὸ ἀδιάφθορον ὁπλισάμενοι ἐνέβαλον ἐς τὴν ἀγοράν (“but while he was still speaking, the rest of the tribunes and the people who had not been bribed rushed into the Forum, fully armed”).371 Like other interruptions by external events, the interruption serves to heighten the drama of the scene. Significantly, we may note that it is the first interrupted discourse in the Civil Wars where the discourse itself is preserved. The content of the previous seven interrupted discourses was only characterized generally as a reading of a law or as abuse of another politician. In this case, Appian actually recounts Milo’s defense. In general, Appian has thus far concerned himself not with the discourses themselves, but with the lawless and violent behavior of the people of Rome. Pompey is then appointed as the sole consul, giving him unlimited power. When Pompey passes a law that invites the bringing of accusations against any Roman officials who had held office since Pompey first was a consul (almost twenty years earlier), the accusations fly. Scaurus is one target, and he is brought to court and convicted, in spite of his vociferous supporters: καὶ πάλιν τοῦ δήμου τοὺς κατηγόρους ἐνοχλοῦντος, σφαγή τις ἐκ τῶν Πομπηίου στρατιωτῶν ἐπιδραμόντων ἐγένετο, καὶ ὁ μὲν δῆμος κατεσιώπησεν, ὁ δὲ Σκαῦρος ἑάλω (“and when the people again harassed the accusers, some of Pompey’s soldiers attacked and made a slaughter; the people grew silent, and Scaurus was convicted”).372 Here we have two interruptions. First, the people try to shout down those who are accusing Scaurus. Given the public context of the accusers’ discourse, the interrupting people might be considered part of the audience. This rhetorical interruption is yet another sign of the overthrow of law and order during the civil wars. Secondly, we have an interruption by external events, as 371 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.22.82. 372 Appian, Bell. civ. 2.24.91.

108

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Pompey’s soldiers interrupt the protesters, depriving several of life and speaking rights. Thus ends the concentration of interruptions in Book 2: Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon and subsequent rule over Rome brings some measure of stability to the beleaguered city. Caesar’s death, however, unleashes a new round of infighting and turmoil. Octavian, the adoptive son of Caesar, returns to Rome at the beginning of Book 3, and he first meets with his mother and step-father. When Octavian vows to avenge Caesar, his mother is delighted: καὶ λέγειν ἔτι ἐπισχοῦσα ἐπέσπερχεν ἐς τὰ ἐγνωσμένα σὺν τῇ τύχῃ (“and stopping [him] while he was still speaking, she urged him to pursue his plans with good fortune”).373 While Octavian’s mother clearly interrupts him, the interruption is cooperative and signifies her exuberant endorsement of Octavian’s designs.374 Another cooperative rhetorical interruption occurs later in Book 3. When Antony is about to be declared a public enemy of the state, his family members try to move the senate to reconsider. Marcus Tullius Cicero responds with a diatribe against Antony; it is well received: ταῦτ᾽ ἔτι τοῦ Κικέρωνος λέγοντος oἱ φίλοι θορυβοῦντες ἀπαύστως οὐδενὶ ἀντειπεῖν ἐπέτρεπον (“While Cicero was still saying these things, his friends broke into sustained applause and would not allow anyone to oppose him”).375 The friends of Cicero cooperatively violate the orator’s speaking turn in order to prevent anyone else from taking the floor against him. Antony is condemned and later vanquished, but he unexpectedly raises a new force, which leads to unrest in Rome. Octavian tries to capitalize on the situation by seeking the consulship, and certain of his centurions go to the senate to make a case for their commander. The senate rebukes them: ταῦτα τῶν λοχαγῶν σὺν πλέονι παρρησίᾳ λεγόντων, οὐκ ἀνασχόμενοί τινες τῶν βουλευτῶν λοχαγοὺς ὄντας ὧδε παρρησιάζεσθαι, ἐπέπλησσον ὡς θρασυνομένοις ὑπὲρ τὸ στρατιώταις πρέπον (“While the centurions were speaking with great boldness, some of the senators could not bear such freedom of speech from centurions and rebuked them as being more bold than it was fitting for soldiers to be”).376 This interruption is a clear power play; the senators are putting the centurions back in their place, showing that the former have authority over the latter. However, the civil discord was 373 Appian, Bell. civ. 3.14.48. Cf. similar wording in Hist. rom. 4.5.1. 374 For a very different interruption by a mother, see the confrontation between Marcius Coriolanus and his mother Veturia in Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.12. For the significance of this meeting, see Gowing, Triumviral Narratives, 65-66. 375 Appian, Bell. civ. 3.54.221. 376 Appian, Bell. civ. 3.88.362.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

109

constantly upsetting these normal political structures, and the army of Octavian was soon clamoring to install him as consul by force. Book 4 opens with the establishment of the second triumvirate, composed of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. One of their first acts is the proscription, which again sends the city into a panic. When the proscription fails to provide necessary funds for the upcoming war with Brutus and Cassius, the triumvirs decide to tax the women of the city. The women protest, and Hortensia acts as their spokeswoman. She is forcefully interrupted: τοιαῦτα τῆς Ὁρτησίας λεγούσης, οἱ τρεῖς ἠγανάκτουν, εἰ γυναῖκες ἀνδρῶν ἡσυχαζόντων θρασυνοῦνταί τε καὶ ἐκκλησιάσουσι…ἐκέλευόν τε τοῖς ὑπηρέταις ἐξωθεῖν αὐτὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ βήματος (“While Hortensia was saying such things, the triumvirs grew vexed that women were being so bold as to enter into public debate while men were silent…and they ordered the attendants to drive the women away from the platform”).377 Just as the senators asserted their authority over the centurions in the previous example, now the triumvirs assert their authority, as men and as triumvirs, over Hortensia and the other Roman women. Later in Book 4, Octavian and Antony lead an army against the republican forces, which are led by Brutus and Cassius. A Thracian prince named Rhascupolis volunteers to show Brutus and Cassius a circuitous path to Philippi, in order to avoid the pass that has been fortified by the triumvirs’ forces. When the expedition takes longer than promised, Rhascupolis finds himself suddenly unpopular: ὅτε ἴδοιεν περιθέοντα καὶ παρακαλοῦντα, ἐλοιδόρουν καὶ ἔβαλλον (“when [the soldiers] saw [Rhascupolis] riding around and encouraging them, they began to reproach him and tried to stone him”). 378 Afraid of running out of water and angry at Rhascupolis’ false promises, the weary soldiers interrupt the Thracian’s speaking turns with verbal and physical abuse. Brutus and Cassius are later defeated, and Book 5 opens with Antony’s travels in the eastern Mediterranean. His first stop is Ephesus, where he assembles the other Asiatic Greeks and demands that they pay him the equivalent of the taxes of ten years. The Ephesians and other Greeks are crushed by this demand: οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ταῦτα ἐρρίπτουν ἑαυτοὺς ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος, ἀνάγκην καὶ βίαν ἐς αὑτοὺς ἐκ Βρούτου καὶ Κασσίου γενομένας ἐπιλέγοντες οὐκ ἐπιτιμίων ἀξίας εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐλέου (“but while he was still saying these things, the Greeks threw themselves onto the ground, adding that they 377 Appian, Bell. civ. 4.34.145. 378 Appian, Bell. civ. 4.104.435.

110

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

had been compelled and forced by Brutus and Cassius and that they deserved not punishment, but rather pity”).379 This interruption is clearly no assertion of authority, nor is it a sign of hostility. Instead, overwhelmed with despair, the Greeks forsake all decorum and show no respect for Antony’s speaking rights as they appeal for mercy. This is the final interruption in the Civil Wars; the remainder of Book 5 treats the conflict between Octavian and Sextus Pompeius, whose death brings the book to a close.

2.10.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Appian Appian’s total of twenty-two interruptions matches him with Polybius; only Dionysius of Halicarnassus has more.380 Interestingly, it is the three historians of Rome who employ interruption most frequently, and the Roman Forum is by far the most popular site of interruption.381 In our discussion of Appian’s use of rhetorical interruption, we may note both the location of the interruptions within the larger narratives and the variety of interruptions employed. First, in discussing the location of interruptions, we should keep in mind that Appian’s Roman History would perhaps better be titled a Library of Roman History, for the various books generally stand alone, with the exception of the Civil Wars. Thus, there is no continuous narrative, no overarching plot, and no single climax. However, if we look at the individual books, we find two narratives that do feature interruptions at significant points in the plot: Books 8 (ΛΙΒΥΚΗ) and 12 (ΜΙΘΡΙΔΑΤΕΙΟΣ). As mentioned above, intentional interruptions mark the final diplomatic interchanges of both the Third Punic War and the First Mithridatic War. In both cases, the foreign envoys interrupt the Roman consul in charge of the war: the Carthaginian envoys interrupt Censorinus, and Archelaus, the general of Mithridates, interrupts Sul379 Appian, Bell. civ. 5.6.26. 380 As Table 2 shows, Polybius has nineteen rhetorical interruptions and three interruptions by external events; Dionysius has nineteen rhetorical interruptions and five interruptions by external events; and Appian has eighteen rhetorical interruptions and four interruptions by external events. 381 Fourteen rhetorical interruptions take place in the Roman Forum: eight in the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (4.37.4; 5.11.1; 5.11.2; 7.35.1; 7.62.3; 10.41.1; 11.32.1; 11.36.1), and six in the Civil Wars of Appian (1.12.49; 1.56.247; 2.11.40; 2.11.41; 2.24.91; 4.34.145). The next most popular site is the Roman Senate, where five rhetorical interruptions occur: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.71.1; 11.4.4; 11.6.1; Appian, Bell. civ. 3.54.221; 3.88.362. In the next chapter, Flavius Josephus will provide another example of fondness for interruption among historians of Rome.

The Roman Roman History History of Appian of Alexandria

111

la.382 In both cases, a particular word appears to trigger the interruption. The Carthaginians are thunderstruck by the mention of razing their city, and Archelaus is indignant at Sulla’s invitation to betray Mithridates. Finally, in both cases, the interrupting envoys give in to the Roman demands. This correlation between intentional interruption and narrative climax, however, is apparently only present at these two points in the Roman History of Appian. By way of contrast, the Civil Wars show by the frequency of interruption the extent of the political upheaval. The emphasis thus falls on the interruptions themselves, not the relationship between the discourse and the narrative. As mentioned above, the first seven interruptions in the Civil Wars can be described as interrupted discourses, but Appian does not report any of the interrupted speech. 383 We are told that a speaking turn is violated, but there is only the slightest intimation as to what exactly was being said. Appian here uses the device of rhetorical interruption to accentuate the intensity of the civil discord, not to put the spotlight on the content of the interrupted discourses. As in Polybius, then, interruption in Appian’s Roman History generally is linked to conflict. While they cannot be fully separated from each other, most of the interruptions can be labeled as status-based power plays or as clashes between people of different moral standing. In the first category are the interruptions of a clerk by a tribune, of a humbled Cicero by another tribune, of the audacious centurions by the senators, and of Hortensia and the Roman women by the triumvirs. 384 In each case, the authority of the interrupting audience enables them to violate speaking turns at ease. The next category features interruptions motivated by piety or disdain for piety. Claiming the moral high ground, Veturia interrupts her son Coriolanus, military tribunes interrupt mutinous soldiers with execution, the people interrupt the accusers of Scaurus, and the Greeks beg Antony for mercy. 385 On the other hand, we see the impious flagrantly and violently disregard the speaking turns of others: the son of a consul is killed while speaking, and Cato is twice ejected from the Forum.386 Other interruptions seem to reflect the chaos and violence that were rampant in this tumultuous time: the Carthaginian senate puts its own envoys to death, and Roman soldiers 382 383 384 385

Appian, Hist. rom. 8.81.379 and 12.55.221, respectively. Appian, Bell. civ. 1.12.49; 1.56.247; 1.72.335; 2.11.38; 2.11.40; 2.11.41; 2.15.57. Appian, Bell. civ. 1.12.49; 2.15.57; 3.88.362; 4.34.145. Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.12; 6.36.145; Bell. civ. 2.24.91; 5.6.26. Cf. also the interruption of Censorinus by the Carthaginians in Hist. rom. 8.81.379 and of Sulla by Archelaus in Hist. rom. 12.55.221. 386 Appian, Bell. civ. 1.56.247; 2.11.40; 2.11.41.

112

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

stone their Thracian guide.387 In fact, of the thirteen interruptions discussed in this paragraph, three conclude with the death of the speaker, and four involve the use of physical force to silence the speaker. Not every interruption involves the use of political authority or physical force; like Polybius, Appian also includes some instances of cooperative interruption. Thus, Camillus is so eager to return to serve his country that he interrupts Caedicius.388 Octavian’s mother is so delighted with her son’s plans that she interrupts the future triumvir and emperor.389 Lastly, Cicero’s friends cut the famous orator off with loud applause, in order to forestall others from taking the floor and opposing him.390 Interruptions can be triggered by both receptive and hostile audiences, although we have observed that the latter are much more common in Appian and in other Greek historians.

2.11 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography As Table 2 illustrates, we can lay to rest Dibelius’ observation that Luke’s use of intentional interruption of a speaker by his hearers has “no parallel in the writings of the historians.” 391 We have observed the use of intentional interruption in eight of the nine authors surveyed. 392 Thus, we will proceed to summarize the usage of each individual author, and we will close by setting forth our conclusions about the use of rhetorical interruption in Greek historiography.

387 388 389 390 391

Appian, Hist. rom. 8.91.431; Bell. civ. 4.104.435. Appian, Hist. rom. 4.5.1. Appian, Bell. civ. 3.14.48. Appian, Bell. civ. 3.54.221. Dibelius, Studies, 183. Dibelius has already been challenged on this count by other scholars, but this chapter offers more thorough evidence than any previous attempt. 392 For analysis of each of the eighty instances, see Appendix 1.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography

113

Table 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography Author, Work Homer, Iliad Homer, Odyssey Herodotus, Histories Thucydides, History Xenophon, Hellenica Xenophon, Anabasis Polybius, Histories Diodorus Siculus, Library of History Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander Arrian, Indica Appian, Roman History TOTAL:

Number of Intentional Interruptions 1 3

Number of Interruptions by External Events 1 4

4 0 0 2 19

4 1 1 1 3

11

2

19

5

1

0

2

0

18

4

80

26

2.11.1 Summary of Individual Authors‘ Use of Rhetorical Interruption Just as the “Story of Greek Historiography” begins with Homer, so our survey of the more than one hundred interrupted discourses in Greek historiography has begun with Homer.393 Given both the powerful use of intentional interruption by Homer and the pervasive influence of Homer on later historians from Herodotus of Halicarnassus to Appian of Alexandria, we can see how later historians may have had their first encounter with rhetorical interruption while attending a recitation of one of the famous epics. Three times in the two Homeric epics, a speaker is interrupted by a member of his audience.394 In each case, the motive for overthrowing the normally-observed turn-taking rules is an 393 For a summary of each of the intentionally interrupted speeches in this chapter, from Homer to Appian, see Appendix 1. 394 Homer, Il. 1.292; Od. 1.337; 22.329.

114

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

emotion that has been stirred by the speaker: Achilles’ wrath, Penelope’s sorrow, or Odysseus’ vengeful spirit. The most clearly marked interruption, that of Agamemnon by Achilles, is the most significant for the overall plot, as it marks the conflict around which the plot revolves. The way in which interruption can flag significant conflicts is one key lesson that Homer’s use of interruption teaches us. The other insight a close reading of Homer offers is that interruption is a big deal. Most of the interruptions discussed in the above pages take place in some sort of assembly. Soldiers may be assembled before battle, senators may be assembled to vote on legislation, or the people may be assembled to witness a trial. In these assemblies there are clear rules for taking the floor. A speaker will stand up to claim a speaking turn; in some assemblies, the speaker mounts a platform (βῆμα). While we have observed eighty speaking turns that are interrupted by the speaker’s audience, hundreds of speaking turns end in a more orderly fashion. Herodotus prefers emotional reactions to intentional interruptions, but the Halicarnassian does intersperse his accounts of the climactic battles of Salamis and Plataea with four rhetorical interruptions. Herodotus does not mark his interruptions as clearly; usually, the present participle λέγοντος (“while speaking”) forms part of a genitive absolute that signals the ongoing nature of the speaker’s turn. Thus, we see both continuity and discontinuity with Homer. Thucydides famously inserts longer speeches into his historiographical prose, but not one of these major discourses is interrupted. Instead, we find only a single interruption by external events, and this interruption comes during a brief pre-battle harangue. Either Thucydides was unaware of the rhetorical device, or he chose not to employ it.395 Xenophon preserves the narrative focus of Thucydides in his Hellenica, and interruption is likewise restricted to a single interruption by external events. However, his Anabasis, like the Iliad, features rhetorical interruption at the key turning point in the plot. Interestingly, Xenophon the author describes Xenophon the character interrupting another’s speech once and being interrupted twice. For our purposes, it is also worth noting that one of Xenophon’s speeches was interrupted by an external event: someone sneezed at the mention of σωτηρία, and

395 The unfinished nature of his History offers a less likely third possibility: Thucydides may have included the device in a later draft of his History, if he had lived longer.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography

115

the interrupting sneeze was interpreted to be οἰωνὸς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ σωτῆρος.396 Polybius uses intentional interruption more than all of our previous authors combined.397 In his varied usage, we find certain patterns beginning to emerge. In lawless and somewhat chaotic times, we see representatives of justice frequently interrupting, or being interrupted by, unscrupulous individuals. Also, status-based interruptions are common; high-ranking individuals of powerful nations do not hesitate to command others: Παῦσαι (“Cease!”).398 Unlike the Iliad or Anabasis, Polybius’ Histories do not match interruptions with turning points in the narrative; given the complexity of this first universal history, identifying one or two key turning points would be difficult. Diodorus Siculus includes several rhetorical interruptions in his Library of History, the longest extant piece of continuous prose in this survey. However, his interruptions are generally lightly marked, and the interrupted discourses are reported in indirect discourse, not reported at all, or composed of a single sentence in direct discourse. While some rhetorical effects can be observed, such as in the repeated interruption of Phocion and his friends in Book 18, we cannot draw any further conclusions; Diodorus was much more concerned with πράγματα than he was with λόγοι. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, whose rhetorical works are also extant, pays careful attention to the connections both between speaker and audience and between discourse and audience; speaking turns are very clearly marked. Interruptions are also clearly marked; Dionysius uses not only a present participle like λέγοντος (“while speaking”), but he also generally adds ἔτι or μεταξύ to show that the speaker was “still” speaking at the time of interruption.399 Moreover, his careful indications of how different groups received different parts of different speeches allow the greatest degree of rhetorical analysis. In his Roman Antiquities, interruption usually surfaces as a marker of deep conflict. In light of the number and intensity of political conflicts during the time Dionysius describes, the number and intensity of interruptions is not surprising. Arrian includes very little discourse in his Anabasis and Indica, yet we do find three rhetorical interruptions. In every case, Alexander the Great is involved either as the interrupter or the interrupted, and each

396 397 398 399

Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.9. Only Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses as many interruptions as Polybius. E.g., Polybius, Hist. 18.37.12. Of the nineteen intentional interruptions in his Roman Antiquities, eleven include either ἔτι or μεταξύ.

116

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

instance is cooperative. Thus, interruption underscores the enthusiastic devotion of Alexander towards his troops and of Alexander’s troops towards their general. Also, the scenes that involve interruption appear at climactic points in the narrative, as we have seen before in Homer and Xenophon. Appian employs interruption rather liberally; the Civil Wars alone have twelve rhetorical interruptions. While these and other interruptions can be categorized as status-based violations of turn-taking rules, as cooperative undertakings, or as conflicts between the pious and the impious, interruption seems to play a larger role in Books 8 (ΛΙΒΥΚΗ) and 12 (ΜΙΘΡΙΔΑΤΕΙΟΣ). In these two books, the final words of a Roman consul’s discourse trigger an immediate outburst of emotion from foreign envoys. Here we see highlighted the relationship between the content of a discourse and the audience of a discourse, as well as the relationship between the speaker, a representative of Rome, and the audience, a representative of an entity hostile to Rome.

2.11.2 The Various Functions of Interruption Again, throughout the histories surveyed, normal turn-taking is the rule, and rhetorical interruption is always the exception. What motives are attributed to hearers who interrupt a speaker? Phrased differently, why are certain hearers portrayed as disregarding conventional turntaking rules? Interruption is an extraordinary event, triggered by either an intense conflict between speaker and audience or an enthusiastic reception by the audience of the speaker’s message. The only interruptions that are not rooted in conflict or cooperation are those involving the interruption of a person of lower social status by an audience of higher social status or political authority. Cooperative interruptions appear in six of our authors; there are fifteen cooperative interruptions, which can be divided into two groups. Most commonly, a receptive audience signals their enthusiasm for the speaker’s discourse by affirming the speaker during the speaker’s turn.400 Frequently, an army will praise their commander during a prebattle harangue.401 Or, a friend or family member interrupts the speaker

400 E.g., Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6. 401 Polybius, Hist. 11.12.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.10.1; 11.42.1. The interruption of Alexander the Great by Nearchus in Arrian, Ind. 36.5, is similar.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography

117

due to affection or excitement.402 The other type of cooperative interruption is the interruptive provision of helpful information. For example, the Spartan ephors interrupt an Athenian complaint to explain that they already are sending help.403 Similarly, Alexander the Great interrupts his commander Nearchus to confirm the latter’s continuing command over the Macedonian fleet.404 Cooperative rhetorical interruptions mark extraordinary agreements and affections in a narrative. Interruptions motivated by higher social status or authority are the least rhetorically significant. The violation of a speaking turn can result from the caprice of a nobleman or the conciliatory desires of a gracious host. Thus, the Persian Tigranes freely interrupts a group of Arcadian deserters to comment upon their social customs, and the Roman Titus Flamininus checks the complaint of Phaeneas the Aetolian. 405 Alcinous, the master of the house, silences the minstrel Demodocus in order to alleviate the grief of Odysseus.406 Another occasional feature of statusbased interruption is the employment of intermediaries to silence a speaker, especially in forensic settings. 407 Not every status-based interruption can be easily categorized, given that individuals in authoritative positions can also cooperate or clash with speakers.408 Almost twenty interruptions could be classified as status-based, if all such instances were included. The majority of rhetorical interruptions are rooted in conflict. There are as many motivations for these interruptions as there are motivations for conflict, but we can still observe some helpful patterns. Four common sources of conflict that result in intentional interruption are heated rivalries between peers, the despair of the defeated, righteous rebuttals of the wicked, and impious incursions against the just. We will begin our treatment of conflict-based intentional interruptions by briefly discussing examples from each category. 402 See the friendly interruption of Polybius himself by Scipio Aemilianus in Polybius, Hist. 31.24.9. See also Appian, Hist. rom. 4.5.1; Bell. civ. 3.14.48; 3.54.221. 403 Herodotus, Hist. 9.11.2. 404 Arrian, Ind. 36.7. 405 Herodotus, Hist. 8.26.3; Polybius, Hist. 18.37.12. 406 Homer, Od. 8.536. Penelope also silences a minstrel in Od. 1.337. 407 A good example is Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 11.32.1, where Appius Claudius, the chief decemvir, orders the lictors to seize Lucius Icilius, a plebeian. See also Appian, Bell. civ. 4.34.145. 408 In Polybius, Hist. 28.23.3, King Antiochus IV silences a Rhodian envoy, claiming that he is already in agreement with the messenger; cf. also Arrian, Anab. 7.11.7. On the other hand, in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.5, Alexander the Great dismisses Parmenion’s advice, but the swift rejection may imply that this interruption results from a conflict, rather than a whim.

118

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

For example, Achilles’ interruption of Agamemnon exemplifies the category of interruptions that stem from rivalry or anger and that take place in a council or assembly.409 These deliberative settings involve disputants with varying opinions, some of whom choose to interrupt their peers, thus silencing a rival and claiming the floor for themselves. Frequently, a single council will feature multiple interruptions, such as the key assembly in Book 3 of Xenophon’s Anabasis, where the authorcharacter describes how he both interrupts and is interrupted. 410 These interruptions in council sessions illustrate the intensity of disagreements over policy decisions, but they rarely result in physical violence. Instead, the interruptive participants are those who ἔπεσι ἀκροβολισάμενοι (“wage a war of words”).411 Other interrupters are those who have waged a war of deeds and who have lost. When conquerors announce their terms, the despair of the defeated can lead to interruptive outbursts of anger or grief. For example, when Antony the triumvir scolds the Asian Greeks in Ephesus, the war-torn people fall to the ground and beg him for mercy “while he is still speaking.”412 Thoroughly humbled, the vanquished will only resort to resistance through words, for they are powerless to resist with deeds.413 The remaining interruptions can be classified generally as the rejection of a speaker’s discourse by the audience. Often, the narrator will identify the speaker or the audience as pious or impious. And these showdowns between the righteous and the wicked often result in violence: more than a quarter of all intentional interruptions result in physical violence, threats of violence, or death. Sometimes, a sense of moral duty impels pious characters to bring evildoers to an end. Thus, Odysseus slays the suitors, including Leiodes, who dies while speaking.414 On the other hand, a thorough disregard for social conventions, frequently coupled with a desire for some illicit end, can lead unscrupulous audiences to violate speaking turns freely. Impious councils frequently put speakers to death. For example, as King Philip approaches Sparta, three Spartan ephors summon an assembly to do 409 Homer, Il. 1.292. 410 Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.27, 31. 411 Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1. Herodotus had employed intentional interruption at Hist. 8.59.1 and 8.61.1. Cf. also the very similar phrase about waging war with words in Homer, Il. 1.304, as well as Josephus, A.J. 16.217. 412 Appian, Bell. civ. 5.6.26. 413 For other examples, see Polybius, Hist. 20.10.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 3.29.1; Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.12; 8.81.379; 12.55.221. 414 Homer, Od. 22.329.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Historiography

119

away with their political opponents. When another ephor, Adeimantus, denounces this illicit assembly, he is killed.415 More strikingly, the people of Cyrene, who had recently revolted, kill envoys from Ptolemy of Egypt, without regard for the sacred rights (or speaking rights) of envoys.416 In our treatment of interruption in Luke-Acts, we will return to the consideration of intentional interruption of speakers identified as pious by audiences identified as impious. Another related topic of interest will be the function of intentional interruption in forensic settings. On one hand, we can observe a pious defendant, Aratus of Sicyon, interrupting his deceitful accuser.417 However, more common is the interruption of a defendant by a tumultuous crowd, resulting in the silencing and death of the defendant. For instance, when Phocion, an Athenian exile, defends himself before a hostile Athenian crowd, he and his friends are interrupted a total of three times, and they are all then forced to drink hemlock.418 Similarly, when Marcius Coriolanus tries to defend himself in the Forum, the Romans cause an uproar and try to kill him, only to be thwarted by the consuls.419 With attention to all aspects of the rhetorical situation, we can thus observe how the status of the interrupter, the relationship between the speaker and the audience, and the deliberative or forensic setting can affect the function of interruption. We have not yet reflected upon the cases where there seemed to be a clear link between the final words of the discourse and the audience’s motivation to interrupt. For instance, as mentioned above, one of Xenophon’s speeches was interrupted by a sneeze at the mention of the word σωτηρία.420 However, this interrupting sneeze was an external event. A more relevant example is the interruption of the Roman consul L. Marcius Censorinus by the Carthaginian envoys. The Carthaginians interrupt the Roman at the word κατασκάψαι (“to raze”); their interruption appears designed to highlight the impassioned response of a people whose city is about to be razed. While other interruptions could be cited where the final words of a discourse specifically appeared to be responsible for triggering an emotional response, this connection is rarely observed.

415 416 417 418 419 420

Polybius, Hist. 4.22.11. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 19.79.1. Polybius, Hist. 4.85.4. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.5-67.6. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.35.1. Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.9.

120

Chapter 2: Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Interestingly, one of the other examples of this phenomenon is in another book of Appian’s Roman History. Just as the Carthaginians interrupt Censorinus at the mention of the razing of Carthage, so Archelaus interrupts Sulla at the mention of Mithridates’ treachery. 421 Even as we note this relationship between interrupting audiences and final words of a discourse, we should also attend to the placement of these interruptions in the context of the larger works. These two interruptions are the final diplomatic interchanges of the Third Punic War and the First Mithridatic War. Thus, just as in Homer’s Iliad, Herodotus’ Histories, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and Arrian’s Anabasis and Indica, rhetorical interruptions appear to be clustered around key turning points in the larger narrative. However, the fact that these rhetorical interruptions coincide with climactic narrative turning points does not necessarily mean that the intentional interruptions alone are responsible for heightening the drama of the narrative. The quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles would be significant even without Achilles’ interruption. It is almost the reverse: dramatic points in the narrative tend to heighten the probability that the narrator will employ interruption. After all, it is at these points that an author will generally describe a council or confrontation in greater detail, thus demanding greater attention to speaking rights.422 There is an exception to this relationship between the use of interruption and the drama of a narrative. Interruptions by external events do heighten the drama of a narrative. By linking a dramatic appearance or an ironic event or an auspicious omen tightly to a relevant discourse, interruption by external events can properly be said to add drama to a scene by tightening the connection between λόγοι and πράγματα.

421 Appian, Hist. rom. 8.81.379 and 12.55.221, respectively. 422 Hence, for a historian like Diodorus Siculus, who rarely “zooms in” to describe councils or assemblies in great detail, rhetorical interruption has no special value.

Chapter 3 Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography: From Job to Josephus 3.1 Introduction All of the texts surveyed in this chapter might plausibly have been grouped under the broad heading of “Greek Historiography” in the previous chapter. In fact, because our broad definition of Greek historiography encompasses texts (1) that are written in Greek, (2) that are written in narrative form, and (3) that demonstrate a desire to preserve and transmit the past, we could have included not only Josephus and Pseudo-Hecataeus in the previous chapter, but also the Book of Deuteronomy (LXX) and the Gospel of Luke. While the distinct treatment of Greek Novels in Chapter Four still would make sense, why are Chapters Two and Three separate? Essentially, it is the shared preoccupation with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that distinguishes the Deuteronomistic History, Josephus, and Luke-Acts from the historians of the Peloponnesian and Punic Wars. The degree of discontinuity renders separate treatments appropriate; the degree of continuity supports their juxtaposition. A brief discussion of the sources of Luke-Acts may help to illuminate how various texts (Jewish and non-Jewish) influenced Luke’s use of interrupted speech. What literary influences might have informed the author of LukeActs? The only texts that are referred to as sources in Luke-Acts are the various narratives that πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι (“many have undertaken to compile”), the Septuagint, and τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν (“some of your poets”).1 We will discuss the written διηγήσεις used by the author of the Gospel of Luke in Chapter Five. The Septuagint, cited multiple times, will be discussed at length in this chapter.2 Here, we will analyze the brief cameo by the unnamed poets,

1 2

Luke 1:1; Acts 17:28. See Section 3.2 below.

122

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

as well as the other evidence that our author may have been exposed to more of the Hellenistic world than a single line of Greek poetry. This short line is the clearest evidence of non-Jewish cultural contact in Acts. In Acts 17:28, Paul credits τινες τῶν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν with the following line: τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν (“for we are also his children”).3 The author of this line is Aratus of Soli, a third-century B.C.E. poet who lived in Cilicia. The fifth line of his ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ is an almost perfect match: τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν.4 The only difference is Aratus’ Ionic or Epic εἰμέν, versus Luke’s Attic or Koine ἐσμέν.5 Another possible influence is Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4: ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν. Although a conflation of Cleanthes and Aratus could explain the τινες of Acts 17:28, Renehan provides ample and convincing evidence that τινες can be used consciously to introduce a familiar quotation from a known single author.6 This quotation is the only passage that can be linked unequivocally to a specific non-Jewish literary source.7 Aside from the quotation of Aratus in Acts 17:28, there is other evidence of Greco-Roman influence. First and foremost is the literary preface to Luke’s Gospel, which bears both linguistic and structural affinities to the prefaces of contemporary Greek scientific and historical works.8 More broadly, the Gospel features four scenes that appear to

3

4

5

6

7

8

For a thorough and helpful discussion of the classical background to Acts 17:28, see Robert Renehan, “Classical Greek Quotations in the New Testament,” in The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of The Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (ed. David Neiman and Margaret Schatkin; Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195; Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973), 17-46, esp. 37-42. Renehan presents a convincing argument against reading 17:28a as a modified quotation from Epimenides. The text is from Kidd’s recent edition: Aratus, Phaenomena (ed. Douglas Kidd; Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 34; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). In his notes to the critical edition, Kidd explains that the ἐσμέν found in some early editions of the Phaenomena was probably due to interference from the version of the quotation in Acts (166). Renehan, “Classical Greek Quotations,” 41. Renehan was apparently unaware of the similar argument advanced by Dibelius, who used different examples to make the same point in Studies, 50-51n76. Whether this quotation should be traced to Paul himself or the author of Luke-Acts is another question. See the divided opinions over the origins of the speeches discussed in Chapter 1. The most important recent work on Greco-Roman literary conventions and Luke’s preface has been done by Loveday Alexander, beginning with The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). She summarizes her findings in

Introduction

123

employ the Hellenistic symposium as a literary type, with some modifications.9 There are other possible echoes and allusions to classical literature, ranging from Euripides to Thucydides to Plato.10 Regarding the likelihood of these allusions, we must keep in mind that the author of Luke-Acts wrote in Greek in the late first century or early second century C.E., somewhere in the Mediterranean world. Thus, the likelihood that this author was acquainted with an author like Homer is roughly equivalent to the likelihood that a twentieth-century English major would know Shakespeare. 11 The other authors surveyed in the previous chapter may have been less accessible or even unavailable: for example, Acts may have been composed decades before the works of Arrian and Appian.12 In the end, there is no scholarly consensus that the author of LukeActs was actively influenced by any of the authors in the previous chapter. We do not know whether the author of Luke-Acts ever read the Histories of Herodotus or the Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. The same agnosticism must pervade the present chapter as well: we cannot say with certainty that the author of Luke-Acts read or did not read 4 Maccabees. However, as we move into a survey of Jewish histo-

9

10 11

12

“Formal Elements and Genre: Which Greco-Roman Prologues Most Closely Parallel the Lukan Prologues?” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel; ed. David P. Moessner and David L. Tiede; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International), 926. Three of these scenes involve Jesus as the invited guest of a Pharisee or Pharisees: Luke 7:36-50; 11:37-54; 14:1-24. For discussion, see E. Springs Steele, “Luke 11:3754—A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?” JBL 103 (1984): 379-94. Steele discusses Luke 5:29-39 on pp. 390-92. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography (NovTSup 64; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 371. Due to the widespread circulation of the Homeric epics, any literate Greek-speaker could be expected to have encountered, if not memorized, portions of the Iliad and Odyssey. Dennis MacDonald addresses the familiarity of Hellenistic Jewish authors with Homer in his Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 3-4. Acceptance of MacDonald’s premise that the author of Luke-Acts would have been familiar with Homer does not require the acceptance of his conclusion that the Book of Acts includes conscious imitations of various scenes from the Iliad. For a balanced critique of MacDonald’s work, see Karl Olav Sandnes, “Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s ‘Mimesis Criticism,’” JBL 124 (2005): 715-32. The second-century Anabasis of Alexander and Indica of Arrian cannot be dated absolutely, nor can the Book of Acts. Arrian and the author of Luke-Acts, therefore, may have been contemporaries, or the author of Luke-Acts may have died years before Arrian began writing.

124

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

riographical works, we encounter texts that were more likely to have been available to Luke than Arrian’s Indica. This chapter will explore the function of interrupted speech in two types of texts: those that the author of Luke-Acts knew (most of the LXX), and those that the author of Luke-Acts might have known (Hellenistic Jewish historians, including Josephus). The LXX could be further divided into texts that the author of Luke-Acts explicitly names (Isaiah, Psalms, Joel), texts that are quoted anonymously or alluded to (Exodus, Deuteronomy, Amos, etc.), and texts that leave no trace on Luke’s narrative (e.g., 2 Maccabees). We will treat the entire LXX, the fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish histories, and the works of Josephus under the heading of “Jewish Historiography,” broadly conceived.

3.2 The Septuagint (LXX) Much of the LXX can in no way be considered historiographical; for instance, the Book of Proverbs is clearly not history. The Deuteronomistic History, however, can be considered historiographical, as can 1-2 Chronicles.13 Furthermore, 2 Maccabees could even be considered Greek historiography.14 Other books are harder to categorize: the many oracles of Isaiah and Jeremiah are labeled as prophecy, but the various narrative interludes read much like episodes from the Deuteronomistic History. Parts of the LXX are even considered novelistic, such as Tobit and Judith.15 Our survey will include all the diverse

13

14

15

Baruch Halpern argues that the historical narratives of the Hebrew Bible should be classified as Israelite historiography in The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988). Another possibility is 1 Esdras; the original language of composition is debated. For discussion, see Jacob M. Myers, I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (AB 42; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974), 5-7. Lawrence Wills treats Daniel, Tobit, Esther, Judith, and Joseph and Aseneth in The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Interestingly, he considers both 2-3 Maccabees and the Book of Acts to be “historical novels” (185). Alternatively, Gregory Sterling classifies 1 Esdras and 1-2 Maccabees as histories; 3 Maccabees as a historical novel; and Tobit, Judith, Greek Esther, Greek Daniel, and Joseph and Aseneth as “prose fictions” in “The Jewish Appropriation of Hellenistic Historiography,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (ed. John Marincola; Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 231-43.

The Septuagint (LXX)

125

writings that are collected and preserved in modern scholarly editions of the LXX.16 While modern scholarship recognizes the wide variety of genres, differing authorship, and layers of redaction in the LXX, we will try to approach these writings as the author of Luke-Acts might have seen them: as “the Scriptures” (αἱ γραφαί).17 As in Luke 24:44, these Scriptures may have been divided into Pentateuch, prophetic writings, and Psalms, but all three divisions appear to have been held in high esteem; at least, Luke freely quotes from each of them in his Gospel. 18 In our analysis of interruption in the LXX, we will draw conclusions not about how the biblical authors (or editor-translators) intended to use interruption, but rather about what a first-century reader (or hearer) might have deduced about the rhetorical function of interruption.

3.2.1 Turn-Taking in the LXX The most common form of direct discourse in the LXX is between God and human beings. The Book of Psalms is a compilation of human discourses directed towards God; the prophetic books record numerous divine oracles delivered to and through the prophets. Many of these discourses are one-way communications; the reader never learns about how the human prayer or divine decree is received.19 Moreover, like the many oracles in the Histories of Herodotus, the oracular sayings of the LXX are never interrupted. Only occasionally are human beings interrupted by their divine audience, as will be discussed below. Still, aside from narrative markers indicating the beginning and end of speaking turns, which are present throughout the narrative portions 16

17 18

19

The most recent editio minor is Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). For insight into Luke’s view of the LXX, see Luke 24:44-49. E.g., Luke’s Gospel includes a summary of various Pentateuchal narratives in Luke 17:26-33 (Moses); a mixture of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 in Luke 19:46 (prophetic writings); and Ps 109:1 (LXX) = Ps 110:1 (MT) in Luke 20:42-43 (Psalms). For a similar threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures, see Josephus, C. Ap. 1.38-41, where the Jewish historian counts twenty-two sacred books: 5 books of Moses, 13 books of history, and 4 books of hymns and proverbs. Notably, 1.41 downgrades the relative worth of later writings, which may well include one or more Maccabean histories. There is no narrative framework in Psalms, and in the prophetic books, many of the oracles are only delivered to the prophets themselves. Other books lacking a narrative framework include Proverbs, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Lamentations.

126

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

of the LXX, we find other evidence of turn-taking rules.20 For example, the reader of the Book of Sirach finds extensive counsel about speaking, including an admonition to respect turn-taking rules: πρὶν ἢ ἀκοῦσαι μὴ ἀποκρίνου καὶ ἐν μέσῳ λόγων μὴ παρεμβάλλου (“before listening, do not answer, and in the middle of [another’s] speaking, do not interrupt”).21 The sage advises that hearers should listen, rather than interrupting.22 While we could look at the Roman law against interruption of tribunes as a similar prohibition, the admonition of Agamemnon to Achilles would be a more fitting parallel.23 In the Second Temple Jewish milieu, an even closer parallel exists. Rules for turn-taking are spelled out in 1QS vi, 10-11: “No-one should talk during the speech of his fellow before his brother has finished speaking. Blank And neither should he speak before one whose rank is listed before his own. Whoever is questioned should speak in his turn.” 24 These passages and others demonstrate a clear awareness of turn-taking rules among certain Second Temple Jews.25

20

21

22

23 24

25

In addition to the prohibitions against interruption in Sirach, we find numerous examples of orderly speech in the LXX. Wisdom of Solomon 8:11-12 describes how a seeker of wisdom is granted uninterrupted speaking turns. There is also an orderly pattern in the liturgical call and response of the Levites and people in Deut 27:12-26. Sirach 11:8 (Göttingen LXX). All citations and translations from the LXX are based on the appropriate Göttingen edition, when available: Alfred Rahlfs et al., eds., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientarum Gottigensis editum (24 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931-). When a Göttingen edition is not available, as is currently the case with 1-4 Kingdoms, 1-2 Chronicles, and 4 Maccabees, citations and translations will be based on the text of Rahlfs-Hanhart: Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, eds., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (2d ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). As my colleague Josephine Dru helpfully pointed out to me, the Hebrew text of Sir 11:8 simply says not to speak (‫ )אל־תדבר‬during another’s speaking turn. The translator, however, categorizes this speech as an interruption with the translation μὴ παρεμβάλλου. For the critical edition of the Hebrew text of Sirach, see Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew (VTSup 68; Leiden: Brill, 2003). For the law in defense of tribunes’ speaking turns, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.17.5. For Agamemnon’s complaint, see Homer, Il. 19.79-80. The citation and translation are from The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition (ed. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 19971998). Cf. esp. the phrase ἐν μέσῳ λόγων of Sir 11:8 with the ‫ בתוך דברי רעהו‬of 1QS vi, 10. In addition to Sir 11:8 and 1QS vi, 10-11, there are other references in the Dead Sea Scrolls; for references and discussion, see Tzvi Novick, “Tradition and Truth: The Ethics of Lawmaking in Tannaitic Literature,” JQR 100 (2010): 223-243 (see esp. 225n7). Novick treats these earlier texts as part of a larger discussion of the prohibition of interruption in m. Avot 5.7.

The Septuagint (LXX)

127

The only other explicit mention of interruption in the LXX is also in Sirach. Here, the sage warns against interrupting the musicians at a banquet: Λάλησον, πρεσβύτερε, πρέπει γάρ σοι, ἐν ἀκριβεῖ ἐπιστήμῃ, καὶ μὴ ἐμποδίσῃς μουσικά (“Speak, elderly [man], for it is appropriate for you, with accurate knowledge, and do not interrupt the music”).26 Obviously, this admonition is not directly related to speaking turns. Given the attention paid to interrupted songs in the Odyssey and the presence of interrupted song in the LXX itself, however, it is worth noting.27 Whereas the Homeric minstrels are singing epic tales at the time of interruption, interrupted music in the LXX is without narrative content. Sirach merely warns against interrupting the μουσικά, and Saul’s interruption of David’s music-making in 1 Kgdms 19:10 makes no reference to any words.28 Aside from Sirach, there is no discussion of interruption. Furthermore, many closing formulae that appear to be interruptive on first glance are actually narrative markers of simultaneity. Genesis 29:9, for example, includes the now-familiar construction ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (“while he was still speaking”) to describe how Rachel arrives while Jacob is speaking with some shepherds. However, a closer examination of the passage reveals that the arrival of Rachel is not at all interruptive. In verse 8, it is the shepherds who are speaking to Jacob; Rachel arrives as the men are engaged in conversation: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς (“while [Jacob] was speaking with [the shepherds]”). However, arriving during a conversation does not imply violation of a speaking turn. 29 The phrase ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος here marks simultaneity. Another incident in Genesis involves a present participle of λαλέω, which we have frequently observed as a narrative marker of interruption. In Genesis 50, Jacob dies, and his sons become afraid that Joseph will retaliate against them. As they seek to persuade him to forgive, Joseph responds with tears: καὶ ἔκλαυσεν Ιωσὴφ λαλούντων αὐτῶν πρὸς αὐτόν (“and Joseph wept while they were speaking to him”).30 While Joseph’s weeping overlaps with his brothers’ speaking turn, 26 27 28 29

30

Sir 35:3 (Göttingen LXX). The Göttingen edition labels this verse 35:3, but RahlfsHanhart labels it 32:3. For the Odyssey, see the interruptions of minstrels at 1.337 and 8.97. As a result, 1 Kgdms 19:9-10 will not be analyzed as an interrupted speech. For another interrupted conversation, see 4 Kgdms 2:11, where Elisha and Elijah are depicted as being engaged in conversation until the latter is taken up in a whirlwind. Cf. also Josephus, A.J. 11.260. Gen 50:17 (Göttingen LXX). Cf. also the Old Greek (OG) version of Add Esth D:15 (Göttingen LXX), where Esther falls while speaking (ἐν δὲ τῷ διαλέγεσθαι αὐτὴν ἔπεσεν ἀπὸ ἐκλύσεως).

128

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

there is no sign that he violated their speaking rights. Neither the simultaneous action of Genesis 29 nor the emotional reaction of Genesis 50 is an interruption.31

3.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the LXX Amid the many instances of simultaneous action and emotional reaction, there are several interrupted prayers and other discourses in the LXX. Given the frequency of communication between humans and God, we will include interrupted prayers under the heading of interrupted speech. In all of the LXX, there are only seven discourses that are interrupted by the audience, while eleven are interrupted by external events. In Genesis 24, Abraham has grown old, and he wants his son Isaac to marry a woman from his own tribe, not from the Canaanites. So, the elderly patriarch sends a trusted servant back to his ancestral country. Upon arriving, the servant prays for a specific sign, and his prayer is interrupted before he finishes: καὶ ἐγένετο πρὸ τοῦ αὐτὸν συντελέσαι λαλοῦντα ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ, καὶ ἰδοὺ Ῥεβέκκα ἐξεπορεύετο (“and before he finished speaking in his mind, behold, Rebecca was coming out…”).32 Just as Nestor wonders aloud about the fate of Odysseus and Diomedes, only to have his speech interrupted by their arrival, so the trustworthy servant of Abraham is interrupted by the object of his prayer.33 In this case, the interruption by external events adds drama to the encounter between Rebecca and the servant; as in the case of other interrupted prayers, the author may be emphasizing the swift workings of divine providence. There are no other interruptions in the Pentateuch, and the next interruption does not occur until 1 Kingdoms 1. Hannah and her husband Elkanah have gone to Shiloh to sacrifice to the Lord, and Hannah is praying to conceive a child. The priest Eli observes Hannah’s moving lips, decides she is drunk, and interrupts: Ἕως πότε μεθυσθήσῃ; 31

32 33

For other instances of narrative simultaneity in the LXX, see Exod 16:10; Num 16:31; 1 Kgdms 4:18; 14:19; Esth 6:4 (OG); 6:14 (OG) // 6:23 (AT); 1 Macc 4:19; 2 Macc 3:2223; 3 Macc 6:16; Ezek 11:13; 37:7; Dan 10:9, 11, 15. The clearest example of simultaneity in the LXX may well be in the GII version of Tob 3:16, which begins Ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ εἰσηκούσθη ἡ προσευχὴ ἀμφοτέρων (“At the same moment, the prayer of both [Tobit and Sarah] was heard…”). Gen 24:15 (Göttingen LXX). When the servant retells this story in Gen 24:45, he uses the same language. Cf. Homer, Il. 10.540.

The Septuagint (LXX)

129

(“How long will you be drunk?”).34 Because Hannah was praying silently, Eli cannot be considered part of her audience. His rude interruption is so misguided that there is an almost comic effect. This interruption by external events is received graciously by Hannah; she explains her situation and receives Eli’s blessing. Several more interruptions by external events populate the pages of 3-4 Kingdoms. First, we have a planned and executed interruption by external events in 3 Kgdms 1:14 and 1:22. Having heard of Adonijah’s attempts to seize the kingship, the prophet Nathan summons Bathsheba and asks her to petition King David on behalf of her son Solomon. Nathan promises that he will support her petition: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔτι λαλούσης σου ἐκεῖ μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσελεύσομαι ὀπίσω σου καὶ πληρώσω τοὺς λόγους σου (“and behold, while you are still speaking there with the king, I too will come in after you and will complete your words”).35 Persuaded by Nathan, Bathsheba presents her appeal to King David, and the prophet appears as planned: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔτι αὐτῆς λαλούσης μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ Ναθαν ὁ προφήτης ἦλθεν (“and behold, while she was still speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet came”).36 Nathan confirms Bathsheba’s concerns with his dramatically timed arrival. This staged interruption by external events is reminiscent of similar incidents recounted by Greek historians.37 Later in the same chapter, we find another example of the most common type of interruption by external events: the interrupting messenger. As Adonijah feasts with his guests, his co-conspirator Joab hears a loud noise and inquires after its source. He is answered promptly: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος καὶ ἰδοὺ Ιωναθαν υἱὸς Αβιαθαρ τοῦ ἱερέως ἦλθεν (“while he was still speaking, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest arrived”).38 Jonathan explains that the loud noise is the proclamation of the newly anointed King Solomon. This interruption by external events adds drama to the swift and sudden collapse of Adonijah’s royal pretensions. Another interrupting messenger arrives in 4 Kgdms 6. When Elisha draws the wrath of the King of Israel, the prophet predicts the arrival of a messenger to a group of elders. His prophecy is fulfilled before it is fully uttered: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος μετ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος 34 35 36 37 38

1 Kgdms 1:14 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). Cf. the accusation of drunkenness in Acts 2:13, answered by Peter in 2:14-36. 3 Kgdms 1:14 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). 3 Kgdms 1:22 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14; 4.22.11; 11.30.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.4.5. 3 Kgdms 1:42 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). There is no interruption in Josephus’ version of this incident in A.J. 7.359.

130

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

κατέβη πρὸς αὐτόν (“while he was still speaking with them, behold, a messenger came down to him”).39 This interruption by external events uses dramatic simultaneity to confirm Elisha’s predictive powers. The next interruption by external events hearkens back to our first example, where the trusted servant’s prayer about a wife for Isaac was interrupted by the arrival of the woman who would become Isaac’s wife. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, is telling the king about Elisha’s resuscitation of a woman’s only son. His story is interrupted by the arrival of the woman herself: καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ ἐξηγουμένου τῷ βασιλεῖ ὡς ἐζωπύρησεν υἱὸν τεθνηκότα, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ γυνή (“and while [Gehazi] was explaining to the king how [Elisha] quickened the dead child, behold, the woman…”).40 This interruption is not haphazard; rather, the interrupting person is closely linked to the content of the discourse. The Deuteronomistic History, or its LXX equivalent (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1-4 Kingdoms), has five interruptions by external events; the Greek translation of 1-2 Chronicles has none. However, the first interruption of a speaker by the speaker’s audience takes place in 2 Chronicles. Successful in his battle against the people of Seir, King Amaziah sets up the gods of the people of Seir as his own gods and sacrifices to them. Angered by the king’s apostasy, God sends prophets to condemn this behavior.41 The unrepentant king refuses to endure the prophetic rebuke: καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Μὴ σύμβουλον τοῦ βασιλέως δέδωκά σε; πρόσεχε μὴ μαστιγωθῇς (“and while [the prophet] spoke to him, [the king] said to [the prophet], ‘I have not appointed you as adviser to the king, have I? Be careful, lest you be flogged!’”). At first, the prophet appears to heed the angry monarch’s interruptive words: καὶ ἐσιώπησεν ὁ προφήτης (“the prophet fell silent”).42 Nevertheless, he proceeds to rebuke the king again and to predict Amaziah’s destruction, a prediction that is fulfilled 39

40 41

42

4 Kgdms 6:33 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). On the possible royal identity of this “messenger,” see the discussion in Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 11; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 80. Cogan and Tadmor draw on the reconstruction of this incident in Josephus, A.J. 9.69-70. It is noteworthy that there is no interruption in Josephus’ version. 4 Kgdms 8:5 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). 2 Chr 25:5-16 is an expansion of 2 Kgs (4 Kgdms) 14:7. For a discussion of the relationship between 2 Chr 25:1-26:2 and 2 Kgs 14:1-22, see Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 856-73. 2 Chr 25:16 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). Steven McKenzie also classifies Amaziah’s response as an “interruption” of the unnamed prophet in 1-2 Chronicles (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 324.

The Septuagint (LXX)

131

by the end of the chapter. Due to his superior status, the king may have felt free to interrupt the prophet and to silence him with the threat of a whipping. Amaziah’s intentional interruption failed to achieve its purpose; unfazed by the king’s superior status and harsh words, the prophet reclaimed the floor and delivered his message of doom. The next interruption takes place in 1 Maccabees. After the Maccabean rededication of the Temple in 1 Macc 4, the surrounding peoples launch a new offensive against the Jews. The Israelites in Gilead are attacked, and they send letters to Judas Maccabeus, explaining their plight and asking for help. At this point, an interruption by external events heightens the drama: ἔτι αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ ἀνεγιγνώσκοντο, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι ἕτεροι παρεγένοντο ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας (“while the letters were still being read, behold, other messengers arrived from Galilee”).43 The reading of the letter about the Israelites’ troubles in Gilead is interrupted by the arrival of messengers sent to report on the Israelites’ troubles in Galilee.44 This dramatic series of events underscores the peril of the Israelite situation and sets the stage for mighty deeds of Judas and Simon in 5:21-36. We find our second intentional interruption in 2 Maccabees, a work that is roughly contemporary with the Histories of Polybius.45 Given the literary preface in 2:19-32 and the self-deprecatory epilogue of 15:38-39, as well as the authorial intrusions into the narrative (e.g., 6:12-17), 2 Maccabees is much more at home among the Greek historiographical works surveyed in the previous chapter than with the Deuteronomistic History. As in the Library of History of Diodorus Siculus, a speaker can claim the floor by ascending ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα.46 And as in the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a son intentionally interrupts his mother. This interaction takes place in 2 Macc 7, during the infamous martyrdom of the seven brothers and their mother. After six brothers have been tortured and killed, King Antiochus Epiphanes seeks to 43 44

45

46

1 Macc 5:14 (Göttingen LXX). Below, we will discuss another series of interrupting messengers. Jonathan A. Goldstein notes the similarities between 1 Macc 5:14 and Job 1:16-18 in his I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976). His brief note to 5:14 reads, “Cf. Job 1:16-18” (299). Polybius wrote his Histories in the mid- to late second century B.C.E. Schwartz dates 2 Maccabees to the 140s B.C.E. in Daniel R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees (CEJL; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 11-15. While Schwartz thus dates 2 Maccabees earlier than 1 Maccabees, Goldstein argues that 2 Maccabees was written after 1 Maccabees, sometime between 78 and 63 B.C.E. Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 41A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 7183. E.g., 2 Macc 13:26. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.28.1.

132

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

sway the youngest brother. The king is opposed by the child’s mother, who urges her son to choose a noble death. He is already eager for this course, and he interrupts her exhortation to provoke his tormentors: †Ἄρτι† δὲ ταύτης καταληγούσης ὁ νεανίας εἶπε Τίνα μένετε; (“Just as she was finishing, the young man said, ‘What are you waiting for?’”).47 As the daggers indicate, this text is conjectural; Kappler and Hanhart, the editors of the Göttingen edition of 2 Maccabees, have chosen to emend the text in a way that minimizes the interruptive nature of the boy’s words and tries to rephrase 7:30 so that it is closer to 9:5.48 However, this reading has not gained full acceptance, and Goldstein rejects it. Goldstein reads ἔτι καταληγούσης, which he translates as “[She] was still speaking the last of these words.” 49 This reading seems to fit; the present participle καταληγούσης does not end the mother’s speaking turn as clearly as an aorist participle would.50 So, following Goldstein, we find that the youth’s interruption does not function to bring his mother’s speaking turn to an abrupt and premature conclusion; rather, the interruption functions to show the youth’s ready acceptance of his mother’s counsel. Thus, the youth cooperatively interrupts his mother in order to deliver a belligerent response to King Antiochus.51 In closing, we may also note that this interruption occurs during what has been labeled the “turning point” of 2 Maccabees. 52 Like 2 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees is also a Greek composition, although the latter is more of a philosophical treatise than a history. The philosophical introduction extends from 1:1 to 3:18, and the remainder of the book turns to τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἱστορίας τοῦ σώφρονος λογισμοῦ (“the narrative demonstration of prudent reason”).53 Much of the book (4 Macc 8-18) is a retelling of the story of the martyrdom of the seven brothers, expanding on the shorter version in 2 Macc 7. 54 Where47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

2 Macc 7:30 (Göttingen LXX). The textual apparatus reveals that ετι is attested in the codices. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 313. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 315. This reading is also found in the Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX. E.g., the καταλήξαντος of 2 Macc 9:5. Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 8.47.1, where Marcius Coriolanus interrupts his mother in order to reject her advice. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 107. 4 Macc 3:19 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). It is difficult to date 4 Maccabees with any precision; its dependence on 2 Maccabees is one of the few hints available to scholars. The scholarly consensus is that it was composed either in the first or in the early second century C.E. David A. deSilva, 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary Series; Leiden: Brill, 2006), xiv.

The Septuagint (LXX)

133

as the account in 2 Maccabees includes only one interrupted discourse, the account in 4 Macc 8-18 incorporates three intentional interruptions, all of which are more clearly marked than the interruption in 2 Macc 7:30. Whereas the youngest brother is the featured interrupter in 2 Macc 7, the eldest brother is the center of interruption in 4 Maccabees. After scourging him, the king’s men try to persuade him to eat unclean food: καὶ τῶν δορυφόρων λεγόντων Ὁμολόγησον φαγεῖν, ὅπως ἀπαλλαγῇς τῶν βασάνων, ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Οὐχ οὕτως ἰσχυρὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὁ τροχός…ὥστε μου τὸν λογισμὸν ἄγξαι (“and while the bodyguards were saying ‘Agree to eat, so that you might be set free from the torments,’ he said, ‘Your wheel is not so strong as to throttle my reason!”).55 The valiant older brother thus intentionally interrupts his tormentors, both rejecting their counsel and providing a narrative demonstration of how his reason overcomes their brute force. The eldest brother’s moral victory results in an anguishing death. His rebellious response is interrupted with fire and further torment: ταῦτα λέγοντι ὑπέστρωσαν πῦρ καὶ το διερεθίζον τὸν τροχὸν προσεπικατέτεινον (“they spread fire under the one who was saying these things, and further tightened the wheel”).56 The hearers interrupt the speaker in a brutal manner. Still, they only silence him momentarily, and the eldest brother is able to speak again before his death. The second, third, and fourth brothers neither interrupt nor are interrupted, but the fifth brother receives treatment similar to the first brother. As soon as the fourth brother dies, the fifth brother boldly approaches the king before being summoned. His rebuke is cut short by the king’s bodyguards, who seize him: τοιαῦτα λέγοντα οἱ δορυφόροι δήσαντες αὐτὸν εἷλκον ἐπὶ τὸν καταπέλτην (“The bodyguards bound the one who was speaking such things and dragged him to the catapult”).57 This intentional interruption should be classified as status-based, grounded in the king’s authority. Moving from the historical books of the LXX to the poetic and prophetic, we find a series of notable interruptions by external events in the Book of Job. The narrative prologue to the book describes the divine discussion between God and Satan, a conversation that immediately results in a series of unfortunate events in the life of Job. First, a messenger reports that some of Job’s livestock have been stolen, and the servants who were with the oxen and donkeys were killed. This first 55 56 57

4 Macc 9:17-18 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). 4 Macc 9:19 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX). 4 Macc 11:9 (Rahlfs-Hanhart LXX).

134

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

messenger is interrupted by the arrival of a second messenger: Ἔτι τούτου λαλοῦντος ἦλθεν ἕτερος ἄγγελος καὶ εἶπεν (“While this one was still speaking, another messenger came and said…”).58 The second messenger reports that fire from heaven has burned up Job’s sheep and shepherds, but he too is interrupted: Ἔτι τούτου λαλοῦντος ἦλθεν ἕτερος ἄγγελος καὶ εἶπεν (“While this one was still speaking, another messenger came and said…”).59 The third messenger reports that the camels have been stolen, and the servants in charge of the camels have been killed. The same participial phrase is used, as this third messenger is interrupted by a fourth: Ἔτι τούτου λαλοῦντος ἄλλος ἄγγελος ἔρχεται (“While this one was still speaking, another messenger came…”).60 This fourth messenger brings the worst news yet, as he reports the death of Job’s sons and daughters. While interrupting messengers have appeared frequently in the literature surveyed thus far, nowhere else do four messengers arrive one after another. Interruption by external events is used very effectively to amplify the drama of Job’s sudden losses. The lack of a detailed narrative framework renders difficult the task of evaluating speaking turns in the numerous speeches of the Book of Job. Certain passages could be read as claims of interruption, such as Job 18:2, where Bildad complains, Μέχρι τίνος οὐ παύσῃ; ἐπίσχες, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ λαλήσωμεν (“How long will you continue? Stop, so that we also can speak!”).61 While this certainly could function as a claim of interruption, there is no sign that Job’s speech has ended prematurely, and 18:1 uses a typical formula to mark the changing of speakers: Ὑπολαβὼν δὲ Βαλδὰδ ὁ Σαυχίτης λέγει (“Bildad the Shuhite said in reply…”). The frequency of this formula suggests that the speakers are not perpetually interrupting each other; rather, the interlocutors sound as if they are delivering speeches on a stage. 62 In fact, one interpreter of Job has tried to recast the text as a Greek tragedy, and he inserts a stage direction at 18:1 that reads “Bildad (interrupting angrily).”63 While this line of interpretation fits the text rather well, there is no definitive evidence that Bildad here violates Job’s speaking turn.

58 59 60 61 62 63

Job 1:16 (Göttingen LXX). Job 1:17 (Göttingen LXX). Job 1:18 (Göttingen LXX). Job 18:2 (Göttingen LXX). The formula Ὑπολαβὼν δὲ…λέγει appears in Job 4:1; 6:1; 8:1; 9:1; 11:1; 12:1; 15:1; etc. Horace M. Kallen, The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy (New York: Hill and Wang, 1959), 119. Kallen first published a version of this book in 1918.

The Septuagint (LXX)

135

The Book of Isaiah has no interruptions by hearers or external events. However, two oracles predict, or rather promise, cooperative interruptions. First, in Isaiah 58, an oracle promises that God will hear God’s people, if they are obedient: τότε βοήσῃ, καὶ ὁ θεὸς εἰσακούσεταί σου· ἔτι λαλοῦντός σου ἐρεῖ Ἰδοὺ πάρειμι (“then you will shout, and God will hear you; while you are still speaking, [God] will say, ‘Behold, here I am’”).64 This future-tense interruption would be cooperative, representative of God’s eagerness to hear and to help. The next interruption is very similar; an oracle about a renewed heaven and earth includes a promise that God will be quick to hear the chosen people: καὶ ἔσται πρὶν ἢ κεκράξαι αὐτοὺς ἐγὼ ἐπακούσομαι αὐτῶν, ἔτι λαλούντων αὐτῶν ἐρῶ Τί ἐστι; (“and it will be that before they have cried out, I will hear them; while they are still speaking, I will say, ‘What is it?’”).65 Again, cooperative intentional interruption is used as a sign of divine favor. The next intentional interruption in a prophetic book is anything but cooperative. When Jeremiah prophesies doom upon Jerusalem in accordance with God’s command, a priest named Pashhur takes offense: Καὶ ἤκουσε Πασχωρ υἱὸς Εμμηρ ὁ ἱερεύς, καὶ οὗτος ἦν καθεσταμένος ἡγούμενος οἴκου κυρίου, τοῦ Ιερεμίου προφητεύοντος τοὺς λόγους τούτους. καὶ ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν (“And the priest Pashhur son of Immer, who was appointed leader of the house of the Lord, heard Jeremiah prophesying these words. And he struck [Jeremiah]”).66 The description of Jeremiah as prophesying (προφητεύοντος) implies that Pashhur struck Jeremiah while the latter was still speaking. This lightly marked rhetorical interruption shows the priest’s hostile rejection of Jeremiah’s inspired message. The remaining two interruptions are in the Book of Daniel. First, King Nebuchadnezzar is boasting about his accomplishments when he is interrupted by a heavenly voice: ἔτι τοῦ λόγου ἐν στόματι τοῦ βασιλέως ὄντος φωνὴ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο (“while the word was still in the mouth of the king, there was a voice from heaven”). 67 Nebuchadnezzar was not addressing any specific audience; still, his arrogant words meet with immediate, dramatic condemnation.68 The narrator implies that Nebuchadnezzar was unaware of his divine audience. The 64 65 66 67 68

Isa 58:9 (Göttingen LXX). Isa 65:24 (Göttingen LXX). Jer 20:1-2 (Göttingen LXX). Dan 4:28 (Theodotion, in Göttingen LXX). The Old Greek version of Dan 4:28 does not frame the heavenly rebuke as an interruption: καὶ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν λόγου αὐτοῦ φωνὴν (“and at the end of his speech, a voice…”).

136

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

heavenly voice is certainly responding to Nebuchadnezzar’s boasts; thus, we may classify this as an interruption of a speaker by his hearer, even if the speaker was unaware of the presence of an audience. Finally, we conclude our survey of interruption in the LXX as we began: with an interrupted prayer. From Dan 9:4 to 9:19, Daniel’s prayer is reported in direct discourse, and verse 20 summarizes his continued supplications. Then, Daniel is interrupted by an angel: καὶ ἔτι λαλοῦντός μου ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ μου καὶ ἰδοὺ ὁ ἀνήρ…Γαβριηλ (“and while I was still speaking in my prayer, behold, a man…Gabriel”).69 Gabriel reveals that he was sent at the beginning of Daniel’s prayer; thus, his interruptive arrival can be classified as a cooperative interruption by external events. Gabriel was sent by the audience of Daniel’s prayer, but he does not present himself as a hearer of prayers. His presence is reminiscent of the Isaian promises discussed above.

3.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in the LXX Of the eighteen interrupted discourses, including prayers, in the LXX, there are only seven intentional interruptions, but there are eleven interruptions by external events. As Table 3 illustrates, these interruptions are not spread evenly throughout the varied texts that constitute the LXX.70 Certain books (e.g., Job, 4 Maccabees) have multiple interruptions, some have a solitary interruption (e.g., Genesis, 1 Maccabees), and the vast majority of texts include no interruptions at all. There are only five books that include intentional interruption, and one of them (4 Maccabees) is largely an expansion of another (2 Maccabees). 71

69

70 71

Dan 9:21 (Old Greek, in Göttingen LXX). The version of Theodotion is not substantially different: καὶ ἔτι ἐμοῦ λαλοῦντός ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνήρ Γαβριηλ (Dan 9:21, Göttingen LXX). Table 3 follows the order of Rahlfs-Hanhart. Books with no interruptions are omitted. On the use of 2 Maccabees by 4 Maccabees, see deSilva, 4 Maccabees, xxx-xxxi.

137

The Septuagint (LXX)

Table 3: Interrupted Speech in the LXX Book Genesis 1 Kingdoms 3 Kingdoms 4 Kingdoms 2 Chronicles 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 4 Maccabees Job Jeremiah Daniel TOTAL:

Interruptions by External Events 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 11

Intentional Interruptions 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 1 7

Total 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 18

The numerous interruptions by external events are mostly caused by recently arrived messengers, such as the back-to-back-to-back interruptions by bearers of bad tidings in Job 1.72 Other familiar phenomena include the staged interruption of Bathsheba by Nathan the prophet in 3 Kgdms 1:14, and the interruption of the trustworthy servant’s prayer by the object of his prayer (Rebecca) in Gen 24:15.73 Finally, we may note that three of the discourses interrupted by external events are prayers.74 Though interruptions by external events are more common in the writings that constitute the LXX, there are some noteworthy intentional interruptions. Twice, persons of higher social or political status violently interrupt prophets of doom: King Amaziah threatens an unnamed prophet with a flogging, and Pashhur the priest strikes Jeremiah.75 When King Nebuchadnezzar glories in his own high status, he is inter72

73 74 75

There are six interruptions by messengers in the following passages: 3 Kgdms 1:42; 4 Kgdms 6:33; 1 Macc 5:14; Job 1:16-18. Five of the messengers bring bad news, those in 3 Kgdms 1:42; 1 Macc 5:14; and Job 1:16-18. Although Gabriel is referred to as ἀνήρ in Dan 9:21, he is also functioning as a heavenly messenger. As in Gen 24:15, 4 Kgdms 8:5 also describes the interruption of a discourse by a person referred to in that same discourse. Favorable answers to prayers arrive in Gen 24:15 and Dan 9:21. The interruption of Hannah by Eli in 1 Kgdms 1:14 is not immediately an answer to prayer. 2 Chr 25:16; Jer 20:1-2.

138

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

rupted by a higher authority: God.76 Finally, the two tales of the seven brothers (2 Macc 7 and 4 Macc 8-18) feature intentional interruption, as the brave youths face down King Antiochus Epiphanes. In the account in 2 Maccabees, the youngest child eagerly (and cooperatively) interrupts his mother in order to reject the king’s offer. 77 Finally, in 4 Maccabees, the king’s bodyguards and the brothers engage in a contest of wills and of speaking turns. First, the eldest brother interrupts the bodyguards in order to reject their temptations, and they respond by tormenting him further.78 Then, the fifth brother’s preemptive speech is also interrupted by the king’s bodyguards, who drag him to the catapult to begin his tortures. 79 Aside from the cooperative interruption of the mother by her son, intentional interruption is more closely associated with physical violence in the LXX than in the other Greco-Roman sources surveyed. Still, we find the familiar categories of cooperative interruption (2 Macc 7:30; also Isa 58:9; 65:24), interruptions motivated by higher social status or authority (2 Chr 25:16; 4 Macc 9:19; 11:9; Jer 20:1-2), and righteous rebukes of the impious (4 Macc 9:17-18). While Dan 4:28 fits both of the latter two categories, the other status-based interruptions could also be classified as interruptions of moral persons by the immoral. Unsurprisingly, the righteous are frequently interrupted by the wicked, and the just have no qualms about violating the speaking turns of the unjust. In closing, we may note that intentional interruptions appear to be most common in the later, post-exilic books: 2 Chronicles, Daniel, 2 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees.80 Interruptions by external events, however, dominate the older Deuteronomistic History. Given these observations, we may note that the older authors surveyed in the previous chapter had higher proportions of interruptions by external events (e.g., Homer, Herodotus), whereas later authors tended primarily to employ intentional interruption as a clear rhetorical device (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian).

76 77 78 79 80

Dan 4:28 (Theodotion). 2 Macc 7:30. 4 Macc 9:17-19. 4 Macc 11:9. The Maccabean works are obviously later, dating to the second or first century B.C.E. (or even later in the case of 4 Maccabees). In its received form, the Book of Daniel is frequently dated to the second century B.C.E. It is more difficult to date 2 Chronicles, but one scholar suggests “a date in the late fourth or early third century.” Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 12; New York: Doubleday, 2003), 116. Knoppers provides a thorough discussion of the authorship and date of 1-2 Chronicles in pp. 101-17.

Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Historians

139

In the LXX, as a whole, intentional interruption is relatively scarce. In addition, almost half of the interruptions by hearers take place in 4 Maccabees, a text that Luke may not have even known. While the rhetorical functions of intentional interruption are generally similar to those observed in the previous chapter, it is doubtful that the author of Luke-Acts was significantly influenced by the usage of intentional interruption in his Scriptures. In Chapter Five, however, we will examine the formal similarities of interruption by external events in the LXX and in Matthew and Luke.81

3.3 Fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish Historians In the first volume of his Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Holladay translates the extant remains of ten authors, whose works range from the third century B.C.E. (Demetrius the Chronographer) to the first or even early second century C.E. (Justus of Tiberias).82 While the author of Luke-Acts may or may not have known one or more of these historians, the presence of intentional interruption in these texts is worth noting.83 There are two interruptions in the surviving fragments; their presence suggests that interrupted speech was not unknown in Hellenistic Jewish historiography prior to Josephus. The first interruption occurs in a fragment attributed to PseudoHecataeus.84 The interruption takes place towards the conclusion of an anecdote about a Jew named Mosollamus, and the first-person narration suggests that the author at least knew Mosollamus and perhaps even witnessed the events described. Because this anecdote is preserved in Josephus’ Against Apion, we can easily identify a terminus ante

81 82 83

84

Cf., e.g., the use of ἰδοὺ in Matt 26:47 // Luke 22:47 and in the following LXX passages: Gen 24:15; 3 Kgdms 1:42; 4 Kgdms 6:33; 8:5; 1 Macc 5:14; Isa 58:9; Dan 9:21. For approximate dates, see Carl R. Holladay, Historians (vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors; Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983), 4-5. For a discussion of possible links between Acts and these historians, esp. PseudoEupolemus and Artapanus, see Sterling, Historiography, 364-65. Cf. also Carl R. Holladay, “Acts and the Fragments of Hellenistic Jewish Historians,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel; ed. David P. Moessner and David L. Tiede; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International), 171-98. Hecataeus of Abdera is identified as the author, but modern scholars, including Holladay, doubt the authenticity of certain passages, largely based on perceived anachronisms and evident pro-Jewish bias. For discussion, see Holladay, Historians, 280-82.

140

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

quem, and we can also conclude that this fragment was accessible in the first century C.E.85 To examine more closely the anecdote itself, it describes how an army and its Jewish cavalry escort are on the march. However, a μάντις is holding up the army, waiting for a bird to signal the will of the gods. While the seer awaits his marching orders, Mosollamus shoots the bird with an arrow and then interrupts the apoplectic seer: ἀγανακτούντων δὲ τοῦ μάντεως καὶ τινων ἄλλων καὶ καταρωμένων αὐτῷ, “τί μαίνεσθε,” ἔφη, “κακοδάιμονες;” (“While the seer and some others were angrily cursing at him, [Mosollamus] said, ‘Why are you so angry, you poor devils?’”).86 Mosollamus goes on to belittle the pagans for trusting in a bird that could not even save itself. The interruption of Mosollamus is intended not to highlight any specific utterance of the seer; rather, Mosollamus’ interruption shows his disdain for the seer’s methods and underscores the conflict between pagan and Jew. The only other interruption in the fragments of Jewish historians is found in a short passage attributed to Justus of Tiberias, who is described and disparaged by his contemporary, Josephus.87 One fragment of Justus’ Kings of the Jews Who Are in the Genealogies is preserved by Diogenes Laertius, who recounts what φησιν Ἰοῦστος ὁ Τιβεριεὺς ἐν τῷ Στέμματι (“Justus of Tiberias says in The Genealogy”).88 Diogenes is writing a biography of Socrates, and he explains how Plato is interrupted at the trial of Socrates: Κρινομένου δ᾽ αὐτοῦ … Πλάτωνα ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα, καὶ εἰπεῖν ‘νεώτατος ὤν, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, τῶν ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ἀναβάντων,’ τοὺς δὲ δικαστὰς ἐκβοῆσαι ‘κατάβα, κατάβα’ (“While [Socrates] was being judged, [Justus says that] Plato ascended the platform and said, ‘Men of Athens, because I am the youngest of those who have ascended the platform…’ but the judges shouted, ‘Get down, get down!’”).89 The interruption of Plato by the judges could be motivated by their scorn for Plato’s youth, or by their

85 86

87 88

89

Josephus, C. Ap. 1.201-204. The interruption takes place at 1.204. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.204. Holladay provides a Greek text with critical notes in Historians, 314. Cf. the similarity of Mosollamus’ interruptive reply to that of Festus in Acts 26:24. Justus is introduced by Josephus as the leader of a rebellious faction in Tiberias in Vita 36-42. Holladay cites Photius as the authority for this extended title in Historians, 372. I follow Holladay’s translation of Στέμματι as “Genealogy” rather than “Wreath” in Historians, 383. Diogenes Laertius 2.41. Holladay provides a Greek text with critical notes in Historians, 382.

Josephus

141

hostility towards Plato’s mentor Socrates. More interesting is the fact that Plato is interrupted mid-sentence, a phenomenon that we have not yet witnessed in Greek historiography. There is no explicit claim of interruption, only the telling absence of a finite verb in the interrupted discourse. Although this interruption could still be a literary device, the unfinished discourse resembles actual dialogue, which suggests that Justus may have been striving for greater verisimilitude than those historians who shunned such dramatic scenes as proper only to τραγῳδιογράφοι.90 The two instances of interruption of speakers by their audiences show that intentional interruption was used by at least two of the Hellenistic Jewish historians whose work now only survives in fragments. On the one hand, we do not know whether the author of Luke-Acts would have known any of these authors. On the other, we know that another Greek-speaking historian of the Jews did: namely, Josephus.

3.4 Josephus Flavius Josephus (37 – ca. 100 C.E.) was likely a contemporary of the author of Luke-Acts. Whether or not Luke knew Josephus’ writings is an open question, but scholars seem to be moving away from models of literary dependence towards the conclusion that the many similarities are best explained by common backgrounds, contexts, and “common traditions about the recent history of Palestine.” 91 Thus, our investigation is for comparative purposes, not for source-critical purposes. That is, our investigation into the use of interruption in Josephus’ extant works is not intended to uncover a source that influenced Luke’s use of interruption; rather, we will explore how a contemporary author who wrote in Greek and who knew the LXX used interruption. We will begin with Josephus’ first extant composition: ΙΟΥΔΑÏΚΟΥ ΠΟΛΕΜΟΥ (Jewish War). References to the Jewish War in

90 91

Polybius, Hist. 2.56.10. Sterling, Historiography, 366. For further explication of the view that Josephus and Luke-Acts are independent from each other, including a detailed survey of the relevant parallels, see Heinz Schreckenberg, “Flavius Josephus und die lukanischen Schriften,” in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien: Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf (ed. Wilfrid Haubeck and Michael Bachmann; Leiden: Brill, 1980), 179-209. Cf. also the thoughtful treatment in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989), 94-99.

142

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

his Jewish Antiquities establish the primacy of the former work.92 After surveying the Antiquities, we will continue with the autobiographical appendix to the Antiquities: the Life.93 Josephus’ final work, Against Apion, is a historiographical polemic that will not be included in our survey of Josephus’ use of interruption.94 There is an interrupted discourse in Against Apion, but it is part of a fragment of PseudoHecataeus, which is treated above with the fragmentary Hellenistic Jewish historians.95 Given the overlapping accounts of the Jewish War, the Jewish Antiquities, and the Life, we do not have to look far and wide for evidence that, in spite of his frequent affirmations of the importance of truth (ἀληθεία), this historian did not set out simply to write history wie es eigentlich gewesen ist.96 A classic example of Josephus’ willingness to craft his material rhetorically is the pair of Herodian speeches in B.J. 1.373-379 and A.J. 15.127-146. In both passages, King Herod addresses his people, who are disheartened after a ruinous earthquake and who have heard of an imminent invasion by the neighboring Arabs. The two speeches have similar themes, but there are significant differences, especially with regard to length. This example does not undermine the historical value of Josephus’ entire project, but it does reveal that the historian was willing to shape his material according to the occasion and purpose. This attention to rhetorical function may help to explain the prevalence of interrupted speech in his opera.

3.4.1 Turn-Taking in Josephus Speaking turns receive ample attention in the works of Josephus. The most revealing discussion of speaking turns occurs in the Jewish War, where Josephus notes that the Essenes are careful to observe turntaking rules: τὰς δὲ λαλιὰς ἐν τάξει παραχωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις (“[the Essenes] give way to each other in conversation in an orderly fash-

92 93 94

95 96

E.g., A.J. 1.4; 13.173; etc. Vita 430 refers to the Vita as a conclusion to the Antiquities. For a discussion of the dating of Against Apion, see John M. G. Barclay, Against Apion: Translation and Commentary (vol. 10 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2007), xxvi-xxviii. See Section 3.3. For one example of Josephus’ emphasis on truth, see his preface in A.J. 14.1-3. Cf. also B.J. 1.16.

Josephus

143

ion”).97 Both their meals and their conversations are conducted “in order” (ἐν τάξει).98 Josephus contrasts this turn-taking order with κραυγή (“shouting”) and θόρυβος (“tumult”), two threats to order that never contaminate this ideal community. 99 In light of these negative associations of κραυγή and θόρυβος, both of which figure prominently in interruptions by angry audiences, we could align this passage with more explicit condemnations of interruption, such as those of Agamemnon and Ben Sira.100 On the whole, then, we would expect Josephus to cast intentional interruption in a negative light, minimizing the number of cooperative interruptions. And, for the most part, this expectation holds true.101 Throughout his opera, we find Josephus marking speaking turns. Positively, Josephus will mark clear transfers of speaking rights. In his retelling of the rhetorical contest of 1 Esdras 3-4, Josephus clearly demarcates speaking turns. Only when one speaker ceases, does another begin.102 The same rules apply to speeches made before Caesar in Rome, when Antipas and Archelaus vie for the crown. Standing to take the floor (καταστὰς), Antipater denounces Archelaus.103 At the conclusion of his speech, he ceases (καταπαύει τὸν λόγον).104 Nicolas of Damascus then rises (ἀνίσταται) to defend Archelaus.105 Elsewhere, we find speakers claiming the floor by παρελθὼν εἰς μέσην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (“coming into the midst of the assembly”).106 As in Homer,

97 98

99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106

B.J. 2.132. Citations and translations from Josephus’ works are based on the text of Benedictus Niese, ed., Flavii Josephi Opera (7 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1955). B.J. 2.130, 132. For an insightful discussion of Josephus’ description of the Essenes, see the excursus in Steve Mason, Judean War 2: Translation and Commentary (vol. 1B of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 84-95. The remaining Brill commentaries on the Jewish War are eagerly awaited. B.J. 2.132. For other authors’ usage of κραυγή and θόρυβος, see the references given in Mason, Judean War 2, 108n822. For a discussion of the function of θόρυβος in ancient Greek assemblies, see Victor Bers, “Dikastic Thorubos,” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 1-15. For Agamemnon’s rebuke, see Homer, Il. 19.79-80. For Ben Sira’s condemnation of interruption, see Sir 11:8 (LXX). The Vita is the noteworthy exception. A.J. 11.43, 49. B.J. 2.26. B.J. 2.33. Β.J. 2.34. A.J. 9.10. Steve Mason comments on the meaning and frequency of παρέρχομαι εἰς μέσους in Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (vol. 9 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 43n220. He also cites B.J. 4.216; A.J. 19.261; Vita 134, 251, 255.

144

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

so in Josephus, we find speakers physically marking the beginning of a new speaking turn. Josephus also shows the difficulty of gaining a speaking turn. When Archelaus sends a general to the Jerusalem Temple to calm a rebel faction, this general cannot gain a speaking turn: τοῦτον εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν παρελθόντα πρὶν φθέγξασθαί τι λίθοις ἀπήλαυνον οἱ στασιασταὶ (“when [the general] arrived at the Temple, before he said a word, the rebels drove him away with rocks”).107 In other passages, speaking turns are again denied violently; as we will discuss below, many speaking turns are ended violently as well.108 Josephus includes other failures to obtain speaking turns as well. Herod, for example, uses bribery to convince Antony to deny the speaking turns of his accusers. 109 At another point, Antipater preempts Nicolas of Damascus, seizing the floor to defend himself.110 The many scenes that include interrupted and denied speaking turns in Josephus’ narratives could easily share the label assigned by the historian to a dispute between Salome and Pheroras, siblings of King Herod: ἡ τῶν λόγων...ἅμιλλα (“the contest of words”).111 We will now investigate the “contests of words,” or “word wars,” that pervade Josephus’ historical works.

3.4.2 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish War While Josephus refers to an earlier Semitic version, his Jewish War is a Greek composition.112 In his literary debut, Josephus describes the unsuccessful Jewish revolt, which the author experienced both as rebel general of the Galilean forces and as Roman prisoner-of-war. At one point, Josephus interrupts his narrative to make clear his twofold purpose: εἴς τε παραμυθίαν τῶν κεχειρωμένων καὶ εἰς ἀποτροπὴν τῶν 107 108 109 110

B.J. 2.9. For the violent denial of speaking turns, see A.J. 17.210-212; 19.254. A.J. 14.303. B.J. 1.629. David Aune identifies this passage as an interruption in his The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 127. Under some definitions of interruption, Antipater’s speech could be considered interruptive; however, because Nicolas did not begin his speaking turn, we cannot accuse Antipater of interrupting it. 111 A.J. 16.217. See similar phrases in Homer, Il.1.304; Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1; Chariton, Call. 5.8.4-6. 112 Josephus mentions the earlier version in B.J. 1.3. However, in the words of one scholar, “Josephus rewrote the first version drastically.” Gohei Hata, “Is the Greek Version of Josephus’ Jewish War a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?” JQR 66 (1975): 89-108, here 90.

Josephus

145

νεωτεριζόντων (“both to encourage the defeated and to deter the seditious”).113 His history thus tries to create sympathy for the Jewish cause, while upholding (and justifying) their Roman overlords as divinelyappointed conquerors. In Book 1 of the Jewish War, we find our first interruption. Josephus describes King Herod’s obsession with his (second) wife Mariamme, emphasizing the latter’s control over Herod. The king’s passion for Mariamme leads him to order his brother-in-law Joseph to execute her in the event of Herod’s death. As the king, Herod has the power to order the execution of his beloved, but his status does not protect him from interruption by Mariamme: κἀκείνη πρὸς ἐπανήκοντα τὸν Ἡρώδην πολλά τε περὶ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτὴν συμπαθοῦς ἐν ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ἐπομνύμενον, ὡς οὐδ᾽ ἐρασθείη ποτὲ γυναικὸς ἄλλης, “πάνυ γοῦν, εἶπεν, ταῖς πρὸς τὸν Ἰώσηπον ἐντολαῖς ἐπεδείξω τὸν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἔρωτα κτεῖναί με προστάξας” (“When Herod returned and was swearing repeatedly about his love for her in the course of conversation, how he had never loved another woman, [Mariamme] said, ‘All too clearly you showed your love for me – by commanding Joseph to kill me!’”).114 Angered by her husband’s lethal orders, Mariamme interrupts the king’s professions of love (“ἐρασθείη”) by showing this same love’s (ἔρωτα) homicidal tendencies. Because Josephus has been emphasizing the dysfunctional nature of the royal relationship, we might interpret this as a status-based interruption. Like Alexander the Great or Scyron the Messenian ephor, Mariamme interrupts a speaker to deliver a withering one-liner.115 Another familial interruption occurs later in Book 1, in the context of a trial before Varus, the Roman governor of Syria. Antipater, the son of King Herod, is accused by his father of conspiring to kill him and usurp the throne. Appearing before Varus, Antipater begs Herod to withhold judgment. His entreaty fails to persuade the king, who interrupts Antipater: Ὁ δ᾽ αὐτῷ σιγᾶν ἐγκραγὼν πρὸς τὸν Οὔαρον εἶπεν· “ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν καὶ σύ, Οὔαρε, καὶ πᾶς δικαστὴς ὅσιος Ἀντίπατρον ἐξώλη κρινεῖ, πέπεισμαι” (“[Herod] cried out at [Antipater] to be quiet and said to Varus, ‘But I am persuaded, Varus, that both you and every righteous judge will find Antipater to be a guilty reprobate!’”). 116 Hold113 B.J. 3.108. 114 B.J. 1.442. The parallel account in A.J. 15.85 does not emphasize the interruptive nature of Mariamme’s angry response. 115 For Alexander’s interruption of Parmenio, see Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.5. For Scyron’s upbraiding of Dorimachus the Aetolian brigand, see Polybius, Hist. 4.4.7. 116 B.J. 1.622.

146

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

ing Antipater in utter contempt, Herod silences his son in this statusbased intentional interruption.117 A third instance of intentional interruption appears in Book 2 of the Jewish War. At the outbreak of the Jewish revolt, the rebels attack the Roman garrison, driving them from the Antonia to the towers built by Herod: Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme. 118 When the besieged garrison decides to surrender, the Jewish rebels pledge that they will allow the Romans to depart in safety if they leave their weapons behind. The Romans agree, but as soon as they disarm, the faithless rebels launch a violent attack: ὥρμησαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον καὶ περισχόντες ἀνῄρουν οὔτε ἀμυνομένους οὔτε ἱκετεύοντας, μόνας δὲ τὰς συνθήκας καὶ τοὺς ὅρκους ἀναβοῶντας (“Eleazar’s men rushed at [the Romans], surrounded them, and began to kill men who neither defended themselves nor begged for mercy, but who were only shouting, ‘The treaties!’ and ‘The oaths!’”).119 This violent interruption clearly contrasts the impiety of the interrupting party with the piety of the interrupted. In Book 3, another group of people is violently interrupted. When Trajan approaches Japha, the town’s inhabitants emerge to fight with the Romans. Quickly routed, the townspeople try to retreat, but they are refused admission. As the people plead for the gates to be opened, they are interrupted by external events: ἐν μέσαις ἀπεσφάττοντο ταῖς ἱκεσίαις (“[the people of Japha] were slaughtered in the midst of their supplications”).120 Unheeded by their intended audience, the people are slain by their Roman pursuers. Another interruption by external events takes place later in Book 3. Titus, the son of Vespasian, arrives at the town of Tarichaeae with six hundred cavalry. His troops are dismayed at the sight of the Jewish defenses, and Titus delivers a speech exhorting them to take heart. His words have the desired effect: Ταῦτα τοῦ Τίτου διεξιόντος προθυμία δαιμόνιος ἐμπίπτει τοῖς ἀνδράσιν (“While Titus was exhorting [the troops] with these words, a heaven-sent eagerness fell upon the men”).121 The scene bears a close resemblance to Book 6 of Dionysius’ Roman Antiquities, when another Roman commander’s pre-battle harangue is interrupted: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τὰ εἰς τὸ γενναῖον ἐπαγωγὰ θάρσος τι δαιμόνιον ἐμπίπτει τῇ στρατιᾷ (“While [Postumius]

117 118 119 120 121

The parallel account in A.J. 17.94 does not contain any clear claim of interruption. B.J. 2.430-439. B.J. 2.453. B.J. 3.294. B.J. 3.485. Aune also labels this passage as an interruption in his New Testament, 127.

Josephus

147

was still saying things that call forth nobility, a heaven-sent boldness fell upon the army”).122 In both situations, a heavenly impulse “falls upon” (ἐμπίπτει) a military force. Due to the positive effect of such an interruption, we might label it a cooperative interruption by external events. We return to violent intentional interruptions in Book 5, as Titus and his Roman legions surround Jerusalem. When the Romans take the two outer walls, the rebels are thrown back and begin to suffer from famine. Titus asks Josephus, a Roman prisoner-of-war, to persuade his fellow Jews to surrender to Rome, and Josephus complies. His initial attempts are unsuccessful, as the rebels reply with abuse rather than penitence. Their negative responses are said to occur during Josephus’ exhortations, but there is no sign that his audience succeeds in silencing their former general.123 Later in Book 5, they succeed: Κἀν τούτῳ περιιὼν Ἰώσηπος, οὐ γὰρ ἀνίει παρακαλῶν, βάλλεται τὴν κεφαλὴν λίθῳ καὶ παραχρῆμα πίπτει καρωθείς (“In the meantime, as Josephus was coming around—for he never stopped calling on [the rebels to surrender], was struck on the head with a rock and immediately fell unconscious to the ground”).124 His audience makes clear its disapproval, rejecting Josephus’ exhortations in nearly lethal fashion. Another speaker is silenced by a rock in Book 6. After narrating the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, Josephus proceeds to condemn the Jews for ignoring the many signs of divine displeasure that preceded the war, including the prophecies of Jesus, son of Ananias.125 Four years before the war began, at the Feast of Tabernacles, Jesus had started to prophesy against Jerusalem, and he continued for some seven years, crying αἰαὶ Ἱερογολύμοις (“Woe to Jerusalem!”).126 Finally, during the siege, Jesus is interrupted by a Roman ballista: ὡς δὲ τελευταῖον προσέθηκεν “αἰαὶ δὲ κἀμοί,” λίθος ἐκ τοῦ πετροβόλου σχασθεὶς καὶ πλήξας αὐτὸν παραχρῆμα κτείνει, φθεγγομένην δ᾽ ἔτι τὰς κλῃδόνας ἐκείνας τὴν ψυχὴν ἀφῆκε (“as he finally added, ‘Woe to me too,’ a rock released from a stone-thrower struck him and killed

122 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 6.10.1. 123 B.J. 5.375. See B.J. 6.108 for another example of Josephus persevering in speaking, in spite of his audience’s vocal dissent. 124 B.J. 5.541. 125 For a thorough treatment of Jesus, the son of Ananias, see Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 158-63. 126 B.J. 6.306.

148

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

him instantly; while still uttering those prophetic words, he died”).127 This interruption by external events confirms Jesus’ prophetic powers. Towards the end of Book 7, we find our final interruption by a speaker’s audience. Having conquered Jerusalem and celebrated a triumph, the Romans move against the final rebel stronghold: Masada.128 When the Romans finally breach the wall, night intervenes, postponing the Roman invasion until morning. Eleazar, the leader of the rebels, makes a pair of speeches in support of mass suicide. His first speech receives a mixed response.129 His second attempt is much more effective: Ἔτι βουλόμενον αὐτὸν παρακαλεῖν πάντες ὑπετέμνοντο καὶ πρὸς τὴν πρᾶξιν ἠπείγοντο ἀνεπισχέτου τινὸς ὁρμῆς πεπληρωμένοι (“While he still wished to exhort them [further], they all interrupted him and were eager to do the deed, being filled with some irresistible desire”).130 Eleazar’s second argument for a noble death is readily embraced by his hearers, who eagerly interrupt their leader. 131 This cooperative interruption brings to a close the final extended discourse of the Jewish War, yet another historiographical work to pair a narrative climax with an intentional interruption.

3.4.3 Interrupted Speech in the Jewish Antiquities In his Roman Antiquities, Dionysius of Halicarnassus retells the early history of Rome in twenty books. In the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus retells the early (and contemporary) history of the Jews in twenty books. As Gabba has noted, “It is quite obvious that Dionysius’ historical work must have provided Josephus with a structural model for his own.”132 Given the frequent comments by Josephus on the rise and fall of various political systems in the Jewish Antiquities, we might suspect that the similarities are more than skin-deep.133 One additional similari-

127 128 129 130 131 132

B.J. 6.309. B.J. 7.252. B.J. 7.337-338. B.J. 7.389. Aune also notes this interruption in New Testament, 127. Emilio Gabba, Dionysius and The History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 214. Gabba notes both the similarity in titles and the similar division into twenty books. 133 Cf., e.g., A.J. 6.36; 11.111; 13.301; 14.41, 91, 93; etc. Surprisingly, even though Louis Feldman devotes several enlightening pages to the theme of an “Alternative Political Constitution” in A.J., citing Herodotus, Plato, and Cicero, he never mentions Dionysius of Halicarnassus. See Louis H. Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4: Translation and

Josephus

149

ty is the pervasive use of interruption in the two works. In the remnants of the Roman Antiquities, we found nineteen intentional interruptions and five interruptions by external events. In the Jewish Antiquities, we find sixteen intentional interruptions and seven interruptions by external events. Books 1 through 11 of the Antiquities cover the biblical history, from Genesis to the Persian period, appending a brief treatment of the conquest of Alexander the Great to the end of Book 11.134 Most of 1 Maccabees is paralleled in Books 12 and 13, and the remainder of the Antiquities continues Jewish history up to the beginning of the Jewish War.135 While Josephus obviously relies on certain well-known literary sources in Books 1 through 13, the Jewish Antiquities is no mere translation or harmonization. We will not explore Josephus’ use of Hebrew and Aramaic sources in any detail; the important point is that Josephus is ultimately responsible for the selection, order, and embellishment of his source material.136 Evidence that the historian has reworked his sources is ubiquitous. For example, Josephus retells the Book of Genesis in Books 1 and 2 of his Jewish Antiquities. In our survey of the LXX, we noted that Rebeccah interrupts the discourse of Abraham’s servant in Gen 24:15; the interruption is also present in the MT. However, there is no such interruption in Josephus’ version of this account. 137 Likewise, Josephus gives a shortened account of the Book of Daniel that omits the scene where, in Theodotion’s version, Nebuchadnezzar is interrupted. 138 Finally, when narrating the Maccabean time period, Josephus makes no mention of the seven brothers, thus eliminating the opportunity to include the intentional interruptions that occur in 2 and 4 Maccabees. Conversely, Josephus can add interruptions to biblical accounts. In Gen 29:9 (LXX), Rachel arrives while Jacob is “still speaking” (ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος) with some shepherds. As discussed above, the phrase ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος here marks simultaneity, not interruption.

134 135 136

137 138

Commentary (vol. 3 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2000), xxiv-xxix. Josephus appears to place the ending of “biblical history” in the Persian period in C. Ap. 1.41. A.J. 20.258. For a brief discussion of Josephus’ use of Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew sources, see Harold W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976.), 29-38. A.J. 1.246. For a summary of Josephus’ alterations of Gen 24, see Feldman’s commentary, ad loc. Dan 4:28 (Theodotion).

150

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

In Book 1 of the Jewish Antiquities, however, Josephus puts a discourse into the mouths of the shepherds and then indicates that the shepherds are “still speaking” when Rachel arrives: ταῦτα δ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔτι λεγόντων παρῆν ἡ παῖς σὺν τοῖς ἐπικατιοῦσι τῶν ποιμένων (“and while they were still saying these things, the girl arrived with the rest of the shepherds who were coming down to [the well]”).139 This dramatic interruption by external events is yet another case where the subject of a discourse arrives on the scene before the discourse is finished.140 The next interruption takes place in the story of Joseph and his brothers. As in the biblical story, Joseph frames his brothers by having his silver cup hidden in Benjamin’s baggage. When the brothers depart, Joseph sends horsemen after them. When Joseph’s men catch up with and threaten his kinsmen, the brothers disregard the threats and mock the servants of Joseph: οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ ἀγνοίας τῶν περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐχλεύαζον ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις καὶ τῆς κουφολογίας τὸν οἰκέτην ἐθαύμαζον (“[Joseph’s brothers], due to their ignorance about what was going on, scoffed at the things being said and marveled at the servant’s meaningless chatter”).141 Josephus has added the threats of the servant and the belligerent attitudes of the brothers, converting a relatively polite biblical scene into a rude confrontation that is “more dramatic.”142 The interruption of the servant by the brothers casts the latter in a more negative light than in the biblical text, which may be Josephus’ intent. The third interruption takes place in Book 3, as Josephus again expands upon the biblical text. In Num 11:4-9, the people complain about their all-manna diet and weep aloud; the intended audience for their complaint is left unspoken. Josephus, on the other hand, directs the people’s words toward Moses and also supplies a defense for the embattled leader: πολλὰ δὲ εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ δεινὰ λεγόντων, εἷς δέ τις αὐτοῖς παρῄνει, μήτε Μωυσέος καὶ τῶν πεπονημένων αὐτῷ περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας ἀμνημονεῖν (“as they were saying many dreadful things against [Moses], someone advised them not to forget Moses and the things he suffered for the common salvation…”).143 Although the people do not address their complaint to the anonymous individual, he clearly has heard their abusive words. Given Josephus’ lofty view of

139 A.J. 1.286. 140 For a discussion of how Josephus’ retelling of Gen 24 is “novelistic in tone,” largely through the addition of dialogue and suspense, see Pere Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (ALGHJ 19; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 233-34. 141 A.J. 2.130. 142 Feldman, Judean Antiquities 1-4, 169n373. 143 A.J. 3.297.

Josephus

151

Moses, we may classify this interruption as an intentional interruption of the impious by the pious. Book 4 yields a fourth interruption. In a familiar scene, a founder figure disappears while speaking. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romulus vanished into darkness ἐκκλησιάζοντα (“while addressing [an assembly]”).144 Likewise, Moses is hidden by a cloud while speaking: ἀσπαζομένου δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ προσομιλοῦντος ἔτι, νέφους αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν στάντος ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος (“while [Moses] took his leave of Eleazar and Joshua and was still conversing [with them], and a cloud suddenly came over him, he disappeared down into a ravine”). 145 Like the other interruptions in Books 1-4 of the Antiquities, this interruption by external events is not found in the biblical text. Josephus has dramatized the death of Moses in a manner far removed from the humble death reported in Deut 34:5. In Book 5, in the course of Josephus’ retelling of Jdg 19, the unyielding men of Gibeah not only ignore the hospitable old man, but they also interrupt him: συγγενῆ δὲ λέγοντος καὶ Λευῖτιν τοῦ πρεσβύτου καὶ δράσειν αὐτοὺς δεινὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡδονῆς εἰς τοὺς νόμους ἐξαμαρτάνοντας ὠλιγώρουν τοῦ δικαίου καὶ κατεγέλων, ἠπείλουν δὲ ἀποκτείνειν αὐτὸν ἐμποδίζοντα ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις αὐτῶν (“When the old man was saying that [his guest] was a kinsman and a Levite and that they would be doing something dreadful in sinning against the laws for the sake of pleasure, they neglected and derided the just, threatening to kill him if he hindered their desires”).146 Josephus makes quite clear that this intentional interruption is another conflict between the just and the unjust. As in the Jewish Wars, the impious are quick to interrupt the pious; like the Essenes, the just tend to respect speaking turns. This trend continues later in Book 5, as Josephus narrates the story of Sampson. After killing many Philistines, Sampson settles in Judah. The Philistines attack Judah, and when the Israelites complain, the Philistines interrupt: τῶν δ᾽ οὐ δικαίως λεγόντων τιμωρίαν αὐτοὺς εἰσπράττεσθαι περὶ τῶν Σαμψῶνος ἁμαρτημάτων φόρους αὐτοὺς τελοῦντας, εἰ βούλονται μὴ ἔχειν αἰτίαν ἔφασαν αὐτοῖς ὑποχείριον Σαμψῶνα δοῦναι (“when [the people of Judah] were saying that it was not just for [the Philistines] to penalize them on account of Sampson’s

144 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2. 145 Josephus, A.J. 4.326. The parallels between Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2, this passage, and Luke 9:34 will be discussed in Chapter 5. 146 A.J. 5.144.

152

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

transgressions, while they [the people of Judah] were paying them tribute, [the Philistines] said that if [the people of Judah] wanted to be guiltless, they should give Sampson into their power”).147 Yet again, the impious audience violates the speaking turn of the just. In Book 6, we find our first instance of intentional interruption by a representative of God: Samuel the prophet interrupts King Saul’s litany of excuses. In this retelling of 1 Sam 13 (=1 Kgdms 13), Josephus recounts Samuel’s discovery that Saul has disobeyed the prophet’s orders. The king explains himself, but Samuel grows weary of the royal excuses: ἀπολογουμένου δὲ τοῦ Σαούλου καὶ περιμεῖναι μὲν τὰς ἡμέρας ἃς ὥρισε λέγοντος…ὑπολαβὼν δὲ ὁ Σαμουῆλος…φησίν (“while Saul was defending himself and was saying that he waited for the prescribed number of days…Samuel interrupted and said…”).148 On the one hand, Samuel’s condemnation of the king’s behavior could lead us to classify this intentional interruption as an interruption of the unjust by the just. On the other hand, given Samuel’s status as divine spokesperson, we might also want to compare this interruption with other status-based interruptions; Saul may be king, but Samuel speaks on behalf of the God who, prior to Saul’s disobedience, had been willing to bless Saul with a long reign and royal descendants. Later in Book 6, we find a very similarly structured interaction that concludes with a status-based intentional interruption. At this point in the narrative, Samuel has died, but King Saul finds himself in need of advice. When he anonymously approaches a female “ventriloquist” (ἐγγαστρίμυθος) in order to inquire among the spirits of the dead, she rebuffs his demand, citing the king’s ban on such activity: τῆς δὲ γυναικὸς ἀπομαχομένης καὶ λεγούσης οὐ καταφρονήσειν τοῦ βασιλέως…ὤμοσε μηδένα γνώσεσθαι (“as the woman was declining and saying that she would not despise the king…[Saul] swore that no one would know”).149 Although the woman was unaware of Saul’s identity, the disguised king does not hesitate to interrupt the vacillating ventriloquist, who then summons Samuel. Samuel then rebukes Saul yet again. In Book 7 of the Antiquities, we find that Josephus has preserved the interruption of Bathsheba by Nathan from 1 Kgs 1 (=1 Kgdms 1). As in the biblical account, Nathan reports Adonijah’s conspiracy to Bathshe-

147 A.J. 5.297. 148 A.J. 6.103-104. The two present participles (ἀπολογουμένου and λέγοντος) indicate that ὑπολαβών should be translated as “interrupted.” See A.J. 6.146 for a noninterruptive use of ὑπολαβών. 149 A.J. 6.331.

Josephus

153

ba, advising her to tell King David. He arranges to arrive while she is presenting the evidence.150 Bathsheba goes directly to the king, and Nathan arrives on schedule: Διαλεγομένης δὲ ἔτι τῆς γυναικὸς ἤγγειλαν οἱ τοῦ δωματίου προεστῶτες, ὅτι βούλεται Νάθας ἰδεῖν αὐτόν (“While [Bathsheba] was still speaking, the guards of the chamber announced that Nathan desired to see him”).151 This arranged interruption by external events functions to add drama to the scene, just as in its source text.152 In Book 8, we find two interrupted prayers, neither of which is interrupted in the biblical record. First, Josephus narrates how King Asa (Ἄσανος) of Judah was threatened by an Ethiopian invasion. Asa prays to God for victory, and his prayer is answered: Ταῦτα λέγοντος Ἀσάνου νίκην ἐσήμαινεν ὁ θεός (“While Asa was speaking, God gave him a sign of victory”).153 Josephus uses this cooperative interruption of a righteous king by his divine hearer to demonstrate the willingness and capacity of God to intervene in human affairs on behalf of the people of God.154 While this passage bears some similarity to the many speeches interrupted by favorable omens in non-Jewish historiographical sources, Josephus differs by explicitly identifying the divine agent responsible for the sign.155 The other interrupted prayer in Book 8 takes place during the showdown between the prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal. 156 When the latter group fails to bring down heavenly fire, Elijah takes his turn. The prophet prays to God, and God responds: καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντος ἄφνω πῦρ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τοῦ πλήθους ὁρῶντος ἐπὶ τὸν βωμὸν ἔπεσε καὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἐδαπάνησεν (“and as he was saying these things, fire suddenly fell from heaven onto the altar, as the crowd was watching, and consumed the sacrifice”).157 Very similar to the preceding example, this interruption again functions as a sign of divine favor and power; however, because Josephus does not explicitly mention the divine actor, we would classify this as an interruption by external events. 150 A.J. 7.349. He will arrive “while she is speaking” (διαλεγομένης). 151 A.J. 7.351. 152 1 Kgs 1:22. For other arranged interruptions by external events, see Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14; 4.22.11; 11.30.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.4.5. 153 A.J. 8.294. 154 Cf. Isa 58:9; 65:24 (LXX). 155 Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 3.76.3; Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.9; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 16.79.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 5.16.2. 156 See 1 Kgs 18 for the biblical account. 157 A.J. 8.342.

154

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Josephus adds three interruptions to biblical accounts in Book 9. The first two occur in a single scene, when King Uzziah dons a priestly garment and attempts to offer sacrifice to God. The high priest Azariah and eighty other priests try to stop the king, but he refuses: καταβοώντων δ᾽ ἐξιέναι καὶ μὴ παρανομεῖν εἰς τὸν θεόν, ὀργισθεὶς ἠπείλησεν αὐτοῖς θάνατον, εἰ μὴ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἄξιουσι (“as [the priests] cried out [to Uzziah] to leave and not to transgress against God, [Uzziah] became angry and threatened to kill them if they did not keep quiet”).158 The lawless king interrupts the faithful priests with death threats; the blatant impiety of Uzziah’s actions suggests that this interruption should not be labeled status-based, but rather classified with other cases of the wicked interrupting the righteous. However, Uzziah’s behavior is quickly halted, as his death threats are interrupted by external events: μεταξὺ δὲ σεισμὸς ἐκλόνησε τὴν γῆν μέγας καὶ διαστάντος τοῦ ναοῦ φέγγος ἡλίου λαμπρὸν ἐξέλαμψε καὶ τῇ τοῦ βασιλέως ὄψει προσέπεσεν, ὡς τῷ μὲν εὐθέως λέπραν ἐπιδραμεῖν (“meanwhile, a great earthquake shook the ground, and when it split the temple open, a brilliant sunbeam shone and fell on the king’s face, so that he was immediately struck with leprosy”).159 These signs of divine disapproval silence the king, who is forced to leave both temple and city in disgrace.160 Later in Book 9, King Hezekiah sends envoys to invite the Israelites to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. His envoys are ridiculed, and prophets bearing similar messages meet an even worse fate: καὶ τοὺς προφήτας δὲ ὁμοίως ταῦτα παραινοῦντας καὶ προλέγοντας ἃ πείσονται μὴ μεταθέμενοι πρὸς τὴν εὐσέβειαν τοῦ θεοῦ διέπτυον καὶ τελευταῖον συλλαβόντες αὐτοὺς ἀπέκτειναν (“and when the prophets were exhorting [the Israelites] with similar words and foretelling the things they would suffer if they did not revert to righteousness before God, [the Israelites] spat [on the prophets] and finally seized and killed them”).161 This intentional interruption of God’s representatives by a wicked people does not turn out well for the latter group. Josephus soon narrates the Assyrian conquest and the end of the Northern Kingdom, bringing Book 9 to an end. 162

158 A.J. 9.224. 159 A.J. 9.225. For μεταξύ as “meanwhile” or “in the midst of,” see LSJ, s.v. μεταξύ A.I.2. 160 A.J. 9.226. 161 A.J. 9.265. 162 A.J. 9.277-279.

Josephus

155

In Book 11, Josephus paraphrases the biblical Book of Esther, including two additional interruptions. In the first scene, King Artaxerxes is divinely deprived of sleep, so he has his scribe read to him from the royal records. The scribe reads about how Mordecai thwarted a conspiracy against the king, without mentioning any reward for this deed. Surprised, the king stops the reading: φράσαντος δὲ τοῦτο μόνον τοῦ γραμματέως καὶ μεταβαίνοντος εἰς ἑτέραν πρᾶξιν ἐπέσχεν ὁ βασιλεὺς πυνθανόμενος, εἰ μὴ ἔχει γέρας αὐτῷ δοθὲν ἀναγεγραμμένον (“when the scribe said only this and was moving on to another affair, the king stopped him and inquired whether the records indicated that a reward had been given [to Mordecai]”). 163 This intentional interruption is an excellent example of status-based interruption. Just as Alcinous freely interrupts the singing of the minstrel Demodocus, so the king stops the scribe’s reading.164 A much more dramatic interruption by external events takes place later in Book 11, as Queen Esther is hosting Haman and the king at a banquet. King Artaxerxes asks the queen what favor she would like to receive, and she begs him to preserve the lives of the Jewish people. When she names Haman as the malefactor responsible for this scheme, King Artaxerxes storms out of the room, and Haman pleads with the queen for mercy: ἐπί τε τῆς κλίνης αὐτοῦ πεσόντος καὶ τὴν βασίλισσαν παρακαλοῦντος ἐπεισελθὼν ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν μᾶλλον παροξυνθεὶς εἶπεν, “ὦ κάκιστε πάντων, καὶ βιάζεσθαί μου τὴν γυναῖκα ἐπιχειρεῖς;” (“and [Haman] fell on her couch and was pleading with the queen, when the king came upon him and said, even more livid at the sight, ‘O you worst of all, are you also trying to violate my wife?’”).165 The interruptive nature of this exclamation is made clear: Ἀμάνου δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο καταπλαγέντος καὶ μηδὲν ἔτι φθέγξασθαι δυνηθέντος (“But Haman was terrified at this and was no longer able to utter a word”).166 The timing of the king’s arrival and rebuke dramatizes the sweeping reversal of Haman’s circumstances. The next interruption occurs in Book 12, as Judas Maccabeus prepares his men to face a much larger Syrian army. When his soldiers begin to make excuses, Judas interrupts them: τῶν δὲ λεγόντων, ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶ πρὸς τοσοῦτο μέγεθος στρατιᾶς ἀξιόμαχοι, συμβουλευόντων δὲ νῦν μὲν ἀναχωρεῖν καὶ σώζειν αὐτούς, αὖθις δὲ συναγαγόντας τοὺς ἰδίους τοῖς ἐχθροῖς συμβαλεῖν, “μὴ τοῦτ᾽, εἶπεν,

163 164 165 166

A.J. 11.250. Homer, Od. 8.536-543. A.J. 11.265. A.J. 11.266.

156

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

ἥλιος ἐπίδοι γενόμενον” (“while [the soldiers] were saying that they were not a match for such a great force and were advising [Judas] to withdraw now and save them, and to attack the enemy later, after having gathered his men, [Judas] said, ‘Let the sun not behold such a thing’”).167 Rebuking his cowardly men, Judas announces that he will choose a valiant death over a disgraceful retreat. The virtuous general intentionally interrupts his craven subordinates. Judas is the general, so his status authorizes him to interrupt; however, his piety also impels him to silence his fearful men. Furthermore, we may note the placement of this interruption. This interruptive speech is Judas’ final discourse. His soldiers then enter battle, but after initial success, the Syrians outmaneuver and rout them, killing Judas Maccabeus. Josephus thus brings Book 12 to a close. In Book 13, we find a dramatic interruption by external events, as Josephus again shows interest in the Essenes. 168 He introduces Judas the Essene, a prophet whose word is reliable. One day, though, Judas sees Antigonus, son of the high priest John Hyrcanus I, walking past the temple. Judas is distraught, for he had foretold the death of Antigonus on that very day at a distant place called Straton’s Tower. 169 The the prophet bemoans his failed prophecy, but an interruption by external events puts a sudden end to his sorrow: ταῦτ᾽ οὖν λέγοντος αὐτοῦ καὶ κατηφοῦντος ἀγγέλλεται τεθνεὼς Ἀντίγονος ἐν τῷ ὑπογείῳ, ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ Στράτωνος ἐκαλεῖτο πύργος (“then, as he was saying these things and grieving, it was reported that Antigonus had died in an underground place, which was also called Straton’s Tower”).170 Bad news for Antigonus is good news for Judas: the interruptive arrival of bad tidings functions to confirm Judas’ predictive powers. The only interruption in Book 14 is intentional. The brothers Phasael and Herod had been appointed tetrarchs by Mark Antony.171 When Phasael is invited to meet with the Parthian Barzaphranes, Herod warns his brother not to go. Phasael nevertheless goes, only to learn of a Parthian plot against himself, Herod, and the high priest Hyrcanus. Instead of fleeing, Phasael confronts Barzaphranes. The Parthian interrupts the former’s charges with an oath: ὁ δὲ βάρβαρος ταῦτα 167 A.J. 12.424. 168 Earlier in Book 13, Josephus mentions the three Jewish sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (A.J. 13.171-173). He there refers to his longer treatment of the sects in B.J. 2.119-166, most of which is devoted to the Essenes. See esp. B.J. 2.159, which refers to the predictive powers of the Essenes. 169 A.J. 13.311-312. 170 A.J. 13.313. 171 A.J. 14.326.

Josephus

157

λέγοντος ὤμνυεν μηδὲν ἀληθὲς εἶναι τῶν ὑπονοουμένων, ἀλλὰ ψευδεῖς αὐτὸν ὑποψίας ταράξαι (“as Phasael was saying these things, the barbarian [Barzaphranes] swore that none of these suspicions was true; rather, false suspicions troubled him”).172 The characterization of Barzaphranes as βάρβαρος, coupled with the fact that the Parthian was lying, suggests that this intentional interruption should be classified as an interruption of the just by the unjust, of the noble-hearted by the ignoble. In Book 15, there is another intentional interruption, as Josephus narrates one of the final developments in the stormy relationship between King Herod and his wife Mariamme. Having received a fabricated report that Mariamme had been working secretly with his cupbearer, Herod tortures her most faithful eunuch to extract more information. The eunuch admits that Mariamme has hated Herod ever since Soemus, who was guarding her at Masada for Herod, told her that the king again had ordered that she be killed if he did not return. 173 This mention of Soemus’ betrayal triggers an instant reaction from the king: ταῦτα δ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος μέγα βοήσας ὁ βασιλεύς (“while [the eunuch] was still speaking, the king loudly cried out”).174 Herod goes on to denounce Soemus for his insubordination and to accuse the man of being intimate with Mariamme. Soemus is then arrested and executed.175 Whereas most other intentional interruptions signify a conflict between speaker and hearer, this intentional interruption marks the hearer’s furious reaction to specific content; the relationship between speaker and hearer is inconsequential. Towards the beginning of Book 18, Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, moves his troops from Caesarea to Jerusalem, bringing the Roman military standards into the city. The Jews come before Pilate in Caesarea in order to protest this introduction of graven images into their holy city, but Pilate suppresses these protests in bloody fashion. Ascending the βῆμα, he pretends to be ready to listen to their entreaties. However, he has arranged for his soldiers to put a quick end to the Jewish protests: πάλιν δὲ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἱκετείᾳ χρωμένων ἀπὸ συνθήματος περιστήσας τοὺς στρατιώτας ἠπείλει θάνατον ἐπιθήσειν ζημίαν ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος, εἰ μὴ παυσάμενοι θορυβεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα ἀπίοιεν (“when the Jews again were entreating [Pilate], he gave

172 A.J. 14.347. 173 Soemus had revealed Herod’s instructions in A.J. 15.205, just as Joseph disclosed similar orders in A.J. 15.69. 174 A.J. 15.228. 175 A.J. 15.229.

158

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

the signal, surrounded [the Jews] with his soldiers, and threatened to inflict a penalty of immediate execution, if they did not stop their disturbance and return to their homes”).176 We have noted several instances of prearranged interruption; Pilate’s intentional interruption of his supplicants is yet another instance. 177 Furthermore, this interruption is very clearly status-based; as Roman governor, Pilate is free to silence and intimidate his subjects. He is not successful, though, for the Jews readily welcome death on behalf of the Mosaic law. Pilate removes the standards, and soon, another showdown ensues. Shortly after the incident with the Roman military standards, Pilate clashes again with the Jews over the use of sacred funds to build an aqueduct. Josephus reports that tens of thousands of Jews noisily begin to protest the construction. Pilate again responds by arranging for an interruption. This time, he disguises soldiers with Jewish clothing and arms them with clubs. The Jews find their rowdy protest cut short: τῶν δὲ ὡρμηκότων εἰς τὸ λοιδορεῖν ἀποδίδωσι τοῖς στρατιώταις ὃ προσυνέκειτο σημεῖον (“when [the Jews] launched into their invective, [Pilate] gave his soldiers the prearranged signal”).178 This second prearranged intentional interruption of the Jews by Pilate is more violent; many Jews are clubbed to death by the overzealous soldiers.179 A third status-based intentional interruption of Jewish entreaty by Roman overlord occurs later in Book 18. An embassy of Alexandrian Jews arrives in Rome to present their case before Gaius Caligula. They are opposed by a rival embassy led by Apion.180 After Apion accuses the Jews of disrespecting Caligula, Philo of Alexandria rises to the Jews’ defense: οἷός τε ἦν ἐπ᾽ ἀπολογίᾳ χωρεῖν τῶν κατηγορημένων (“he was able to come to the defense against the accusations”).181 Caligula, however, cuts him off: διακλείει δ᾽ αὐτὸν Γάιος κελεύσας ἐκποδὼν ἀπελθεῖν, περιοργής τε ὢν φανερὸς ἦν ἐργασόμενός τι δεινὸν αὐτούς (“but Gaius [Caligula] cut him off and ordered him to get out of his way; being very angry, he made clear that he would do them some

176 A.J. 18.58. 177 Cf. Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14; 4.22.11; 11.30.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.4.5. 178 A.J. 18.61. 179 A.J. 18.62. 180 This Apion is later targeted by Josephus in his Against Apion. There is no mention of the accusations of Apion in Philo’s account (Legatio ad Gaium). 181 A.J. 18.259.

Josephus

159

terrible harm”).182 This intentional interruption is also status-based; the Roman emperor silences a group of Jewish supplicants.

3.4.4 Interrupted Speech in the Life The Life of Josephus is an appendix to the much larger Jewish Antiquities; in fact, the smaller work is “fully a part of the Antiquities,” both “introduced in, and engendered by, the Antiquities.”183 Unlike the broad scope of the Antiquities, however, the compass of the Life is restricted to the tumultuous experiences of one highly educated Jew who first serves as a rebel commander and who later becomes a Roman prisonerof-war, eventually turning into a favorite of the Roman emperor.184 While Josephus does indeed face “vigorous opposition at every stage,” the interruptions of the Life do not highlight the conflict between Josephus and John of Gischala, or between Josephus and Justus of Tiberias.185 Instead, intentional interruption in the Life is thoroughly cooperative: Josephus is intentionally interrupted three times in the Life, and each time, the interruption signifies the audience’s favor. The first time he is interrupted, Josephus is in Tiberias in order to win the allegiance of its inhabitants, who were being wooed by John of Gischala. Josephus stands in the stadium of Tiberias and addresses the assembled people. His encouragement to remain loyal is interrupted by one of his own soldiers: Οὔπω δέ μοι πάντα λελάλητο, καί τινος ἐξήκουσα τῶν οἰκείων καταβαίνειν κελεύοντος· οὐ γάρ μοι καιρὸν εἶναι φροντίζειν τῆς παρὰ Τιβεριέων εὐνοίας, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς ἰδίας σωτηρίας (“I was not yet finished saying everything, but I heard one of my men ordering me to come down; for it was not the time for me to be thinking about the favor of the Tiberians, but rather about my own safety”).186 Josephus heeds the soldier’s advice, and he narrowly escapes his enemies.187 While the soldier was not Josephus’ intended audience, the man’s exhortation shows that he is familiar with what

182 A.J. 18.260. For Philo’s account of Caligula’s interruption, along with a more detailed description of Caligula’s erratic behavior throughout the episode, see Legat. 364-367. 183 Mason, Life, xv. See also Vita 430. 184 For Josephus’ treatment by Vespasian and Titus, see Vita 414-429. 185 Mason, Life, xxiii. 186 Vita 94. Cf. the parallel passage in B.J. 2.619, where the assembled Tiberians warn Josephus of the attacking soldiers. In that passage, the interruptive nature of the people’s warning is not emphasized by the narrator. 187 Vita 96.

160

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Josephus has been saying. This cooperative interruption functions to save the life of the speaker. We should also note that the character who is thus saved and the author who is narrating this scene are one. Like Xenophon and Polybius, Josephus narrates the violation of his own speaking turn. Xenophon narrates two interruptions of his own speaking turns in the Anabasis: the first interruption functions to affirm and even expand upon Xenophon’s own speech, and the second interruption is a divine confirmation of Xenophon’s words.188 In a similar vein, Polybius narrates how young Scipio eagerly interrupts his new mentor.189 These two historians describe themselves in third-person, distancing themselves as authors from their characters so as to create the appearance of impartial objectivity.190 In his more explicitly autobiographical account, Josephus unabashedly narrates in first-person how his audiences could rarely restrain themselves from showing their affection for him. Josephus is still battling with John of Gischala for the allegiance of the Galileans, when he is interrupted a second time. Near Gabaroth, Josephus addresses a large group of people who have come to his assistance. He does not get very far: ἐπεὶ δὲ καταστὰς εἰς αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἠρξάμην, ἐβόων ἅπαντες εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα τῆς χώρας αὐτῶν καλοῦντες (“when I stood up and began to speak to them, they all cried out, calling [me] the benefactor and savior of their lands”). 191 Mason notes that the title εὐεργέτης καὶ σωτήρ is “a particular favorite of Josephus,” citing several examples from the historian’s opera.192 We also have record of wider Hellenistic usage of this title.193 This intentional

188 Agasias the Stymphalian interrupts Xenophon in Anab. 3.1.31, and a sneeze omen confirms Xenophon’s speech in Anab. 3.2.9. 189 Polybius, Hist. 31.24.9. 190 See the insightful discussion of “Person and Perspective” in John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 182-205. 191 Josephus, Vita 244. 192 Mason, Life, 114n1059. From Josephus’ works, Mason cites B.J. 1.530; 3.459; 4.146; 7.71; A.J. 11.278; 12.261; Vita 259. 193 In Life, 114n1059, Mason also lists examples of historical rulers who bore these titles: Ptolemy III Euergetes, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes, Ptolemy IX Soter, and Antiochus I Soter. One might also adduce Luke 22:25. For a discussion of one king’s extensive benefaction, for which he also received the title of “benefactor and savior,” see John Ma, Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 179-242, esp. 182-94. Philippe Gauthier notes that, when kings made large benefactions to a certain city, they were then often acclaimed as “benefactors and saviors” upon entering that city. He offers numerous historiographical and epigraphic examples in his Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe-Ier siècle avant J.-C.):

Josephus

161

interruption of a speaker by his hearers is perhaps the most cooperative interruption that we have witnessed. There is no indication of what Josephus might have said at this point; the people’s natural affection for Josephus overwhelms their ability to wait for his speaking turn to end.194 The final interruption is very similar to the second. After outwitting the embassy from Jerusalem that had been sent to expel him, Josephus faces his accusers at Gabaroth. Toward the end of his speech, he asks his gathered Galileans supporters to testify if he has done anything wrong. The people acquit him: Ταῦτ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος κοιναὶ παρὰ πάντων ἐγένοντο φωναὶ καλούντων εὐεργέτην με καὶ σωτῆρα (“While I was still saying these things, there was a general outcry from all, calling me benefactor and savior”).195 This cooperative intentional interruption, coupled with the subsequent onslaught of support, wins the day for Josephus, who tries unsuccessfully to pardon his accusers. The people, however, chase after the members of the Jerusalem embassy to put them to death.

3.4.5 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Josephus There are more interrupted discourses in the extant opera of Josephus than in any other author surveyed thus far. Of the thirty-four interrupted discourses, twenty-four are intentionally interrupted, and ten are interrupted by external events. Table 4 offers a breakdown of the types of interrupted speech in each of the historian’s three narratives: 196

Contribution à l’histoire des institutions (BCH Supplément 12; Paris: École française d’Athènes, 1985), 50-53. 194 Similarly, see Vita 251, where Josephus’ mere appearance leads to another round of affectionate acclamations. 195 Vita 259. 196 Again, the lone interruption in Against Apion is treated separately in Section 3.3.

162

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Table 4: Interrupted Speech in Josephus Book Jewish War Jewish Antiquities Life TOTAL:

Interruptions by External Events 3 7 0 10

Intentional Interruptions 5 16 3 24

Total 8 23 3 34

Above, we suggested that, in light of the Essene practice of regular turn-taking, Josephus might tend to cast intentional interruption in a negative light. This hypothesis fits the data fairly well: of the twentyfour intentional interruptions, the largest category is composed of violent interruptions of the pious by the impious.197 Status-based interruptions are also fairly common, whether Herod is interrupting his son Antipater, or Saul is interrupting the witch of Endor.198 Occasionally, however, Josephus will cast interruption in a positive light. Some status-based interruptions involve the interruption of a wicked or disobedient person by a representative of God. Thus, Samuel interrupts Saul, and Moses is defended against the angry crowd.199 Josephus also narrates how God interrupts Asa’s prayer with a sign of victory, and how Judas Maccabeus interrupts his cowardly troops. 200 Finally, there are only four cooperative interruptions. The first instance takes place in the climactic scene in Book 7 of the Jewish War, where Eleazar exhorts his men to choose a noble death. 201 Their eager execution of his proposal both brings the Jewish War to a conclusion and draws the admiration of the victorious Romans. 202 As in Homer’s Iliad and Xenophon’s Anabasis, interruption marks a key point in the Jewish War. Turning to the final three cooperative interruptions, we find that the person who is eagerly acclaimed is someone the author would like

197 There are nine intentional interruptions of the pious by impious that feature either violence or threatened violence: B.J. 2.453; 5.541; A.J. 5.144; 5.297; 9.224; 9.265; 18.58; 18.61; 18.260. 198 Herod interrupts Antipater in B.J. 1.622, and Saul interrupts the ventriloquist in A.J. 6.331. See also B.J. 1.442; A.J. 6.103-104; 11.250; 15.228. 199 Saul interrupts Samuel at A.J. 6.103-104, and Moses is defended at A.J. 3.297. 200 A.J. 8.294; 12.424. 201 B.J. 7.389. 202 B.J. 7.406.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Jewish Historiography

163

to cast in a positive light: Josephus. While one of Josephus’ speaking turns is forcefully interrupted by a hostile audience in the Jewish War, his Life features more positive interruptions.203 First, he is addressing the people of Tiberias when one of his soldiers warns him of an attack by John of Gischala; Josephus has been so intent on winning over the Tiberians that he endangered his own σωτηρία.204 However, he finds himself better off in two later addresses to supportive crowds near Gabaroth. Twice, he is interrupted with shouts of εὐεργέτην (“Benefactor!”) and σωτῆρα (“Savior!”); Josephus does not seem to mind these interruptions. We should also note that the three cooperative interruptions in the Life are some of the most clearly marked intentional interruptions in Josephus’ opera. He makes clear that his speaking turn was still ongoing at the time of interruptive acclamation: either “I had not yet said everything” (Οὔπω δέ μοι πάντα λελάλητο), or “I began to speak to them” (εἰς αὐτοὺς λέγειν ἠρξάμην), or “While I was still saying these things” (Ταῦτ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος).205 Likewise, at the close of Eleazar’s culminating address, Josephus states clearly that Eleazar’s men “all interrupted” (πάντες ὑπετέμνοντο).206 Most other cases are more lightly marked with a present participle, usually a form of λέγω.207 As mentioned earlier, the author of Luke-Acts probably did not know the works of Josephus. However, the two authors were both deeply influenced by the Jewish Scriptures, and they were writing in Greek around the same time period. Given the frequency of interrupted speech in the works of Josephus, perhaps we should not be surprised to find so many interrupted discourses in a contemporary author.

3.5 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Jewish Historiography In conclusion, then, we find that interrupted speech was a relatively common feature in Jewish historiography, especially in the Second Temple period. These narrated interruptions were not historical accidents that were blindly preserved in the literary record; Second Temple 203 204 205 206 207

Josephus is struck by a rock while exhorting the Jews of Jerusalem in B.J. 5.541. Vita 94. Vita 94, 244, 259. B.J. 7.389. For an organized listing of the different claims of interruption, see the sixth column of the table in Appendix 2.

164

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Jews were well aware of turn-taking rules and their interruption. In addition to Agamemnon’s disapproval of interruption and the Roman legislation against interruption, we have seen interruption condemned in the LXX version of Sirach, in the Community Rule, and (implicitly) in Josephus’ account of the Essenes.208 While this survey did not cover the entire spectrum of Jewish Historiography or of Second Temple Jewish literature, the importance and extent of the LXX and the works of Josephus permit some preliminary conclusions.209 First, as in the Greek historiographical texts surveyed in Chapter Two, we again find that intentional interruptions can be classified into three broad categories, based on conflict, cooperation, or status. From the Maccabean histories to Pseudo-Hecataeus to Josephus’ Jewish War, intentionally interrupted speech functions to mark key conflicts: between martyr and despot, between pagan and Jew, and between Roman soldiers and Jewish rebels.210 As a thorough study of Appendix 2 will confirm, this category is the most common, and we should note that these conflict-based interruptions were most frequently interruptions of the pious by the impious or interruptions of the impious by God or by a representative of God. Whereas the non-Jewish historians often featured interruptions by rivals in deliberative assemblies, we did not find this type of interruption in the Jewish histories, presumably due largely to differences in the political arrangements of the poliscentered Greeks and the Temple-centered Jews. Cooperative interruptions are fewer in number but still significant. The only cooperative interruptions are in 2 Macc 7:30, Book 7 of the Jewish War, and the Life of Josephus. We have discussed the selfaggrandizing function of the acclamations in the Life above. Now, we can point out that the cooperative interruptions in 2 Maccabees and in the Jewish War both occur at narrative turning points. In 2 Macc 7:30, the youngest of the seven brothers interrupts his mother and denounces Antiochus IV Epiphanes with a bold speech; he is then the last of the brothers to be martyred in this scene that forms the narrative “turning point” of 2 Maccabees.211 In similar fashion, Josephus concludes his account of the Jewish War by narrating how Eleazar the rebel leader is 208 Homer, Il. 19.79-80; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.17.5; Sir 11:8 (LXX); 1QS vi, 10-11; Josephus, B.J. 2.132. 209 Philo of Alexandria included at least one instance of interrupted speech in Legat. 364367. I did not find any interrupted speeches in the Liber antiquitatum biblicarum of Pseudo-Philo or in the Lives of the Prophets. 210 See, respectively, 4 Macc 9:17-19; 11:9; Pseudo-Hecataeus as preserved in Josephus, C. Ap. 1.204; Josephus, B.J. 2.453; A.J. 18.58, 61. 211 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 107.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Jewish Historiography

165

cut off by his eager hearers, who then commit suicide—a noble death that is admired by the Romans. Status-based interruptions are relatively frequent. King Amaziah silences a prophet and threatens the man with a whipping in 2 Chr 25:16 (LXX). Pashhur, a high-ranking priest, strikes Jeremiah and then confines the prophet in Jer 20:1-2 (LXX). Perhaps the least rhetorically significant example is the interruption of the royal scribe by King Artaxerxes in Josephus’ retelling of the Book of Esther; the king interrupts his subordinate simply to ask a question.212 We will not review the numerous interruptions by external events, instead simply noting their prevalence. We have found many similarities between non-Jewish and Jewish historiographical use of interruption by external events, from the ubiquitous interruptive messenger to the various instances of staged or prearranged interruptions. 213 Again, in Chapter Five we will return to the similarities in form between Septuagintal interruptions and Luke 22:47. Because we will be closely examining the connection between interruptive audiences and interrupted discourses in Chapters Five and Six, we should also note instances where audiences appeared to be reacting to the specific content of a discourse, rather than reacting generally against the speaker. The best example is in Book 15 of the Jewish Antiquities, when King Herod is torturing one of his wife’s most faithful eunuchs. When the eunuch reveals that Soemus, one of Herod’s most trusted soldiers, had betrayed the king’s orders to Mariamme, Herod cries aloud ταῦτα δ᾽ ἔτι λέγοντος (“while [the eunuch] is still speaking”).214 Herod’s interruption is not a status-based silencing of the eunuch, but rather a deep, immediate reaction to the specific content of the eunuch’s discourse. Finally, we should consider not only the types of interruption, but also the types of discourse that are interrupted. The majority of intentionally interrupted discourses in Jewish historiography are narrated in oratio obliqua. Of the thirteen discourses that are both reported in oratio recta and interrupted by the audience, eight are interrupted during a trial or similar forensic setting.215 Furthermore, in addition to the short snippet of Plato in the lost work of Justus of Tiberias, four of these in212 A.J. 11.250. 213 See 3 Kgdms 1:22 (LXX), preserved also in Josephus, A.J. 7.351, as well as the staged intentional interruptions in A.J. 18.58, 61. 214 A.J. 15.228. 215 2 Macc 7:30; 4 Macc 9:17, 19; 11:9; the account of Plato’s defense speech by Justus of Tiberias, as preserved in Diogenes Laertius 2.41; Josephus, B.J. 1.622; A.J. 2.130; Vita 259.

166

Chapter 3: Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

terrupted discourses might fittingly be labeled defense speeches: the oldest brother’s defense in 4 Macc 9:17-18; the fifth brother’s defense in 4 Macc 11:2-6; Antipater’s shortened defense in Book 1 of the Jewish War; and Josephus’ defense in his Life.216 Clearly, we should not expect that literate Second Temple Jewish readers of Luke-Acts would be surprised to find interrupted speeches in forensic settings.217 Nor would the stoning of a disagreeable speaker be entirely novel.218 In our exploration of the function of interrupted speech in Luke-Acts, we will return to these parallels; now, we turn to a consideration of the function of interrupted speech in the Greek novels.

216 For the latter two, see B.J. 1.622 and Vita 254-258. 217 E.g., Acts 26:24. 218 Cf. Acts 7:57-58 and Josephus, B.J. 5.541. Cf. also Polybius, Hist. 1.80.9; 2.61.5; Appian, Hist. rom. 8.91.431.

Chapter 4 Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels 4.1 Introduction In his Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles, Richard Pervo argues against the classification of the Acts of the Apostles as “history;” he claims that, in light of the book’s purpose, intended audience, and dramatic content, “the scale tilts…more sharply toward the historical novel.”1 While Pervo himself has since backed away from designating Acts as a novel, scholars have continued to compare Acts and novels.2 For example, Richard Ascough has evaluated the function of crowd scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton’s Callirhoe.3 Likewise, Saundra Schwartz analyzes the trial scenes of Acts alongside their counterparts in the novels of Chariton, Xenophon of Ephesus, Longus, Achilles Tatius, and Heliodorus.4 Along similar lines, this chapter will explore the function of interrupted speech in select Greek novels, providing further comparative material for our treatments of Luke and Acts in Chapters Five and Six. We may follow Pervo in defining a novel as “a relatively lengthy work of prose fiction depicting or deriding certain ideals through an

1

2

3

4

Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 137. This monograph was based on his 1979 Harvard dissertation. In his recent commentary, Pervo still argues that much of Acts is fictive, but rather than classifying Acts as a novel, he states plainly, “Acts is a history.” Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 15. It should be noted that even in his earlier work, Pervo did not oppose the comparison of Acts and historiographical works; see Profit, 137. Richard S. Ascough, “Narrative Technique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and Chariton,” CBQ 58 (1996): 69-81. Although he highlights the similarities between Luke-Acts and novels, Ascough also allows for historiographical and biographical influences on Luke-Acts (81). Saundra Schwartz, “The Trial Scene in the Greek Novels and in Acts,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse (ed. Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele; SBLSymS 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 105137.

168

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

entertaining presentation of the lives and experiences of a person or persons whose activity transcends the limits of ordinary living as known to its implied readers.”5 The Ninus Romance and Callirhoe are often considered to be the first Greek representatives of this genre, yet most overviews of ancient Greek novels begin with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, written in the fourth century B.C.E. As J. R. Morgan puts it, “Xenophon’s Education of Kyros…strictly stands outside the corpus of Greek novels, but it was obviously felt to constitute a precedent of a kind.”6 For E. L. Bowie, early Greek novels most closely resemble such works as “the Odyssey, Herodotus, Thucydides and above all Xenophon’s Cyropaedia.”7 Hence, our treatment of Greek novels will begin with the Cyropaedia. Chronologically, our treatment would then move to address some of the more novelistic works of the LXX, such as Tobit and Judith. 8 Because of the absence of interrupted speech from these two works, they will not be analyzed further. Similarly, Joseph and Aseneth does not include any interrupted speech. Hence, our focus in this chapter will be on the Cyropaedia and other non-Jewish Greek novels. After the Cyropaedia, which should be considered more as precedent than as prototype, the earliest extant Greek novels are the Ninus Romance, Chariton’s Callirhoe, and Metiochus and Parthenope, all of which are dated to the first century B.C.E. or first century C.E. The Callirhoe will be the only one of these three to be featured in our survey. The Ninus Romance is considered the first extant novel, with papyrus fragments dated to the first century C.E., and the date of these fragments is fairly uncontroversial: “A document on the back of the papyrus is explicitly dated to 100-[101] C.E.”9 Though significant due to its antiquity, the Ninus Romance will not occupy us further; the few remaining fragments do not include any interrupted speech. While most scholars 5

6 7 8

9

Pervo, Profit, 105. For further discussion of how to define the “historical novel,” see Tomas Hägg, “Callirhoe and Parthenope: The Beginnings of the Historical Novel,” Classical Antiquity 6 (1987): 184-204. J. R. Morgan, Introduction to Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context (ed. J. R. Morgan and Richard Stoneman; London: Routledge, 1994), 5. E. L. Bowie, “The Greek Novel,” in Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel (ed. Simon Swain; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 39-59, here 44. Lawrence Wills would classify as “novels” not only Tobit and Judith, but also Daniel and Esther. See his The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Daniel and Esther are treated in the previous chapter: see Section 3.2. Gerald Sandy, “New Pages of Greek Fiction,” in Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context (ed. J. R. Morgan and Richard Stoneman; London: Routledge, 1994), 130-45, here 132. Sandy considers the Ninus to be the earliest of the extant Greek novels (137).

The Cyropaedia Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)

169

would date Callirhoe to the first century C.E., Hägg places both Callirhoe and Metiochus and Parthenope “as early as the first century B.C.”10 However, as in the case of the Ninus Romance, the scant remains of Metiochus and Parthenope include no interrupted speech; neither of these fragmentary novels will be discussed further.11 In this chapter, then, we will survey the function of interrupted speech in two novelistic works: Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and Chariton’s Callirhoe. These are the only two Greek novels that predate Luke-Acts and that, after twenty centuries, are still intact. The above-mentioned works of Pervo, Ascough, and Schwartz tend to focus on Callirhoe and later (mostly second-century) novels. While potentially of interest for describing a trajectory of development, the later works of Xenophon of Ephesus, Longus, Achilles Tatius, and Heliodorus fall outside the chronological scope of our investigation. 12

4.2 The Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.) The Cyropaedia indeed tells of the education (παιδεία) of Cyrus, but it also continues on to describe his adult life, up until his death. While the Hellenica and Anabasis are generally considered to be historically reliable, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is clearly fictional.13 Admittedly, his introduction to the narrative sounds credible enough: ὅσα οὖν καὶ ἐπυθόμεθα καὶ ᾐσθῆσθαι δοκοῦμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ, ταῦτα πειρασόμεθα διηγήσασθαι (“So, as many things as we have learned and seem to have understood concerning [Cyrus], these things we have undertaken to narrate”).14 However, Xenophon has taken certain liberties with the historical record; for example, King Cyaxares, ruler of the Medes and uncle of Cyrus, is Xenophon’s “invention, a necessary part of his re-

10 11

12

13 14

Hägg, “Callirhoe,” 184. The fragments of the Ninus Romance and Metiochus and Parthenope are introduced and translated in B. P. Reardon, ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). Further study of the following passages could further illuminate the function of interrupted speeches in early Greco-Roman novels: Petronius, Satyricon 39, 90, 98, 99, 107 (1st century C.E., Latin); Xenophon, Ephesiaca 3.3.2; 3.3.5; 5.1.12 (2nd century C.E., Greek); Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 4.25.1 (2nd century C.E., Greek); Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon 8.1.2; 8.7.1; 8.11.1 (2nd century C.E., Greek); Heliodorus, Aethiopica 4.20.1; 6.15.1; 10.8.1 (3rd or 4th century C.E., Greek). For the Hellenica and Anabasis, see our treatment above in Section 2.5. Citations and translations from the Cyropaedia are based on the text of W. Gemoll and J. Peters, eds., Xenophontis Institutio Cyri (Leipzig: Teubner, 1968).

170

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

vised history.”15 Even for a reader unfamiliar with sixth-century Median royalty, though, the text can invite incredulity. Parts of the work seem unbelievable: the unbroken string of Persian military victories, the lengthy dialogues among Medes and Persians that sound suspiciously Socratic, or simply the “unreal ease with which Cyrus goes about life.”16 Thus, it seems fair to categorize the Cyropaedia as a fictional narrative. This view is further supported within the text itself, where we find “one of the very few discussions about fictional prose narrative in ancient literary theory.”17 When one of his officers objects to a pair of amusing anecdotes, accusing the raconteurs of deception, Cyrus comes to the defense of all who invent amusing tales that cause no harm to their hearers.18 However, Xenophon would likely consider his Cyropaedia much more than an amusing tale. Far from causing harm to his hearers, Xenophon intended rather to educate them: “The Cyropaedia is above all a didactic work, its author’s vehicle for developing and discussing his own cherished ideas and interests.” 19 Xenophon’s ideals coalesce in the Cyropaedia, forming something of a utopian world, with Cyrus at the center. One scholar thus labels the Cyropaedia “a utopian fiction.”20 Another considers it to be “patriarchal fantasy of the first order.” 21 Is the Cyropaedia then a novel? Perhaps the most apt characterization of Xenophon’s complex work is offered by Gera: It can be described as a biography of Cyrus the Great, a history of the beginnings of the Persian empire, a romance, an encomium, a military handbook, a guide to the political administration of an empire, a didactic work on ethics, morals, and education, etc.; it is, in fact, all of these things.22

Even if the fictive nature of much of the Cyropaedia is transparent to the modern scholar, this prose narrative may not have struck the ancient

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Philip Stadter, “Fictional Narrative in the Cyropaideia,” in Xenophon (ed. Vivienne J. Gray; Oxford Readings in Classical Studies; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 367-400, here 370. James Tatum, “The Education of Cyrus,” in Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context (ed. J. R. Morgan and Richard Stoneman; London: Routledge, 1994), 15-28, here 18. Michael Reichel, “Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and the Hellenistic Novel,” in Xenophon (ed. Vivienne J. Gray; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 418-38, here 438. Xenophon, Cyr. 2.2.11-16. Deborah Levine Gera, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Style, Genre, and Literary Technique (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 2. Stadter, “Fictional Narrative,” 400. Tatum, “Education,” 19. Gera, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, 1.

The Cyropaedia Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)

171

reader as any more credible or incredible than parts of the Histories of Herodotus. Moreover, as we will see below, the use of interruption in this fictional work of Xenophon does not differ markedly from his more historically reliable works.

4.2.1 Turn-Taking in Xenophon The many speaking turns of the Cyropaedia allow Xenophon to show turn-taking rules in action throughout the narrative. Cyrus likes to pose questions, offering his officers and friends the opportunity to answer. When they do so, the speakers take turns: for example, Χρυσάντας μὲν δὴ οὕτως εἶπεν. ἀνέστη δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ Φεραύλας (“So Chrysantas spoke. And Pheraulas arose after him…”).23 Similar examples of practiced turn-taking could be multiplied.24 In addition to showing turn-taking in action, Xenophon refers to at least one of the principles behind turn-taking. Namely, Xenophon suggests that speaking turns should be first granted to elders. As a dying Cyrus gives orders to his sons regarding the transfer of royal power, he notes the principle of seniority: ἐπαιδεύθην δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως ὑπὸ τῆσδε τῆς ἐμῆς τε καὶ ὑμετέρας πατρίδος, τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις οὐ μόνον ἀδελφοῖς ἀλλὰ καὶ πολίταις καὶ ὁδῶν καὶ θάκων καὶ λόγων ὑπείκειν (“I myself was trained in this way by my country and your country to give way to elders, not only to elder brothers but even to elder citizens, on roads and in seating and in words”).25 In the speeches and dialogues of the Cyropaedia, we generally find respectful and orderly turn-taking.

4.2.2 Interrupted Speech in the Cyropaedia In each case, Xenophon marks the interruptions of the Cyropaedia with the aorist participle ὑπολαβών, from the verb ὑπολαμβάνω. This choice of words complicates our analysis, for ὑπολαμβάνω has a wide range of meanings, including “to support,” “to rejoin,” “to interrupt,” or “to assume.”26 So, while every instance of interruption includes the

23 24 25 26

Xenophon, Cyr. 2.3.7. See, e.g., Cyr. 2.3.16; 4.3.15; 5.5.25; etc. Cyr. 8.7.10. Earlier in the narrative, Xenophon describes the younger Cyrus as less respectful and orderly; see esp. Cyr. 1.4.4. LSJ, s.v. ὑπολαμβάνω. For “to interrupt,” see I.3.b.

172

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

participle ὑπολαβών, not every use of ὑπολαβών marks an interruption. As is often the case when reading Greek, context determines meaning.27 We can begin by looking at the larger context of how ὑπολαβών is used elsewhere in Xenophon’s works. In the Anabasis, we found two uses of ὑπολαβών that marked interruption. In the clearest case, ὑπολαβών is coupled with μεταξύ to make clear that the (interruptive) speech takes place while the speaker is still speaking: ὁ μέντοι Ξενοφῶν μεταξὺ ὑπολαβὼν ἔλεξεν ὧδε (“However, Xenophon meanwhile interrupted [Apollonides] and spoke as follows”).28 This interruption of Apollonides by Xenophon is followed immediately by an interruption of Xenophon by Agasias: ἐντεῦθεν ὑπολαβὼν Ἀγασίας Στυμφάλιος εἶπεν (“Agasias the Stymphalian then interrupted [him] and said”).29 While this second interruption is less clearly marked, we know that the situation is one in which another person’s speaking rights have already been violated. Furthermore, Agasias appears to be picking up on a relevant part of Xenophon’s recently concluded (or interrupted) discourse. Lastly, Agasias’ hostility towards Apollonides offers motivation for the former’s inability to wait until Xenophon is finished speaking. In neither case does the presence of ὑπολαβών alone mark the interruption; relevant semantic and narrative context must also be taken into account. If we adhere to this process of evaluation, the reply of Cyrus to his uncle Cyaxares in Book 4 of the Cyropaedia is not interruptive: Καὶ ὁ Κῦρος ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν (“And Cyrus replied and said”).30 While the participle ὑπολαβών is present, there is no other marker like μεταξύ or ἔτι to make clear the interruption. More importantly, the context is one in which Cyrus is seeking to gain his uncle’s permission to pursue the Assyrians; violating his uncle’s speaking rights would be an extremely foolish move. The reply of Cyrus to his uncle Cyaxares in Book 5, however, is a clear interruption, and the significance of this interruption requires a brief explication of the larger narrative context. In Book 1 of the Cyropaedia, Cyaxares, who is both the Median king and the uncle of the Persian Cyrus, learns that the Assyrian king plans to invade Media; the Mede summons his nephew to command the Persian troops that are

27 28 29 30

I would like to thank my first Greek teacher, Dr. Ted Hildebrandt, for impressing this lesson upon me. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.27. Xenophon, Anab. 3.1.31. Xenophon, Cyr. 4.1.19.

The Cyropaedia Cyropaedia of Xenophon (4th century B.C.E.)

173

joining in the expedition against the Assyrian forces. 31 Cyrus reorganizes his Persian army in Book 2, and he defeats the Armenians and the Assyrians in Book 3. After the combined Persian and Median forces rout the Assyrians and their allies, Cyrus wishes to pursue and destroy the enemy; here in the beginning of Book 4, he encounters his first major obstacle: his uncle Cyaxares. Out of jealousy or out of indolence, Cyaxares is indisposed to take further action. However, Cyrus gains his uncle’s permission to pursue with the Persian forces, as well as any Medes who are willing to come along as volunteers. Most of the Medes choose to go. Cyrus thus acquires sole command of practically the entire army. By the end of Book 5, his victory over the remnants of the Assyrian forces, continued control over the Median troops, and further conquest of Assyrian territory have earned Cyrus the enmity of his envious uncle.32 In this context, then, Cyaxares finally comes with a small escort of Median cavalry to meet with Cyrus, who leads a large contingent of well-adorned Persian cavalry.33 Embarrassed by his nephew’s magnificence, Cyaxares breaks into tears and accuses Cyrus of purposefully humiliating him. Cyrus somewhat disingenuously claims that he is simply trying to do good to his uncle by expanding the Median domain, but Cyaxares complains that the good deeds of Cyrus are more akin to wooing another man’s wife than to winning his superior’s favor.34 In the end, Cyaxares accuses Cyrus of robbing him of his reputation and honor. Cyrus responds by interrupting his uncle’s accusations: Καὶ ὁ Κῦρος ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ὑπολαβὼν εἶπε, Πρὸς τῶν θεῶν (“And while [Cyaxares] was still speaking, Cyrus interrupted him and said, ‘By the gods!’”).35 The nephew’s interruption of his uncle’s discourse is a clear example of intentional interruption, leaving no doubt that Cyrus spoke while Cyaxares “was still speaking.” What is the function of this interruption? Given the military prowess and personal charisma of Cyrus, we could argue that this interruption is status-based. Gera, however, argues that this interaction is more complex than a simple silencing. Xenophon here “lets us see that Cyaxares’ charge is true, for Cyrus certainly is foremost in the hearts of the Median soldiers.”36 In other words, by his interruption of Cyaxares’ 31 32 33 34 35 36

Cyr. 1.5.2-5. For the anger of Cyaxares, see 4.5.9, 18; his jealousy of Cyrus may be traced back to 1.4.9. Xenophon, Cyr. 5.5.5-6. For Cyrus’ defense, see Cyr. 5.5.10-24. For Cyaxares’ complaint, see Cyr. 5.5.25-34. Cyr. 5.5.35. Gera, Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, 108.

174

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

accusations, Cyrus is admitting that they are true, but he does not want to dwell on this unpleasant topic. Following his nephew’s interruptive plea for letting bygones be bygones, Cyaxares relents, and the two kiss and make up.37 Whereas Achilles’ interruption of King Agamemnon opens a rift that dominates the plot of the Iliad, Cyrus’ conciliatory interruption of King Cyaxares brings Book 5 of the Cyropaedia to a happy conclusion; furthermore, Cyrus now gains undisputed control of the Medo-Persian army for the remainder of the narrative. 38 Towards the beginning of Book 6, there is a passage that may or may not include an interruption. Araspas, a friend of Cyrus, has become enslaved to his own lust, and the Persian general gently upbraids his friend and apologizes for placing him in a difficult situation. Araspas then replies, or perhaps interrupts: Καὶ ὁ Ἀράσπας ὑπολαβὼν εἶπεν, Ἀλλὰ σὺ μέν, ὦ Κῦρε, καὶ ταῦτα ὅμοιος εἶ οἷόσπερ καὶ τἆλλα, πρᾶός τε καὶ συγγνώμων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἁμαρτημάτων (“And Araspas replied [or interrupted] and said, ‘O Cyrus, but you are in these things as also in other things, both gentle and disposed to forgive human errors’”).39 This response of Araspas to Cyrus may be a cooperative interruption.40 The strongest support for this reading is that Araspas is earlier described as being extremely frightened that Cyrus will punish him, perhaps with death.41 Thus, when Cyrus gently pardons his friend, a relieved Araspas may well be portrayed as eagerly interrupting his benefactor. Recognizing that we cannot decisively prove this interpretation, we would characterize this instance as a lightly marked cooperative interruption.

4.2.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Xenophon While there may be a lightly marked cooperative interruption near the beginning of Book 6, by far the clearest instance of rhetorical interruption in the Cyropaedia is the interruption of King Cyaxares of Media by his nephew Cyrus. While this interruption does not bear the same plotframing significance as the interruption of King Agamemnon by another accomplished warrior, there are similarities between Cyr. 5.5.35 and 37 38

39 40 41

Cyr. 5.5.36. See Cyr. 6.1.19-22, where Cyaxares has adopted a subordinate role to his nephew. Cyaxares then conveniently stays at home to protect the Median homeland while Cyrus marches off with the army in Cyr. 6.3.2. Cyr. 6.1.37. So Walter Miller translates: “‘Aye, Cyrus,’ said Araspas, interrupting him” (LCL). Cyr. 6.1.35.

The Callirhoe Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.)

175

Il. 1.292. In both cases, a frustrated monarch is rebuking an individual who is insubordinate, and in both cases, that individual is also a consummate warrior on whom the hopes of the army rest. The difference lies in the purpose or function of the intentional interruption. Achilles rudely interrupts King Agamemnon and then storms off in a rage. Cyrus, however, wins over King Cyaxares, and the two are reconciled. While the reconciliation of Cyrus and Cyaxares is not as significant as the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles, nor even as important as the interruptions in Book 3 of the Anabasis, this reconciliation does bring to an end the only major interpersonal conflict that Cyrus experiences. From this point on, the road is clear for Cyrus to destroy the Assyrians, capture Babylon, and establish an extensive empire. The interruption in Book 5 thus marks a key conflict, but unlike other interruptions with a similar function, this interruption does more than just mark a conflict: this interruption ends a conflict.42

4.3 The Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.) Composed three or four centuries after the Cyropaedia, Callirhoe is written in κοινή Greek, probably between 25 B.C.E. and 50 C.E.43 The author, according to the opening lines, is a certain Chariton of Aphrodisias (Χαρίτων Ἀφροδισιεύς), who identifies himself as a secretary or clerk (ὑπογραφεύς).44 This ὑπογραφεύς was apparently a rather well-read secretary: his work is full of Homeric verses, Thucydidean echoes, and even a quotation from the Cyropaedia!45 Furthermore, in addition to quoting various lines and phrases, Chariton refers to events and characters from Herodotus and Thucydides. Thus, the father of the protagonist Callirhoe is none other than Hermocrates 42 43

44

45

Although other interruptions end conflicts, this interruption brings a conflict to resolution, rather than resulting in the death of the speaker (e.g., Homer, Od. 22.329). G. P. Goold, Introduction to Chariton, Callirhoe (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 2. For the title “Callirhoe” instead of “Chaereas and Callirhoe,” see 35. Chariton, Call. 1.1.1. Citations and translations from the Callirhoe are based on Chariton Aphrodisiensis, De Callirhoe narrationes amatoriae (ed. B. P. Reardon; Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2004). See Herodotus, Hist. 1.1.1, and Thucydides, Hist. 1.1.1, for two other authors who begin their works by identifying themselves explicitly at the outset of the work. Homeric borrowings will be discussed below. For Herodotean and Thucydidean echoes and quotations, see the index to Goold’s LCL translation. As one example of a quotation from the Cyropaedia, Chariton, Call. 7.4.9, and Xenophon, Cyr. 7.1.32, start with the same words: Ἐν δὲ τῷ ἀδιηγήτῳ τούτῳ ταράχῳ […].

176

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

of Syracuse, whose historical victory over the Athenian fleet is referred to repeatedly.46 Also, Callirhoe refers to the Persian defeats at Marathon and Salamis.47 While the fictive character of Callirhoe is never in doubt, Chariton’s creation is not ex nihilo; because he draws on historiographical works both to give a historical context and to provide part of the dramatis personae, his work can be classified as a historical novel. As in the Book of Acts, the main characters in Callirhoe roam the Mediterranean world. If the intricate plot can possibly be summarized concisely, it would run as follows: A handsome young man named Chaereas falls in love with a beautiful young woman named Callirhoe. They are separated and exposed to numerous dangers. Finally, they are reunited and live happily ever after. 48 The numerous dangers, successful escapes, and happy ending are reminiscent of Greek drama. Chariton is, in a sense, writing a prose drama, and he is willing to admit this similarity between Callirhoe and Greek drama. In reference to the climactic trial set in Babylon, Chariton asks, ποῖος ποιητὴς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς παράδοξον μῦθον οὕτως εἰσήγαγεν; (“what playwright staged such an incredible scene?”).49 Callirhoe is not, however, a predictable Greek tragedy. Chariton’s twisting and turning melodrama is closer to Greek comedy.50 Given the numerous interruptions in the comic Callirhoe, further investigation into the function of intentional interruption in Greek drama would be desirable.

4.3.1 Turn-Taking in Chariton According to Goold, if we sum up the numerous speeches, conversations, and soliloquies, direct discourse constitutes over 40% of Chariton’s Callirhoe.51 The work includes many forensic and deliberative settings where speeches are given, but turn-taking rules are rarely em-

46

47 48 49 50

51

See Call. 1.11.2 and 7.5.8. For a historiographical reference to Hermocrates of Syracuse, see, e.g., Thucydides, Hist. 7.73.1-3. For an intentional interruption of Hermocrates, see Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.19.6. Call. 6.7.10. For the Battle of Marathon, see Book 6 of Herodotus; for the Battle of Salamis, Book 8. For Chariton’s own summaries of his work, see 5.1.1 and 8.1.1. Call. 5.8.2. For a helpful summary of the influence of drama on Chariton, see Gareth L. Schmeling, Chariton (TWAS; New York: Twayne, 1974), 46-51. On melodrama, see B. P. Reardon, “Theme, Structure, and Narrative in Chariton,” YCS 27 (1982): 1-27, esp. 6. Goold, Introduction, 15.

The Callirhoe Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.)

177

phasized. The sole explicit acknowledgement of turn-taking rules occurs in the trial scene at Babylon, where King Artaxerxes is set to judge between the accuser Dionysius and the defendant Mithridates. After the king’s letter is read, Dionysius is about to begin his accusation. He is anticipated by Mithridates, who goes on to acknowledge his breach of decorum: ἔφθη δὲ Μιθριδάτης· “οὐ προλαμβάνω” φησί, “δέσποτα, τὴν ἀπολογίαν, ἀλλ᾽ οἶδα τὴν τάξιν· δεὶ δὲ πρὸ τῶν λόγων ἅπαντας παρεῖναι τοὺς ἀναγκαίους ἐν τῇ δίκῃ” (“but Mithridates preempted [Dionysius] and said, ‘Sir, I am not putting the defense before the accusation, for I know the order; but, it is necessary for all the necessary people to be present at the trial before the speeches’”).52 Mithridates acknowledges a set order of speaking, but he circumvents this custom in order to request the distracting presence of the beautiful Callirhoe at the trial.

4.3.2 Interrupted Speech in the Callirhoe Chariton rarely marks turn-taking, but he frequently marks the violation of speaking turns. Of the eight books of his Callirhoe, seven feature at least one interruption. Other authors may have more interrupted discourses, but no author surveyed thus far concentrates so many interruptions into such a short work: Chariton’s novel includes eleven intentional interruptions and two interruptions by external events, all of which are clearly marked, usually with the combination of ἔτι plus a present participle of a verb of speaking.53 Book 1 of Callirhoe opens with the meeting of and, shortly thereafter, marriage of Chaereas and Callirhoe. The swift wedding leaves a group of Callirhoe’s royal suitors dejected and vindictive. They meet together to deliberate upon a plan of action. One man proposes killing Chaereas. A man from Acragas, however, suggests a more cautious course, due to the powerful position of Callirhoe’s father Hermocrates, the leading citizen of Syracuse. The Acragantine suggests sabotaging the newly formed relationship by making Chaereas suspicious and jealous of his bride. This proposal wins the eager assent of the suitors: 52 53

Chariton, Call. 5.4.9. For a similar seizure of speaking turns, see Herodotus, Hist. 7.161.1. The following eight passages mark interruption with ἔτι plus a present participle of λέγω or διηγέομαι: Call. 1.2.6; 1.10.4; 2.1.3; 2.11.6; 3.4.17; 4.3.4; 5.8.1; 7.3.11. Cf. 2.9.6. Also, Chariton twice employs the Homeric line ‘οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος’ (3.4.4 and 7.1.11). For a listing of the ways in which Chariton marks interruption, see Appendix 3.

178

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

Πάντες ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ τὴν γνώμην ἐπεψηφίσαντο (“They all approved the motion while he was still speaking”). 54 This intentional interruption is clearly cooperative, as the suitors acclaim their new leader’s proposal. The next interruption in Book 1 is also cooperative. Charged with killing his new wife in a fit of rage, Chaereas is put on trial before the people of Syracuse. In his unorthodox defense speech, the young widower plays the accuser, insisting that he himself must be put to death in the most ignoble manner. His demand to be executed and cast into the ocean is cut short by a sympathetic crowd: Ταῦτα λέγοντος θρῆνος ἐξερράγη, καὶ πάντες αφέντες τὴν νεκρὰν τὸν ζῶντα ἐπένθουν (“While he was saying these things, a lament broke out; all abandoned the dead woman and mourned the living man”).55 Thus, the selfaccusations of Chaereas prove to be a very effective defense, and the crowd cooperatively interrupts his speech to show their support. Later in Book 1, there is another council of the impious, composed not of jilted suitors, but of the rogue Theron and his hand-picked accomplices. Having come by night to rob Callirhoe’s richly adorned tomb, they find a recently revived Callirhoe still living. One man proposes to take the moral high road: if they restore Callirhoe to her father Hermocrates, they can win a good reputation and fabulous riches. This proposal is cut off by another of Theron’s men: Ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἕτερος ἀντεῖπεν (“But while he was still speaking, another contradicted him”).56 This next speaker derides the first man as hypocritical and naïve. The intentional interruption of the first speaker functions to show the second man’s wholesale rejection of the nobler course of action. Book 2 opens with a conversation between Dionysius, a leading man of Ionia, and his steward Leonas. Leonas has recently purchased Callirhoe from Theron. As a result, when Dionysius begins to recount a dream about seeing his recently deceased wife, Leonas interrupts to pass on his good news: ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ διηγουμένου, Λεωνᾶς ἀνεβόησεν “εὐτυχὴς εἶ, δέσποτα, καὶ ὄναρ καὶ ὕπαρ” (“while he was still describing [the dream], Leonas cried out, “Sir, you are lucky both in dreams and in reality”).57 In his eagerness to pass along good news, Leonas cooperatively interrupts his master.

54 55 56 57

Chariton, Call. 1.2.6. Call. 1.5.6. Call. 1.10.4. Call. 2.1.3.

The Callirhoe Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.)

179

The next interruption in Book 2 is also related to a dream. Callirhoe is trying to decide whether to destroy her unborn child or to marry Dionysius and pretend that the child of Chaereas is actually the child of Dionysius. That night, she has a dream about Chaereas, who says that he entrusts the child to her. She interrupts her husband: ἔτι δὲ βουλομένου λέγειν ἀνέθορεν ἡ Καλλιρόη, θέλουσα αὐτῷ περιπλακῆναι (“but while he still wanted to speak, Callirhoe leapt forward, desiring to embrace him”).58 Yearning to embrace her husband, Callirhoe interrupts the apparition’s discourse. This intentional interruption is also cooperative. Callirhoe finally decides to marry Dionysius, in order to preserve her child. She tells Plangon, a slave of Dionysius who is trying to woo Callirhoe for her master. When the Syracusan girl admits her fear that Dionysius will treat her as a concubine rather than wife, Plangon cuts her short: ἔτι λεγούσης ἡ Πλαγγὼν ὑπέλαβεν (“while [Callirhoe] was still speaking, Plangon interrupted her”). 59 Plangon tells Callirhoe not to worry, explaining that they can safeguard Callirhoe’s status by making Dionysius swear an oath. This dramatic interruption is difficult to classify. On one hand, Plangon is rejecting Callirhoe’s concerns; on the other hand, Plangon is actively trying to win Callirhoe’s confidence, and her attempt to be helpful should be considered primarily cooperative. In Book 3, we find our first interruption by external events. Chaereas and the Syracusans have captured Theron, but they have not found Callirhoe. As the people mourn the girl, Hermocrates calls for an immediate inquiry and summons the assembly. Chariton marks the subsequent interruption with a line from Homer: ‘Οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος’ (“not yet was the word fully spoken”).60 While Hermocrates was still calling for an assembly and a jury, the theater was filled. This interruption by external events marks the powerful influence of Hermocrates – and of Homer. Hermocrates is interrupted again in Book 3, but this time, the interruption is intentional. Chaereas pleads with the people not to execute Theron, desiring to bring the kidnapper and grave robber along as a guide. Hermocrates will not stand for the delaying of justice, and he insists on the execution of Theron. He also asks the people of Syracuse to find his daughter, and they eagerly reply: ἔτι λέγοντος ὁ δῆμος

58 59 60

Call. 2.9.6. Call. 2.11.6. Chariton, Call. 3.4.4. See Homer, Il. 10.540; Od. 16.11. Cf. also the similar wording in Od. 16.351.

180

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

ἀνεβόησε “πάντες πλεύσωμεν” (“while [Hermocrates] was still speaking, the people shouted, ‘Let us all sail!’”).61 The cooperative interruption of the Syracusans again underscores the favor and influence enjoyed by Hermocrates. In Book 4, Polycharmus and Chaereas are working as slaves on the estate of Mithridates, the satrap of Caria. When some of their fellow slaves try to escape, Mithridates orders the execution of the entire group, which includes the two Syracusans. As Polycharmus takes up his cross, he curses Callirhoe out loud, leading the estate manager to believe that there is a female accomplice to the slaves. Polycharmus is further interrogated, and he ends up telling his entire story to Mithridates. As he finishes his tale, the satrap interrupts: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ Μιθριδάτης ἀνεβόησε (“while [Polycharmus] was still speaking, Mithridates cried out”).62 Mithridates, having seen Callirhoe in Miletus, interrupts the story in order to confirm that Polycharmus’ friend is the same Chaereas for whom Callirhoe built a memorial in Miletus. This intentional interruption of the slave Polycharmus by the satrap Mithridates could certainly be considered status-based. However, Mithridates’ desire to save Polycharmus and Chaereas could also lead us to classify this interruption as cooperative. As with many of the other intentional interruptions that occur in conversation, though, this interruption functions primarily to dramatize the scene.63 According to Reardon, Chariton’s turbulent narrative reaches its high point in Book 5: Unquestionably the ‘best’ part of the story, in the sense of the most striking, memorable, and ‘successful’, is the trial in Babylon: Dionysius and Mithridates, rivals for Callirhoe’s hand, arguing fast and furiously, before a King of Persia who is himself another rival, while all the time Chaereas, her original husband, is sitting helplessly on the sidelines.64

Reardon’s summary of the scene brings us up to our next interruption. Maintaining his own innocence, Mithridates delivers an ultimatum to Dionysius: drop the suit or lose Callirhoe. As expected, Dionysius declines to withdraw his accusation. The stage thus set, Mithridates dramatically calls upon the gods to produce Chaereas, and his invocation to the spirit of Chaereas is interrupted by the man himself: Ἔτι δὲ λέγοντος (οὕτω γὰρ ἦν διατεταγμένον) προῆλθε Χαιρέας αὐτός

61 62 63 64

Chariton, Call. 3.4.17. Call. 4.3.4. See also Call. 2.1.3; 2.9.6; 2.11.6. Reardon, “Theme,” 8. As further evidence of the importance of this court scene, note the foreshadowing at Call. 3.2.8-9.

The Callirhoe Callirhoe of Chariton (1st century C.E.)

181

(“While [Mithridates] was still speaking (for so it had been arranged), Chaereas himself came forward”).65 Mithridates’ invocation is thus interrupted by external events, and the interruption is staged for dramatic effect, just as we have seen earlier in Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the Deuteronomistic History, and Josephus. 66 In fact, it is immediately following this dramatic interruption that Chariton inserts the line quoted earlier: ποῖος ποιητὴς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς παράδοξον μῦθον οὕτως εἰσήγαγεν; (“what playwright staged such an incredible scene?”).67 The next interruption occurs in Book 6; our analysis will be limited, for this interruption occurs immediately after a substantial lacuna. Apparently, the lovesick king of Persia has been expressing his feelings for Callirhoe, when his eunuch Artaxates interrupts: ταῦτα λέγοντος Ἀρταξάτης ὑπολαβὼν “ἐπιλέλησαι” φησί, “δέσποτα, τῶν γεγονότων” (“while [the king] was saying these things, Artaxates interrupted and said, ‘Sir, you have forgotten what has happened’”). 68 This intentional interruption by Artaxerxes’ loyal eunuch could be classified as cooperative, for the servant is encouraging the master. Still, like other interruptions that occur in conversation, its purpose appears to be primarily for dramatic effect, rather than emphasizing any special relationship between speaker and hearer or between content and audience. In Book 7, we find another intentional interruption, marked again by means of Homeric verse. Polycharmus urges Chaereas to consider joining the Egyptians, who are revolting against their Persian masters. Chaereas immediately seizes upon his friend’s counsel: ‘οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος’ καὶ Χαιρέας ἀνεβόησε “σπεύδωμεν, ἀπίωμεν” (“‘not yet was the word fully spoken’ when Chaereas shouted, ‘Let’s hurry up and go!’”).69 Although this interruption also takes place in conversation, the setting is deliberative. By his cooperative interruption, Chaereas signals his assent to the proposed course of action. Thus, the two friends head for Egypt. Polycharmus and Chaereas meet with the Egyptian army in Syria. When the Egyptians struggle to take Tyre, Chaereas volunteers for the task and assembles a force of three hundred Greeks. He explains the mission to his new troops, who vote him general. When Chaereas ac-

65 66 67 68 69

Call. 5.8.1. Polybius, Hist. 1.79.14; 4.22.11; 11.30.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 20.4.5; 3 Kgdms 1:22 (LXX); Josephus, A.J. 7.351; 18.58, 61. Call. 5.8.2. Call. 6.4.7. Chariton, Call. 7.1.11. Cf. Call. 3.4.4; Homer, Il. 10.540; Od. 16.11; 16.351.

182

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

cepts this role and promises to serve them well, his men again show their approval: ἔτι λέγοντος πάντες ἀνέκραγον “ἡγοῦ” (“while he was still speaking, all cried out, ‘Lead!’”). 70 The intentional interruption of this harangue is cooperative, similar to the acclamations of Hermocrates’ words in Book 3.71

4.3.3 Summary of Interrupted Speech in Chariton At the climactic trial in Babylon in Book 5, Chariton describes the contest between Chaereas and Dionysius as a “war” (πόλεμος).72 Throughout the eight books of Callirhoe, there are many such skirmishes that go only, like this one, “as far as words” (μέχρι ῥημάτων).73 Yet, in spite of the agonistic character of much of the plot, only once is interruption used to mark conflict.74 At the council of grave robbers in Book 1, one man interrupts another speaker, denouncing the first man’s pious plan.75 Aside from this hostile interruption, the other ten intentional interruptions are all cooperative. We must distinguish two types of cooperative interruptions. First, we have the cooperative rhetorical interruptions, where an audience enthusiastically interrupts in order to show acceptance of a speaker’s proposal. There are four clear cases of this interruptive acclamation: the acceptance of the Acragantine’s proposal by the other suitors in Book 1, the favorable reception of Hermocrates’ proposal by the assembled Syracusans in Book 3, Chaereas’ eager acceptance of Polycharmus’ proposal in Book 7, and finally, the troops’ acclamation of their general, Chaereas, later in Book 7.76 We might also mention the interruption of Chaereas’ self-accusatory defense speech in Book 1, where the people’s lament signifies their approval of the noble youth. 77 These interruptions occur in familiar settings: deliberative councils, forensic assemblies, and pre-battle harangues.

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

Chariton, Call. 7.3.11. Cf. Call. 3.4.17. Call. 5.8.4. Call. 5.8.5. For wars limited to words, see also Homer, Il.1.304; Herodotus, Hist. 8.64.1; Josephus, A.J. 16.217. For a summary of the “series of agones” that constitute the “critical events” of Callirhoe, see Reardon, “Theme,” 8-9. Call. 1.10.4. Call. 1.2.6; 3.4.17; 7.1.11; 7.3.11, respectively. Call. 1.5.6.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Novels

183

Our second group of cooperative interruptions is composed of interrupted conversations. While the interruptions are generally positive, expressing approval or adding helpful information, they do not convey the wholesale acceptance or rejection that we have grown accustomed to seeing. These conversational interruptions function primarily to add drama to the narrative by enlivening the interactions between characters. For example, Leonas interrupts his master Dionysius to tell him about his purchase of Callirhoe.78 Callirhoe interrupts Chaereas in order to try to hug him. 79 Plangon interrupts Callirhoe to respond to her concerns.80 The purpose of these interruptive conversations is dramatic, not rhetorical.81 In the end, then, these interruptions serve the same function as the two interruptions by external events: adding drama to the already melodramatic narrative of Chariton of Aphrodisias.82

4.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Novels In the two fictive works surveyed in this chapter, we have observed many similarities with the historiographical works treated in Chapters Two and Three. Deliberative, forensic, and hortatory speeches are interrupted. Interruptions are marked similarly.83 Both intentional interruptions and interruptions by external events are employed. These similarities between historiographical and novelistic usage support Hägg’s claim: “Historiography and historical novel can be shown often to go hand in hand.” 84 Moreover, this convergence is hardly surprising in light of the rhetorical training shared by orators, historians, and novelists; to some extent, this common paideia “makes genre distinctions functionally irrelevant.”85 That said, we should not ignore the intriguing differences. Whereas interruption primarily functions as a marker of conflict in the historio78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85

Call. 2.1.3. Call. 2.9.6. Call. 2.11.6. See also Call. 4.3.4 and 6.4.7. Call. 3.4.4 and 5.8.1. Compare the sixth column, “Claim of Interruption,” of Appendix 3 with the corresponding columns of Appendices 1 and 2. Hägg, “Callirhoe,” 203. Todd C. Penner, “Reconfiguring the Rhetorical Study of Acts: Reflections on the Method in and Learning of a Progymnastic Poetics,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 425-439, here 436.

184

Chapter 4: Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

graphical literature surveyed, interruption is generally positive in the Cyropaedia and Callirhoe. Interruption marks the end of conflict in Xenophon’s work, and many of Chariton’s interruptions are acclamatory. 86 This more cooperative turn is likely due to the nature of the works treated here. The martial focus of Homer, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Appian contrasts sharply with the almost hagiographical nature of the Cyropaedia and the comic character of Callirhoe. Both of these latter works privilege happy endings, unconstrained by the brutal historical realities of war. Lastly, we may note the several interruptions in Callirhoe that take place in the course of conversation. Removed from the more common forensic, deliberative, or hortatory settings, these interruptions have negligible rhetorical function and take place primarily in private, rather than in public: between Dionysius and his steward Leonas, between a dreaming Callirhoe and the apparition of her husband Chaereas, between Plangon and her fellow slave Callirhoe, between Mithridates and the slave he is interrogating (Polycharmus), and between King Artaxerxes and his eunuch Artaxates.87 Interestingly, most of these conversations involve at least one slave. The noble Callirhoe and Chaereas’ friend Polycharmus are slaves at the time when they are interrupted. These sorts of behind-the-scenes conversations involving lower-class speakers are largely absent from the historiographical works, which tend to focus almost exclusively on larger events and more significant characters. This difference has been observed by Eric Auerbach, who finds the rarity of such conversations in ancient historiography remarkable: Dialogues with few participants are rare in [antique historians’] writings; at best they appear in anecdotal biography, and there the function they serve is almost always to lead up to famous pregnant retorts, whose importance lies not in their realistically concrete content but in their rhetorical and ethical impact—the sort of thing which later on, in the theory of the thirteenthcentury Italian novella, was called a bel parlare.88

We have witnessed several such “pregnant retorts,” such as the interruption of Parmenion by Alexander the Great in Book 17 of Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History.89 However, only in Chariton have we ob86 87 88 89

For Xenophon, see Cyr. 5.5.35; 6.1.37. For interruptive acclamation in Chariton, see Call. 1.2.6; 3.4.17; 7.1.11; 7.3.11. Cf. also Josephus, Vita 94, 244, 259. Chariton, Call. 2.1.3; 2.9.6; 2.11.6; 4.3.4; 6.4.7. Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard Trask; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957), 40. Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 17.54.4-5. See also Herodotus, Hist. 8.26.3; Polybius, Hist. 4.4.7; Josephus, B.J. 1.442.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Greek Novels

185

served such prominence of dialogue between people of lower social status. Auerbach also makes a generic observation as he comments on the threefold denial of Jesus by Peter in the Gospel of Mark: “Viewed superficially, the thing is a police action and its consequences; it takes place entirely among everyday men and women of the common people; anything of the sort could be thought of in antique terms only as farce or comedy.”90 As mentioned above, Callirhoe frequently resembles a comedy; in keeping with this comic nature, we find Chariton’s novel populated with slaves and stewards. As we now move to examine the New Testament, we will find trial scenes and public addresses, but we will also notice that the cast of characters features more peasants than potentates.

90

Auerbach, Mimesis, 37. See also the similar comments of Auerbach in Chapter 1, “Odysseus’ Scar,” where he notes that Homeric characters generally belong to the ruling class. In the Old Testament, by contrast, he suggests that “class distinctions are not felt” (18).

Chapter 5 The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke 5.1 Introduction Auerbach draws a distinction between the “numerous face-to-face dialogues” of the New Testament gospels on one hand, and the ancient historians’ “great continuous speeches delivered in the Senate or before a popular assembly or a gathering of soldiers,” on the other. 1 There appears to be a similar tendency among biblical scholars to distinguish between the dominical discourses of Luke’s Gospel and the speeches of Acts. As noted in Chapter One, the interrupted speeches of Acts have drawn scholarly attention for nearly a century. Their Lukan counterparts have gone largely unnoticed; it was David Aune who broadened the discussion of interrupted speech to include both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.2 Thus, before we treat the interrupted discourses of Acts, we must first examine the often-overlooked use of interruption in the Gospel of Luke. We will begin with a brief treatment of Luke’s sources, and we will then survey the form and function of interrupted speech in the Gospel.

1 2

Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (trans. Willard Trask; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957), 40. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LECS 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 127. Interestingly, Dibelius calls attention to Luke 4:17-27 as a Lukan composition, yet he does not mark the interruption in 4:28; see Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 184. In his commentary, Pervo repeatedly draws attention to Luke 4:28-29 as a parallel to various interruptions in Acts, but he only explicitly labels Luke 22:47 as an interrupted speech. See Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 111n71.

The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke

187

5.2 The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke Luke opens his Gospel by noting that πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων (“many have undertaken to compile an orderly narrative of the things that have been fulfilled among us”). 3 We cannot know exactly how “many” of these διηγήσεις were available to Luke. According to the prevailing Four Document Hypothesis, Luke used three sources: Mark, Q, and L.4 Unfortunately, Q and L are hypothetical sources. Aside from the LXX, the only extant written source available to Luke would have been Mark’s Gospel. Where we find an interruption in Mark, then, we will assume that Luke also had access to this interruption. Following the Four Document Hypothesis, Luke would only have had access to the parts of Matthew that were part of Q. However, Q is generally considered to be a “Sayings Gospel,” and scholarly reconstructions of Q preserve very little narrative framework. 5 The narrative framework is, of course, where interruption is generally marked, and this framework is usually attributed to the evangelists’ own redactional activity. Of the three interruptions in Matthew Gospel, none are in Q. Thus, according to the Four Document Hypothesis, Matthew’s use of interruption cannot have influenced Luke’s use. Some scholars, though, would argue that Luke also had access to the Gospel of Matthew. Those who concede Luke’s use of both Matthew and Mark include not only early Q skeptics like Austin Farrer, but also Michael Goulder, E. P. Sanders, Margaret Davies, and Mark Goodacre.6 The frequency of minor agreements between Matthew and 3

4

5

6

Lk 1:1. All NT citations and translations will be based on the text of Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (27th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1999). See the classic exposition of this hypothesis in B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates (London: Macmillan, 1924), esp. Ch. 9, “A Four Document Hypothesis.” See, e.g., the text of Q from the International Q Project in James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg, and Milton C. Moreland, eds., The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002). Austin M. Farrer, “On Dispensing with Q,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), 55-88; Michael D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; 2 vols.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 1:22-26; E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origins and Interpretation (London: SCM, 1989), esp. 96-105; Mark Goodacre, The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press Interna-

188

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

Luke against Mark, for example, supports such a view and reminds us not to adhere to any theory too dogmatically. Still, our intent in this chapter is not to adjudicate between various proposed solutions to the Synoptic problem, and none of our conclusions are based on Lukan use of Matthew. Our treatment of the Gospel according to Matthew under the heading of “Sources of the Gospel according to Luke” requires some explanation, aside from the possibility that Luke may have had access to the Gospel of Matthew. Our purpose in this chapter is to show that the presence of intentional interruption in the Gospel of Luke is innovative and purposeful. If Luke could be shown to have borrowed the device of intentional interruption from Mark or Q or Matthew or any other possible source, then our thesis would be called into question. By demonstrating that intentional interruption is absent from both Mark and Matthew, we can make our overall thesis acceptable both to the majority of scholars who adhere to the Four Document Hypothesis and to the growing minority of scholars who follow the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre solution to the Synoptic problem.

5.2.1 Interruption in the Gospel according to Mark Luke may have derived much of the content of his gospel from Mark’s διήγησις, but Luke’s use of intentional interruption certainly does not come from Mark.7 There is only one interrupted discourse in the Gospel of Mark, and it is interrupted by external events. 8 In Mark 14, Jesus has taken three disciples to Gethsemane to pray, and he has found them sleeping a third time. He rouses his fatigued friends and informs them that his betrayer is coming. This notice is interrupted by the arrival of Judas: Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων (“And immediately, while [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived, and with him a crowd [armed] with swords and clubs”). 9 In Homer and in the LXX, we have seen very similar instances where a

7 8 9

tional, 2002). Interestingly, opponents of Markan priority also support Luke’s use of Matthew: e.g., William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan, 1964), 223-224. Pace Pervo, Acts, 282n188. Aside from Mark 14:43, which is discussed below, we could consider Mark 8:32-33, where Peter “begins to rebuke” Jesus before being rebuked by Jesus. Mark 14:43.

The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke

189

discourse is interrupted by a person referred to in that discourse. 10 The purpose of this sort of interruption by external events is dramatic simultaneity. We will discuss the Matthean and Lukan versions of this verse below. Before passing on to Matthew, we should mention one other possible interruption. In Mark 8:32, Peter “began to rebuke Jesus” (ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾶν αὐτῷ). Jesus then rebukes Peter in the following verse. Taken literally, it might seem that Peter has “begun” a speaking turn, only to be interrupted by Jesus. However, this reading would fail to take into account what J. W. Hunkin calls the “excessive use of ἄρχομαι” in the Gospel of Mark. Mark employs the construction “ἄρχομαι + infinitive” twenty-six times. Hunkin argues that there is “a tendency for this word to lose its distinctive meaning and to be reduced to a quasi-auxiliary verb.”11 For Hunkin, then, “Peter began to rebuke Jesus” could simply mean “Peter rebuked Jesus.” Joel Marcus is generally inclined to follow Hunkin, but he notes that ἄρχομαι is not always redundant, giving Mark 6:7 as an example.12 While one could claim that there is an intentional interruption in Mark 8:32-33, the Markan usage of ἄρχομαι undermines this claim.13

5.2.2 Interruption in the Gospel according to Matthew As stated above, the Gospel according to Matthew was probably not a source for Luke. That said, Matthew’s Gospel is our only other witness to Q. So, without Matthew, it would be impossible to reconstruct one of the sources of Luke’s Gospel. Again, the precise relationship between Matthew and Luke is not the subject of our study, and as we will now make clear, there appears to be little evidence that Matthew’s use of interruption could have had any effect on Lukan interruption, even if Luke knew Matthew’s Gospel.

10 11

12 13

For Homer, see Il. 10.540; Od. 16.11-12; 16.351-353. For the LXX, see Gen 24:15 and esp. 4 Kgdms 6:33. Cf. also Chariton, Call. 3.4.4. J. W. Hunkin, “‘Pleonastic’ ἄρχομαι in the New Testament,” JTS 25 (1924): 390-402, here 394. See, e.g., Mark 1:45 (ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν); 2:23 (ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν); 4:1 (ἤρξατο διδάσκειν); 5:17 (ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν); 5:20 (ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν); 6:2 (ἤρξατο διδάσκειν); 6:7 (ἤρξατο…ἀποστέλλειν); etc. Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 382. Cf. also the parallel passage in Matt 16:22-23, where Peter begins to rebuke just as in Mark’s account. However, after ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾶν αὐτῷ, Matthew then inserts λέγων and an additional eight words of direct discourse. There is no Lukan parallel.

190

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

In general, Matthean discourse is orderly. The lengthy Sermon on the Mount is uninterrupted; only when Jesus is finished does Matthew report the crowd’s response: Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους τούτους, ἐξεπλήσσοντο οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ (“And when Jesus finished these words, the crowds were amazed at his teaching”).14 Repeatedly, Matthew marks the end of blocks of teaching with an orderly closing formula.15 However, there are three interruptions by external events, and in every case, the form of Matthean interruption mirrors the form of interruption in the LXX. In Matt 9:15-17, Jesus is addressing the disciples of John on the topic of fasting. The following pericope begins with an interruption by external events: Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς, ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ (“While he was saying these things to them, behold, a leader came and bowed before him…”). 16 There does not appear to be any clear connection between the interrupted discourse and the unnamed leader’s arrival, and the introductory Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς appears to be out of place. Davies and Allison explain the opening words of 9:18 as follows: “This is a redactional introduction which replaces Mk 5.21, a verse which would be inappropriate for the new, Matthean context.” 17 Davies and Allison also note the presence of the construction ταῦτα (δὲ) αὐτοῦ + participle + ἰδού, which is also used in Matt 1:20; 12:46; 17:5; and 26:47.18 In 9:18, this construction functions as a transition from 9:15-17 to 9:18-26. In Matt 17:5 and 26:47, we find two more instances of this construction that mark interruption by external events. These two instances more clearly mark the interruption by adding ἔτι. All three interruptions by external events (9:18; 17:5; and 26:47) mark the ongoing speaking turn and then insert ἰδού before the interrupting person or thing, just as we noticed in a wide variety of passages in the LXX. 19 14 15 16 17

18

19

Matt 7:28. Matt 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1. Matt 9:18. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII (vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 125. Neirynck considers the opening words of 9:18 to be a “reminiscence” of Mark 5:35 in F. Neirynck, “Minor Agreements Matthew - Luke in the Transfiguration Story,” in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker, Für Josef Schmid (ed. Paul Hoffmann, Norbert Brox, and Wilhelm Pesch; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), 253-66, here 261. Davies and Allison, Commentary, 125. In Matt 1:20, the participle is the aorist ἐνθυμηθέντος; similarly, there is no interruption at 12:46, but rather simultaneous action. See Gen 24:15; 3 Kgdms 1:42; 4 Kgdms 6:33; 8:5; 1 Macc 5:14; Isa 58:9; Dan 9:21.

The Sources of the Gospel according to Luke

191

While the interruption by external events in Matt 9:18 works to little dramatic or rhetorical effect, the following two interruptions function to add significant drama to the narrative. Matthew 17 narrates the Transfiguration. Peter is very impressed and offers to build shelters for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. His offer is interrupted by external events: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης (“while [Peter] was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice from the cloud…”).20 This clearly marked interruption by external events adds drama to an already impressive scene. Matthew borrows his final interruption from Mark. As in Mark 14:42, Jesus warns that his betrayer is at hand. 21 As in Mark 14:43, the arrival of Judas is depicted as interrupting Jesus’ words: Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθεν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος πολὺς μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων (“And while [Jesus] was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a large crowd [armed] with swords and clubs”).22 Matthew drops the Markan εὐθύς and adds the ἰδού that we have seen so often in the LXX, but otherwise, the two passages are largely identical.

5.2.3 Summary of Interruptions in Mark and Matthew The only interruption in Mark’s Gospel takes place in the Passion Narrative, when Jesus is interrupted by the arrival of Judas, a dramatic interruption by external events. This interruption is picked up by Matthew and, as we will discuss below, Luke.23 In addition to preserving this interruption, Matthew also adds a pair of interruptions by external events. The first, at Matt 9:18, functions as a simple transition between two unconnected pericopes, and the second, at Matt 17:5, further dramatizes the already dramatic account of the Transfiguration. In each case, the interruption by external events is marked by a genitive absolute with a present participle of a verb of speaking. There are no intentional interruptions in Mark or in Matthew. As we will see, Luke keeps the one interruption by external events from Mark’s Gospel and, like Matthew, adds an interruption to Mark’s account of the Transfiguration. 20

21 22 23

Matt 17:5. In their Commentary, Davies and Allison focus on the differences between this passage and the Lukan parallel (Luke 9:34), noting that “the only common word is αὐτοῦ” (700). Matt 26:46. Matt 26:47. Mark 14:43 // Matt 26:47 // Luke 22:47.

192

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

5.3 Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke As we begin our discussion of interrupted speech in Luke’s Gospel, we would do well to remind ourselves of Bovon’s description of Luke’s use of sources: “Although he is dependent on the works of his predecessors (Luke 1:1), he reworks them to an extent that, within his entire composition, the sources rarely come to light in their original independent form.”24 Because the Gospels of Mark and Matthew have survived to the present day, we can recognize Luke’s use of Mark and, to some extent, Q. However, as we explore the usage of intentional interruption in Luke’s Gospel, which is absent from Mark and Q, we will be focusing on Luke’s own authorial and redactional activity. While our focus will be on the presence of interruption in passages attributed to Luke and not to one of Luke’s sources, we cannot forget that Luke is responsible for every word in his Gospel: “Narration always means selection: the narrator selects, from what is in principle an infinite material, the actual things which are to his mind important in any respect for the story he is telling.” 25 Luke did not quite have access to “infinite material,” but as an author, he certainly had the power to select and order his material. Thus, even passages based on Q or Mark must be considered “Lukan” in some sense, for Luke does not preserve every word of Mark, nor must we assume that Luke contains the entirety of Q. Again, our focus will be on the individual phrases and passages unique to Luke’s Gospel, but we must not forget this important caveat. Before beginning our analysis of interrupted speech in Luke, we should recall our definition of “interrupted speech.” Interruption has been defined in Chapter One as the violation of a speaking turn. We have largely abandoned the attempt to define what exactly a “speech” is, preferring instead to treat “discourse” in general. Still, this more wide-ranging investigation should not obscure the deep-seated differences between the speeches of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the teachings of Jesus: “The speeches of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels are compilations of sayings, and not ‘speeches’ in the sense of rhetoric.”26 While this statement appropriately recognizes the difference between the discourses of a professional rhetorician and the preaching of an

24 25 26

François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50 (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. Christine M. Thomas; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 6. Tomas Hägg, Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies of Chariton, Xenophon Ephesius, and Achilles Tatius (Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1971), 24. Dibelius, Studies, 145.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

193

evangelist, this characterization only recognizes a narrow definition of the word “rhetoric.” Elsewhere, Dibelius defines speeches as “compositions” that “are addressed to, or are known to have claimed the attention of a large number of people in some other way.”27 Working with this definition of “speeches,” a large number of Gospel discourses qualify as speeches. Furthermore, to deny the presence of “rhetoric” in the dominical discourses only seems possible through an exclusive definition of rhetoric accompanied by a low opinion of the persuasive abilities of the evangelists. If Luke could compose speeches “in the sense of rhetoric” for the Book of Acts, could he not put speeches in the Gospel? As we will argue below, he could, and in at least one case, he did.

5.3.1 Turn-Taking in the Gospel of Luke Prior to discussing Luke’s use of intentional interruption, we must show that Luke was aware of the process of turn-taking. We see, for example, orderly turn-taking in the dialogue between Gabriel and Mary in Luke 1:26-38.28 Jesus gives scriptural responses to each of the devil’s challenges in Luke 4:1-13.29 As ancient orators stood to speak in the assembly, so Jesus stands to read in the Nazareth synagogue (καὶ ἀνέστη ἀναγνῶναι).30 We also see contested speaking turns throughout Luke’s Gospel. We see, for example, the silencing of a blind man in 18:39. 31 After the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, there is a brief interchange that is absent from the other gospels. The Pharisees ask Jesus to silence his disciples, but he refuses: ἐὰν οὗτοι σιωπήσουσιν, οἱ λίθοι κράξουσιν (“if these ones were silent, the stones would call out”).32 The teacher refuses to silence his joyful disciples, but Jesus himself is interrupted multiple times in the Gospel of Luke.

27 28 29 30 31 32

Studies, 150. See the marking of speakers in vv. 28, 30, 34, 35, 38. “Jesus answered him” in Luke 4:4, 8, and 12. Luke 4:16. Cf. also 4:20, where the audience is depicted as eagerly awaiting Jesus’ words. See also the parallel passages: Mark 10:48 // Matt 20:31. Luke 19:40.

194

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

5.3.2 Luke 4:28 After the infancy narratives of Luke 1-2 and John’s baptism of Jesus in Luke 3, Jesus is tempted by the devil in Luke 4:1-13. Jesus finally returns to Galilee to begin his public teaching ministry in 4:14, and 4:1630 describes his turbulent homecoming. It is here that we find our first, and most significant, Lukan interruption. In Luke 4:16-20, Jesus comes to his hometown of Nazareth. On the sabbath, he goes to the synagogue, where he reads from the Book of Isaiah. He then sits down and begins to preach: σήμερον πεπλήρωται ἡ γραφὴ αὕτη ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν (“today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”). 33 His audience receives these words favorably; their response is clearly a positive reaction to Jesus’ words.34 Whichever way one reads 4:22, it is not an intentional interruption. Perhaps basing her views on the statement that Jesus “began to preach” (ἤρξατο δὲ λέγειν) in 4:21, Kolasny claims that “Jesus’ action is interrupted” in 4:22.35 However, we are interested in interrupted speech, not interrupted action. We find our first interrupted speech at the end of the longer discourse of Jesus in 4:23-27. For scholars inclined to distinguish between the “teachings” of the Gospel and the “speeches” of Acts, it is only this passage in Luke’s Gospel that qualifies as a speech, or at least something close to a speech. According to Dibelius, “Luke has not ascribed one single speech to Jesus.” However, he goes on to concede, “Only in the sermon in the synagogue at Nazareth can we recognise something

33 34

35

Luke 4:21. Commentators are divided on the nature of the people’s response in 4:22. Among those who read 4:22b as a negative or “cold” reaction are F. Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke (trans. E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin; 5th ed.; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1875), 1:236; I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 185-86; John Nolland, Luke (WBC 35A-C; 3 vols.; Dallas: Word Books, 1989-1993), 1:199; Hans Klein, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006), 190. Those who read 4:22 as a purely positive response include John Martin Creed, The Gospel according to St. Luke: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London: Macmillan, 1930), 66; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28-28A; 2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.; Doubleday, 1981-1985), 1:535; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 56; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 215. Judette M. Kolasny, “An Example of Rhetorical Criticism: Luke 4:16-30,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. Earl Richard; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 67-77, 171-72, here 68.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

195

created by Luke (4.17-27).”36 Cadbury expresses a similar view in his treatment of the speeches of Acts: “Unless it be in Luke iv. 16-30, these speeches have no parallel in the synoptic gospels.”37 Dibelius may be correct that Luke relies largely on traditional material; we find in 4:2327 a common proverb in 4:23 (ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν), a saying in 4:24 that is present in some form in all four canonical gospels, and then an interpretive summary of passages from 1-2 Kings.38 Fitzmyer argues that this passage is a “conflation” that reflects “the joining of two traditions.”39 However, as discussed above, Luke as author-editor bears sole responsibility for the selection and ordering of these materials.40 What is the function of the speech in 4:23-27? Jesus appears to be responding to the audience’s amazement in verse 22: οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; (“Isn’t he the son of Joseph?”). What appears to be an expression of admiration from the perspective of the people of Nazareth is shown by Luke to be mistaken: it is not the son of Joseph who fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah, but the son of God.41 In 4:23-27, Jesus goes on to correct “the parochial vision of his townspeople,” showing that he is not simply a local boy made good. 42 He attributes their approval to a simple desire to see wonders and healings in their very own village, but Jesus is unveiling a much larger plan. He predicts his rejection in 4:24, casting himself in the role of a prophet. And even more strikingly, in 4:25-27, he likens himself to Elijah and Elisha, pointing specifically to incidents where these two prophets worked wonders for non-Israelites.43 Far from a simple admonition to his fellow Nazarenes against seeking miracles on demand, Jesus’ speech has a “programmatic character.”44 While some scholars downplay the connection between Luke

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Dibelius, Studies, 184. For Dibelius, even this “composition” should not be labeled a “speech.” Luke is simply “collating traditional material” (185). Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1958), 61. Cf. also p. 188. Matt 13:57 // Mark 6:4 // Luke 4:24 // John 4:44. For the passages summarized in Luke 4:25-27, see 1 Kgs 17:1, 8-16; 18:1; 2 Kgs 5:1-14. Fitzmyer, Gospel, 1:528-29. Bovon, Luke 1, 151. Cf. Luke 1:32, 35; 2:49; 3:22, 38; 4:3, 9. Green, Gospel, 217. Fitzmyer, Gospel, 1:537-38. Fitzmyer, Gospel, 1:537. Or, as Cadbury put it in his Making of Luke-Acts, Luke 4:16-27 is a “keynote speech” (189). Similarly, Kingsbury speaks of the “programmatic significance” of Jesus’ visit to the Nazareth synagogue in Jack Dean Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 44. Kolasny also

196

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

4:25-27 and the later Gentile mission, we would be inclined to follow Creed’s conclusion that “the incidents cited from the careers of Elijah and Elisha provide good precedents for a mission to Gentiles—and this no doubt was their real significance to the evangelist.” 45 Furthermore, this Gospel precedent for the mission narrated in the Book of Acts has its own precursors earlier in Luke’s Gospel. For example, Simeon’s song includes a reference to a “light for revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32), and Luke is also the only evangelist to cite Isa 40:5, with its vision of salvation for “all flesh” (3:6). Thus, we can conclude that Luke indeed intended Luke 4:23-27 to be a programmatic speech, portending the Gentile mission that will be the focus of the latter half of his second volume.46 To set out the rhetorical situation, then, we have Jesus as our speaker in 4:23-27. His message is initially one of reproof, followed by a thinly veiled suggestion that his rejection by his hometown will be followed by outreach to the Gentiles. His audience is the people of Nazareth, who are gathered in their synagogue. They had been quite impressed with Jesus in 4:22, but they do not receive his rebuke in the same positive manner: καὶ ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες θυμοῦ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ ἀκούοντες ταῦτα (“and as they were hearing these things, everyone in the synagogue was filled with rage”).47 This angry reaction quickly grows violent: καὶ ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον αὐτὸν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους ἐφ᾽ οὗ ἡ πόλις ᾠκοδόμητο αὐτῶν ὥστε κατακρημνίσαι αὐτόν (“and they rose up, drove him out of the city, and led him to the edge of the hill on which their city was built, so as to cast him down”).48 According to the narrator Luke, the people became enraged and violent “while listening” (ἀκούοντες); the use of the present participle with its progressive as-

45

46

47 48

speaks of the “programmatic nature” of this pericope in “Example,” 69, and she cites others with similar views (171n11). Creed, Gospel, 66. For the less convincing argument that Luke 4:25-27 was a precedent “not simply of the gentile mission…but rather of Jewish-gentile reconciliation,” see Larrimore C. Crockett, “Luke 4:25-27 and Jewish-Gentile Relations in LukeActs,” JBL 88 (1969): 177-83, here 183. Bovon also follows Crockett in Luke 1, 156. Siker puts it even more strongly: “Rather, Luke uses this inaugural sermon of Jesus exactly to proclaim Gentile inclusion as part of the gospel message.” Jeffrey S. Siker, “‘First to the Gentiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16-30,” JBL 111 (1992): 73-90, here 74. Luke 4:28. Luke 4:29.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

197

pect implies that Jesus is still speaking when they intentionally interrupt him.49 What is the function of this intentional interruption of a speaker by his hearers? For one commentator, the violent response of those in the synagogue is utterly mysterious: Jesus comes in the power of the Spirit (v. 14), but all of his hearers (corresponding to the Lukan tendency toward globalizing presentation) are seized by rage (v. 28). Luke does not explain their reason, merely their progress from admiration (v. 22) to indignation (v. 28). Even at the close of Acts, Luke does not, in the final analysis, understand the reason that Israel did not accept the good news.50

Bovon argues that 4:25-27 refers to fellowship between Jews and Gentiles rather than the Gentile mission; thus, he appears to conclude that there is nothing overly upsetting in Jesus’ speech. However, most commentators agree that the violent reaction of the Jews “foreshadows the rejection by the Jewish people and the subsequent universal mission of the Church.”51 Similarly, Kolasny applies the heading of “Rejection” to 4:28-29.52 The Nazarenes did not listen politely to their hometown prophet before dismissing him; instead, they form a lynch mob while they are still listening to his words. Our first intentional interruption thus features a Jewish rejection of Jesus and his prophetic discourse, a response apparently triggered by the foreshadowing of the Gentile mission. According to one scholar, the rejection of Jesus in Luke 4:28 sets in motion a series of rejections that dominates the entire two-volume Lukan narrative: “the rejection of God’s agents by God’s people in connection with God’s sanctuaries (synagogues and temple) is the plot device by which the movement of the narrative as a whole is motivated.”53 Nazareth is only the first of many rejections. We will witness several more of these rejections by interruption in Acts.54 49

50 51 52 53 54

Aune notes the interruption in New Testament, 127. Like most commentators, Klein simply notes an audience „Reaktion“ rather than an interruption in Lukasevangelium, 192. The closest any commentator comes to noting this interruption is Marshall in his Gospel, 190, where he notes that the audience was filled “with rage as they listened (present participle!).” However, Marshall never actually labels this reaction as an interruption. Bovon, Luke 1, 156. Creed, Gospel, 66. Kolasny, “Example,” 69. Norman R. Petersen, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 83 (Petersen’s emphasis). Goulder notes the similarities between audience reactions in Luke 4:28-29; Acts 7:58; 13:50; 19:28. Goulder, Luke, 1:305. Cf. also Pervo, Acts, 196.

198

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

To grasp fully the significance of these interruptive rejections, we must attend more closely to the form of the interruption: ἀκούοντες. Earlier, Jesus had claimed to fulfill Isaiah’s prophecy ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν (“in [their] hearing”); the Jews, “while hearing” (ἀκούοντες), now reject this good news.55 In the vast majority of intentional interruptions that we have surveyed, the narrator has marked that the speaker was “(still) speaking” at the time of interruption.56 Luke, however, marks this interruption from the audience’s perspective. 57 This programmatic pericope diverges from many of the patterns previously observed. The Nazareth sermon is delivered in a setting that is neither forensic nor explicitly deliberative, and his words certainly do not resemble a pre-battle exhortation or a private conversation. Thus, we have a novel type of content in a new context, and moreover, the interruption is marked in an unusual manner. While we will find in the Book of Acts many more examples of such discourses that are interrupted similarly in comparable settings, this interruption stands apart from most other interruptions in the Gospel of Luke, as well as from almost all other interruptions observed thus far.

5.3.3 Luke 9:34 The next interruption in Luke’s Gospel occurs during the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus, which Luke has, like Matthew, taken over from Mark. Luke thus preserves Peter’s proposal: καὶ ποιήσωμεν σκηνὰς τρεῖς (“let us make three dwellings”).58 However, he paraphrases Mark 9:6, omitted by Matthew, noting that Peter “did not know what he was saying” (μὴ εἰδὼς ὃ λέγει).59 Whereas Mark simply notes that a cloud then appeared, Luke, like Matthew, adds more drama to the scene by having the cloud’s arrival interrupt Peter’s words: ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ἐγένετο νεφέλη καὶ ἐπεσκίαζεν αὐτούς (“but while he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed

55 56

57 58 59

Luke 4:21, 28. We have noted only four instances where a form of ἀκούω or a related verb of listening is used to mark an interruption: Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6; 38.12.4; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.41.1. These passages generally indicate that cheers, mockery, or general clamor render the speaker inaudible, and the crowd noise is not linked directly to violence, as it is here. For a listing of the various claims of interruption in Luke-Acts, see Appendix 4. Luke 9:33 // Mark 9:5. Luke 9:33.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

199

them”).60 Both the Lukan and Matthean additions to Mark 9:7 increase the drama of the scene, a typical function of interruption by external events. Is Luke dependent on Matthew? As mentioned earlier, Matt 17:5 is one of the three interruptions by external events in that gospel. Might Luke have drawn on Matthew’s added interruption? The two interruptions appear to be independent with respect to form. Luke adds four words to the Markan introduction of the cloud: ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος. Matthew, however, creates a clearer interruption: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος. By adding ἔτι and replacing ἐγένετο with ἰδού, Matthew has brought the Markan version more in line with interruptions by external events in the LXX. While it is striking that both Matthew and Luke add interruptions at the same point, Neirynck points out the “offending abruptness” of Mark 9:7a, suggesting that Matthew and Luke noticed the same problem and were thus motivated to make similar changes.61 Davies and Allison, moreover, point out that the only word that Matthew and Luke both add is αὐτοῦ, hardly a guarantee of literary influence.62 Also, even if only for comparative purposes, it is worth noting that the Matthean and Lukan interruptions of Jesus have historiographical parallels: other founding figures are interrupted by clouds. For example, in the Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the historian preserves two accounts of the conclusion of Romulus’ earthly life. The first account is of interest to us; according to Dionysius, some say that ἐκκλησιάζοντα … αὐτὸν ἐπὶ στρατοπέδου ζόφου κατασκήψαντος ἐξ αἰθρίας καὶ χειμῶνος μεγάλου καταρραγέντος ἀφανῆ γενέσθαι (“while he was addressing the camp, darkness fell from a clear sky and a great storm broke out, and [Romulus] disappeared”).63 While speaking to his soldiers, Romulus, the founder of Rome, is thus interrupted by sudden darkness and other meteorological phenomena. According to this account, Ares, the father of Romulus, was responsible for the interruptive disappearance. Similarly, in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus, Moses is interrupted by a sudden cloud: ἀσπαζομένου δὲ καὶ τὸν Ἐλεάζαρον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ προσομιλοῦντος ἔτι, νέφους αἰφνίδιον ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν στάντος ἀφανίζεται κατά τινος φάραγγος (“while [Moses] took his leave of Eleazar and Joshua and was still conversing [with them], and a cloud suddenly came over him,

60 61 62 63

Luke 9:34. Neirynck, “Minor Agreements,” 264. Davies and Allison, Commentary, 700. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2.

200

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

he disappeared down into a ravine”).64 In this dramatization of Deut 34:5, Josephus depicts Moses as being suddenly interrupted by a cloud. In the narratives of Dionysius, Josephus, and Luke, a founding figure is interrupted by an unexpected meteorological event: darkness from a clear sky (hiding Romulus), a sudden cloud (hiding Moses), or an overshadowing cloud. In Matthew’s version, the bright cloud simply appears and overshadows them; in Luke’s version, the overshadowing cloud produces fear among the enveloped disciples. While the wording of each account differs, all the accounts include a present participle of a verb of speech, an unexpected meteorological phenomenon of divine origin, and the shrouding of a seminal figure (Romulus, Moses, or Jesus).

5.3.4 Luke 11:27 The next interruption is the second intentional interruption in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 11:17-23, Jesus refutes the suggestion that he was casting out demons “by Beelzebul” (ἐν Βεελζεβούλ).65 He then tells a parable about an unclean spirit that returns to its “house,” a saying also found in Matthew.66 Luke goes on to include a pronouncement story found only in his gospel: Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ λέγειν αὐτὸν ταῦτα ἐπάρασά τις φωνὴν γυνὴ ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου εἶπεν αὐτῷ· μακαρία ἡ κοιλία ἡ βαστάσασά σε καὶ μαστοὶ οὓς ἐθήλασας (“And it happened that while he was saying these things, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that you sucked’”).67 Plummer suggests that the woman might have spoken up while Jesus was saying “these things” because she “had had experience of a lapsed penitent in her own family.” 68 We are not interested in dubious historical explanations for the timing of this interruption, however; we are concerned with the function of this cooperative interruption. Whereas the people gathered in the Nazareth synagogue rejected Jesus’ message, here we find the opposite: „Eine Frau akzeptiert Jesus.“69 In the first intentional interruption, the people of Nazareth re64 65 66 67 68 69

Josephus, A.J. 4.326. See the accusation in Luke 11:15. Luke 11:24-26 // Matt 12:43-45. Luke 11:27. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke (5th ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 305. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 417.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

201

jected Jesus and his prophetic message. In the second intentional interruption, an unnamed woman (τις…γυνή) accepts and blesses Jesus.70 Again, both of these interruptions are unique to Luke; our authoreditor is employing redactional means to describe the reception of Jesus by his hearers. We should note, furthermore, that Jesus does not accept the woman’s blessing, correcting her with yet another emphasis on proper hearing: μενοῦν μακάριοι οἱ ἀκούοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ φυλάσσοντες (“Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and observe it!”).71 Before moving on to the next interruption, we may comment further on the claim of interruption in 11:27, ἐν τῷ λέγειν αὐτὸν ταῦτα (“while he was saying these things”).72 On the one hand, Luke here includes a cooperative interruption, followed by another affirmation of the importance of hearing. On the other hand, with closer attention to the rhetorical situation, we see that this interruption is not about the content of Jesus’ discourse in 11:17-26, as Plummer suggests. This interruption is about the relationship between Jesus the speaker and the unnamed hearer. In a sense, then, Wolter is correct to describe Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ λέγειν αὐτὸν ταῦτα as merely a „Verklammerung“ that (somewhat artificially) links the story of the demon in 11:24-26 with 11:27-28, much like Matthew follows the same parable in Matt 12:43-45 with a phrase marking simultaneity in 12:46: Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος (“While he was still speaking”).73 While the expressions in Matt 12:46 and Luke 11:27 function similarly, Marshall suggests that “the similarity of the link to Mt. 12:46 is probably coincidental.”74

5.3.5 Luke 11:37 Here we find an even clearer example of an interruption that functions more as a link between pericopes than as a marker of actual interruption. In this case, the phrase Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι connects a dominical 70 71 72

73

74

Plummer reminds us of this gospel’s “special character as the Gospel of Women” in his Commentary, 305. Luke 11:28. See Luke 1:8 for a very similar construction that also marks contemporaneous time. For more on the Lukan “Hebraism” Ἐγένετο δὲ + finite verb, see Fitzmyer, Gospel, 1:119. Matt 12:46, however, does not describe an interruptive activity. For Wolter’s description of the „Verklammerung“ of Luke 11:27, see Michael Wolter, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 421. Marshall, Gospel, 481.

202

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

discourse with an unrelated event. Jesus has been speaking about the eye as the lamp of the body in Luke 11:33-36, and he is then interrupted, according to Luke: Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι ἐρωτᾷ αὐτὸν Φαρισαῖος ὅπως ἀριστήσῃ παρ᾽ αὐτῷ (“While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to eat with him”).75 The Pharisee is not mentioned anywhere as part of Jesus’ audience; thus, we may classify this instance as an interruption by external events. First, we must examine the meaning of the phrase Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι. Commentators are divided as to whether it marks interruption, “While he was speaking,” or sequence, “After he spoke.”76 For example, Marshall claims, “With the aorist infinitive we must translate: ‘when he had finished speaking.’” 77 Fitzmyer refers to Lukan usage at 2:27 and 3:21 to support his claim that Luke is here speaking “of the past.”78 In our opinion, this translation relies too heavily on the tense of the infinitive, missing the force of the preposition that governs this articular infinitive. Thus, we translate with Johnson, Green, and the NRSV: “While he was speaking.”79 Second, we must note that this interruption by external events diverges sharply from previous examples. Luke’s indication that the Pharisee came to invite Jesus to dinner “while he was speaking” does not add any drama to the scene, nor is there an obvious connection between discourse and interruptive event, unless the Pharisee’s dinner invitation is taken as a positive sign. This marker of simultaneous action is purely intended to provide some link between 11:36 and 11:37. 80 As in Matt 9:18 and Luke 8:49, the notice that something happened

75 76

77 78 79

80

Luke 11:37. “It is unclear whether the introductory phrase means ‘as he was speaking’ or ‘after he had spoken.’” Darrell L. Bock, Luke (BECNT 3A-3B; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-1996), 2:1111. Marshall, Gospel, 493. Fitzmyer, Gospel, 2:946. Bock follows Fitzmyer in Luke, 2:1111, and Klein agrees that the phrase means „nachdem er geredet hatte“ in Lukasevangelium, 428n33. For “As he was speaking,” see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991), 187. For “While he was speaking,” see Green, Gospel, 467. For further support of this interpretation of ἐν τῷ plus infinitive as marking “contemporaneous time, see Martin M. Culy, Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text (BHGNT; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2010), 399. Culy, Parsons, and Stigall suggest “as he spoke” as a possible translation that indicates the perfective aspect of the aorist infinitive (117). Cf. also 2 Chr 25:16 (LXX), where the same phrase (ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι αὐτῷ) is used to mark interruption. Marshall comments on Luke’s frequent creation of “links between his pericopes” in Gospel, 624.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

203

while someone was “still speaking” simply functions to transition from one scene to another. The two interruptions of Luke 11, marked with the preposition ἐν plus an articular infinitive, appear to carry less weight than the more dramatic interruptions in Luke 4 and Luke 21.81

5.3.6 Luke 16:14 Like Luke 4:25-30 and 11:27-28, Luke 16:14-15 is unique to the Gospel of Luke. Unlike the clear interruptions of 4:28 and 11:27, Luke 16:14 presents us with an ambiguous situation that may be interpreted either as an interruption or as simultaneous action. Jesus has been speaking about one of Luke’s favorite topics: money. After Jesus tells his disciples the parable of the shrewd or dishonest steward and adds further sayings on wealth, Luke reports the interruption or simultaneous action of the “eavesdropping” Pharisees: Ἤκουον δὲ ταῦτα πάντα οἱ Φαρισαῖοι φιλάργυροι ὑπάρχοντες καὶ ἐξεμυκτήριζον αὐτόν (“The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were mocking him”).82 Luke’s use of tenses suggests that the Pharisees were mocking Jesus at the same time as he was speaking. 83 This much is clear; however, whether or not the Pharisees interrupt Jesus is more difficult to discern. This verse could function as a simple transition between two different audiences, from the disciples in 16:1-13 to the Pharisees in 16:15-31. Having finished addressing his disciples, Jesus would now be turning to his cultured despisers in order to expose their hypocrisy. On this reading, ἐξεμυκτήριζον would mean that the Pharisees “were sneering” at the teachings of Jesus as they overheard them. 84 As opposed to the violent lynch mob of Luke 4, here we would find the Pharisees merely rolling their eyes at Jesus. But should we interpret Luke 16:14 as a simple sneer or rolling of the eyes? According to LSJ, ἐκμυκτηρίζω means “hold in derision,” or

81 82 83

84

On Luke’s use of the “dative of the articular infinitive with en,” see Fitzmyer, Gospel, 1:119-20. Luke 16:14. For the Pharisees as “eavesdropping,” see Green, Gospel, 599. The Pharisees “‘sneer’ at Jesus directly to his face,” according to David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1989), 200. Or, they “were turning up their nose at” Jesus. The word μυκτήρ is Greek for “nostril.”

204

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

“mock at.”85 While these actions do not have to be verbal or disruptive, the Pharisees clearly get Jesus’ attention. Furthermore, unlike some previous instances, where an interruption functioned as a mechanical link from one pericope to the next, here we see a clear connection between Jesus’ closing words about God and wealth on the one hand, and the listening lovers of wealth on the other. While we could thus label verse 14 as a lightly-marked interruption, we cannot say with certainty that the Pharisaic mocking violates Jesus’ speaking turn. Still, this clear rejection of Jesus’ teaching by his hearers deserves mention alongside the many other instances of audience rejection in Luke-Acts.

5.3.7 Luke 21:5 Our third and final intentional interruption in the Gospel of Luke occurs in the Jerusalem Temple. Jesus interrupts some admirers of the Temple with an oracle of doom: Καὶ τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασιν κεκόσμηται εἶπεν· ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται (“And while some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive offerings, [Jesus] said, ‘As to these things that you see, the days will come in which not one stone will be left on another that will not be cast down’”).86 This interruption is marked with a genitive absolute featuring a present participle. The interrupted speakers are not identified; they may have been the disciples.87 The speaker is also left unnamed, but it is clearly Jesus, who is again cast in the role of prophet. 88 Instead of Jesus playing the role of rejected prophet as in Nazareth (Luke 4; cf. Stephen in Acts 7), Jesus functions as a prophet of doom in his prediction of the destruction of the Temple (cf. Jeremiah in Jer 7). 89 Instead of being rejected, Jesus is shown as rejecting the misguided admiration of

85

86 87

88 89

In the NT, the verb ἐκμυκτηρίζω appears only here and in Luke 23:35, and the latter usage is likely dependent on Ps 22:7 (21:8 LXX).The verb is used three times in the LXX version of Psalms (2:4; 21:8; 34:16). Luke 21:5-6. Green, Gospel, 734; Johnson, Gospel, 320. Other scholars prefer to remain agnostic regarding their identity: Marshall, Gospel, 759; Wolter, Lukasevangelium, 670. Klein specifically rules out identifying the unnamed individuals with the μαθηταί of Mark 13:1 in Lukasevangelium, 645. The parallel passages explicitly identify both Jesus and the disciples as the interlocutors; cf. Matt 24:1-2 // Mark 13:1-2 // Luke 21:5-6. Johnson, Gospel, 325.

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

205

the “beautiful stones” of a Temple that will soon be leveled to the ground.

5.3.8 Luke 22:47 The next interruption also takes place in the triple tradition, but unlike the intentional interruption introduced by Luke in 21:5-6, this interruption is not original to Luke. The scene is Gethsemane, where Jesus has gone to pray with his disciples. In Luke 22:46, as in Matt 26:45 and in Mark 14:41, Jesus, who has been praying alone, comes and finds his disciples sleeping.90 At this point in Matthew and Mark, Jesus warns his disciples that his betrayer is coming; in Matthew and Mark, Judas then comes while Jesus “was still speaking.”91 The Matthean and Markan parallels thus feature interruptions of discourses by a person who is referred to in the discourse, a common category of interruption by external events. Luke 22:46, however, does not mention Judas or Jesus’ “betrayer” (ὁ παραδιδούς με). Instead, Jesus says to his disciples, τί καθεύδετε; ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν (“Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray, so that you do not enter into temptation”).92 Jesus thus echoes his earlier command in Luke 22:40.93 Even though Jesus’ discourse makes no mention of Judas, Luke still includes the clearly marked interruption of Jesus’ discourse by the arrival of Judas: Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ ὄχλος, καὶ ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα προήρχετο αὐτούς (“While [Jesus] was still speaking, behold, a crowd, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, led them”).94 As Table 5 illustrates, Luke, like Matthew, appears to borrow this interruption from Mark.

90 91 92 93 94

Luke has compressed the Gethsemane account; Jesus only finds his disciples sleeping in 22:45. Matthew and Mark each include a threefold awakening of the disciples. Matt 26:46-47 // Mark 14:42-43 (// Luke 22:46-47). Luke 22:46. Matthew and Mark include an earlier command to watch and pray so as not to enter into temptation in Matt 26:41 // Mark 14:38. Luke 22:47. In his Acts commentary, Pervo notes that “Luke 22:47 abbreviates Mark 14:43. Both use a genitive absolute to indicate that Jesus was interrupted while speaking” (111n71).

206

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

Table 5: Claims of Interruption in Matt 26:47 // Mark 14:43 // Luke 22:47 Matt 26:47

Mark 14:43

Καὶ ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος

Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος

ἰδοὺ Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα ἦλθεν καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος…

παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος…

Luke 22:47

Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ ὄχλος, καὶ ὁ λεγόμενος Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα προήρχετο αὐτούς…

Redactionally, it is easy to explain how Matthew borrows his final interruption from Mark. Matthew drops the Markan εὐθύς and adds the ἰδού that we have seen so often in the LXX, but otherwise, the two passages are largely identical. Like Matthew, Luke also omits the Markan εὐθύς and adds ἰδού. Is Luke then dependent on Matthew? According to Luz, Luke is not dependent on Matthew here: It is noteworthy that the Lukan variant, which perhaps, but by no means certainly, uses other materials in addition to Mark, expands the Markan text in the same places as does Matthew, but in a completely different way—a clear indication that Luke does not know the Gospel of Matthew.95

Ennulat similarly attributes such changes to independent redaction of Mark by Matthew and Luke.96 One important difference between the Matthean and Lukan versions is the function of ἰδού. In Matt 26:47, Matthew imitates the LXX in using ἰδού to introduce a person who is referred to in a discourse and who then interrupts that same discourse. Luke’s Jesus, however, does not refer to Judas in his discourse, and Luke does not use ἰδού to draw attention to Judas. Instead, Luke marks the arrival of the crowd (ὄχλος). There is still a relationship between the external events and the interrupted discourse, as the arrival of the crowd marks the beginning of Jesus’ final trial (πειρασμός), which will culminate in his death.

95 96

Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21-28 (ed. Helmut Koester; trans. James E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 411. Andreas Ennulat, Die „Minor Agreements“: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems (WUNT 2.62; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994), 353.

207

Interrupted Speech in the Gospel according to Luke

5.3.9 Luke 22:60 Thirteen verses later, we find our fourth interruption by external events in the Gospel according to Luke. The speaker is Peter, and the interruption is attributed to a timely rooster: εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος· ἄνθρωπε, οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔτι λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ (“But Peter said, ‘Man, I do not know what you are saying.’ And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed”).97 This interruption by external events functions as a dramatic fulfillment of prophecy; in case the reader has forgotten Jesus’ prediction, the narrator reiterates the prophecy in Luke 22:61. Furthermore, as Table 6 demonstrates, Luke 22:60 offers clear evidence of Luke’s distinct preference for interruption. All four evangelists report the cock crow; only Luke shows Peter’s denial being interrupted.

Table 6: The Cock Crow in the Four Canonical Gospels Matt 26:74

Mark 14:72

… καὶ εὐθέως

καὶ εὐθὺς

ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν.

ἐκ δευτέρου ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν. …

Luke 22:60

John 18:27

… καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔτι λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ

… καὶ εὐθέως

ἐφώνησεν ἀλέκτωρ.

ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν.

5.3.10 Luke 24:36 The final interruption in the Gospel of Luke is the fifth interruption by external events. This interruption takes place immediately following the Emmaus Road narrative, which is only found in Luke. 98 After Jesus reveals his identity to the two disciples, he vanishes. 99 The pair immediately rush back to Jerusalem to report that Jesus has risen from the dead and to describe all that had happened. Their description is inter97 98 99

Luke 22:60. There appears to be a concise summary in the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:1213). Luke 24:31.

208

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

rupted by the sudden appearance of the described: Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτῶν λαλούντων αὐτὸς ἔστη ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· εἰρήνη ὑμῖν (“While they were saying these things, [Jesus] stood in the midst of them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you’”).100 Like most interruptions by external events, a genitive absolute with a present participle of a verb of speech marks the interruption, and as we have seen many times before, a discourse about a certain person is dramatically interrupted by that person’s arrival. Without noting the interruption, Green comments on how “Luke carefully stitches this scene into the previous one, indicating chronological and thematic continuity with the clause, ‘while they were talking about these things.’”101 Klein, on the other hand, notes that Jesus indeed „unterbricht ihr Gespräch.“102 This comment is a rare instance of scholarly attention to the presence of interruption in Luke’s Gospel.

5.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Luke’s Gospel This chapter has revealed a Lukan affinity for interruption that has gone unnoticed in previous scholarship. There are no less than eight interrupted discourses in Luke’s Gospel, five interruptions by external events and three interruptions by audiences. By way of comparison, we have noted that Mark only has one interruption by external events; Matthew, three. As we will demonstrate in Chapter Six, only one other New Testament text uses interruption so extensively: the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, Luke has a much greater degree of authorial freedom; in the Gospel, he preserves his sources somewhat faithfully. Still, Luke incorporates multiple interruptions. When Mark has an interruption, Luke includes it.103 When Mark does not have an interruption, Luke may add one.104 Furthermore, when Luke is working with material not found in any other gospel, we find multiple interruptions.105 Again, as we will see in Luke’s second volume, Acts, interruption is a favorite Lukan literary device. 100 101 102 103 104 105

Luke 24:36. Cf. the parallel passage in John 20:19, which lacks the interruption. Green, Gospel, 853. Klein, Lukasevangelium, 736. Luke 22:47, which is based on Mark 14:43. Luke 9:34; 11:37; 21:5; 22:60. Luke 4:28; 11:27; 24:36.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Luke’s Gospel

209

What are the functions of interrupted speech in Luke? Occasionally, interruption functions to add drama to a scene. A cloud suddenly appears, or a cock crows with impeccable timing.106 A crowd interrupts Jesus’ prayer-time in Gethsemane.107 Jesus surprisingly appears in the midst of his disciples.108 These dramatic interruptions by external events are, by now, quite familiar to us. However, the two interruptions in Luke 11 are strangely devoid of drama. Luke has included phrases marking contemporaneous time (ἐν τῷ λέγειν in 11:27 and Ἐν δὲ τῷ λαλῆσαι in 11:37) that connect a portion of Jesus’ teaching with a subsequent discourse or event. However, in these two cases, the teaching that is supposedly interrupted does not seem to have any clear connection with the interruptive words or actions. We have here what Marshall refers to as “Luke’s known propensity to create links between his pericopes.”109 These interruptions, then, function as simple transitions. Form may have some relation to function here. These less significant interruptions are marked with the articular infinitive; the remaining two interruptions are marked with present participles, and they function in a manner that is now familiar to us; these rhetorical interruptions show an audience rejecting a speaker or the speaker’s message. In Luke 4:28, the people gathered in the Nazareth synagogue reject Jesus. In Luke 21:5, Jesus prophesies doom over the Jerusalem Temple, an edifice that some individuals have been praising. The primary function of rhetorical interruption in the Gospel of Luke, then, is to highlight an audience’s reaction of hostility and rejection. In our treatment of Luke 4:28, we remarked above that the striking function of this interruption coincides with a unique form of indicating interruption. Notably, Luke uses a form of the verb “to hear” (ἀκούω) to mark interrupted speech in this passage; this usage was not often found in our surveys of other Greek and Jewish texts. 110 Furthermore, Luke’s usage is not a random aberration, but rather an integral part of Luke’s overall project. Hearing is a key theme in Luke-Acts. Drawing on the use of Isaiah in Luke 4 and Deuteronomy in Acts 3 and 7, Tiede argues the follow106 107 108 109 110

Luke 9:34; 22:60. Luke 22:47. Luke 24:36. Marshall, Gospel, 624. As mentioned above, we found only four instances where a form of ἀκούω or a related verb of listening is used to mark an interruption: Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6; 38.12.4; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.41.1. See the appendices for a listing of the various claims of interruption.

210

Chapter 5: The Overlooked Interruptions of the Gospel according to Luke

ing: “Faithful Israel does hear (Deut. 18:15, akouein). Refusing to obey (hupakouein) is a sign that ‘in their hearts they turned to Egypt’ and is tantamount to idolatry (Acts 7:39-43; see Deuteronomy 13).”111 This importance of hearing is emphasized in Luke 4:16-30, a programmatic pericope. Jesus claims to fulfill prophecy ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν (“in [their] hearing”); the Jews then reject Jesus’ message “while hearing” (ἀκούοντες).112 As we will discuss in Chapter Six, there are multiple instances of interruption by those who are hearing in Acts. The choice between hearing and not hearing appears yet again in Paul’s final words to the Roman Jews in Acts 28:25-28, where we again find the connection between hearing, not hearing, rejection, and the mission to the Gentiles. Robert Tannehill, who has little to say about interrupted speech in particular, picks up on the Lukan connection between rejection and mission. According to Tannehill, “Luke-Acts has a unified plot because there is a unifying purpose of God behind the events which are narrated, and the mission of Jesus and his witnesses represents that purpose being carried out through human action.”113 However, Luke does not narrate the completion of this divine purpose: At the end of Acts this purpose of God is only partially fulfilled. This incompleteness is not merely the result of mission fields still unharvested. It is also the result of the frequent and persistent rejection which the mission encounters. Rejection of the mission by many Jews is the most painful. Jewish rejection is repeatedly highlighted in the narrative from the first scene of Jesus’ public ministry to the last scene of Acts. 114

Thus, Tannehill describes how Luke narrates the fulfillment of the “purpose of God” from Luke 4 to Acts 28, two scenes that emphasize the dichotomy between hearing and not hearing. As we have shown, Luke uses intentional interruption in Luke 4:28 to highlight Jesus’ pivotal and programmatic proclamation of the universality of the mission of God, and he will continue to mark who “hears” and who “does not hear” the divine message.

111 David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 42. 112 Luke 4:21, 28. Cf. Luke 16:14, where the Pharisees hear and reject Jesus’ teaching. 113 Robert C. Tannehill, The Gospel according to Luke (vol. 1 of The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 2. 114 Tannehill, Gospel, 2.

Chapter 6 Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles 6.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, we found evidence that the author of the Gospel of Luke used interruption as a literary device. While generally following his sources, this author crafted his material in such a way that multiple speakers are depicted as being interrupted; that is, something happens, or someone says something, during their speaking turn. Most significantly, in a key scene toward the beginning of the Gospel, Jesus is shown as being interrupted by his Jewish hearers, who reject his message. We will find that the author of the Acts of the Apostles has included many more interruptions of a follower of Jesus by Jewish hearers, who then reject the message. From Luke to Acts, there is continuity in the frequency of interruption, in the form of interruption, and in the function of interruption. This continuity is one of the many reasons why we choose to treat the author of Luke and the author of Acts as the same individual. Some scholars oppose authorial unity.1 Other scholars identify “Luke” as the single author of two works but still raise questions about the unity of these two works. Notably, Mikeal Parsons and Richard Pervo have argued that scholars examining “generic, literary, and theological issues in Luke and Acts…should do so without assuming unity as prima facie true.”2 As evidence for the disunity of Luke and Acts, Parsons and Pervo cite the numerous speeches in Acts, compared to the sayings and parables of the Gospel of Luke: 1

2

Most recently, Patricia Walters has taken up this position in The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence (SNTSMS 145; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Walters relies upon a prose compositional analysis of the seams and summaries of Luke and Acts in order to show different patterns of stylistic choices in the two works. Her analysis is compromised by her relatively limited data set; in treating only seams and summaries, Walters analyzes only 40 verses (or parts of verses) from the Gospel of Luke and 35 verses (or parts of verses) from Acts. Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard I. Pervo, Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), vi.

212

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

Did Lukas have the license of a historian to invent appropriate speeches only in Acts? The presence of these numerous addresses remains a formidable obstacle to the case for generic unity. They are one of the most prominent indicators that in Acts Lukas has other literary goals and thus possibly operated with a different set of generic conventions. The speeches of Acts mark the second book as different.3

Acts is indeed “different” from Luke, and the differences should not be ignored. While Parsons and Pervo correctly discern a variety of major differences between Luke and Acts, we may point to other texts that show ample room for discontinuities within a larger continuity. For example, we have seen multiple historiographical works that encompass more than one genre. The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus includes two predominantly biographical sections; Book 16 is devoted to Philip of Macedon, and Book 17, to Alexander the Great. Likewise, Josephus’ biographical account of Herod in Book 1 of the Jewish War exists alongside clearly historiographical material in the remainder of the work.4 While Parsons and Pervo are right to draw attention to differences between Luke and Acts, our investigation into the similar usage of interruption in the two works yields further evidence for the literary and theological unity of Luke-Acts. Thus, we retain the hyphenated compound popularized (but not invented) by Cadbury “in order to emphasize the historic unity of the two volumes addressed to Theophilus.”5

3 4

5

Parsons and Pervo, Rethinking, 38. Similarly, note the close relationship between the Life of Josephus and the Jewish Antiquities; the former is written as an appendix to the latter (see Vita 430). For other examples of histories that include biographical sections, see Charles H. Talbert, “The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or ‘Bios’?” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. Ben Witherington III; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 58-72. Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1958), 11. For a more recent review of scholarship, see Patrick E. Spencer, “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge,” CBR 5 (2007): 341-66. I am grateful to Dr. Gregory Sterling, who pointed out to me that Cadbury did not invent the construction “Luke-Acts.” While Cadbury is often credited with its creation, Benjamin Bacon makes frequent use of the hyphenated compound in An Introduction to the New Testament (New Testament Handbooks; New York: Macmillan, 1900); see esp. pp. 211, 218, 220-21, 280.

Sources of the Acts of the Apostles

213

6.2 Sources of the Acts of the Apostles Thus affirming the unity of Luke-Acts, we may now turn to examine an area in which the two volumes do indeed differ. While most scholars agree that Luke used Mark and Q as a source for his Gospel, the sources of Acts are disputed.6 We will not explore the various arguments here; the various hypothetical sources underlying the narrative of Acts are largely irrelevant to our analysis. While it would be interesting to compare the function of interruption in Acts with the function of interruption in the sources of Acts, we do not have any independent access to the sources of Acts. Furthermore, this inaccessibility need not trouble us, for we have seen that Luke freely modified the Markan narrative, adding and altering claims of interruption. Thus, we will assume that any interruptions in the narrative of Acts are the result of Lukan composition or redaction. What about the sources behind the speeches of Acts? For most scholars, there are none. As one recent commentator remarks, “The speeches (and letters) in Acts do not derive from sources. Ancient writers were expected to compose their own speeches, and the author of Acts is no exception.”7 This commentator summarizes the consensus held by most Acts scholars for the last two centuries.8 However, this consensus does not mean that all Acts scholars believe that Luke created his speeches ex nihilo. Some scholars believe that Luke did compose the speeches from sources or from existing templates. For example, Dodd argued that, although Luke composed speeches, “the author of Acts used his historian’s privilege with considerable restraint.”9 That is, Luke used sources in some cases, and in other cases, he composed speeches according to 6

7 8 9

For a recent overview of the possible sources of Acts, ranging from known authors like Josephus and Paul to hypothetical sources like Harnack’s “Antioch Source,” see Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 1214. For a more detailed discussion of sources that focuses primarily on the famous ‘We’ passages, see C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994-1998), 2:xxiv-xxx. An older monograph concludes that “it has not been possible to define any of the sources used by the author of Acts in a way which will meet with widespread agreement among the critics.” Jacques Dupont, The Sources of Acts: The Present Position (trans. Kathleen Pond; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964), 166. Pervo, Acts, 14. For a review of the history of scholarship, see Marion L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994), 1-10. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures with an Appendix on Eschatology and History (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936), 30.

214

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

an extant model. For Dodd, these speeches “represent, not indeed what Peter said upon this or that occasion, but the kerygma of the Church at Jerusalem at an earlier period.”10 Other scholars have contended that, rather than representing a historical model of preaching, the speeches of Acts are based on historical reminiscences of actual speeches. For example, Bruce claims that Luke provides us with “at least faithful epitomes, giving the gist of the arguments used.” 11 For the purposes of this study, whether our author freely composed the speeches of Acts or accurately reported part or all of their actual content makes little difference. Either way, Luke is responsible for the final form of the speeches of Acts.12 How then does the question of sources relate to our study? If a scholar believes that the speeches of Acts are composed according to a given outline or template, then that scholar might consider a speech to be interrupted if its content does not complete the outline or template. That is, if the latter parts of the template are missing, one solution is to suggest that an interruption has prevented the speaker from continuing. For example, as we will discuss below, some scholars argue that Acts 2:37 marks an interruption, not because of any explicit claim of interruption, but rather because Acts 2:38-40 belongs with and completes Acts 2:14-36.13 Whether these discourses are incomplete, however, is controversial; none of the cases discussed later in this chapter is as obvious as the mid-sentence interruption of Plato in the fragment of Justus of Tiberias.14 Our emphasis in this study on discerning clear claims of interruption has spared us the ambiguity of deciding whether or not a speaker is finished. In this chapter too, we will rely more heavily on narrative 10 11 12

13

14

Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 37. F. F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale,1942), 27. Even defenders of the historicity of the speeches credit Luke with the final form of the speeches. For example, as one such defender claims, “Now, no one, so far as I know, denies that the language of all the speeches is, generally speaking, Luke’s.” W. Ward Gasque, “The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 232-50, here 246 (Gasque’s emphasis). E.g., Ulrich Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (3rd ed.; WMANT 5; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 37. Whereas Dodd believed that Luke used the apostolic preaching as a model, Wilckens argues that Luke has created his own outline: „das Schema dieser judenchristlichen Missionspredigten von Lukas selbst gebildet worden ist“ (100, Wilckens’ emphasis). This fragment is preserved in Diogenes Laertius 2.41 and is discussed above in Chapter 3.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

215

frameworks than on hypothetical templates. The outlines of Dodd, Wilckens, and others share some elements in common, but the variety of proposals suggests that Luke did not employ a clear-cut template in the longer discourses of Acts.15 Thus, while we will examine each individual case, we will generally not equate a supposedly incomplete discourse with an interrupted speech. We are inclined rather to side with Dibelius, who claims that the interrupted speeches are “always allowed to reach just that point which is important to the author. We should certainly miss the author’s intention were we to suppose that each of these speeches did in fact lack a concluding section.”16

6.3 “Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles While scholars have often remarked upon the “interrupted speeches” of Acts, we will treat “interrupted speech” in Acts. Our survey will cover all direct and indirect discourse in the Acts of the Apostles, making no attempt to decide what is or is not a “speech.” As discussed in Chapter One, scholars generally agree that the major addresses of Peter (Acts 2:14-36), Stephen (Acts 7:2-53), and Paul (Acts 17:22-31) are “speeches.” Beyond such obvious instances, the agreement breaks down. Dibelius and Schneider each list twenty-four speeches.17 In his chapter on “The Speeches in Acts,” Kennedy treats the twenty-five “discourses in Acts consisting of four or more verses.” 18 Aune counts

15

16

17 18

While generally supportive of Dodd’s thesis, Barrett acknowledges in his commentary that Dodd’s outline has been “to some extent modified by subsequent study (almost every writer on Acts having produced his own variations)” (1:130). Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 160. Dibelius applies this statement to the five speeches that he considers to be intentionally interrupted: Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, Demetrius’ speech in Acts 19, and Paul’s speeches in Acts 17, 22 and 26. Cf. also Conzelmann’s statement on the function of interruption as a literary device: “The interruption takes place after everything essential has been said.” Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xliv; trans. of Die Apostelgeschichte (2d ed.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972). See Dibelius, Studies, 150, and Gerhard Schneider, Die Apostelgeschichte (HTKNT 5; 2 vols.; Freiburg: Herder, 1980-1982), 1:96. George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 116.

216

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

“thirty-two speeches of Acts (excluding short statements).”19 Soards takes a more comprehensive approach, identifying “twenty-seven or twenty-eight speeches, seven or more ‘partial speeches,’ and at least three ‘dialogues’” in Acts.20 Again, rather than addressing the “speeches” or “partial speeches” of Acts, we will focus on the numerous examples of interrupted speech in Acts.

6.3.1 Turn-Taking in the Acts of the Apostles Just as Luke shows Jesus taking the floor in Luke 4:16, so the speakers of Acts frequently begin clearly-marked speaking turns. For example, in Acts 1, Peter takes the floor by standing up and moving to the center: ἀναστὰς Πέτρος ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν εἶπεν (“Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers and said”).21 Later, in Acts 17, Paul will make a similar move: Σταθεὶς δὲ [ὁ] Παῦλος ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ Ἀρείου πάγου ἔφη (“Paul stood in the middle of the Areopagus and said”).22 In other historiographical works, we have seen a similar movement εἰς μέσην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (“into the midst of the assembly”) as a sign of beginning a new speaking turn.23 There are other ways of marking speaking turns, even if standing up is generally sufficient.24 In Acts 13, Paul stands and adds a gesture to take the floor: Ἀναστὰς δὲ Παῦλος καὶ κατασείσας τῇ χειρὶ εἶπεν (“Paul stood up, motioned with his hand, and said”). 25 This wave of the

19 20 21

22 23

24

25

David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 124-25. Soards, Speeches, 1. Soards later analyzes the various categorizations of speeches by Dibelius, Kennedy, and Schneider in pp. 18-20. Acts 1:15. All NT citations and translations will be based on the text of Barbara Aland et al., eds., Novum Testamentum Graece (27th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1999). Acts 17:22. Cf. 27:21, where Paul also stands ἐν μέσῳ prior to speaking. Josephus, A.J. 9.10. Steve Mason discusses the phrase παρέρχομαι εἰς μέσους in Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (vol. 9 of Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary; ed. Steve Mason; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 43n220. There, he cites other examples of its use: B.J. 4.216; A.J. 19.261; Vita 134, 251, 255. Cf. also the use of εἰς τὸ μέσον in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 13.102.1-2. Gamaliel, for example, simply stands to take the floor in Acts 5:34; see also Acts 15:5, 7. In his two epics, Homer uses a formulaic description of sitting down and standing up to show a change in speaking turns: ἤτοι ὅ γ᾽ ὣς εἰπὼν κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἕζετο· τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνέστη (“After he spoke, he sat down, and among them arose…”). See Il. 1.68, 101; 2.76; 7.354, 365; Od. 2.224. Acts 13:16.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

217

hand is used elsewhere in Acts to silence a crowd prior to beginning a speaking turn.26 Finally, we may observe that Felix grants Paul a speaking turn in Acts 24: Ἀπεκρίθη τε ὁ Παῦλος νεύσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος λέγειν (“And when the governor nodded at him to speak, Paul answered”).27 Luke shows himself capable of clearly marking orderly beginnings and endings of speaking turns. For example, in Acts 11, Peter goes to Jerusalem, where he addresses criticisms raised by Jewish followers of Jesus who believe in the necessity of circumcision. Peter begins to speak in 11:4, and he recounts both his vision of the unclean animals and his experience in the house of Cornelius in 11:5-17. His critics accept his explanation: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα ἡσύχασαν καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν (“When they heard these things, they were quiet and praised God”). 28 Rather than puzzling over the presence of ἡσύχασαν in tandem with a verb of praise, we can interpret this verb as signifying the audience’s acceptance of Peter’s report. Luke uses silence here and elsewhere in Acts as a sign of acceptance. Similarly, at the famous council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, silence and order reign. The people receive Barnabas and Paul’s report with silence: Ἐσίγησεν δὲ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ ἤκουον Βαρναβᾶ καὶ Παύλου ἐξηγουμένων ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν δι᾽ αὐτῶν (“All the crowd was silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul explaining the signs and wonders that God performed through them among the Gentiles”).29 The next speaker, James, only speaks “after [Barnabas and Paul] are silent” (Μετὰ δὲ τὸ σιγῆσαι αὐτούς).30 This silent respect for speaking rights would be fairly unremarkable if taken alone, but when Acts 11:18 and 15:12-13 are viewed in their context, we see that these quiet receptions are extremely significant. Luke marks the reception of the Gentile mission by the early followers of Jesus with a quiet acceptance. As we will now discuss, quiet reception is not the norm for the discourses of Acts.

26

27 28

29 30

See Acts 12:17; 19:33 (a failed attempt); 21:40. Barrett identifies the use of κατασείω with the dative or accusative form of χεῖρ as “an orator’s gesture” and points out parallel usage by Josephus, Lucian, and Tacitus in his Commentary, 1:586. Cf. also Acts 26:1, where Paul stretches out his hand prior to beginning his defense (ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα). Acts 24:10. Cf. Homer, Il. 9.223, and Josephus, B.J. 1.629. Acts 11:18. On the narrative function of praise in Luke-Acts, see Kindalee Pfremmer De Long, Surprised by God: Praise Responses in the Narrative of Luke-Acts (BZNW 166; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). De Long treats 11:18 on pp. 255-56. Acts 15:12. Acts 15:13.

218

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

Before discussing the many violations of speaking rights in Acts, we may note that even gaining a speaking turn can be difficult. In Acts 18, Paul tries to defend himself before Gallio, but before he can speak, the proconsul rejects the accusation out of hand: μέλλοντος δὲ τοῦ Παύλου ἀνοίγειν τὸ στόμα εἶπεν ὁ Γαλλίων πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους (“When Paul was about to open his mouth [to speak], Gallio said to the Jews”).31 In this case, Gallio basically spares Paul from defending himself. In Acts 19, we find another failed attempt at defense. Alexander clearly tries to take the floor: ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος κατασείσας τὴν χεῖρα ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ (“Alexander, having motioned with his hand, wished to make his defense before the people”).32 However, as soon as the people recognize that Alexander is Jewish, they prevent him from taking the floor, shouting a two-hour chorus of “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 33 Luke thus demonstrates a clear interest in speaking turns. Thus far, we have discussed orderly speaking turns and failed attempts to gain a speaking turn. We now turn to the many instances of violated speaking turns. In the following discussions of individual passages, we will discuss and classify various intentional interruptions, interruptions by external events, and audience reactions that other scholars have (in our view, mistakenly) classified as interruptions.

6.3.2 Acts 2:37 If interruption is defined as the violation of a speaking turn, then Acts 2:37 is not an interruption. Verse 36 is a grammatically complete sentence, and verse 37 gives the audience’s response: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν εἶπον τε πρὸς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀποστόλους· τί ποιήσωμεν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί; (“When they heard [these things], they were deeply troubled and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’”).34 Many commentators identify this question as an interruption, but there is no evi-

31

32 33 34

Acts 18:14. Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 7.161.1. Richard Pervo identifies Gallio’s usurpation of Paul’s speaking turn as an “interruption” in Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 166n108. Pervo does not describe this interaction as an interruption in his later commentary. Acts 19:33. Acts 19:34. Acts 2:37.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

219

dence in this verse for its classification as an interruption. Rather, it is clearly an audience reaction.35 Still, for a variety of reasons, multiple commentators insist that 2:37 is interruptive. Almost eighty years ago, Cadbury identified 2:37 as one of many instances where Luke “has the speakers interrupted, only to continue with a final word.”36 However, Cadbury is not referring to a violation of Peter’s speaking turn. He sees 2:38-39 as a part of Peter’s message; thus, 2:14-39 is an “interrupted speech,” in the sense that it is broken up by the intrusion of verse 37. According to Cadbury’s definition, 2:37 is an interruption; according to our definition of interruption, 2:37 is not. Other scholars besides Cadbury label 2:37 as an interruption, but they offer little explanation. Conzelmann classifies 2:37 as an interruption, identifying it as a “literary device” and suggesting that the intervening question is “catechetical style.”37 He offers no further comment, pointing only to 10:44 as a parallel. Later, Pesch identifies 2:37 as the „Reaktion der Hörer,“ yet he goes on to claim that this reaction „unterbricht die Rede des Petrus.“38 Several other scholars also label 2:37 an interruption, without going into further detail.39 Gaventa elaborates, describing 2:37 as an interruption that functions to move “the sermon to its final appeal” rather than exercising the more typical function of bringing a speech to an end.40 Parsons, echoing Dibelius, describes Peter’s speech as “interrupted by the audience,” and suggests that “inter35

36

37 38 39

40

As one scholar describes 2:37, „Die Rede ist zu Ende, jetzt kommt die Wirkung auf die Zuhörer.“ Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 150. Interestingly, an earlier scholar assigns to v. 37 a function similar to that of an intentional interruption: „Vers 37 unterstreicht diesen Inhalt des als Gottesgesetz proklamierten Bekenntnisses wirksam.“ See Otto Glombitza, “Der Schluß der Petrusrede Acta 2:36-40, ein Beitrag zum Problem der Predigten in Acta,” ZNW 52 (1961): 115-118, here 117. Henry J. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts,” in Additional Notes to the Commentary (ed. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury; vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; London: Macmillan, 1933), 402-27, here 425. Conzelmann, Acts, 22. Conzelmann is seconded in this assessment by Barrett in his Commentary, 1:153. Rudolf Pesch, Die Apostelgeschichte (EKKNT 5; 2 vols.; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986), 1:125. Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1:277; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 117; Pervo, Profit, 166n108; Aune, New Testament, 127; Soards, Speeches, 37; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 264; Pervo, Acts, 84n88. Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 79-80.

220

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

ruption by the audience is a common device in the speeches in Acts.” 41 In general, these scholars simply assert that 2:37 is an interruption. Wilckens, on the other hand, can offer an argument that 2:37 is an interruption. His analysis of the missionary speeches leads him to conclude that Luke has constructed and used an outline for missionary preaching.42 For Wilckens, the „Buß- und Heilsruf“ of 2:38-40 cannot be present solely as an answer to the question of 2:37; rather, the call to repentance is an integral part of the outline that Peter’s sermon is purportedly following. Hence, Peter’s speech is interrupted; he would certainly have reached his conclusion even without the interruptive question.43 Thus, if one accepts Wilckens’ thesis, Peter’s speaking turn might be considered to be violated in 2:37. However, there is no semantic evidence that Peter’s speaking turn was violated in 2:37. Talbert’s reading is much more straightforward: “Verses 37-40 consist of a dialogue in which Peter explains the proper response to the events of Pentecost and their apostolic explanation.” 44 Even if we agree with Wilckens that verses 38-40 belong with the rest of Peter’s speech, we do not have to classify 2:37 as an intentional interruption. Essentially, Wilckens and Cadbury are arguing not that Peter’s speaking turn is violated by 2:37, but rather that Peter’s overall message is broken up by 2:37; we, however, are concerned with speaking turns, and we do not find any evidence for a violation of speaking turns in either the narrative or the discourse. Phrased differently, we are concerned with intentional interruptions that bring speaking turns to an end, not with interventions that break up the continuity of a message. 45 The intervening question in 2:37 sets up Peter’s climactic call to repentance in 2:38-39. Intentional inter41

42 43 44

45

Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 47. Eckey also echoes Dibelius: „Lukas läßt die Rede auf ihrem Höhepunkt von den Hörern unterbrechen.“ Wilfried Eckey, Die Apostelgeschichte: Der Weg des Evangeliums von Jerusalem nach Rom (2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000), 1:89. Wilckens, Missionsreden, 100. Wilckens, Missionsreden, 37, 59. Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Crossroad, 1997), 47. Ernst Haenchen also describes 2:37 as part of a “dialogue” in The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 184; trans. of Die Apostelgeschichte (14th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1965). According to the OED, to “interrupt” can mean “To break in upon (an action, process, or condition, esp. speech or discourse)” (1.a.) or “To break the continuity of (something) in space or serial order; to make an interval or breach between the parts of (something continuous)” (1.b.). The former (1.a.) matches our definition; the latter (1.b.) seems to describe the working definition of Cadbury and Wilckens.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

221

ruptions in Luke-Acts, however, tend to highlight the closing words of the preceding discourse, not the content of subsequent discourse.

6.3.3 Acts 4:1 The first intentional interruption in Luke’s second volume appears at the beginning of Acts 4. After the healing of the lame man in Acts 3, the amazed onlookers gather to listen to Peter. 46 Peter explains the healing of the lame man as evidence of Jesus’ resurrection and calls on the Jews to repent: ὑμῖν πρῶτον ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εὐλογοῦντα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἀποστρέφειν ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν πονηριῶν ὑμῶν (“God, when he had raised up his servant, sent him first to you, so that he might bless you by turning each one of you from your wickedness”).47 Even though Peter directs his address toward the assembled people, he soon finds that he has an additional audience: Λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν πρὸς τὸν λαὸν ἐπέστησαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι (“While [Peter and John] were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple and the Sadducees confronted them”).48 This group of Jewish leaders thus interrupts Peter (and John). Or do they? For Schneider, the speech only “seems” to be interrupted; he considers 3:26 a proper ending.49 Barrett thinks likewise: “Notwithstanding the present participle Peter has finished his speech.” 50 Acts 3:12-26 certainly appears to be a coherent whole, and there is no indication of interruption within the speech itself. Neither Cadbury nor Wilckens suggests that the discourse is interrupted. However, our concern is not to analyze the contents of a speech in order to decide whether or not Peter “finished” his speech. Rather, we are looking at whether or not there is a claim of interruption, and the narrator provides such a claim in the genitive absolute, “while they were speaking” (λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν). This genitive absolute features 46

47 48

49 50

Peter is identified as the speaker in 3:12, but John appears to be added as a “cospeaker” in 4:1. For this type of address by more than one individual, see 4 Macc 9:19; 13:13-18; Josephus, A.J. 18.264, 266-268. Acts 3:26. Acts 4:1. For the translation of ἐπέστησαν as “confronted,” see Luke Timothy Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles (SP 5; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992), 76. Cf. Luke 20:1 for a similar “confrontation.” „Dadurch scheint die Tempelrede des Petrus unterbrochen zu sein.“ Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 1:343. Barrett, Commentary, 1:218.

222

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

the present participle of a verb of speaking; we have seen many similar claims of interruption in the Gospel of Luke, as well as in earlier Greek histories and novels. Thus, we may conclude with several other scholars that Peter’s speech in Acts 3 is interrupted.51 Why is this speech interrupted? The immediate cause of the interruption is twofold. Acts 4:2 explains that the leaders are “troubled that [Peter and John] were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead” (διαπονούμενοι διὰ τὸ διδάσκειν αὐτοὺς τὸν λαὸν καὶ καταγγέλλειν ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν). Luke thus explains that the interruption was triggered both by a perceived threat to the leaders’ authority and by the preaching of resurrection from the dead. This interruption thus functions to highlight a conflict between the followers of Jesus and the Jewish authorities, a conflict that revolves around divergent beliefs about Jesus and his posthumous status. There is no conflict between Peter and his intended audience. The people to whom his discourse is addressed appear to have approved; some five thousand people come to believe “the word” as a result. 52 Nevertheless, in addition to this intended audience, Peter has gained the attention of a group of Jewish leaders who disapprove of the content of his teaching and of the fact that he is teaching. Johnson argues that 4:1-4 functions to demonstrate the division between the people and the Jewish leaders.53 Witherington agrees: “In short, we see here the beginnings of a power struggle for the hearts of the Jewish people.”54 Johnson and Witherington are correct to draw attention to this opposition; as we will see, interrupted speech in Acts usually functions to highlight hostile reactions to the apostles’ teaching about Jesus. This explanation gives only part of the story. In addition to using interruption to show the rejection of early Christian preachers by hostile audiences, Luke also uses interruption to show the rejection of certain aspects of early Christian preaching by hostile audiences. The Jewish leaders do indeed want to maintain their teaching authority, but

51

52 53 54

Haenchen, Acts, 214; Conzelmann, Acts, 32; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 164; G. H. R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32 (1986): 609-14, esp. 610; Aune, New Testament, 127; Soards, Speeches, 37; Barrett, Commentary, 2:1032; James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1996), 49; Talbert, Reading Acts, 56; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 175; Fitzmyer, Acts, 297; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 188; Parsons, Acts, 62. Acts 4:4. Johnson, Acts, 80. Witherington, Acts, 189.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

223

Luke points to resurrection as a key stumbling block in 4:2. Throughout Luke-Acts, we find opposition to the idea of resurrection, and Luke frequently links this rejection of resurrection specifically to the Sadducees, who appear on the scene in 4:1. Sadducean denial of the resurrection is not limited to Luke; in one passage, Mark notes the arrival of the Sadducees, οἵτινες λέγουσιν ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι (“who say that there is no resurrection”).55 Luke not only preserves this Markan notice, but he also underscores Sadducean disbelief later in Acts 23. There, Paul divides a mixed council by attributing his trial to his “hope and the resurrection of the dead” (περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν).56 Luke reiterates that Σαδδουκαῖοι…λέγουσιν μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (“Sadducees say that there is no resurrection”).57 As Josephus also observes, the Sadducees were well-known for their denial of the resurrection.58 They are thus fit to lead the group that interrupts and arrests the preachers of resurrection. As in the case of other interrupted discourses, the interruption is connected to the closing words of the interrupted speech. According to Luke, this intentional interruption immediately follows the apostle’s reference to the resurrection of Jesus and the mission to the Jews.59 Luke thus underscores one of his key theological emphases, the resurrection of Christ.60

6.3.4 Acts 7:54-57 Stephen’s discourse in Acts 7 is the only discourse in Luke-Acts that is interrupted twice. At the end of Acts 6, Stephen is arrested and brought before the Jewish council. Stephen is accused of “saying things against [this] holy place and the law” (λαλῶν ῥήματα κατὰ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἁγίου [τούτου] καὶ τοῦ νόμου).61 He delivers a rather unorthodox defense speech in Acts 7:2-53, which consists primarily of a retelling of 55 56 57 58

59 60 61

Mark 12:18 (// Matt 22:23 // Luke 20:27). Acts 23:6. Acts 23:8. Josephus does not explicitly refer to “resurrection,” stating instead that the Sadducees believe that the soul perishes with the body. See B.J. 2.165; A.J. 18.16. It is perhaps worth noting that Josephus also finds the Sadducees to be ἀπηνεῖς (“rough”) in B.J. 2.166, as well as ὠμοί (“cruel”) in A.J. 20.199. Acts 3:26. For another interruption that immediately follows a reference to resurrection, see 2 Macc 7:29. Acts 6:13.

224

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

Israelite history from Abraham to Solomon.62 Stephen eventually answers (or confirms) the accusation of opposition to the Temple in 7:4450. He then ends his speech with a striking counteraccusation in 7:5153, identifying his accusers as the true law-breakers: οἵτινες ἐλάβετε τὸν νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων καὶ οὐκ ἐφυλάξατε (“You are the ones who received the law as commandments from angels and did not keep it!”).63 His accusations do not meet with audience approval: Ἀκούοντες δὲ ταῦτα διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν καὶ ἔβρυχον τοὺς ὀδόντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν (“As they heard these things, they were cut to the heart and began to grind their teeth at him”).64 Infuriated by Stephen’s closing words, the council members do not wait for him to finish before they begin to express their rejection of his charges. This inintentional interruption by the hearers clearly functions to mark the immediacy and vehemence of the Jewish council’s rejection of Stephen’s charges. Stephen, however, is not easily silenced. Still standing before the livid council, he sees a vision of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, and he calls the phenomenon to their attention: ἰδοὺ θεωρῶ τοὺς οὐρανοὺς διηνοιγμένους καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν ἑστῶτα τοῦ θεοῦ (“Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”).65 In 7:54, the council had begun to noise its disapproval; they now form a lynch mob: κράξαντες δὲ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν καὶ ὥρμησαν ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβαλόντες ἔξω τῆς πόλεως ἐλιθοβόλουν (“They cried out with a loud voice, covered their ears, and together rushed at him; they drove

62

63 64

65

Dibelius speaks of the “irrelevance of most of this speech” as “the real problem of exegesis” and claims that it is “impossible to find a connection between the account of the history of Israel to the time of Moses (7.2-19) and the accusation against Stephen” in Studies, 167. Witherington offers a more positive assessment of Stephen’s speech in Acts, 260-77. Likewise, Penner argues that the “pattern of deliverance and rejection is the theme that ties the various subunits of the oration together.” See Todd Penner In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography (ESEC 10; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004), 97. Acts 7:53. Kennedy describes Stephen’s speech as “counteraccusation” in New Testament Interpretation, 121. Acts 7:54. Literally, “As they heard these things, they became sawn apart in their hearts and began to grind their teeth at him.” Culy and Parsons describe διεπρίοντο ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν as a “vivid idiom denoting intense inner anger” in Martin M. Culy and Mikeal C. Parsons, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (BHGNT; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2003), 144. The only other usage of the verb διαπρίω in the NT is in Acts 5:33, which Pervo (mistakenly) labels an interruption in Acts, 84n88. Acts 7:56.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

225

him out of the city and began to stone him”).66 Even in the face of this murderous mob, Stephen continues to speak, twice praying to Jesus before his death in 7:60. Most scholars agree that 7:54 is an interruption.67 Fewer scholars are willing to recognize 7:57 as an interruption. 68 While there is no explicit notice that Stephen is still speaking in 7:57, it is hard to understand why his hearers “covered their ears” (συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν), if Stephen was clearly finished speaking.69 Again, as we have seen in Luke 4, Luke marks an interruption with reference to the audience’s perspective. Rather than specifying that the audience reacts “while he is still speaking,” Luke indicates that they react “while hearing” (7:54) or “while avoiding hearing” (7:57). This image of covered ears in 7:57 fits well with the Lukan focus on hearing that recurs throughout his Gospel and Acts. Positively, Jesus makes explicit reference to his fulfillment of Scripture “in your hearing” (ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν ὑμῶν) in Luke 4:21, and Peter exhorts his hearers, “Give ear to my words” (ἐνωτίσασθε τὰ ῥήματά μου) in Acts 2:14.70 Negatively, we see Jesus’ words being rejected by a furious audience “while they were hearing” (ἀκούοντες ταῦτα) in Luke 4:28. Acts 7 culminates with a similar rejection, with hearing playing a major role. First, Stephen rebukes his audience in Acts 7:51: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in your hearts and ears!” (Σκληροτράχηλοι καὶ ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίαις καὶ τοῖς ὠσίν). These same people become enraged “while hearing” (Ἀκούοντες) in 7:54, and after Stephen describes

66 67

68 69

70

Acts 7:57-58. Cf. Josephus, B.J. 5.541, as well as Polybius, Hist. 1.80.9; 2.61.5; Appian, Hist. rom. 8.91.431. Cadbury, “Speeches,” 425; Dibelius, Studies, 160; Otto Bauernfeind, Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (ed. Volker Metelmann; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980), 404n79; John T. Townsend, “The Speeches in Acts,” AThR 42 (1960): 150-159; Horsley, “Speeches,” 610; Aune, New Testament, 127; Pervo, Profit, 166n108; Soards, Speeches, 37; Barrett, Commentary, 1:218; Gaventa, Acts, 79; Parsons, Acts, 47; Pervo, Acts, 84n88. Horsley, “Speeches,” 610; Soards, Speeches, 37; Barrett, Commentary, 2:1032. Many commentators explain verse 57 by suggesting that Stephen’s hearers understood his words in verse 56 as blasphemy; hence, they covered their ears “so as to be spared listening to the blasphemy.” Haenchen, Acts, 292. Cf. also Fitzmyer, Acts, 393; Conzelmann, Acts, 60; Pervo, Acts, 198. The people accept Peter’s call in later in Acts 2: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ κατενύγησαν τὴν καρδίαν εἶπον τε πρὸς τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀποστόλους· τί ποιήσωμεν, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί; (“When they heard [these things], they were deeply troubled and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’”). These people who respond favorably in 2:37 are later baptized in verse 41, joining the early followers of Jesus.

226

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

his vision of the exalted Jesus, they cover their uncircumcised ears in 7:57. But even then, Stephen keeps on speaking. In the histories and novels we have surveyed, when a speaker is addressing an assembled group of people, a rhetorical interruption generally brings a permanent end to a speaker’s turn.71 We have discussed numerous occasions where a speaker is either drowned out by the tumult of a crowd or forcefully silenced. Occasionally, a speaker will regain the floor after being interrupted by a crowd, but these instances are very rare. 72 Nowhere else do we find a speaker who first addresses a longer discourse to a large crowd, is then interrupted, retakes the floor, is interrupted a second time, and who then speaks twice more.73 How should we interpret these interruptions? As mentioned above, the first interruption in 7:54 demonstrates the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Stephen’s accusations, underscoring the conflict between speaker and audience. The second interruption is similar to the interruption in 4:1-2, in that both appear to mark the Jewish authorities’ rejection of early preaching about Jesus. Peter’s proclamation of the resurrection triggers the interruption in Acts 4; Stephen’s proclamation of the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God brings the violent outburst in Acts 7.74 Tannehill summarizes the audience reactions of Acts 2-7 as follows: “The speeches to the people of Jerusalem and their leaders produce emotional responses, either of repentance or of passionate opposition.”75 The repentant popular audiences described in Acts 2:37-41 and 71

72

73

74

75

However, if the interrupted discourse is part of a dialogue or council of war, interrupted speakers often regain the floor. See, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 8.59.1; 8.61.1; Polybius, Hist. 4.85.4; 16.34.5; 18.4.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.45.1; Arrian, Ind. 36.5-7; Appian, Hist. rom. 2.5.12; 8.91.431; 12.55.221; Josephus, A.J. 18.260; Acts 26:24. In the Greek historians surveyed, we have seen only two instances where a speaker addresses a crowd, is interrupted by the crowd, and then claims another speaking turn: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 4.37.4; 6.10.1 (cooperative interruption). Among other authors, see also Josephus, A.J. 5.144, and Chariton, Call. 3.4.17 (cooperative interruption). The closest analogue is in Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.5-67.6, where Phocion tries repeatedly to defend himself, only to be shouted down by the angry mob. The major difference between this scene and Stephen’s martyrdom is that Stephen’s speech is preserved in direct discourse, whereas the content of Phocion’s pleas is never reported. Cf. also Acts 19:33. As one scholar puts it, “Stephen was killed primarily for invoking the heavenly Christ.” See Matthew Sleeman, Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts (SNTSMS 146; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 166. Narrative Unity, 2:97.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

227

4:4 are soon overshadowed, however, as their leaders play a more visible and increasingly violent role.76 The Jewish leaders’ rejection of preaching about Jesus as resurrected and exalted to the right hand of God, a rejection that culminates in the martyrdom of Stephen, quickly leads to widespread persecution (Acts 8:1-3). The followers of Jesus then expand their “mission to the Jews,” and in keeping with the programmatic agenda of 1:8, they move from Jerusalem to Samaria. 77 This move in the narrative from Jerusalem and its environs to Samaria is validated by Stephen’s speech, which “emphasizes God’s dealings with Israel’s heroes away from the Temple and surrounding area” in order to legitimate the expansion of the early Christian mission. 78 Luke thus uses a speech to explain and validate the movement of the larger narrative, and he marks the significance of this speech both by its length and by the violent interruptions that highlight and terminate Stephen’s words. Our rhetorical analysis of Stephen’s speech and its reception by the audience within the narrative thus offers insight into the “narrative rhetoric” of Acts as a whole.

6.3.5 Acts 10:44 Luke marks the success of the Christian mission in Judea and Samaria in Acts 9.79 In Acts 10, we witness a further move, as the gospel is now proclaimed to a Gentile household. In obedience to a vision, Peter goes to the house of Cornelius, a Roman centurion. At the centurion’s request, Peter shares the gospel with those who are gathered, who are presumably also Gentiles. Luke dramatizes this development with an interruption by external events: Ἔτι λαλοῦντος τοῦ Πέτρου τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα ἐπέπεσεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας τὸν λόγον (“While Peter was still saying these words, the

76 77 78

79

For forceful responses by audiences of Jewish leaders, see Acts 4:1-3; 5:33; 7:54-60. For further discussion of the geographical turn in Acts 7:57-8:3, see Sleeman, Geography, 169-73. Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Opening the Scriptures’: The Legitimation of the Jewish Diaspora and the Early Christian Mission,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel; ed. David P. Moessner and David L. Tiede; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International), 199-225, here 213. Compare the [ἐν] πάσῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ καὶ Σαμαρείᾳ (“in all of Judea and Samaria”) of 1:8 with the καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας (“throughout all of Judea and Galilee and Samaria”) of 9:31.

228

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were hearing the word”).80 Dibelius describes 10:44 as one of several instances where “the significant conclusion to a speech is supplied by Luke in external events.” 81 The descent of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles is a “significant conclusion” indeed, and Luke thus marks the reception of the gospel by the Gentiles, who are characterized as “those hearing the word” (τοὺς ἀκούοντας τὸν λόγον). We will soon examine a similar example of Gentile reception in Acts 13. Before doing so, we may attempt to clarify the seemingly divergent accounts of the Holy Spirit’s timing in Acts 10-11. In Acts 10:44, the Spirit descends at the end of Peter’s address, but in Acts 11:15, Peter says that the Spirit fell upon the Gentiles at the beginning of his address. Dibelius and others work to resolve this “contradiction.” 82 However, the “contradiction” is a result of the scholarly assumption that the kerygmatic speeches of Acts can be reduced to a basic outline. On this reading, Peter has clearly finished his speech in Acts 10; hence, it is contradictory to say in Acts 11 that the Spirit came while he was beginning his speech. Barrett exemplifies this way of thinking: “According to 11.15 the event took place as Peter began to speak. In fact he had completed the outline of preaching common to many occasions in Acts.”83 Herein lies the problem. Dodd and Wilckens would likely agree with Barrett that Peter had covered the basic ingredients of early Christian preaching. For modern scholars, Peter has finished his speech, and 10:44 is simply a literary device. But would Luke expect his ancient audience to realize that the speech was finished, in spite of the notice in 10:44 that Peter “was still speaking” when the Spirit descended? This approach seems to assume that Luke and Luke’s ancient readers would have been consciously aware of the presence and function of the literary device of interruption. If, however, we take the text at face value, Peter is interrupted “while still speaking” in Acts 10:44. If we ignore the posited kerygmatic outline, Acts 11:15 can be read as assuming that Peter was just getting started. 84 Kilgallen summarizes the problem: 80 81 82

83 84

Acts 10:44. Cf. Acts 13:48 and 28:28 for other examples of Gentiles who hear. Dibelius, Studies, 161. Dibelius thus groups together Acts 4:1; 4:31; 10:44; 23:7. According to our criteria, 10:44 is the only interruption by external events in Acts. Dibelius explains the divergence with reference to Luke as a “literary historian” who would have viewed such a speech as 10:34-43 “as an insertion or addition which does not necessarily affect the course of the narrative” in Studies, 110. Barrett, Commentary, 1:528. Witherington, Acts, 359n130. Talbert takes this view a step further, referring to 11:15 as an instance of interrupted speech in Reading Acts, 110.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

229

Many interpreters understand that Peter has given a complete speech to Cornelius, and that Luke intended that the speech be complete; to give the impression that the speech was unfinished, because interrupted by the outpouring of the Spirit, is a literary device of Luke, meant simply to make the story more exciting or engaging for the reader. On the other hand, the fiction is that Peter was interrupted, that we can suppose there was more that Peter wanted to say.85

Kilgallen helpfully reminds us that ancient readers of Acts would have been generally more likely to hear the speeches of Acts as apostolic preaching, rather than to use them as sources for the construction of hypothetical outlines of apostolic preaching. While interruption is employed as a literary device in Luke-Acts, functioning to highlight key conflicts and content, interruption is also woven into the Lukan narrative. This narrative preserves its literary integrity, even if many of his modern interpreters do not accept the narrative as historical truth.

6.3.6 Acts 13:48 The fourth intentional interruption takes place in Pisidian Antioch, as Paul addresses a mixed crowd of Jews and Gentiles in the synagogue. 86 Paul’s first address earns him an invitation to speak again, and he returns to preach again on the following sabbath. Jealous Jewish leaders confront Paul, and Paul and Barnabas respond by declaring that they will now turn to the Gentiles, supporting this move with a citation from Isaiah: τέθεικά σε εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν τοῦ εἶναί σε εἰς σωτηρίας ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς (“I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, so that you might bring salvation to the end of the earth”).87 While the Jews opposed Paul and Barnabas, the Gentiles prove to be much more receptive: Ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου (“While they were hearing, the Gentiles began to rejoice and were praising the word of the Lord”).88 Even as they hear the apostles’ words, the Gentiles break into joyous praise. This cooperative interruption underscores the Gentile acceptance of the gospel, in contrast to the Jewish rejection: “As earlier Luke had distinguished between leaders and ordinary people in the divided Isra85 86 87 88

John J. Kilgallen, “Did Peter Actually Fail to Get a Word in? (Acts 11,15),” Bib 71 (1990): 405-10. I have not come across any commentators or other scholars who recognize 13:48 as an interruption. Acts 13:47, drawing on Isa 49:6 LXX. Acts 13:48.

230

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

el, he now distinguishes between the responses of Jew and Gentile.”89 In Acts 2 and 4, the “ordinary people” accept the divine word, and in Acts 4 and 7, the leaders reject the apostolic preaching. The interruptive arrival of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10 signaled the beginning of Gentile acceptance, and the differing reactions of Acts 13:44-48 show that the Gentile response is growing increasingly positive, even as the Jewish stance becomes increasingly resistant. In the midst of these responses, Paul and Barnabas explain to their Jewish hearers that they are now turning to the Gentiles.90 Paul’s first major discourse comes at the beginning of the Pauline mission that occupies most of Acts 13-28. Just as Stephen’s speech validates the move from Jerusalem to Samaria, so Paul’s speech in Pisidian Antioch serves “to defend the rightness of the mission to the Gentiles.”91 While Paul will continue to visit synagogues throughout his travels, Luke’s narrative will focus more and more on the Gentile mission that fulfills Jesus’ earlier commission to bring the gospel ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς (“to the end of the earth”).92 Luke’s use of interruption to highlight this mission to the Gentiles throughout Luke-Acts is noteworthy. First, Jesus’ discourse foreshadowing the later mission is interrupted in Luke 4. Then, the first preaching addressed specifically to Gentiles is interrupted and confirmed by the arrival of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10. Now, the first Pauline announcement of a turn to the Gentiles in Acts 13 is cooperatively interrupted. As we will see below, this pattern continues in Acts 22.

89 90 91

92

Johnson, Acts, 242. Neither Johnson nor any other scholar treated in this chapter classifies Acts 13:48 as an interruption. Paul explains his turn from the Jews to the Gentiles three times: Acts 13:47; 18:6; 28:28. Dibelius, Studies, 175. See also Gregory E. Sterling, “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: The Understanding of the LXX in Luke-Acts,” in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie (ed. Jörg Frey, Clare K. Rothschild, and Jens Schröter; BZNW 162; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 101-18. Acts 1:8 = 13:47 = Isa 49:6 LXX. As Dupont explains, “the expression ‘to the ends of the earth’ is not to be taken in a purely geographic sense. In contrast to Jerusalem, the ‘city of the great king’ and center of the worship of the true God, the ends of the earth represent the pagan nations.” See Jacques Dupont, “The Salvation of the Gentiles and the Theological Significance of Acts,” in The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. John R. Keating; New York: Paulist, 1979), 11-33, here 18-19.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

231

6.3.7 Acts 17:32 Paul gives his famous Areopagus speech in Acts 17.93 The reaction is mixed: Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν οἱ μὲν ἐχλεύαζον, οἱ δὲ εἶπαν· ἀκουσόμεθα σου περὶ τούτου καὶ πάλιν (“When they heard ‘resurrection of the dead,’ some began to scoff, but others said, ‘We will listen to you [speak] about this another time’”).94 Over the last ninety years, many scholars have labeled 17:32 as an interruption.95 There is no clear claim of interruption, however, and we find no compelling evidence in support of classifying this divided reaction as an interruption. Verse 32 describes the reaction to a speech without any indication that Paul was still speaking or still intending to speak. Likewise, if we review 17:22-31, it does not appear to be lacking anything. As Barrett says, “The speech is ended.”96 Jervell agrees with Barrett that the speech is ended, but he still claims that Paul is interrupted in 17:32.97 Dibelius gives a similarly contradictory account in his lengthy treatment of the Areopagus speech: It seems as if the mockery of a few listeners and the definite agreement of others brought it to an end. But there is no mention of a major interruption, and this apparently sudden ending is actually a favourite device of the author, who leaves what is most important until the end and emphasises it by 93

94 95

96 97

In his famous monograph, Eduard Norden is concerned primarily with the speech of 17:22-31; interest in the narrative framework is generally confined to 17:16-21, not the details of its reception in 17:32-34. See Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956), e.g., 333-36. A later monograph on the same speech pays closer attention: “The Areopagus speech and its narrative framework form an inseparable unit.” Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (trans. Carolyn Hannay King; ASNU 21; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wells, 1955), 45. Acts 17:32. Theodor Zahn, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (2 vols.; vol. 5 in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament; ed. Theodor Zahn; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1919-1921), 2:628; Cadbury, “Speeches,” 425; Dibelius, Studies, 160; Gärtner, Areopagus Speech, 49; Bauernfeind, Kommentar, 404n79; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:243; Horsley, “Speeches,“ 610; Aune, New Testament, 127; Pervo, Profit, 166n108; Soards, Speeches, 37; Barrett, Commentary, 2:1032; Talbert, Reading Acts, 110; Witherington, Acts, 188; Pervo, Acts, 84n88. Zahn’s commentary contains the earliest reference to interruption in LukeActs that we have found. After linking the reaction of the listeners to 1 Cor. 1:23f., Zahn notes that Paul’s audience „stören und unterbrechen dadurch die Rede des Ap.’s“ (2:628). Barrett, Commentary, 2:854. In his Apostelgeschichte, Jervell writes, „Es sieht aus, als würde Paulus an diesem Punkt unterbrochen. Tatsächlich aber ist die Rede beendet, aber Lukas will zeigen, woran alles hängt, nämlich an der Auferstehung“ (451). Jervell does not explain how Paul can be “interrupted” if his speech is “finished.”

232

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

means of the contradiction of the listeners (…). The writer certainly did not believe that the speaker was forced simply by an incident to a premature conclusion.98

For both Dibelius and Jervell, 17:32 “seems” to be an interruption, but they agree with Barrett that the speech is actually finished. Perhaps the succinct summary of Soards is most appropriate here; in his sketch of the contents of Acts 17:22-31, Soards writes at the bottom of his outline: “Interruption (?).”99 For our purposes, if scholars agree that the speech is finished, and if there is no claim of interruption in the narrative framework, then we can conclude that 17:32 is not an interruption.

6.3.8 Acts 19:28 Demetrius provokes a riot with his speech to the silversmiths in Acts 19. His successful provocation has led some scholars to label the riotous reaction of 19:28 as an interruption.100 However, the angry silversmiths reacted “when they heard” Demetrius (ἀκούσαντες); there is no suggestion that Demetrius was still speaking at the time. As a result, there is no basis for classifying 19:28 as an interruption.

6.3.9 Acts 22:22 The fifth intentional interruption (and sixth interruption overall) in Acts, takes place back in Jerusalem. Paul gives a lengthy defense speech to his fellow Jews, and he ends by narrating a vision of the risen Lord that he had while in the Temple. Echoing 13:47, the final words of Paul’s address comprise yet another divine command to turn to the Gentiles: καὶ εἶπεν πρός με· πορεύου, ὅτι ἐγὼ εἰς ἔθνη μακρὰν ἐξαποστελῶ σε (“And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles’”).101 Just as Paul and Barnabas were interrupted in 13:48, so now is Paul interrupted, but the audience response is much less favorable: Ἤκουον δὲ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι τούτου τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐπῆραν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτῶν λέγοντες· αἶρε ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς τὸν τοιοῦτον, οὐ γὰρ καθῆκεν αὐτὸν ζῆν (“They were listening to him up to this point, but 98 99

Dibelius, Studies, 57. Soards, Speeches, 175. Soards affirms that 17:32 is an interruption on p. 37, but he is less sure on pp. 100 and 175. 100 Dibelius, Studies, 160; Pervo, Profit, 166n108; Aune, New Testament, 127; Barrett, Commentary, 2:1032. 101 Acts 22:21.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

233

[then] they raised their voices and said, ‘Remove such a man from the earth, for he is not fit to live!’”). 102 In contrast to the many participial markers of interruption, Luke here employs a main verb to signal the claim of interruption. Unlike the cooperative interruption of Acts 13, this interruption is clearly hostile; Luke’s narrative suggests that, apart from the swift military intervention of the Romans, Paul would have faced a situation similar to Stephen’s in Acts 7. As in Acts 7, the inhabitants of Jerusalem again refuse to listen to a follower of the risen Jesus. There is widespread consensus among scholars that 22:22 is an interruption. There is some disagreement, however, over whether this interruption is merely a literary device or not. Dibelius holds this instance up as an example of “literary technique,” arguing that we would be mistaken “to suppose that each of these speeches did in fact lack a concluding section.”103 Barrett agrees: “The speech is in fact complete,” but then he admits, “The speaker might well have continued: My mission to the Gentiles was undertaken only on God’s command, not at my desire.”104 While Barrett speaks hypothetically about what could have happened, other scholars give more historicizing interpretations, arguing that the historical Paul was interrupted. For Bauernfeind, „bleibt die Rede ja ohne eigentlichen Schluß.“105 While Bauernfeind is willing to acknowledge some degree of literary artistry, he believes that the literary device is evidence of the actual experience of early Christian preachers.106 Like Bauernfeind, Veltman believes that Paul’s speech is incomplete: “The defense is interrupted before it is allowed to reach its conclusion.”107 Finally, Kennedy combines Bauernfeind’s historicizing explanation with Barrett’s hypothesizing: Paul is interrupted by the crowd at the first reference to the gentiles. If he had been allowed to continue he would presumably have cited evidence from Scripture, and if the Holy Spirit had warmed the hearts of the crowd

102 103 104 105 106

Acts 22:22. Dibelius, Studies, 160. Barrett, Commentary, 2:1032. Bauernfeind, Kommentar, 404. Bauernfeind claims that „trotzdem hält sich Lukas aber beim Gebrauch dieses ,literarischen Mittels‘ in größerer Nähe zur dargestellten Situation, als es nach Dibelius den Anschein hat“ in Kommentar, 404n79. 107 Fred Veltman, “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (ed. Charles H. Talbert; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 243-56, here 254. Hogan agrees: “Before Paul can make his peroratio, Felix interrupts Paul.” See Derek Hogan, “Paul’s Defense: A Comparison of the Forensic Speeches in Acts, Callirhoe, and Leucippe and Clitophon,” PRSt 29 (2002): 73-87, here 83.

234

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

he might even have hoped to conclude with an exhortation to repent and be saved. That proved impossible.108

While establishing how the historical Paul might have continued a given discourse is indeed impossible, it is safe to say that Paul’s ending in 22:21 fits neatly both into Luke’s rhetorical practice and into his overall theological program. For, yet again, we find a speaker being interrupted by his hearers after affirming the universal availability of salvation to both Jews and Gentiles, a Lukan theme that appears as early as Simeon’s song in Luke 2.109 Jesus proclaims the saving acts of God on behalf of Gentiles in Luke 4, and “those hearing” (ἀκούοντες) him are filled with rage.110 Paul and Barnabas announce that they are going to preach the word of God to the Gentiles in Acts 13, and the Gentiles, “those hearing” them (Ἀκούοντα), break into praise.111 Now, Paul repeats the account of his call to serve the Gentiles, and those who “were hearing him up to this point” (Ἤκουον δὲ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι τούτου τοῦ λόγου) begin an uproar.112 The interruptions in Acts 13 and 22 juxtapose the Jewish rejection of the Gentile mission with the Gentile acceptance of the gospel message.

6.3.10 Acts 23:7 The saving work of Christ and the availability of salvation to the Gentiles are the two thoroughly intertwined focal points of Lukan theology, and while Luke frequently uses interruption to highlight their significance, he has other means at his disposal. For instance, Paul’s short utterance in Acts 23 again testifies to the apostolic emphasis on preaching περὶ ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (“about hope and the resurrection of the dead”).113 The audience response reveals the potency of early Christian proclamation: τοῦτο δὲ αὐτοῦ εἰπόντος ἐγένετο στάσις

108 Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 134-5. 109 Simeon spoke of God’s salvation as φῶς εἰς ἀποκάλυψιν ἐθνῶν καὶ δόξαν λαοῦ σου Ἰσραήλ (“a light for revelation to the Gentiles and glory to your people Israel”) in Luke 2:32. 110 Luke 4:28. 111 Acts 13:48. 112 Acts 22:22. As one scholar observes, “At this point the speech is interrupted (22:2122), calling attention to this missionary directive.” See Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt, “Recurrent Narration as a Lukan Literary Convention in Acts: Paul’s Jerusalem Speech in Acts 22:1-21,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. Earl Richard; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 94-105, 177-78, here 97. 113 Acts 23:6.

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

235

τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων καὶ ἐσχίσθη τὸ πλῆθος (“When he said this, a dispute took place between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the council was divided”).114 Luke goes on to explain the theological divide between Pharisees and Sadducees; Paul’s words are clearly intended to have their chaotic effect. However, Luke does not use interruption to show the controversial nature of affirming resurrection. Several scholars read 23:7 as an interruption, but there is no evidence that Paul was still speaking or was even intending to continue speaking when the dispute happens.115 Dunn offers an apt paraphrase: “The impression given…is that Paul gave up any real hope of a fair hearing and chose to throw the apple of discord into the midst.”116 As the text stands, Luke offers a dramatic scene that communicates the importance of resurrection, but as in Acts 17:32, teaching about resurrection is rejected without recourse to interruption.117

6.3.11 Acts 24:25 After dividing the Jewish council in Acts 23, Paul is sent on from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where the Roman governor, Felix, resides. The trial in Acts 24 is inconclusive; unable to come to a decision about what to do with Paul, Felix postpones judgment. When the governor later summons Paul, he asks the apostle to explain more about faith in Christ Jesus. Paul is happy to oblige, but he quickly frightens Felix: διαλεγομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ ἐγκρατείας καὶ τοῦ κρίματος τοῦ μέλλοντος, ἔμφοβος γενόμενος ὁ Φῆλιξ ἀπεκρίθη· τὸ νῦν ἔχον πορεύου, καιρὸν δὲ μεταλαβὼν μετακαλέσομαί σε (“While [Paul] was discussing justice, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became afraid and answered, ‘Go away for now; when I have

114 Acts 23:7. 115 The following scholars classify 23:7 as an interruption: Cadbury, “Speeches,” 426; Dibelius, Studies, 161n50; Haenchen, Acts, 628 (following Dibelius); Aune, New Testament, 127; Johnson, Acts, 391; Talbert, Reading Acts, 110. 116 Dunn, Acts, 304. 117 For interruptions that highlight the resurrection, see Acts 4:1 and 26:24. Also, we should note that the text of NA27 reads εἰπόντος, following the majority of MSS. However, Barrett argues in his Commentary that εἰπόντος and the variant reading λαλήσαντος “are both improvements on λαλοῦντος (B pc), and are to be rejected; the dissension would naturally arise, as the copyists perceived, after Paul had completed his brief remark rather than while he was making it” (2:1064). If λαλοῦντος were the preferred reading, then we could speak of an interruption in 23:7.

236

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

time, I will summon you’”).118 Paul’s teaching on eschatology and ethics is interrupted by the Gentile ruler, whose ethical standards are exposed in 24:26. This intentional interruption is clearly marked with the present participle διαλεγομένου, but the brevity of its narration diminishes its overall effect. We are only given a brief summary of what Paul was saying, and just as in Luke 21:5, the interrupted discourse is narrated in oratio obliqua. As in the case of Luke 21:6, most scholars do not comment upon the interruption.119 While this interruption could be interpreted as being status-based, the governor’s emotional reaction suggests that his interruption constitutes a rejection of Paul’s preaching.

6.3.12 Acts 26:24 In Acts 26, Paul is interrupted by the Roman governor who succeeds Felix, Porcius Festus. Festus has inherited the prisoner Paul (24:27), and when he brings Paul to trial, Paul appeals to Caesar (25:11). While Paul is awaiting transfer to Rome, King Agrippa and Bernice arrive in Caesarea, and Festus summons Paul to present his case. Paul addresses his “defense” to Agrippa, and his speech climaxes with a concise statement of the two themes that we have seen so frequently in our survey: εἰ παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (“that the Christ would suffer and, as first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles”).120 At this crucial point, Festus interrupts: Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁ Φῆστος μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησιν· μαίνῃ, Παῦλε· τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει (“While [Paul] was defending himself, Festus said in a loud voice, ‘Paul, you’ve gone mad! Your great learning is driving you crazy!’”).121 This widely-recognized rhetorical interruption again highlights an

118 Acts 24:25. 119 The following scholars are among the few to notice the interruption in verse 25: Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:352; Horsley, “Speeches,” 611; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 575; Parsons, Acts, 328; Pervo, Acts, 605. 120 Acts 26:23. While Paul’s discourse certainly can be classified as a defense speech, Barrett reminds us that it was not a required defense: “Strictly speaking, Paul was not now making a defence; he was not on trial, since his case had been referred to Rome.” See his Commentary, 2:1166. 121 Acts 26:24. Cf. Josephus, C. Ap. 1.204, where Mosollamus interrupts a discourse by asking τί μαίνεσθε; (“Why are you angry?”).

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

237

audience rejection of a speaker’s message. 122 Whereas earlier audiences rejected teaching about Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation (Acts 4:1-2; 7:57) or the Gentile mission (Luke 4:28; Acts 22:22), Festus rejects both in one loud outburst. The vast majority of scholars recognize this outburst as an interruption.123 Veltman is an exception. He admits that “the genitive absolute construction of verse 24 suggests that Paul is once more being interrupted,” but he is unwilling to acknowledge the theological significance of this interruption: If the writer intends for the reader to see the speech as interrupted, it is more likely that the interruption would take place in the body of the speech than within the conclusion. Since the speech before the Jews was not interrupted at the references implying the resurrection of Jesus, and the defense before Felix was not interrupted at the mentioning of the resurrection (24:15, 21), it cannot be argued with certainty that Luke breaks the speech here for purposes of highlighting the resurrection theme. 124

Veltman restricts his treatment to the defense speeches of Acts; apparently, this limitation has caused him to ignore the earlier interruption of Peter and John precisely “for purposes of highlighting the resurrection theme.”125 Jervell, on the other hand, proposes the exact opposite of Veltman’s negation: „Die Rede wird jetzt beim Auferstehungsthema unterbrochen.“126 Other scholars similarly argue that the timing of Festus’ interruption is significant, but instead of highlighting the resurrection theme, they point to the mention of Gentiles: “Festus intervenes at the same point where the temple mob had earlier cut Paul’s remarks short: mention of the gentile mission. Interruptions serve as the equivalent of

122 Bock suggests that this interruption is status-based: “His interruption might seem somewhat rude if it were not for his status. One is reminded of how supreme court justices today cut off lawyers’ arguments with questions or observations.” See Darrell L. Bock, Acts (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 722. Pace Bock, Festus appears to be doing more than making a simple observation. 123 Cadbury, “Speeches,” 426; Dibelius, Studies, 160; Haenchen, Acts, 688; Conzelmann, Acts, 212; Schneider, Apostelgeschichte, 2:376; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation, 137; Pesch, Apostelgeschichte, 279; Horsley, “Speeches,” 611; Aune, New Testament, 127; Johnson, Acts, 438; Soards, Speeches, 126; Barrett, Commentary, 2:1167; Dunn, Acts, 331; Talbert, Reading Acts, 110; Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 596; Fitzmyer, Acts, 763; Witherington, Acts, 748; Hogan, “Paul’s Defense,” 85; Gaventa, Acts, 346; Bock, Acts, 722; Parsons, Acts, 343; Pervo, Acts, 635. 124 Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 255. Bauernfeind would have agreed with Veltman that 26:24 is a questionable case; see his Kommentar, 404n79. 125 See Acts 3:26-4:3. 126 Jervell, Apostelgeschichte, 596. Haenchen makes the same point in Acts, 688.

238

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

a double underline.”127 Pervo helpfully connects Acts 26:24 with 22:22, two interruptions that immediately follow a Pauline reference to the Gentile mission. Dunn serves as a mediator, linking 22:22 with 26:24 and bringing in the resurrection theme: The device here has a double function: it helps highlight the last thing said as the point to be taken special note of (here, as in 22.21, Paul’s divine commission to the Gentiles); and it helps maintain the dramatic climax attained in the speech, by focusing on the speech’s impact on the other two principal characters in the scene. … Presumably Festus was reacting to the talk of resurrection (cf. 17.32), though possibly also the thought of the same national religion for all the diverse nations would have made little sense to the representative of an empire whose policy was to respect the distinctive national features of their subject peoples.128

Dunn’s view is essentially correct; interruption is again functioning here to highlight Paul’s words in 26:23, and the striking outburst does draw further attention by adding drama to the scene. Moreover, we do not need to limit the “doubly underlined” content to either the resurrection or the Gentile mission.129 Luke is deeply invested in both. In closing, we acknowledge that, like the interrupted speeches of Acts 7 and 22, Paul’s discourse in Acts 26 may be classified as a defense speech.130 After all, Paul is interrupted by Festus “while making his defense” (ἀπολογουμένου). The repeated interruption of defense speeches in Acts is reminiscent of the multiple intentionally interrupted forensic discourses in Jewish historiographical works. Of the many instances of interrupted speech discussed in Chapter Three, there are eight discourses reported in oratio recta that are interrupted during a

127 Pervo, Acts, 635. Pervo supports his assertion by noting that the last word of Paul’s speech is “gentiles.” In his New Testament Interpretation, written twenty-five years before Pervo’s commentary, Kennedy makes the same point: “when Paul refers to preaching to the gentiles he is again interrupted” (137). 128 Dunn, Acts, 331. See Barrett’s similar statement in his Commentary: “Festus interrupts at the point at which earlier the Jews had interrupted, but for a different reason. …the story of a crucified and risen Messiah is nonsense, (a) because a king would not proceed by the way of suffering and death, and (b) because dead men do not rise up” (2:1167). 129 Cadbury cannot decide: “xxvi. 23 ‘resurrection’ (?) or ‘Gentiles’ (?).” See his “Speeches,” 426. 130 For analysis of the defense speeches of Acts as forensic rhetoric, see Jerome Neyrey, “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function,” in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar (ed. Charles H. Talbert; New York: Crossroad, 1984), 210-24. See also the comparative work in Hogan, “Paul’s Defense.”

“Interrupted Speeches” in the Acts of the Apostles

239

trial or similar forensic setting.131 Moreover, four of the longer interrupted discourses can be considered defense speeches: the oldest brother’s defense in 4 Macc 9:17-18; the fifth brother’s defense in 4 Macc 11:2-6; Antipater’s shortened defense in the Jewish War (1.622); and Josephus’ defense in his Life (254-258). While Luke-Acts, 4 Maccabees, and the Jewish Antiquities are all influenced by the earlier Jewish scriptures (LXX), we cannot attribute the frequency of interrupted defense speeches in these first-century C.E. Jewish and Christian writings to the influence of the LXX, which is devoid of interrupted defense speeches.132 However, if we look to the wider culture, we find interrupted defense speeches scattered throughout Greco-Roman literature. For instance, in Chapter Two of this study, we discovered a pair of interruptions of defendants by rowdy crowds. As in Acts 7 and 22, speakers were interrupted with threatened or actual violence. For example, when the Athenian exile Phocion presents his defense before a hostile Athenian crowd, he and his friends are interrupted three times, and they end up drinking the hemlock.133 Also, when Marcius Coriolanus tries to defend himself in the Roman Forum, the people attempt to kill him.134 Notably, Veltman, who is wary of the idea of interruption as a “literary device” in Acts, uncovers numerous examples of interrupted defense speeches in Greco-Roman literature ranging from Q. Curtius Rufus to Tacitus to Chariton.135 Additionally, Quintilian testifies to the frequency of interrupted forensic discourses, warning against those who “interrupt while others are talking” (medios sermones intercipiant).136 If Quintilian’s observations are accurate, then this trend may simply be

131 2 Macc 7:30; 4 Macc 9:17, 19; 11:9; the account of Plato’s defense speech by Justus of Tiberias, as preserved in Diogenes Laertius 2.41; Josephus, B.J. 1.622; A.J. 2.130; Vita 259. 132 While the dating of both Acts and 4 Maccabees is contested, both were written in or around the first century. 133 Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.5-67.6. 134 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.35.1. 135 For references to the Latin authors, see Veltman, “Defense Speeches,” 247-51. The interruption in Chariton is discussed above in Chapter 4. In spite of the numerous interrupted defense speeches that he finds both in Acts and in contemporary GrecoRoman literature, Veltman insists, referring to 22:22, that the “claim by Dibelius (Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 160, 161) and Haenchen (Acts, p. 628) that the interruption is a ‘literary device’ of Luke’s invention has not been verified by this study” (254n44). 136 Quintilian, Inst. 6.4.11. I am grateful to Dr. David Aune for providing this reference. In this passage, Quintilian also refers to the importance of maintaining proper speaking turns in the courtroom setting.

240

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

rooted in reality rather than in any literary source. In the end, we can at least establish that Luke is not innovative in his use of interrupted defense speeches, except perhaps in regard to the frequency of their appearance.

6.4 Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Acts In the Gospel according to Luke, there are eight interrupted discourses: three intentional interruptions and five interruptions by external events. There are also eight interruptions in Acts, but seven are intentional.137 Acts 10:44 is the lone interruption by external events; again, we find interruption by external events functioning to heighten the drama of a scene.138 Many of the intentional interruptions are also dramatic. We find interruptions immediately followed by arrest (Acts 4), stoning (Acts 7), and rioting (Acts 22). While Acts is dramatic enough to be compared to a novel by some scholars, we should keep in mind that not every discourse is interrupted. In fact, whether we count twenty-four or thirty-six speeches, most of the discourses run their course. If we recall our discussion of turntaking in Acts, we find that the cooperative interruption by the Gentiles in Acts 13 is more of an exception than a norm; those who “hear” and accept the words of the apostles are generally quite peaceable and orderly. For example, when Peter is justifying his table fellowship with the household Cornelius to the Jewish followers of Jesus, they let him finish his speaking turn before accepting his words. 139 Likewise, the potentially controversial council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is conducted in an orderly fashion, receiving Peter’s report with silence in Acts 15:12. Against a background of harmonious Christian community life, the presence of interruption is further highlighted.140 These attention-grabbing, dramatic interruptions do more than simply entertain the reader. The intentional interruptions do arrest the reader’s attention, but they then direct that attention to the final words of the interrupted discourse and to their reception by the emotional audience. As Pervo rightly concludes, “Interruptions serve as the 137 Acts 4:1; 7:54, 57; 13:48; 22:22; 24:25; 26:24. 138 In the words of Dunn, “Luke goes out of his way to heighten the drama. Peter was still speaking (though the sermon was in effect complete).” See his Acts, 145. 139 Acts 11:18, Ἀκούσαντες δὲ ταῦτα ἡσύχασαν καὶ ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν (“When they heard these things, they were quiet and praised God”). 140 The classic account of harmonious Christian community is in Acts 2:44-47. Cf. also 4:32-37.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Acts

241

equivalent of a double underline.”141 As we noted in our treatment of interrupted speech in Greek historiography, intentional interruption again functions to highlight key conflicts. However, whereas interruption in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Appian of Alexandria tended to point to conflicts between competing individuals or groups, interruption in Luke-Acts tends to “underline” controversial content and the manner in which certain groups respond to that content. Thus, Dibelius is correct to emphasize the fact that the interrupted discourse “is always allowed to reach just that point which is important to the author.”142 While he does not cite Cadbury at this point, Dibelius’ suggestion brings to mind Cadbury’s earlier remark that “the interruption follows close upon some special word in the speech.” 143 Sometimes, proclamation of the resurrection or exaltation of Jesus forms the content or “special word” that triggers the emphatic interruption. 144 At other points, the Gentile mission is underscored by interruption.145 Less frequently, moral judgments are interrupted.146 We may conclude that Lukan interruption is used primarily to highlight two controversial topics: the good news about Jesus and the proclamation of salvation to the Gentiles. We should also attend to how Luke narrates the interruptions that follow these key themes. The interruption of Peter and John by the recently arrived Jewish leaders in Acts 4 and the two interruptions of Paul by Gentile rulers in Acts 24 and 26 are all marked by present participles of verbs of speech. 147 However, as in Luke 4:28, the remaining interruptions all focus on interruption by those who are “hearing” the speaker’s ongoing discourse; Luke employs verbal forms of ἀκούω to mark claims of interruption. Whether main verbs or present participles, the verbal aspect is always progressive or imperfective. The members of the Jewish council first interrupt Stephen while they are “hearing” him (ἀκούοντες) in 7:54, and they then cover their ears in 7:57. Conversely, the Gentiles express joy and praise “while hearing” (ἀκούοντα) in 13:48. Later, the people of Jerusa-

141 Pervo, Acts, 635. 142 Dibelius, Studies, 160. This same point is echoed by later scholars: Haenchen, Acts, 628; Pervo, Acts, 635. 143 Cadbury, “Speeches,” 425. 144 Acts 4:1-2; 7:57; 26:24. 145 Acts 13:48; 22:22; 26:24 (again). Cf. also Luke 4:28. 146 Stephen’s accusations of law-breaking are interrupted in 7:54, and Paul’s discourse on justice, self-control, and the coming judgment is cut off in 24:25. 147 λαλούντων, διαλεγομένου, and ἀπολογουμένου, respectively. Cf. also the interruption by external events in Acts 10:44.

242

Chapter 6: Interrupted Speech in the Acts of the Apostles

lem “are listening” (ἤκουον) until Paul’s mention of the mission to the Gentiles, only to start a riot as soon as they hear “this word” in 22:22. In our conclusion to Chapter Five, we began to discuss the importance of hearing in Luke-Acts, starting from the “programmatic” appearance of Jesus in the Nazareth synagogue in Luke 4:16-30.148 We have now seen multiple interruptions that highlight an audience’s response. Most highlight the hearers’ rejection (7:54, 57; 22:22), but we also find a cooperative interruption marking acceptance (13:48). To underscore the importance of hearing in relation to the discourses of Luke-Acts, we should look at the final discourse in the Acts of the Apostles: Paul’s rebuke of the Jews in Rome (Acts 28:25-28). When his preaching receives a mixed reaction, Paul adds a final word, which consists primarily of a modified citation from Isa 6:9-10. Paul applies the oracle of Isaiah to his Jewish hearers: ἀκοῇ ἀκούσετε καὶ οὐ μὴ συνῆτε καὶ βλέποντες βλέψετε καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδετε· ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν (“You will surely hear, but you will not understand. You will surely see, but you will not see. For the heart of this people has become dull, and they hear with difficulty”).149 After this declaration of the spiritual insensibility of his (Jewish) audience, Paul closes with another affirmation of the mission to the Gentiles: γνωστὸν οὖν ἔστω ὑμῖν ὅτι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ἀπεστάλη τοῦτο τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ· αὐτοὶ καὶ ἀκούσονται (“So let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!”).150 The final word of this final discourse of Luke-Acts is about hearing (ἀκούσονται), complementing the references to hearing in Luke 4, and demonstrating that, throughout his two volumes, Luke is committed to demonstrating the significance of audience responses to the preaching by and about Jesus Christ.

148 Judette M. Kolasny speaks of the “programmatic nature” of this pericope in “An Example of Rhetorical Criticism: Luke 4:16-30,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. Earl Richard; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990), 67-77, 171-72, here 69. She also cites others with similar views in 171n11. For other references to hearing in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., Luke 1:13, 41, 44, 66; 5:1; 6:18, 27; 7:3, 9, 22; 8:10, 11-15, 18, 21; 9:9, 44-45; 10:16, 24, 39; etc. 149 Acts 28:26-27. For the prophetic background to this condemnation, see Isa 6:9-10 and Ezek 12:2. Cf. also Luke 8:10. 150 Acts 28:28. For a balanced discussion of the implications of such Lukan statements on Jewish-Christian relations, see Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament: Decision Points and Divergent Interpretations (Waco, Tex./London: Baylor University Press/SPCK, 2010), 55-80. Donaldson frames his treatment of LukeActs with this verse (55). For earlier examples of Gentiles who hear, see Acts 10:44 and 13:48.

Conclusions about the Use of Interruption in Acts

243

Our rhetorical analysis of these audience responses has also allowed us to draw conclusions about Luke’s narrative rhetoric. If Luke 4 is a programmatic pericope for Luke-Acts, and if Acts 1:8 sets the agenda for the early Christian mission, then we find Luke using intentional interruption to punctuate all of the major “moves” in his two volumes. In the Gospel, Luke 4:28 highlights Jewish rejection of the mission to the Gentiles. So too we find the moves from Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 7-8) and from Samaria to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 10-13) marked by major discourses that are then interrupted dramatically by their audiences. A comparison with Josephus shows the unique contours of Lukan practice. Like Josephus, Luke employs rhetorical interruption frequently. As in the works of Josephus, most of the intentional interruptions of Luke-Acts involve what we have referred to as interruptions of the pious by the impious. Thus, with few exceptions, intentional interruption is portrayed in a negative light.151 In terms of frequency and general function, then, Josephus and Luke employ interruption similarly. However, in spite of the many shared influences and common practices of Josephus and Luke, we find a systematic usage of interruption in Luke that goes beyond the practice of Josephus and is without parallel among the Greek authors we have studied. We have observed other instances where an interruption follows upon a particular phrase (e.g., Xenophon, Anab. 3.2.8-9), other authors who use interruption to highlight key conflicts (e.g., Homer, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian of Alexandria), and other works that feature a similarly high rate of interruption (e.g., Chariton’s Callirhoe). Yet, no other author regularly features discourses that are interrupted immediately following a key word or phrase in order to underscore the audience reception or rejection of content that is central to the overall purpose of the work. This methodical usage of intentional interruption is unique to Luke, and he uses this device to tell the dramatic story of how “the word of God grew and the number of the disciples increased” (Καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ηὔξανεν καὶ ἐπληθύνετο ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν μαθητῶν), first among the Jews, and later among even the Gentiles.152

151 Although the exceptions are few in number, they can be used to great effect; see, e.g., Josephus, Vita 94, 244, 259; Acts 13:48. 152 Acts 6:7.

Chapter 7 Conclusions 7.1 Summary of Findings At the beginning, we set out to answer the following question: Why are there so many interrupted discourses in Luke-Acts? In answering, we began in Chapter One with an exploration of the history of scholarship on the speeches of Acts. We showed that scholars have generated a variety of competing explanations for this phenomenon; after synthesizing past contributions, we moved the conversation onto more solid ground by developing criteria for determining what is and what is not an interruption. Using these criteria, we then surveyed Greek historiographical and novelistic literature to discern the various functions of interrupted speech, distinguishing between intentional interruption of a speaker by the audience and interruption by external events. In Chapter Two, we showed that interrupted speech has played a significant role in Greek literature from the time of Homer onward. From the many interrupted discourses in Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Appian of Alexandria, and others, we discerned several common functions of intentional interruption. Most frequently, interruptions are rooted in conflict, and we found multiple examples of conflict-based interruption that were motivated by one of the following: heated rivalries between peers, the despair of the defeated, righteous rebuttals of the wicked, and impious incursions against the just. Less common, but still prominent, were cooperative interruptions and status-based interruptions. Interruption by external events, on the other hand, generally served only to heighten the drama of a scene. Having found more than one hundred examples of interrupted speech, we can safely inter Dibelius’ erroneous assertion that there is “no parallel in the writings of the historians” to the device of intentional interruption.1 Although interruption is not exactly frequent, relevant parallels are plentiful.

1

Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed. Heinrich Greeven; trans. Mary Ling; London: SCM, 1956), 183.

Summary of Findings

245

In Chapter Three, we moved on to specifically Jewish narratives. We saw that interrupted speech is present in the LXX, though generally only in the later prophetic and historical books. Then, in our survey of Josephus, we found a tremendous frequency and variety of interrupted speech, often used to great effect. For example, Josephus appears to have used cooperative interruption as a strategy of self-promotion in his Life. As in Chapter Two, we also noted instances where intentional interruption highlighted the relationship between an audience and specific content within a discourse, a dynamic that is especially important in Luke-Acts. Chapter Four found evidence in support of Pervo’s interruptionbased link between ancient novels and the Acts of the Apostles. However, the findings of Chapters Two and Three undermine Pervo’s claim; interruption is not limited to one particular genre. In fact, the frequency of interruption appears to be more aligned with chronology than genre, as Table 7 illustrates. Table 7 organizes texts by frequency of interrupted speech.2 Later works (within the time period surveyed in this study) crowd the top of this list of selected texts that include two or more interrupted discourses. Earlier authors (Homer, Xenophon, Polybius) all rank towards the bottom.3

2

3

If we asked instead about who uses intentional interruption most frequently, the results would change, but the top five would remain fairly constant: Acts (2,793 words per intentional interruption); 4 Maccabees (2,830); Chariton, Callirhoe (3,442); Josephus, Life (5,431); Gospel of Luke (6,909). Elizabeth Minchin addresses the limited yet powerful role of interruption in Homer in her Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 243.

246

Chapter 7: Conclusions

Table 7: Who Uses Interrupted Speech Most Frequently?

19,551 20,728 8,489 37,860 13,664 16,293

Number of Interrupted Discourses 8 8 3 13 3 3

Word Count/ Number of Interruptions 2,444 2,591 2,830 2,912 4,555 5,431

11,096

2

5,548

19,521

3

6,507

14,423 120,226

2 16

7,212 7,514

295,922

24

12,330

87,765

7

12,538

322,394

23

14,017

327,805 129,064 58,307

22 8 3

14,900 16,133 19,436

Text

Word Count4

Acts of the Apostles Gospel of Luke 4 Maccabees Chariton, Callirhoe Job (LXX) Josephus, Life Daniel (LXX – Theodotion) Gospel according to Matthew Arrian, Indica Appian, Civil War Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities Homer, Odyssey Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Polybius, Histories Josephus, Jewish War Xenophon, Anabasis

In light of the prominent position of the Gospel according to Luke in Table 7, it is surprising that no scholars other than Aune and Pervo have noted the presence of interrupted speech in the Third Gospel. In Chapter Five, we analyzed how Luke both adopted interruptions from and introduced interruptions into his sources. Furthermore, we observed the continuity in the form, function, and frequency of interruption from Luke to Acts. While there are several instances of interrupted speech in the Gospel, we focused on the hostile interruption in Luke 4:28. As part of his first major address to an assembled audience, Jesus 4

Word counts are taken from the TLG® website. See Thesaurus Linguae Graecae®, University of California, Irvine [cited 16 June 2011]. Online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu.

Summary of Findings

247

offers a series of examples of God’s saving acts among the Gentiles, and the people “who were hearing” reject the message and attempt to kill the speaker. From Luke 4 to Acts 22, those who preach the availability of salvation to the Gentiles face rejection and death at the hands of their audiences. In Chapter Six, we continued our exploration of interrupted speech in Luke’s two volumes. The similarity in the use of interruption in the two works further supports the reading of Luke-Acts as a unified whole. After affirming Cadbury’s (or perhaps Bacon’s) “hyphenated compound,” we then analyzed various audience responses to early Christian preaching, distinguishing between audience reactions (e.g., Acts 17:32), interruptions of a speaker’s overall message (e.g., Acts 2:37), and interruptive words and actions that violated speaking turns (Acts 4:1; 7:54; 7:57; 10:44; etc.). 5 We found that, unlike the emphasis on the interrupted speaker in most of Greek historiographical and novelistic literature (“While he was still speaking…”), the interruptions of Acts emphasize the interruptive audience (“While they were listening…”). In fact, we found more instances of marking interruption with reference to hearers in Luke-Acts than in all the other texts surveyed in Chapters Two through Four combined.6 This peculiar Lukan form of marking interruption highlights the unique function of interruption in Luke-Acts. By exploring together the interrupted discourses of both Luke and Acts, we were able to generate a more comprehensive account of the function of interrupted speech. Again and again, intentional interruptions underscored references to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:1; 7:57; 26:24) and to the availability of salvation to the Gentiles (Luke 4:28; Acts 13:48; 22:22; 26:24). In essence, Luke uses interruption to highlight the proclamation of God’s saving action through Jesus Christ and the availability of this salvation to all. As Tannehill puts it, “Luke and Acts are a unified narrative because the different events reported relate to a single underlying purpose, God’s purpose of bringing salvation to all flesh.”7 Indeed, God is named as “Savior” by 5 6

7

See Appendix 4 for a listing of the intentionally interrupted speeches in Luke-Acts. A form of ἀκούω or a related verb of listening is used to mark an interruption in the following historiographical texts: Polybius, Hist. 18.46.6; 38.12.4; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. hist. 18.66.6; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 10.41.1. Cf. Luke 4:28; Acts 7:54, 57; 13:48; 22:22. Robert C. Tannehill, “The Story of Israel within the Lukan Narrative,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel; ed. David P. Moessner and David L. Tiede; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International), 325-39, here 339.

248

Chapter 7: Conclusions

Mary in Luke 1:47, and Simeon prophesies the bringing of salvation to both Jews and Gentiles in Luke 2:30-32. Luke is the only evangelist to quote Isa 40:5, with its reference to “the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6), and we again find “the salvation of God” at the end of Acts (28:28).8 Robert Maddox highlights this continuity from Simeon’s song at the beginning of the Gospel to Paul’s speech at the end of Acts: “But by far the most powerful confirmation of the unity of the whole work has come from our study of Luke’s handling of the theme ‘Israel and the Gentiles’, for there is a sustained dramatic development of this theme from Luke 1 to Acts 28.”9 Simply put, we would argue that the intentional interruptions of Jesus and his followers from Luke 4 to Acts 26 play a key role in the “sustained dramatic development” of Luke’s theological emphases. Our study has thus paid primary attention to what Tannehill labels Luke’s “narrative rhetoric.”10 Rather than fixating on the historical question of whether Paul was actually interrupted by Festus, we have looked to the narrative to see whether there is a claim of interruption. Then, we have asked the following questions: Why did Luke depict this speech as interrupted? What is Luke trying to communicate to his readers? Pervo has offered us the image of “double underlining,” allowing us to envision Luke using intentional interruption as a neon yellow (or perhaps blood-red?) highlighter pen to emphasize key themes of his narrative. At key turning points and decisive moments, Luke highlights the offers of salvation to the Gentiles and the preaching of Jesus Christ as resurrected and exalted. This study’s focus is Luke-Acts. However, we have been able to foreground Luke’s innovative use of interruption more clearly by paying attention to the literary milieu in which Luke wrote his two volumes. Attention to more than one hundred non-Lukan instances of intentional interruption has enabled us to see unique aspects of Luke’s use of interruption: his unusual form of marking interruption (by fo8

9

10

Jacques Dupont, “The Salvation of the Gentiles and the Theological Significance of Acts,” in The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. John R. Keating; New York: Paulist, 1979), 11-33, here 16. Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (FRLANT 126; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 180. Similarly, Marshall notes that “The contours of salvation are the same throughout Luke-Acts.” See I. Howard Marshall, “‘Israel’ and the Story of Salvation: One Theme in Two Parts,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. David P. Moessner; vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel; ed. David P. Moessner and David L. Tiede; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International), 340-57, here 355. Robert C. Tannehill, The Gospel according to Luke (vol. 1 of The Narrative Unity of LukeActs: A Literary Interpretation; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 8.

Implications, Limitations, and Further Research

249

cusing on the hearers rather than the speakers), his frequency of interruption (unparalleled by other historians or novelists), and his tendency to mark rejection and acceptance of certain discourse content by means of intentional interruption. Thus, even as we argue against Pervo’s earlier suggestion that Acts should be classified as a novel, we find ourselves practicing what he elsewhere preached: By reference to novels in general and historical novels in particular I have attempted to provide detailed evidence for the ancient novel’s relevance to the understanding of Acts. My intent is that such comparison proceed alongside, as well as in competition with, investigations using historiographical models.11

Our study has focused on the use of interrupted speech in ancient Greek narratives, and we have not seen substantial differences in the function of interruption along generic lines.

7.2 Implications, Limitations, and Further Research In fact, whether in Homer, Herodotus, Chariton, Josephus, or Acts, rhetorical or intentional interruption tends to mark conflict. More specifically, interruption tends to mark significant conflicts, conflicts that fuel the entire plot. In Chapter Two, we demonstrated how the entire plot of the Iliad could be seen as revolving around the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon, a conflict that was deepened by a hostile interruption. We also highlighted key interruptions that shaped the overall plot in Appian’s Roman History and in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Luke-Acts is no different. As mentioned above, the entire plot of Luke-Acts can be said to revolve around the relationship of Jews and Gentiles, and Luke employs interruption repeatedly to mark Jewish rejections of the salvation offered by God through Jesus and of the offering of this salvation to Gentiles. Later, Roman governors interrupt Paul in order to reject his preaching (Acts 24:25; 26:24). Luke’s portrayal of Roman governors may not be overly troubling to modern scholars, but his repeated depictions of Jewish rejection can pose a problem in a post-Holocaust world. While a full treatment of Luke’s portrayal of the Jews is well beyond the scope of this project, we may point out a few helpful ways forward. First, we must note that this study focuses on the interrupted discourses of Luke-Acts. We find many instances of Jewish rejection of 11

Richard Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 137.

250

Chapter 7: Conclusions

Christian preaching, yet we never find a follower of Jesus aggressively interrupting a Jewish speaker. Even in Acts 13, where Paul and Barnabas announce a turn to the Gentiles, they do so only after Jewish rejection. The storyline is not one of the apostles’ aggression against Jews, but rather one where the Jews repeatedly reject the apostolic preaching; the turn to the Gentiles in Acts is depicted as the divine response to Jewish rejection. But does it make sense to distinguish between “Jews” and “apostles” at all? Barrett addresses charges of “Christian anti-Semitism” in Acts with a twofold response. He first makes the obvious point that Jesus, Peter, Stephen, Paul, and James are all Jews, and he then notes that many of these Jewish followers of Christ were themselves resistant to accepting Gentiles into the community (e.g., Acts 10-11, 15). Barrett continues with reference to the two ideas that we have seen highlighted by intentional interruption: Here however was the crux of the matter. Did Paul rightly understand what Moses and the prophets had said? Most Jews said no, and that on two fundamental points. According to Paul the Scriptures prophesied the death and resurrection of the Messiah, and this was fulfilled in Jesus. According to Luke they also foretold that God would take out of the Gentiles a people for his name (15.14-18). On this interpretation, Jesus was the Messiah and the church, including uncircumcised Gentiles, was the people of God, with the nation of Israel alongside in an undefined position, waiting till it should return by faith into the divine purpose.12

For Barrett, then, the two key differences between the Jewish followers of Jesus and their contemporary Jews were their acceptance or rejection of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God. Thus, intentional interruption can be seen as marking the issues that divided the early followers of Jesus from their Jewish opponents; these were the issues that led audiences to violate turn-taking rules and form lynch mobs. Tiede, on the other hand, is willing to acknowledge the polemical strands of Luke-Acts: “it is clear that sectarian accusations were not beyond the author.”13 However, Tiede has recourse to the prophetic tradition, noting that we find much more troubling accusations against the Jews in Isa 2:9 and Jer 7:20; again, these are verbal assaults against Jews by Jews. If we do not interpret Isaiah or Jeremiah as anti-Jewish, why should we view Paul or Stephen any differently?

12 13

C. K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994-1998), 2:xcviii. David L. Tiede, Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 49.

Implications, Limitations, and Further Research

251

Ultimately, whether or not we accept Barrett’s or Tiede’s explanations, the fact remains that verses describing the rejection of the Jews can be and have been abused by later interpreters. Further attempts to vindicate Luke from or to condemn Luke on charges of anti-Semitism (or anti-Judaism) have been made, but we will not explore them here. 14 Instead, we may note that the interruptions of Luke-Acts mark conflicts running so deep that the scars are still tender two thousand years later. There are other limitations to our study. For example, we have treated only historiographical and novelistic literature between the time of Homer and approximately 200 C.E. While this body of literature is substantial, other authors could be added. Although we have included Josephus’ Life, we have not surveyed the biographies or other works of Plutarch. Likewise, we have mentioned how interruptions by external events generally add drama to a scene, but we have ignored Sophocles and Euripides. Finally, we have neglected Plato’s opera as well. Further attention to the function of interruption in these other genres would help to fill out our overall picture of how interruption functions in ancient Greek literature. Avenues for further research would include a complementary study of interrupted speech in Plato, various playwrights, and Plutarch. Given the similar ways in which interrupted speech functions in historiography and novels, our investigation could be expanded to explore the ways in which interruption functions similarly or differently in poetry and prose. As we have seen, in Homeric epic, Greek historiography, and ancient novels, there does not seem to be a substantial difference. Thus, this type of comparative study might also serve to illuminate the role of genres in this type of research. While understanding genres can be valuable in many ways, the basic ways in which narratives work appear to transcend many generic boundaries. Perhaps less ink should be devoted to the question of the genre of Luke and Acts, and more time should be spent reading the literature that helped to form the cultural world in which Luke lived and moved and had his being.

14

For a helpful starting point, see Joseph B. Tyson, ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988). Luke Timothy Johnson also offers a helpful perspective in his “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic,” JBL 108 (1989): 419-41.

Appendix 1 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Speaker

Agamemnon, the king of the Achaeans

Phemius the minstrel

Demodocus the minstrel

Passage

Homer, Iliad, 1.292

Homer, Odyssey, 1.337

Homer, Odyssey, 8.536

Demodocus sings of the Trojan horse and of the wondrous deeds of Odysseus (8.521). (Indirect discourse)

Phemius sings of the return of the Achaeans from Troy (1.326-27). (Indirect discourse)

Agamemnon’s speech accuses Achilles of arrogance and rash words (1.286-91). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect)

Odysseus has asked Demodocus to sing about the Trojan horse; they are feasting in the house of Alcinous.

Phemius sings for the suitors, but Penelope hears the song from her chamber; distressed, she appears before the suitors.

Speaking at an assembly convened by Achilles, Agamemnon here responds to the conciliatory words of Nestor.

Rhetorical Situation

Alcinous, the gracious host

Penelope, the faithful wife of Odysseus

Achilles, a renowned warrior

Interrupter

Alcinous orders Demodocus to cease: Δημόδοκος σχεθέτω (“Let Demodocus stop [his singing]”).

Telemachus later makes a claim on behalf of Phemius, rebuking his mother in 1.346ff.

The narrator makes this interruption explicit through the use of the word ὑποβλήδην (“interruptingly”).

Claim of Interruption

Alcinous calls for an end to the minstrel’s singing and asks Odysseus to identify himself.

Penelope asks Phemius to spare her from reminders of her sorrow.

Achilles then responds with a threat and leaves the assembly.

Subsequent Action Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

253

Leiodes the seer

A group of Arcadians who deserted to the Persians

Themistocles, the Athenian admiral

Herodotus, Histories, 8.26.3

Herodotus, Histories, 8.59.1

Speaker

Homer, Odyssey, 22.329

Passage

Themistocles is in favor of remaining at Salamis, an unpopular position among the Peloponnesians (8.59.1; cf. 8.60). (Indirect discourse)

The Arcadians are explaining that victorious Greek athletes received crowns of olives (8.26.3). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Leiodes begs (in direct discourse) to be pardoned by Odysseus in 22.312-319. In 22.329, he presumably utters words to similar effect. (Not reported)

Eurybiades, the Spartan admiral, has convened a council of all the Greek admirals, following the sack of Athens by the Persians.

The Arcadians, upon deserting to the Persians, are summoned before the king for questioning. Various Persian officials are present.

Rhetorical Situation Odysseus is engaged in the slaying of the suitors, among whom was Leiodes.

Adeimantus, son of Ocytus, the Corinthian admiral

Tigranes, son of Artabanus, a Persian

Odysseus, the master of the house

Interrupter

The narrator makes this interruption clear by means of a genitive absolute: λέγοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ (“while he was speaking”).

The words οὔτε ἠνέσχετο σιγῶν (“he could not bear to remain silent”) show that Tigranes spoke out of turn.

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes this interruption clear by means of a genitive absolute that includes the present participle φθεγγομένου (“while he was speaking”).

Adeimantus criticizes Themistocles for speaking too soon, but the latter is not intimidated.

Tigranes’ words are not followed by any actions, and the narrative resumes.

Subsequent Action Leiodes is killed by Odysseus.

254 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Themistocles, the Athenian admiral

Envoys from Athens

Apollonides, a Boeotian

Herodotus, Histories, 9.11.2

Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.1.27

Speaker

Herodotus, Histories, 8.61.1

Passage

Unlike Xenophon, Apollonides thinks the soldiers should surrender to the Persian King (3.1.26). (Indirect discourse)

The Athenians condemn the Lacedaemonians for failing to help them and threaten to join the Persians (9.11.1-2). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Themistocles again pleads with Eurybiades and the others to remain at Salamis (8.60α-60γ). (Direct discourse)

Following the capture of the Greek generals, Xenophon convenes a council of the captains of Proxenus to discuss further action.

The Athenians make their case before the Spartan ephors, trying to persuade them to send aid to beleaguered Athens.

Rhetorical Situation Themistocles once more addresses the council of admirals, specifically their leader Eurybiades.

Xenophon, a friend of Proxenus

Spartan ephors

Adeimantus, son of Ocytus, the Corinthian admiral

Interrupter

The narrator clearly marks this interruption: ὑπολαβὼν ἔλεξεν (“interrupting, he said…”).

The narrator marks the interruption with a genitive absolute: ταῦτα λεγόντων τῶν ἀγγέλων (“as the envoys were saying these things”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks the interruption with a genitive absolute, including a present participle λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Xenophon berates Apollonides and urges his demotion.

The ephors interrupt the Athenian complaint by vowing that help is already on the way.

Subsequent Action Adeimantus mockingly condemns Themistocles for speaking, and the latter responds.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

255

Speaker

Xenophon, a friend of Proxenus

Followers of Spendius who did not know Phoenician

Unidentified, although likely the letter-bearers of Cleomenes

Passage

Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.1.31

Polybius, Histories, 1.80.9

Polybius, Histories, 2.61.5 [preserving a passage from Phylarchus]

A letter from Cleomenes offers to restore Megalopolis to the Megalopolitan refugees in exchange for their cooperation (2.61.4). (Indirect discourse)

These speakers were willing to support the execution of prisoners, but they opposed their torture (1.80.8). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Xenophon rebukes Apollonides for suggesting that the Greeks submit to the Persians (3.1.27-30). (Direct discourse)

Rhetorical Situation Following the capture of the Greek generals, Xenophon convenes a council of the captains of Proxenus to discuss further action. Spendius had called an assembly in order to win support for the torture and execution of all Carthaginian prisoners. Some Megalopolitans at Messene receive a letter from Cleomenes, king of Sparta. To comply would require them to abandon their alliance with the Achaeans. The refugees from Megalopolis

The rest of the assembly

Agasias, a Stymphalian captain

Interrupter

The narrator makes the violation of speaking turns very clear: ἔτι…τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἀναγινωσκομένης (“while the letter was still being read”).

The narrator refers to those who had taken the floor at that time: τοὺς προπορευθέντας (“those who had gone forward”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator also marks this interruption clearly with the participle ὑπολαβὼν…εἶπεν (“interrupting…he said”).

The refugees from Megalopolis nearly stone the letterbearers to death.

The assembly stoned all the speakers to death.

Subsequent Action Agasias cuts off Xenophon, urging the expulsion, not just the demotion of Apollonides.

256 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Speaker

Dorimachus, an Aetolian and leader of brigands

Adeimantus, a Spartan ephor

Apelles, a guardian of King Philip

Passage

Polybius, Histories, 4.4.7

Polybius, Histories, 4.22.11

Polybius, Histories, 4.85.4

Apelles accuses Aratus of Sicyon of being disloyal to King Philip (4.84.7), and he threatens him (4.85.3). (Direct discourse)

Adeimantus begins to condemn the hasty assembly that has been called. (4.22.10). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Dorimachus finds the Messenian complaint outrageous and threatens reprisal by the Aetolian league (4.4.4). (Indirect discourse)

In this forensic setting, King Philip has summoned Aratus to face charges, and Apelles makes the accusations.

As King Philip nears Sparta, three ephors call an assembly of the people, in order to do away with their political opponents.

Rhetorical Situation Upon their lands being pillaged, the Messenian ephors have summoned the culprit Dorimachus in order to seek compensation and a halt to the raids.

Aratus of Sicyon, the accused

Some young men who had been chosen by the other ephors for this task

Scyron, a Messenian ephor

Interrupter

The narrator marks this interruption clearly with the participle ὑπολαβών (“interrupting”).

A genitive absolute makes the interruption clear: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ … ἀνακρουομένου (“while he was still beginning”).

Claim of Interruption A genitive absolute, including the present participle ὁμιλοῦντος (“while speaking”), marks Scyron’s reply as an interruption.

Aratus counsels Philip to be more critical of the reports he receives.

Adeimantus, as well as many other Spartans, is killed by the young men.

Subsequent Action Scyron insults Dorimachus by dismissing his threats and comparing him to a local man of poor repute.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

257

Epigenes, a popular military leader

Epigenes, a popular military leader

Philopoemen, a popular military leader

Polybius, Histories, 5.49.2-3

Polybius, Histories, 11.12.2

Speaker

Polybius, Histories, 5.42.1

Passage

Philopoemen is exhorting his troops to keep in mind the importance of the upcoming battle (11.12.1; cf. also 11.12.3). (Indirect discourse)

Epigenes again proposes swift action in response to Molon’s revolt (5.49.1-2). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Epigenes advocates for a quick response to Molon’s revolt, including a personal appearance by the king (5.41.7-9). (Indirect discourse)

Before an important battle against the Lacedaemonians under Machanidas, Philopoemen strives to rally his troops.

After further victories by Molon, the king calls another royal council, seeking further proposals for quelling the revolt.

Rhetorical Situation When Molon revolts, the king calls a royal council in order to invite proposals for how to deal with the rebellion.

The army of Philopoemen

Hermeias, grand vizier of the Seleucid kingdom

Hermeias, grand vizier of the Seleucid kingdom

Interrupter

The narrator indicates that Philopoemen’s words ἀσαφῆ συνέβαινε γίνεσθαι (“are not clearly heard”) due to the ardor of his faithful troops.

The narrator marks this interruption clear with a genitive absolute: ἔτι φάσκοντος (“while [he] was still saying”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks this interruption clearly with a genitive absolute: λέγοντος ἔτι (“while [he] was still speaking”).

The troops give their own exhortation to Philopoemen, commanding him to lead them boldly (11.12.2).

Hermeias slanders Epigenes, praises himself, and offends the rest of the council.

Subsequent Action Hermeias accuses Epigenes of treachery and suggests another plan.

258 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

King Philip of Macedon

King Philip of Macedon

Phaeneas, the Aetolian commander

Polybius, Histories, 18.4.3

Polybius, Histories, 18.37.12

Speaker

Polybius, Histories, 16.34.5

Passage

Phaeneas fears that the Roman proposal of peace with King Philip is overly lenient (18.37.11). (Indirect discourse)

Philip dismisses some of the charges against him as ridiculous and justifies his actions (18.4.1-2). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Philip tries to exculpate himself by identifying the Rhodians as the aggressors (16.34.5). (Indirect discourse)

Another conference of the Romans and their allies meets to decide on terms for making peace with King Philip.

During a meeting at Nicaea, Philip is defending himself against a number of accusers; Flamininus is present to represent Rome’s interests.

Rhetorical Situation Marcus Aemilius has been sent to Abydus by the Romans to meet with King Philip and compel him to cease his aggressive behavior.

Titus Flamininus, a Roman

Phaeneas, the Aetolian commander

Marcus Aemilius, a Roman

Interrupter

The ongoing nature of Phaeneas’ speaking turn is made clear by Flamininus’ command: Παῦσαι (“cease”).

The narrator makes this interruption explicit through the use of the word ὑπέκρουε (“interrupted”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes explicit the interruption with the participle μεσολαβήσας (“interrupting”).

Flamininus silences Phaeneas and vows to protect the Greeks from Philip.

Phaeneas counsels the king to either continue fighting or obey Rome.

Subsequent Action Marcus Aemilius gives a hostile response, and a brief dialogue ensues.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

259

A herald, speaking on behalf of Rome

Parmenion, a Lampsacene envoy

Three Aetolian envoys

Polybius, Histories, 18.52.3

Polybius, Histories, 20.9.3

Speaker

Polybius, Histories, 18.46.6

Passage

The Aetolians seek an armistice with the Romans, as well as peace (20.9.1). (Indirect discourse)

Parmenion freely discusses Lampsacene complaints against Antiochus (18.52.3). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The herald announces the Roman decision to grant freedom to the Greeks (18.46.5). (Direct discourse)

The Aetolians, feeling threatened by the Romans, come before the Roman general to seek peace.

The Romans have summoned envoys from Smyrna and Lampsacus to hear their complaints against Antiochus.

Rhetorical Situation At the Isthmian games, a crowd is assembled in the stadium. The trumpet sounds to quiet the crowd, and the herald reads.

Manius Acilius Glabrio, the Roman general

King Antiochus III

The crowd

Interrupter

The narrator makes the interruption explicit with the participle μεσολαβηθέντες (“having been interrupted”).

The narrator makes explicit the interruption with the participle μεσολαβήσας (“interrupting”).

Claim of Interruption The crowd’s violation of the herald’s speaking turn is shown by the fact that τινὲς μὲν οὐδ᾽ ἤκουσαν τοῦ κηρύγματος (“some did not hear the proclamation”).

Glabrio cuts them off, grants a tenday armistice, and refers them to Flaccus.

Antiochus silences Parmenion, and the conference is dissolved.

Subsequent Action The assembled crowd drowns out the proclamation with their cheers. The herald tries again in the middle of the stadium, with the same result.

260 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Three Aetolian envoys

Manius Acilius Glabrio, the Roman general

Praxon, a Rhodian envoy

Polybius, Histories, 20.10.6

Polybius, Histories, 28.23.3

Speaker

Polybius, Histories, 20.9.8

Passage

Praxon seeks to reconcile King Antiochus and King Ptolemy (28.23.2). (Indirect discourse)

Glabrio is assigning terms of surrender to Phaeneas and the Aetolians (20.10.3-6). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The Aetolians begin by recalling all of their benevolent acts towards the Romans (20.9.7). (Indirect discourse)

Praxon comes before King Antiochus near Alexandria, hoping to bring an end to hostilities between the Seleucids and Ptolemy.

The Aetolians have committed themselves to the fides of Glabrio and the Romans, not realizing that this amounts to unconditional surrender.

Rhetorical Situation The Aetolians have been referred by Glabrio to Lucius Valerius Flaccus, and they present their entreaty before him.

King Antiochus IV

Phaeneas, the Aetolian commander

Lucius Valerius Flaccus

Interrupter

The narrator makes the interruption abundantly clear ἔτι λέγοντα…ἐπιτεμών (“while [he] was still speaking, [he] interrupted [him]”).

The narrator makes explicit the interruption with the participle μεσολαβήσας (“interrupting”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes explicit the interruption with the participle ἐπιτεμών (“interrupting”).

King Antiochus claims to be already in agreement with Praxon.

Phaeneas replies that the Roman demands are neither Greek nor just, but he is then put in chains.

Subsequent Action Flaccus cuts them off and recommends that they try to speak more modestly.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

261

Polybius

The Roman legates

King Psammetichus of Egypt

Polybius, Histories, 38.12.4

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 1.67.6

Speaker

Polybius, Histories, 31.24.9

Passage

King Psammetichus is trying to persuade his mutinous soldiers to rejoin his army (1.67.5). (Indirect discourse)

The Romans attempt to dissuade the Achaeans from initiating hostilities against Rome (38.12.2-3). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Polybius offers to support Scipio in the latter’s efforts at selfimprovement (31.24.29). (Direct discourse)

Upset by the king’s preferential treatment of the mercenaries, the native Egyptian soldiers have revolted and are leaving Egypt.

An assembly of the Achaeans is held at Corinth, and Roman legates have arrived to promote peace between the Achaeans and Rome.

Rhetorical Situation With his elder brother Fabius absent, Scipio wants to know why Polybius always ignores him and appears to have a low opinion of him.

The rebel soldiers

The crowd

P. Scipio Aemilianus

Interrupter

The king “was entreating” (ἐδεῖτο) the soldiers; the imperfect tense implies his speech was still ongoing.

The interruption is lightly marked with the participle διακούοντες, which suggests that the crowd mocked the legates “while listening.”

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks this interruption with a genitive absolute: ἔτι δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντος (“while [he] was still speaking”).

The soldiers cry out, clash their spears on their shields, and refuse the king’s entreaty.

The crowd mocks the legates and noisily ejects them from the assembly.

Subsequent Action Scipio exclaims how excited he is to have the support of Polybius.

262 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Hermocrates

Parmenion, a general serving under Alexander the Great

Phocion, an Athenian exile

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 17.54.5

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 18.66.5

Speaker

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 13.19.6

Passage

Phocion is making his defense speech, presumably seeking to avoid the death penalty (18.66.5). (Not reported)

Parmenion suggests that Alexander accept Dareius the Persian’s offer, instead of going to war (17.54.4). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Hermocrates proposes that the Syracusans treat the Athenian prisoners with moderation (13.19.5). (Indirect discourse)

Phocion, accused of “enslaving the fatherland” and overthrowing the Athenian democracy, makes his defense before a hostile crowd.

Alexander has called a council of his Friends to discuss the offer made by Dareius the Persian.

Rhetorical Situation The Syracusans gather in an assembly, to decide what to do with the captured Athenian troops. Hermocrates is the second of four speakers.

The crowd

Alexander the Great

The people of Syracuse

Interrupter

Phocion “began” (ἤρξατο) to make his defense, but the crowd rejected his pleas.

The narrator marks this interruption explicitly with the participle ὑπολαβών (“interrupting”).

Claim of Interruption The people are said to be unable to endure the speech of Hermocrates (τὴν δημηγορίαν οὐχ ὑπομένoντος), so they interrupt.

The crowd shouts down Phocion, preventing him from continuing.

Alexander disparages Parmenion’s willingness to come to terms so easily.

Subsequent Action The people shout down Hermocrates, and Nicolaus follows with a similar speech.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

263

Phocion, an Athenian exile

Friends of Phocion, an Athenian exile

Envoys from Ptolemy of Egypt

Archimedes of Syracuse

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 18.67.2

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 19.79.1

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 26.18.1

Speaker

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 18.66.6

Passage

Archimedes cries out for someone to bring him one of his machines (26.18.1). (Direct discourse)

The envoys are urging the people of Cyrene to submit once again to Ptolemy’s rule (19.79.1). (Indirect discourse)

Friends of Phocion add to his defense (18.67.2). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Phocion tries a second time to defend himself (18.66.6). (Not reported)

Having revolted from Ptolemy, the people of Cyrene were about to eject his garrison from their city. Archimedes is hard at work, when a Roman soldier arrives on the scene to take him captive.

After Phocion abandons hope, his friends try to add their pleas on his behalf.

Rhetorical Situation The initial uproar has subsided, and Phocion again makes his defense before a hostile crowd.

An unnamed Roman soldier

The people of Cyrene

The crowd

The crowd

Interrupter

Claim of Interruption The crowd violates Phocion’s speaking rights a second time: τὴν φωνὴν… ἐκώλυεν ἐξακούεσθαι (“they prevented [his] voice from being heard”). When they recognize the intent of Phocion’s friends, the crowd drove them away (ἐξεβάλλοντο). The use of the present participle παρακαλούντων (“while they were exhorting”) suggests ongoing speech. Archimedes “was crying out” (ἐβόα) at the soldier; the imperfect tense suggests that he was still speaking at the time of his murder. The soldier killed Archimedes.

Subsequent Action Phocion’s voice is drowned out, so that most people cannot hear him. He eventually gives up hope. Phocion and his friends are condemned to death; they are forced to drink hemlock. The people of Cyrene killed the envoys and continued in their rebellion.

264 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Flamininus, a Roman consul

Envoys from Marathus

A comic actor

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 33.5.4

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 37.12.1

Speaker

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 28.11.1

Passage

The precise content of the actor’s offensive speech is unknown, but it certainly displeased the Roman audience (37.12.1). (Not reported)

The envoys are asserting the sacred rights of suppliants to safe conduct (33.5.4). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Flamininus outlines the Roman conditions for peace with King Philip, including a withdrawal from Greece (28.11.1). (Indirect discourse)

A festival is held, just prior to the outbreak of the “Social War.” A largely Roman audience is in the theater, as a comic actor performs.

The Aradians want to destroy Marathus. When the Marathenes send envoys to ask for Aradian assistance, the people of Aradus show no respect.

Rhetorical Situation The Roman consul Flamininus meets with King Philip V of Macedonia to discuss terms for peace.

A Roman audience (in a theater)

The most audacious Aradian youths

King Philip V of Macedonia

Interrupter

The comic actor was ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς (“on stage”) and ἀγωνιζόμενον (“contending”) at the time of his death.

The use of the present participle ἐπιβοωμένων (“while they were invoking”) suggests that the envoy’s speech was ongoing.

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks this interruption with the participle ὑπολαβών (“interrupting”).

The comic actor was killed, and a more crowdpleasing comedian took his place.

The youths kill the envoys.

Subsequent Action After interrupting Flamininus, Philip storms off in a rage.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

265

Speaker

Tullus Hostilius, King of Rome

Mettius Fufetius, an Alban

Servius Tullius, King of Rome

Passage

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 3.29.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 3.30.5

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 4.37.4

Tullius reminds the people of his many achievements, and he then reveals that Tarquinius is seeking the kingship (4.37.2-3). (Indirect discourse)

Mettius appeals to the Alban treaty with the Romans, which he himself violated (3.30.5). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Tullus rebukes the Albans for their treachery against Rome (3.28.1-10). (Direct discourse)

Having learned of Tarquinius’ intentions, Tullius summons the Roman people to the Forum in order to win them over.

Mettius is on trial before King Tullus. He tries to stir up the crowd on his own behalf, but the crowd is cowed by the armed Romans.

Rhetorical Situation Tullus has just discovered an Alban conspiracy against Rome, and he has assembled the Albans, Romans, and allies to hear the accusations.

The Roman people, assembled in the Forum

The lictors, at King Tullus’ command

The assembled Albans

Interrupter

That Tullius sees the crowd as interrupting his speaking turn is made clear by his commanding them σιωπῆσαι (“to be silent”).

Mettius is ἀνακαλούμενον (“appealing to”) the treaty when the lictors seize him.

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks the interruption with a genitive absolute, including a present participle λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

The people raise a tumult; once they are calmed, Tullius continues his speech in 4.37.4-5.

The lictors seize Mettius, strip him, scourge him, and drag his body apart with horses.

Subsequent Action The Albans declare their innocence, and Tullus announces a lenient punishment.

266 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Speaker

Lucius Junius Brutus, a Roman consul

Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, a Roman consul

Aulus Postumius, a Roman dictator

Passage

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 5.11.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 5.11.2

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 6.10.1

Postumius delivers a lengthy speech to his troops, exhorting them to noble conduct (6.6.29.6). (Direct discourse)

Collatinus defends himself and his nephews, and opposes bringing the matter to a vote of the citizens (5.11.1). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Brutus denounces the leniency of his fellow consul, Collatinus, and proposes his removal from office (5.10.2-7). (Direct discourse)

Postumius is about to lead the Roman army into battle against the Tarquinii and their allies.

Collatinus has just been denounced by Brutus before the people assembled in the Forum.

Rhetorical Situation After Brutus puts his treacherous sons to death, Collatinus spares his own sons; Brutus assembles the people in the Forum to denounce Collatinus.

The Roman troops, gathered in an assembly

The Roman people, assembled in the Forum

Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the other consul

Interrupter

A genitive absolute with a present participle makes the interruption clear: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“While [he] was still speaking”).

The irate people no longer heed Collatinus: οὔτ᾽ ἀπολογίαν ὑπομενόντων (“neither enduring [his] defense”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks the interruption with a present participle λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Divinely inspired, the Roman troops call Postumius to lead them onward.

The people refuse to listen to Collatinus; his father-inlaw encourages him to resign, and he does.

Subsequent Action Collatinus rails against Brutus; the people call for the former’s removal, with eventual success.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

267

Menenius Agrippa, a patrician

Marcius Coriolanus

Marcius Coriolanus

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 7.35.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 7.62.3

Speaker

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 6.87.1

Passage

Marcius defends himself by reminding his audience of his past military exploits and achievements (7.62.1-3). (Indirect discourse)

Marcius expresses his contempt for the plebeians and their tribunes (7.34.3-5). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Menenius appeals to the plebeians to return to the city, promising concessions (6.83.386.5). (Direct discourse)

Summoned to the Forum, Marcius is again on trial before the plebeians; this time, he faces the charge of trying to set up a tyranny.

The tribunes have assembled the people in the Forum; Marcius is to be tried for his violent treatment of the aediles.

Rhetorical Situation Frustrated by the senate’s inaction, the plebeians have abandoned the city of Rome; patrician envoys have come to plead for their return.

Some plebeians

The assembly

The assembled plebeians

Interrupter

The narrator marks the interruption with a genitive absolute, including a present participle: ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“While [he] was still speaking”).

The use of a genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: λέγοντός τ᾽ αὐτοῦ μεταξύ (“while [he] was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks the interruption with a genitive absolute, including a present participle λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Many plebeians cry out to acquit Marcius, but he is eventually condemned and banished.

The people cause an uproar and try to kill Marcius, but the consuls intervene.

Subsequent Action The plebeians call on Menenius to lead them home, but Brutus intervenes.

268 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Veturia, the mother of Marcius Coriolanus

Spurius Cassius, a consul

“Good men” who oppose the landdistribution law

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 8.71.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 10.41.1

Speaker

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 8.47.1

Passage

Various patricians arise to voice their opposition to the land law (10.41.1). (Not reported)

Cassius makes a pair of proposals that would be very popular with the plebeians (8.70.5). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Veturia announces her mission to Marcius and begs him to relent (7.46.2-3). (Direct discourse)

The people have assembled in the Forum to hear speeches against the law being proposed by the tribunes.

Cassius the consul has assembled the senate in order to pass measures intended to win over the plebeians.

Rhetorical Situation Marcius is leading a large army against Rome; Veturia and other family members have come to beseech Marcius to show mercy to his former city.

The assembly

The assembled senators

Marcius Coriolanus

Interrupter

The rowdy assembly ensures that οὐθενὸς ἐξάκουστος ἦν ὁ λόγος (“no one’s speech was heard”).

A genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“While he was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes the interruption clear: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτῆς λεγούσης ὑπολαβών (“While she was still speaking, [he] interrupted”).

The crowd noise drowns out the speakers, and the patricians prevent the law from passing.

The senators reject his proposals, and a struggle begins between them and Cassius.

Subsequent Action Marcius tells his mother that her demand is impossible, but he eventually relents.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

269

Speaker

Lucius Siccius Dentatus

Appius Claudius Sabinus, chief of the decemvirs

Marcus Horatius Barbatus, a senator

Passage

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 10.45.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 11.4.4

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 11.6.1

Horatius scolds the decemvirs for their treatment of Valerius and proposes a popular election (11.5.2-4). (Direct discourse)

Appius Claudius calls on the senators to vote in favor of raising an army (11.4.3). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Siccius points out the perils of the proposed mission (10.44.4-5). (Direct discourse)

The decemvirs, led by Appius Claudius, have convened the senate to vote to raise an army, but the senators resist the decemvirs’ demands.

Having taken the unusual step of summoning the senators, Appius addresses them in the senate.

Rhetorical Situation The consul Romilius has summoned Siccius in order to send him on a perilous mission, hopeful that Siccius will perish.

The decemvirs

Lucius Valerius Potitus, a senator

Titus Romilius, a consul

Interrupter

The genitive absolute makes the interruption clear: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“While he was still speaking”).

A genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“while he was speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator marks this interruption explicitly: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ βουλομένου λέγειν τἀκόλουθα ὑπολαβών (“While he wanted to finish speaking, [the consul] interrupted”).

The decemvirs threaten to kill Horatius unless he stops talking, and a tumult ensues.

Valerius stands up, and Appius rebukes him; still, Valerius ends up giving a short speech.

Subsequent Action Romilius cuts off Siccius and then mocks him as a coward.

270 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Speaker

Lucius Icilius, a plebeian who intended to marry Verginia

The family of Verginia, including her father, Lucius Verginius

Lucius Verginius, a plebeian

Passage

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 11.32.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 11.36.1

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 11.42.1

Verginius begs his fellow soldiers to join in avenging his daughter’s death (11.40.3-41.6). (Indirect, then direct discourse)

The family members give various arguments rebutting the charge that Verginia was actually a slave’s daughter (11.34.1-6). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Icilius essentially dares Appius Claudius to kill him and seize Verginia (11.31.4-5). (Direct discourse)

Rhetorical Situation Appius Claudius presides over a kangaroo court, in an attempt to seize the object of his desire, Verginia, who was betrothed to Icilius. Appius Claudius again presides over a rigged trial, planning to seize Verginia in order to satisfy his own desires; her father and relatives are there to defend her. Having killed his own daughter to save her from Appius Claudius, Verginius now rallies the troops against the decemvirs in the Roman camp. The Roman troops

Appius Claudius, the chief decemvir

The lictors, at the order of Appius Claudius, the chief decemvir

Interrupter

The genitive absolute makes the interruption clear: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“While he was still speaking”).

The genitive absolute makes the interruption clear: Ἔτι γὰρ αὐτῶν λεγόντων (“While they were still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The interruption is made clear: Ἔτι δ᾽ αὐτοῦ βουλομένου λέγειν (“While he wanted to finish speaking”).

Verginius’ fellow soldiers shout their consent to join him and avenge his daughter.

Appius Claudius testifies that Verginia is the daughter of a slave and thus decides the case.

Subsequent Action The lictors hold back Icilius, and Appius Claudius attempts to seize Verginia.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

271

Meton of Tarentum

Callines, an older Macedonian officer

Alexander the Great

Nearchus, commander of the Macedonian fleet

Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 7.11.7

Arrian, Indica, 36.5

Arrian, Indica, 36.7

Speaker

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, 19.8.3

Passage

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Meton warns the Tarentines against inviting a king and garrison into the city (19.8.2-3). (Direct, then indirect discourse) Callines accuses Alexander of showing favoritism to the Persians and disregarding the Macedonians (7.11.6). (Direct discourse) Alexander vows never to let Nearchus take on such a dangerous task in the future, relieving him of his naval command (36.4). (Direct discourse) Nearchus affirms his loyalty to Alexander and begs to be allowed to continue as commander (36.5-6). (Direct discourse) Nearchus, commander of the Macedonian fleet, has reunited with Alexander’s landbased troops.

Rhetorical Situation Gathered in the theater, the Tarentines want to invite King Pyrrhus to support them in their war against Rome. Alexander’s Macedonian troops are discontent; after being scolded by Alexander, they come to his palace to confront him. Nearchus, commander of the Macedonian fleet, has reunited with Alexander’s landbased troops. Alexander the Great

Nearchus, commander of the Macedonian fleet

Alexander the Great

Those in favor of inviting Pyrrhus

Interrupter

The interruption is clear: ἔτι λέγοντα παύει αὐτόν (“[he] stopped him while he was still speaking”).

The narrator marks this interruption with the participle ὑπολαβών (“interrupting”).

The narrator marks this interruption with the participle ὑπολαβών (“interrupting”).

Claim of Interruption The genitive absolute makes the interruption clear: ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“while he was still speaking”).

Alexander allows Nearchus to continue in his command.

Nearchus begs to be allowed to command the fleet as it sails to Susa.

Alexander wins over the Macedonians by calling them his “kinsmen.”

Subsequent Action His opponents seize Meton and forcefully expel him from the theater.

272 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Marcius Coriolanus

Caedicius

The leaders of a mutiny

Appian, Roman History, 4.5.1

Appian, Roman History, 6.36.145

Speaker

Appian, Roman History, 2.5.12

Passage

About to be punished by Scipio, the ringleaders call to their comrades for help (6.36.145). (Indirect discourse)

Caedicius urges Camillus to return to Rome and deliver the Romans from the besieging Gauls (4.5.1). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Marcius rejects Veturia’s arguments and attempts to persuade his mother to join him (2.5.11). (Indirect discourse)

Scipio had summoned the mutinous troops back to the Roman camp to receive compensation; instead, he had them executed.

Once their successful general, Camillus had later been fined by the Romans; Caedicius has come to persuade him to return and deliver his native city from the Gauls.

Rhetorical Situation Veturia has come to the camp of Marcius and his Volscian army to beseech him to spare Rome.

The χιλίαρχοι (“military tribunes”)

Camillus

Veturia, the mother of Marcius Coriolanus

Interrupter

The present participle makes the interruption clear: τοὺς ἐπιφθεγγομένους (“those who were speaking”).

The interruption is made quite clear: ἐπισχὼν αὐτὸν ἔτι λέγοντα (“stopping him while he was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The use of the present participle plus ἔτι makes the interruption clear: ἔτι λέγοντος (“while [he] was still speaking”).

Any who utter a word are immediately killed; the rest are flogged and then killed.

Camillus eagerly agrees to return to the service of Rome.

Subsequent Action Veturia invokes the family gods and scolds her son; she then falls at his feet, and he relents.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

273

L. Marcius Censorinus, the Roman consul

The Carthaginian envoys

L. Cornelius Sulla, the Roman consul

Appian, Roman History, 8.91.431

Appian, Roman History, 12.55.221

Speaker

Appian, Roman History, 8.81.379

Passage

Sulla condemns Mithridates’ behavior and warns Archelaus to be on his guard, given the king’s past treachery (12.54.21855.220). (Direct discourse)

The envoys begin by reporting the command of the consuls (8.91.431). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Censorinus orders the Carthaginians to abandon their city, so that the Romans can raze it to the ground (8.81.378). (Direct discourse)

Archelaus has been sent by Mithridates to make peace with the Romans; Sulla receives Archelaus but rejects Mithridates’ excuses.

After meeting with the Roman consuls, the envoys have returned to relate the consuls’ demands to the Carthaginian senate.

Rhetorical Situation Envoys from Carthage have come before the Roman consuls to hand over the arms of the Carthaginians and to hear any further commands.

Archelaus, general of Mithridates’ army

The Carthaginian senate

The Carthaginian envoys

Interrupter

A genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“While he was still speaking”).

The envoys “were announcing” (ἀπήγγελλον) the command, and the senate “immediately” (εὐθύς) erupted.

Claim of Interruption A genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“While he was still speaking”).

Archelaus is indignant at Sulla’s words and vows never to betray his king.

There is an uproar in the senate, and the envoys are eventually seized and stoned.

Subsequent Action The surprised Carthaginians invoke the gods and curse the Romans; finally, they become silent.

274 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

The clerk, who is reading a law proposed by Gracchus

The son of the consul, Quintus Pompeius

Cato the Younger

Appian, Civil Wars, 1.56.247

Appian, Civil Wars, 2.11.40

Speaker

Appian, Civil Wars, 1.12.49

Passage

The content of his discourse is not given, but his speech clearly opposed Caesar (2.11.40). (Not reported)

The content of his discourse is not given, but his speech likely opposed the schemes of Sulpicius (1.56.247). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The clerk is reading a law that would limit the amount of land that Roman citizens could hold (1.12.49). (Not reported)

Caesar has assembled the people in the Forum to pass his agrarian legislation, but he is opposed by Cato.

Rhetorical Situation The Roman people have been assembled to vote on the agrarian legislation proposed by the tribune Gracchus; the other tribune, Octavius, opposes it. The two consuls have been summoned by Sulpicius the tribune; when threatened, the consuls escape, but Pompeius’ son remains. The partisans of Caesar

The partisans of Sulpicius

Marcus Octavius, a tribune

Interrupter

Cato “began to make a speech” (δημηγορεῖν ἤρχετο), before his speaking turn comes to an end.

The partisans kill the son “while he is speaking” (λέγοντα).

Claim of Interruption The tribune orders the clerk to stop reading, and the clerk grows silent (ἐσιώπα).

Cato is picked up and carried out of the Forum by Caesar’s partisans.

The partisans kill the young man, and Sulpicius enacts his own legislation.

Subsequent Action The clerk stops reading, and the tribunes argue with each other.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

275

Cato the Younger

Marcus Tullius Cicero

The accusers of Scaurus

Appian, Civil Wars, 2.15.57

Appian, Civil Wars, 2.24.91

Speaker

Appian, Civil Wars, 2.11.41

Passage

The content of the discourse is not given, but their identity as κατήγοροι implies that they were bringing charges against Scaurus (2.24.91). (Not reported)

Cicero, afraid of going on trial, appeals to the pity of passers-by (2.15.55, 57). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Cato rudely denounces Caesar to the crowd (2.11.41). (Not reported)

At Pompey’s command, Scaurus is on trial in the Forum; the people are there to support Scaurus, but Pompey’s soldiers are there to prevent them from succeeding.

Dressed in dirty clothes, Cicero has taken to the streets to plead for sympathy; Clodius is his accuser.

Rhetorical Situation Caesar has assembled the people in the Forum to pass his agrarian legislation, but he is still opposed by Cato.

The people

Clodius Pulcher, a tribune

Unidentified, but almost certainly the same partisans of Caesar

Interrupter

The people were harassing the accusers (τοὺς κατηγόρους ἐνοχλοῦντος), thus hindering them from speaking.

The narrator marks this interruption with the participle διακόπτοντος (“interrupting”).

Claim of Interruption Cato “was denouncing” (κατεβόα) Caesar; the imperfect tense implies that he continued “until” (μέχρι) he was interrupted.

The people effectively hinder the accusers until Pompey’s soldiers then intervene by killing some of the protesters.

After being interrupted by Clodius, Cicero is intimidated and flees Rome.

Subsequent Action Cato is again carried out of the Forum.

276 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Octavian, the adoptive son of Julius Caesar

Marcus Tullius Cicero

The centurions of Octavian

Appian, Civil Wars, 3.54.221

Appian, Civil Wars, 3.88.362

Speaker

Appian, Civil Wars, 3.14.48

Passage

The centurions asked that Octavian be made consul, in spite of his youth (3.88.361). (Indirect discourse)

Cicero gives a litany of complaints against Antony, urging the senate to declare him a public enemy (3.52.21353.220). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Octavian echoes the words of Achilles as he vows to avenge Caesar’s death (3.13.4447). (Indirect discourse)

The army of Octavian has sent these centurions to the senate to demand that Octavian be granted the consulship.

With the family members of Antony protesting before the senators, Cicero encourages the senate to condemn Antony swiftly.

Rhetorical Situation Octavian has returned to Rome, where he meets with his stepfather Philippus, his mother, and some friends.

Some of the senators

Cicero’s friends

Octavian’s mother

Interrupter

The narrator clearly marks the senators’ interruption with the present participle λεγόντων (“while speaking”).

A genitive absolute, including a present participle, makes clear the interruption: ταῦτ᾽ ἔτι τοῦ Κικέρωνος λέγοντος (“While Cicero was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The interruption is made quite clear: λέγειν ἔτι ἐπισχοῦσα (“she stopped him while he was still speaking”).

The senators rebuke the centurions, but the army will not give up so easily.

Cicero’s friends applaud him loudly, preventing anyone else from speaking.

Subsequent Action His mother supports his plans and advises her son to act with patience and subtlety.

Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

277

Hortensia

Rhascupolis, a Thracian prince

Antony, a triumvir

Appian, Civil Wars, 4.104.435

Appian, Civil Wars, 5.6.26

Speaker

Appian, Civil Wars, 4.34.145

Passage

Antony scolds the Ephesians for helping Brutus and Cassius, and he demands a substantial amount of money (5.4.17-5.24). (Direct discourse)

Rhascupolis is encouraging the republican troops (4.104.435). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Hortensia protests the taxes that are being imposed on the Roman women (4.32.13733.144). (Direct discourse)

Rhetorical Situation Lacking funds, the triumvirs have decided to tax Roman women; Hortensia comes as their spokeswoman to protest. Rhascupolis is guiding the soldiers to Philippi, but the expedition is taking longer than promised; the soldiers are tired and thirsty. Antony has assembled the Asian Greeks in Ephesus to censure their support of Brutus and Cassius and to demand compensation for his soldiers. The Greeks

The attendants of the triumvirs, at the triumvirs’ command The soldiers

Interrupter

A genitive absolute makes clear the interruption: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“While he was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption While Hortensia is speaking (τοιαῦτα τῆς Ὁρτησίας λεγούσης), the women are driven away from the platform. A present participle is used to show that Rhascupolis is exhorting them (παρακαλοῦντα) at the time of the interruption. The Greeks fall to the ground and beg Antony for mercy.

Subsequent Action The attendants drive the women away, but the people protest, and the triumvirs relent. The soldiers yell abuse at Rhascupolis and throw rocks at him.

278 Appendix 1: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Historiography

Appendix 2 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

An unnamed prophet

The mother of the seven brothers

The king’s bodyguards

2 Macc 7:30 (LXX)

4 Macc 9:17 (LXX)

Speaker

2 Chr 25:16 (LXX)

Passage

The bodyguards encourage the oldest brother to apostatize in order to escape torture (9:16). (Direct discourse)

The mother exhorts her youngest son to die nobly (7:27-29). (Direct discourse)

The prophet rebukes King Amaziah for worshipping the gods of Seir (25:15). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect)

King Antiochus encourages the seven brothers to apostatize, and he has the eldest tortured.

King Antiochus is trying to convince the youngest of the seven brothers to apostatize.

After defeating the people of Seir in battle, King Amaziah has worshipped their gods. A prophet is sent to rebuke him.

Rhetorical Situation

The oldest brother

The youngest son

King Amaziah

Interrupter The narrator indicates that King Amaziah’s reply takes place during the unnamed prophet’s speaking turn: ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι (“while he was speaking”). The present participle indicates ongoing speech, even if Ἔτι is emended: †Ἄρτι† δὲ ταύτης καταληγούσης (“Just as she was finishing”). The genitive absolute with a present participle marks the interruption: τῶν δορυφόρων λεγόντων (“while the bodyguards were speaking”).

Claim of Interruption

The oldest brother invites further torture, claiming that his reason will overcome any torments.

The son interrupts his mother to address the king, rebuffing the ruler’s entreaties.

Amaziah silences the prophet and threatens him with a whipping.

Subsequent Action

280 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Speaker

The oldest brother

The fifth brother

Jeremiah, a prophet

Passage

4 Macc 9:19 (LXX)

4 Macc 11:9 (LXX)

Jer 20:1-2 (LXX)

Jeremiah prophesies doom upon Jerusalem (19:15). (Direct discourse)

This brother both volunteers for torture and questions the motives of the king (11:2-6). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The oldest brother invites further torture, claiming that his reason will overcome (9:17-18). (Direct discourse)

Jeremiah is addressing the people in the court of the Temple; he delivers a divine oracle.

Four brothers have been tortured and killed, as King Antiochus continues to try to persuade the remaining brothers to apostatize.

Rhetorical Situation Already having been tortured, the oldest brother engages in dialogue with his tormentors, as his brothers look on.

Pashhur, a priest

The king’s bodyguards

The king’s bodyguards

Interrupter

The present participle marks the interruption: προφητεύοντος (“who was prophesying”).

The present participle marks the interruption: τοιαῦτα λέγοντα (“the one saying such things”).

Claim of Interruption The genitive absolute, including a present participle, marks the interruption: ταῦτα λέγοντι (“to the one saying these things”).

Pashhur strikes Jeremiah and then confines the prophet.

The fifth brother is bound and tied to the catapult for torture.

Subsequent Action The bodyguards interrupt the eldest with fire and more torture.

Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

281

King Nebuchadnezzar

A seer and unidentified “others”

Plato

PseudoHecataeus (in Josephus, Against Apion 1.204)

Justus of Tiberias (in Diogenes Laertius 2.41)

Speaker

Dan 4:28 (Theodotion)

Passage

Plato announces that he is the youngest to ascend the platform (2.41). (Direct discourse)

The seer curses Mosollamus for killing the bird (C. Ap. 1.204). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Nebuchadnezzar boasts about his accomplishments (4:27). (Direct discourse)

The pagan seer had been waiting for a bird to signal the will of the gods, holding up the entire army; growing impatient at the delay, Mosollamus shot and killed the bird, thus enraging the seer. At the trial of Socrates, Plato ascended the platform to defend his mentor and friend.

Rhetorical Situation King Nebuchadnezzar is walking in Babylon, reveling in his own glory; he is unaware of his divine audience.

The judges

Mosollamus, a Jew

A voice from heaven

Interrupter

Plato is interrupted mid-sentence; his discourse consists only of an address and a participial clause.

Claim of Interruption The narrator indicates that the king’s speaking turn is still ongoing at the time of interruption: ἔτι τοῦ λόγου ἐν στόματι (“while the word was still in [his] mouth”). The present participle marks the interruption: καταρωμένων (“while [they] were cursing [him]”).

The judges shout at Plato to come down from the platform.

Mosollamus ridicules the seer’s reliance on a bird that could not even defend itself.

Subsequent Action The voice prophesies that the king will lose his sanity and his kingdom for seven years.

282 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Speaker

King Herod

Antipater, son of King Herod

Roman soldiers

Passage

Josephus, Jewish War, 1.442

Josephus, Jewish War, 1.622

Josephus, Jewish War, 2.453

The Romans appeal to the pledges and oaths sworn by the murderous rebels (2.453). (Direct discourse)

Claiming that he is innocent, Antipater asks Herod to withhold judgment (1.621). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Herod confirms his love for Mariamme with a series of oaths (1.442). (Indirect discourse)

When the Roman garrison decides to surrender, they obtain pledges for safe passage from the Jewish rebels; as soon as the Romans disarm, the Jews violate their oaths.

Herod is accusing his son Antipater before Varus, the Roman governor of Syria; Antipater seeks to defend himself from the charges.

Rhetorical Situation Herod had left secret orders to kill Mariamme if he died while abroad; upon his return, he reaffirms his love for her.

Jewish rebels led by Eleazar

King Herod

Mariamme

Interrupter

The present participle ἀναβοῶντας (“shouting”) shows that the soldiers were speaking as they were being killed.

Herod’s loud command to be silent (σιγᾶν ἐγκραγών) suggests that Antipater was still speaking.

Claim of Interruption The use of the present participle ἐπομνύμενον (“swearing”) shows that Herod was still speaking when his wife interrupted.

The rebels slaughter all of the Romans, except for the Roman commander, Metilius.

After silencing his son, Herod denounces him to Varus as a scheming parricide.

Subsequent Action Mariamme, having learned of Herod’s secret orders, rebukes the king.

Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

283

Josephus

Eleazar

Joseph’s servant

Josephus, Jewish War, 7.389

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 2.130

Speaker

Josephus, Jewish War, 5.541

Passage

Joseph’s servant reprimands the brothers for thinking that they could outwit God by running away with Joseph’s silver cup (2.128-129). (Indirect, then direct discourse)

Eleazar makes a series of arguments in favor of choosing a noble death (7.341-388). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Josephus is trying to win over the Jewish rebels, exhorting them to surrender (5.541). (Not reported)

Joseph has framed his brothers by having his silver cup hidden in Benjamin’s baggage; he then sends his servants, who catch up with and confront his brothers.

With the Roman attack imminent, Eleazar addresses his men to deliberate over their course of action.

Rhetorical Situation Josephus is walking around the walls of Jerusalem, calling on the rebels to surrender to the Roman forces.

Joseph’s brothers

The Jewish rebels under his command (primarily Sicarii)

Unknown (apparently one of the rebels)

Interrupter

The servant is “speaking” (λέγων) in 2.129, and the brothers mock at the “things being said” (λεγομένοις) in 2.130; clearly, the speaking turn was ongoing.

The interruption is explicit: πάντες ὑπετέμνοντο (“they all interrupted [Eleazar]”).

Claim of Interruption The use of the present participle παρακαλῶν (“exhorting”) shows that Josephus was still speaking.

The brothers mock the servant, who persists and eventually finds the cup in Benjamin’s baggage.

The Jewish defenders of Masada choose a noble death, killing both themselves and their families.

Subsequent Action Josephus is struck by a rock; dazed, he falls to the ground.

284 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Speaker

The crowd

An old man, whose guest was a Levite

The people of Judah

Passage

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 3.297

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 5.144

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 5.297

The people of Judah complain about the Philistine incursions into their lands, claiming innocence (5.297). (Indirect discourse)

The old man explains why the Levite is staying with him and condemns the men’s behavior (5.144). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The crowd complains to Moses about their sufferings and monotonous diet (3.295-296). (Indirect discourse)

After killing many Philistines, Sampson takes up residence in Judah; the Philistines respond by attacking the people of Judah.

A Levite and his wife are staying with an old man in the city of Gibeah; the men of the city come to demand the Levite’s wife.

Rhetorical Situation Tired of eating manna, the people begin to rebel, complaining against Moses for their current frustration.

The Philistines

The men of Gibeah

An unnamed supporter of Moses

Interrupter

The present participle marks the interruption: λεγόντων (“while [the people of Judah] were speaking”).

The present participle marks the interruption: λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The present participle marks the interruption: λεγόντων (“while [the crowd] was speaking”).

The Philistines deliver an ultimatum: hand over Sampson, or continue to be attacked.

The men mock the old man and ridicule his righteous advice; they also threaten to kill him.

Subsequent Action An unnamed person defends Moses, calling on the people to remember all that Moses has done.

Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

285

King Saul

A female ventriloquist (=the biblical witch of Endor)

King Asa

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 6.331

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 8.294

Speaker

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 6.104

Passage

King Asa prays to God for victory over the Ethiopians (8.293). (Indirect discourse)

The ventriloquist refuses to comply with Saul’s demands, explaining that the king has forbidden such activity (6.331). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Claiming that he waited as long as he was supposed to, Saul gives a litany of excuses for his disobedience (6.103). (Indirect discourse)

As Asa draws up his army against the Ethiopians, he prays to God for help.

In need of guidance, a disguised King Saul has come to ask a female ventriloquist to summon the spirits of the dead; at first, she refuses.

Rhetorical Situation Growing impatient, Saul had offered sacrifices without waiting for the prophet Samuel to arrive; Samuel arrives shortly and confronts the king.

God

King Saul

Samuel the prophet

Interrupter

The present participle marks the interruption: λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

A pair of present participles (ἀπομαχομένης καὶ λεγούσης) mark the woman’s ongoing speaking turn.

Claim of Interruption Two present participles mark Saul’s ongoing speaking turn; Samuel then “interrupted” (ὑπολαβών).

God signals victory for Asa, who then leads his forces in a rout of the Ethiopians.

Still concealing his identity, Saul swears that he will not tell anyone about the woman’s actions.

Subsequent Action The prophet condemns Saul’s behavior and prophesies that Saul’s offspring will not rule.

286 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

The high priest Azariah, with eighty other priests

Unidentified prophets

A royal scribe

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 9.265

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 11.250

Speaker

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 9.224

Passage

The scribe is reading the royal records to the king; he has just mentioned how Mordecai foiled a plot against the king’s life (11.249-250). (Indirect discourse)

The prophets exhort the Israelites to show reverence for God and foretell what will happen if they do not (9.265). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The priests forbid Uzziah from offering sacrifice and call on him to refrain from sinning against God (9.224). (Indirect discourse)

King Artaxerxes cannot sleep, and so he has asked a scribe to read to him from the royal records.

The Israelites have scorned Hezekiah’s envoys and refused their invitation to come and celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread; they now treat the prophets similarly.

Rhetorical Situation King Uzziah has put on priestly robes and is trying to offer sacrifice to God, but the priests are trying to stop him.

King Artaxerxes

The Israelites

King Uzziah

Interrupter

The king ἐπέσχεν (“stopped”) the scribe’s reading.

A pair of present participles (παραινοῦντας καὶ προλέγοντας) mark the prophets’ ongoing speaking turns.

Claim of Interruption The present participle marks the interruption: καταβοώντων (“as they were shouting”).

The king inquires whether Mordecai received a reward for his actions.

Subsequent Action Uzziah threatens to kill the priests; he is stopped by an earthquake, as well as a sudden case of leprosy. The Israelites scoff at, seize, and slay the prophets.

Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

287

Speaker

The soldiers of Judas Maccabeus

Phasael, the brother of Herod

A faithful eunuch belonging to Mariamme, Herod’s wife

Passage

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 12.424

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 14.347

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 15.228

The eunuch admits that Mariamme has hated Herod ever since Soemus had told her about the king’s orders to put her to death (15.227). (Indirect discourse)

Phasael confronts Barzaphranes, rebuking him for forming plots and for conspiring to kill envoys (14.346). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The soldiers consider themselves too weak for the contest, and they advise Judas to retreat (12.424). (Indirect discourse)

Rhetorical Situation Before going to battle against the Syrians, Judas exhorts his outnumbered troops; they are hesitant to match themselves against such a large force. While on an embassy to Barzaphranes, Phasael has learned that the Parthian is plotting against him, Herod, and the high priest; Phasael thus confronts him. Newly suspicious of Mariamme, King Herod is torturing his wife’s most faithful eunuch in order to gain more information about an alleged plot. King Herod

Barzaphranes the Parthian

Judas Maccabeus

Interrupter

Josephus clearly marks that Herod interrupted while the eunuch “was still speaking” (ἔτι λέγοντος).

The present participle marks the interruption: λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Claim of Interruption Two present participles (λεγόντων and συμβουλευόντων) mark the soldiers’ ongoing discourse.

Herod denounces Soemus and has the man executed.

Barzaphranes swears that Phasael’s suspicions are misplaced, but the narrative then shows he is lying.

Subsequent Action Judas rebukes his troops for their cowardice and vows to fight valiantly; he later dies in battle.

288 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Speaker

A large number of Jews

Another large group of Jews

Philo of Alexandria

Passage

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.58

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.61

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 18.260

Philo is prepared to make his defense against the accusations of Apion (18.259). (Not reported)

The Jews are reviling Pilate, calling on him to call off the construction of the aqueduct (18.60). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) The Jews are begging Pilate to remove the Roman standards from Jerusalem (18.57-58). (Not reported)

Rhetorical Situation A large number of Jews have come before Pilate in the stadium of Caesarea to entreat him to remove the standards from Jerusalem. The Jews of Jerusalem have banded together to oppose the use of sacred funds for the construction of an aqueduct to Jerusalem; Pilate arms his troops to stop the protest. A Jewish embassy and a Greek embassy have come from Alexandria to present their cases before Gaius Caligula for arbitration. Emperor Gaius Caligula

Pilate’s soldiers, at Pilate’s command

Pilate, with the help of his soldiers

Interrupter

The interruption is explicit: Gaius “interrupts” (διακλείει).

The Jews had launched into their invective (ὡρμηκότων εἰς τὸ λοιδορεῖν) when Pilate gave the signal to attack.

Claim of Interruption The present participle marks the interruption: ἱκετείᾳ χρωμένων (“while they were entreating”).

The emperor silences Philo and tells him to leave, threatening him with unspecified future harm.

Pilate’s soldiers attacked the Jewish protesters with clubs, killing some and wounding others.

Subsequent Action Pilate silences the Jews and threatens them with death; however, they continue to resist.

Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

289

Josephus

Josephus

Josephus

Josephus, Life, 244

Josephus, Life, 259

Speaker

Josephus, Life, 94

Passage

Josephus denounces the Jerusalem embassy and calls upon his gathered supporters to testify to his innocence (254-258). (Indirect, then direct discourse)

Josephus begins to address a large crowd of supporters (244). (Not reported)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Josephus encourages the Tiberians not to revolt, warning them of the negative repercussions of such acts (92-93). (Indirect discourse)

With a crowd of Galilean supporters in attendance, Josephus addresses Jonathan and the rest of the Jerusalem embassy.

Josephus has come before a large crowd of his supporters near the Galilean village of Gabaroth.

Rhetorical Situation Josephus is standing in the stadium of Tiberias, exhorting the people not to go over to John of Gischala; in the meantime, John is plotting to kill Josephus.

The crowd

The crowd

One of Josephus’ soldiers

Interrupter

Josephus clearly marks this interruption: ἔτι λέγοντος (“while [I] was still speaking”).

Josephus had only begun to speak (λέγειν ἠρξάμην) when the crowd started shouting.

Claim of Interruption Josephus explains that he was not finished with his speaking turn (Οὔπω δέ μοι πάντα λελάλητο).

The crowd again calls Josephus their benefactor and savior.

The crowd calls Josephus their benefactor and savior.

Subsequent Action The soldier tells Josephus to forget about the Tiberians and to look out for his own safety.

290 Appendix 2: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Jewish Historiography

Appendix 3 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

Speaker

Cyaxares, King of the Medes and uncle of Cyrus

Cyrus the Persian

A man from Acragas

Passage

Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 5.5.35

Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 6.1.37

Chariton, Callirhoe, 1.2.6

The Acragantine opposes the slaying of Chaereas, proposing instead to sabotage the marriage by making Chaereas jealous of his bride (1.2.4-6). (Direct discourse)

Cyrus tells Araspas not to be ashamed and apologizes for leaving his friend with Panthea (6.1.36). (Direct discourse)

Cyaxares accuses Cyrus of robbing him of his honor and complains that his nephew is humiliating him (5.5.25-34). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect)

Araspas is overcome with lust for Panthea; after sending Artabazus to admonish him, Cyrus summons his lovesick friend to speak in private. After Chaereas marries Callirhoe, her royal suitors meet to deliberate upon a course of action.

Cyaxares has come to meet with his victorious nephew Cyrus; the Median king is embarrassed by his nephew’s overwhelming success.

Rhetorical Situation

The rest of the suitors

Araspas, a friend of Cyrus

Cyrus the Persian

Interrupter

The narrator makes clear that the man’s speaking turn was still ongoing: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“while he was still speaking”).

The narrator uses the participle ὑπολαβών, which may be translated as “replied” or as “interrupted.”

The narrator makes the interruption very explicit: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ ὑπολαβών (“while he was still speaking, [Cyrus] interrupted”).

Claim of Interruption

The other suitors acclaim the plan of the unnamed man from Acragas, appointing him their leader.

Cyrus asks his uncle to let bygones be bygones and to allow Cyrus to show his loyalty; Cyaxares relents. Araspas praises Cyrus for his gentleness and willingness to forgive.

Subsequent Action

292 Appendix 3: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

Chaereas

One of Theron’s men

Dionysius, the owner of a large estate in Miletus

Chaereas, who appears in Callirhoe’s dream

Chariton, Callirhoe, 1.10.4

Chariton, Callirhoe, 2.1.3

Chariton, Callirhoe, 2.9.6

Speaker

Chariton, Callirhoe, 1.5.6

Passage

Chaereas tells Callirhoe that he entrusts their child to her (2.9.6). (Direct discourse)

Dionysius relates a dream that he has had about seeing his wife (2.1.2). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Chaereas accuses himself of Callirhoe’s death and insists on being executed (1.5.45). (Direct discourse) This first speaker proposes restoring Callirhoe to her father (1.10.2-3). (Direct discourse)

Rhetorical Situation At the suitors’ insistence, Chaereas is charged with killing Callirhoe; he gives an unusual defense speech. When Theron and his accomplices discover Callirhoe still alive in her tomb, they deliberate on how to proceed. Dionysius, whose wife has recently died, is speaking with his steward Leonas, who recently purchased Callirhoe. Chaereas appears to Callirhoe in a dream and speaks to her. Callirhoe

Leonas, the steward of Dionysius

Another of Theron’s men

The people

Interrupter

The narrator makes the interruption very clear: ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ διηγουμένου (“while he was still describing [his dream]”). The narrator makes the interruption clear: ἔτι δὲ βουλομένου λέγειν (“while he was still wanting to speak”).

The narrator makes the interruption very clear: Ἔτι δὲ αὐτοῦ λέγοντος (“While he was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The present participle marks the interruption: λέγοντος (“while [he] was speaking”).

Callirhoe tries to embrace Chaereas; failing, she decides to bring up her child.

Leonas tells Dionysius that he has recently purchased a beautiful girl.

Subsequent Action The people start to grieve, and Hermocrates pardons Chaereas. The second speaker rejects the first man’s council and suggests killing Callirhoe.

Appendix 3: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

293

Callirhoe

Hermocrates

Polycharmus, the friend of Chaereas

Chariton, Callirhoe, 3.4.17

Chariton, Callirhoe, 4.3.4

Speaker

Chariton, Callirhoe, 2.11.6

Passage

Polycharmus recounts his story to Mithridates, explaining why he called out “Callirhoe” when he was about to be crucified (4.3.1-4). (Direct discourse)

Hermocrates calls for the execution of Theron and asks the people of Syracuse to find his daughter (3.4.16). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Callirhoe agrees to marry Dionysius, but she claims to be concerned that her master will treat her as a concubine, rather than as a wife (2.11.5). (Direct discourse) Chaereas has asked the assembled Syracusans to preserve Theron, so that the convict can serve as a guide; Hermocrates, however, takes a different view. Polycharmus is now a slave on an estate that belongs to Mithridates, the satrap of Caria; he is being interrogated by Mithridates about his connection with Callirhoe.

Rhetorical Situation After giving Callirhoe time to consider her options, Plangon has come to ask whether she will marry Dionysius or kill the child.

Mithridates, the satrap of Caria

The assembled Syracusans

Plangon

Interrupter

The narrator makes clear that the speaking turn was still ongoing: ἔτι λέγοντος αὐτοῦ (“while he was still speaking”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes the interruption abundantly clear: ἔτι λέγούσης ἡ Πλαγγὼν ὐπέλαβεν (“while [Callirhoe] was still speaking, Plangon interrupted”). The narrator makes clear that the speaking turn was still ongoing: ἔτι λέγοντος (“while he was still speaking”).

Mithridates interrupts Polycharmus and asks him about his friend Chaereas.

The people acclaim the words of Hermocrates and prepare to sail away, in search of Callirhoe.

Subsequent Action Plangon assures Callirhoe that they can make Dionysius swear an oath to marry her legally.

294 Appendix 3: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

Artaxerxes, king of Persia

Polycharmus

Chaereas

Chariton, Callirhoe, 7.1.11

Chariton, Callirhoe, 7.3.11

Speaker

Chariton, Callirhoe, 6.4.7

Passage

Polycharmus encourages Chaereas to gain vengeance by joining the Egyptians, who are fighting against Persia (7.1.1011). (Direct discourse) Chaereas accepts the generalship and promises his men that they will be famous (7.3.11). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) [There is a lengthy lacuna in the text.] (Not reported)

The Persians have gone to fight against the Egyptians; Polycharmus and Chaereas are still in Babylon, trying to decide what to do. Chaereas has picked three hundred Greek soldiers, who have chosen him to be general; he harangues them before attacking Tyre.

Rhetorical Situation Artaxerxes is obsessed with Callirhoe, and he is sick with love; his faithful eunuch Artaxates is offering him counsel.

The three hundred soldiers

Chaereas

Artaxates, the king’s eunuch

Interrupter

Claim of Interruption The narrator makes the interruption very explicit: ταῦτα λέγοντος Ἀρταξάτης ὑπολαβών (“while he was still saying these things, Artaxates interrupted”). The narrator borrows from Homer to make clear the interruption: ‘οὔπω πᾶν εἴρητο ἔπος’ (“not yet was the word fully spoken”). The narrator makes clear that the speaking turn was still ongoing: ἔτι λέγοντος (“while he was still speaking”). The soldiers call upon Chaereas to lead them, and they then rush off to arm themselves.

Subsequent Action Artaxates reminds the king that Callirhoe’s fate has not yet been determined and encourages him to pursue her. Chaereas eagerly accepts his friend’s proposal, and the two men head for Egypt.

Appendix 3: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Greek Novels

295

Appendix 4 Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus of Nazareth

Unidentified, but possibly some of Jesus’ disciples

Luke 11:27

Luke 21:5

Speaker

Luke 4:28

Passage

The unnamed persons express their admiration for the Temple and votive offerings (21:5). (Indirect discourse)

Jesus has been refuting the charge that he casts out demons by Beelzebul, and he has just told a parable of a person being repossessed by a spirit (11:17-26). (Direct discourse)

Jesus likens himself to a prophet and goes on to point out how two other prophets were sent to non-Israelites (4:23-27). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Jesus has read from the Book of Isaiah and now is sitting in the Nazareth synagogue to preach; the people have expressed amazement at his words. Jesus had been casting out demons, when some people began to question the source of his power, and others were demanding a sign from heaven; Jesus thus speaks in his defense. Jesus is teaching in the Temple; he has just commented upon the giving practices of Templegoers.

Rhetorical Situation

Jesus

An unnamed woman

All the people in the Nazareth synagogue

Interrupter

Use of the present participle marks the interruption: τινων λεγόντων (“while some were speaking”).

The narrator indicates that Jesus’ speaking turn was ongoing at the time of interruption: ἐν τῷ λέγειν αὐτὸν ταῦτα (“while he was saying these things”).

The narrator shows that the people responded to Jesus’ words ἀκούοντες ταῦτα (“while hearing these things”).

Claim of Interruption

Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple.

The woman utters a blessing on the womb that bore Jesus and on the breasts that nourished him.

The people drive Jesus out of the town and try to throw him off of a cliff; he eludes them.

Subsequent Action

Appendix 4: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts

297

Peter and John

Stephen

Stephen

Paul and Barnabas

Acts 7:54

Acts 7:57

Acts 13:48

Speaker

Acts 4:1

Passage

Paul and Barnabas announce that, because the Jews have rejected the word of God, they will now turn to the Gentiles (13:46-47). (Direct discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Peter explains the healing of the lame man and calls on the people to repent from their wickedness (3:12-26). (Direct discourse) Stephen recounts the history of Israel, addresses the charges against him, and accuses the Jews of not keeping the law (7:253). (Direct discourse) Stephen describes a vision of the exalted Son of Man (7:56). (Direct discourse) Accused of opposing the Jewish law and the Temple, Stephen is arrested and brought before the Jewish council to defend himself. Stephen has just given his defense speech; he now sees a vision of Jesus, and he continues to speak before them. Invited a second time to speak at the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, Paul and Barnabas encounter a mixed audience reaction.

Rhetorical Situation After healing a lame man, Peter (and John) speaks to the crowd gathered at Solomon’s Portico.

The Gentiles (possibly converts to Judaism)

The members of the Jewish council

The members of the Jewish council

Priests, the captain of the Temple, and the Sadducees

Interrupter

It is clear that Stephen is still speaking; his hearers “covered their ears” (συνέσχον τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν). Use of the present participle marks the interruption: Ἀκούοντα (“As they were hearing”).

Claim of Interruption Use of the present participle marks the interruption: Λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν (“but while they were speaking”). Use of the present participle marks the interruption: Ἀκούοντες δὲ ταῦτα (“As they heard these things”).

The council members seize Stephen, drag him out of the city, and stone him. The Gentiles rejoice and praise the word of the Lord.

The council members are enraged and grind their teeth; Stephen then begins to speak again.

Subsequent Action The Jewish leaders arrest Peter and John and bring them into custody.

298 Appendix 4: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts

Paul

Paul

Paul

Acts 24:25

Acts 26:24

Speaker

Acts 22:22

Passage

Paul defends himself by explaining his Jewish ancestry and upbringing, his persecution of those who followed Jesus, his conversion, and his call to preach Christ to Jews and Gentiles (26:2-23). (Direct discourse)

Paul talks about justice, self-control, and the coming judgment (24:25). (Indirect discourse)

Content of Discourse (Direct or Indirect) Paul gives his defense to the Jewish people, telling about his visions of Jesus on the road to Damascus and in Jerusalem and about his mission to the Gentiles (22:1-21). (Direct discourse)

Rhetorical Situation Paul, suspected of bringing a Greek into the Temple, has triggered a riot in Jerusalem; with the tribune’s permission, he defends himself before the people of Jerusalem. Felix has summoned Paul, desiring to hear the apostle speak to him about faith in Christ Jesus; Paul complies. King Agrippa and Bernice have come to Caesarea; Festus summons Paul to defend himself before Agrippa. Porcius Festus, a Roman governor

Felix, a Roman governor

The people of Jerusalem

Interrupter

Use of the present participle marks the interruption: ἀπολογουμένου (“while he was defending himself”).

Use of the present participle marks the interruption: διαλεγομένου (“while he was discussing”).

Claim of Interruption The narrator indicates that the people “were listening to him until this word” (Ἤκουον δὲ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι τούτου τοῦ λόγου), but they then begin to raise an uproar.

Festus shouts that Paul has lost his mind, and a short dialogue ensues.

A frightened Felix tells Paul to go away and await a future summons.

Subsequent Action The people shout and throw dust into the air, expressing their desire to do away with Paul.

Appendix 4: Intentionally Interrupted Speech in Luke-Acts

299

Bibliography Primary Sources Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Eberhard Nestle, and Erwin Nestle, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1999. Aratus. Phaenomena. Edited by Douglas Kidd. Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 68. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, ed. Polybii Historiae. 5 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 18881905. Chariton Aphrodisiensis. De Callirhoe narrationes amatoriae. Edited by B. P. Reardon. Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2004. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997-1998. Erbse, Hartmut, ed. Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (scholia vetera). 7 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969-1988. Gemoll, W., and J. Peters, eds. Xenophontis Institutio Cyri. Leipzig: Teubner, 1968. Henderson, Jeffrey, George P. Goold, T. E. Page, Edward Capps, L. A. Post, W. H. D. Rouse, and E. H. Warmington, eds. Loeb Classical Library. 515 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1911-. Holladay, Carl R. Historians. Vol. 1 of Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. Hude, C., ed. Thucydidis Historiae. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1898-1901. -----. Xenophontis Expeditio Cyri. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1969. -----. Xenophontis Historia Graeca. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1969.

Secondary Sources

301

Jacoby, C., ed. Dionysi Halicarnasensis Antiquitatum Romanarum Quae Supersunt. 4 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1885-1905. Mendelssohn, L., and P. Viereck, eds. Appiani Historia Romana II. Leipzig: Teubner, 1905. Niese, Benedictus, ed. Flavii Josephi Opera. 7 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1955. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rahlfs, Alfred, Werner Kappler, Joseph Ziegler, Robert Hanhart, John William Wevers, Olivier Munnich, Detlef Fraenkel, and Udo Quast, eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientarum Gottigensis editum. 24 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931-. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg, and Milton C. Moreland, eds. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Roos, A. G., and G. Wirth, eds. Flavii Arriani Quae Exstant Omnia. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1967-1968. Rosén, Haiim B., ed. Herodoti Historiae. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1987-1997. Thiel, Helmut van, ed. Homeri Odyssea. Bibliotheca Weidmanniana. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1991. Van der Valk, Marchinus, ed. Eustathii archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1971-1987. Viereck, P., A. G. Roos, and E. Gabba, eds. Appiani Historia Romana I. Leipzig: Teubner, 1962. Vogel, F., and C. T. Fischer, eds. Diodori Bibliotheca Historica. 6 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1888-1906. West, Martin L., ed. Homeri Ilias. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1998-2000.

Secondary Sources Alexander, Loveday. The Preface to Luke’s Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

302

Bibliography

Ascough, Richard S. “Narrative Technique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and Chariton.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 6981. Attridge, Harold W. The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judicae of Flavius Josephus. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 7. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard Trask. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1957. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity 8. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. -----. Review of Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. The Journal of Religion 69 (1989): 399-400. Bacon, Benjamin. An Introduction to the New Testament. New Testament Handbooks. New York: Macmillan, 1900. Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. International Critical Commentary. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 19941998. Bauernfeind, Otto. Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. Edited by Volker Metelmann. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1980. Beck, Deborah. Homeric Conversation. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2005. Bers, Victor. “Dikastic Thorubos.” History of Political Thought 6 (1985): 1-15. Bilmes, Jack. “Being Interrupted.” Language in Society 26 (1997): 507-31. Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-2007. -----. Luke. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 3A-3B. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-1996. Bosworth, A. B. “Arrian’s Literary Development.” Classical Quarterly 22 (1972): 163-85. -----. From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. -----. A Historical Commentary on Arrian’s ‘History of Alexander’. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980-1995. Bovon, François. Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by Christine M. Thomas. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Bowie, A. M. Herodotus: Histories VIII. Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John (i-xii): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966. Bruce, F. F. The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles. London: Tyndale, 1942.

Secondary Sources

303

Cadbury, Henry J. The Making of Luke-Acts. London: SPCK, 1958. -----. “The Speeches in Acts.” Pages 402-27 in Additional Notes to the Commentary. Edited by Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury. Vol. 5 of The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I: The Acts of the Apostles. Edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake. London: Macmillan, 1933. Coates, Jennifer. “Gossip Revisited: Language in All-Female Groups.” Pages 226-53 in Language and Gender: A Reader. Edited by Jennifer Coates. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 11. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Conzelmann, Hans. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews. Translated by James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Translation of Die Apostelgeschichte. 2d ed. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1972. Creed, John Martin. The Gospel according to St. Luke: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: Macmillan, 1930. Crockett, Larrimore C. “Luke 4:25-27 and Jewish-Gentile Relations in LukeActs,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 177-83. Culy, Martin M., and Mikeal C. Parsons. Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2003. Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988-1997. De Long, Kindalee Pfremmer. Surprised by God: Praise Responses in the Narrative of Luke-Acts. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 166. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. deSilva, David A. 4 Maccabees: Introduction and Commentary on the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Dibelius, Martin. “Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung.” Pages 5-59 in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 35. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1949-1951. -----. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Mary Ling. London: SCM, 1956. Translation of Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1951.

304

Bibliography

Dickey, Eleanor. Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: Three Lectures with an Appendix on Eschatology and History. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1936. Dominik, William J. Speech and Rhetoric in Statius’ Thebaid. Hildesheim: OlmsWeidmann, 1994. Dunn, James D. G. The Acts of the Apostles. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1996. Dupont, Jacques. The Salvation of the Gentiles: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles. Translated by John R. Keating. New York: Paulist, 1979. Dupont, Jacques. The Sources of Acts: The Present Position. Translated by Kathleen Pond. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964. Eckey, Wilfried. Die Apostelgeschichte: Der Weg des Evangeliums von Jerusalem nach Rom. 2 vols. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. Ennulat, Andreas. Die „Minor Agreements“: Untersuchungen zu einer offenen Frage des synoptischen Problems. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.62. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1994. Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1964. Farrer, Austin M. “On Dispensing with Q.” Pages 55-88 in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955. Fenik, Bernard. Studies in the Odyssey. Hermes Einzelschriften 30. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1974. Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 31. New York: Doubleday, 1998. -----. The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Anchor Bible 28-28A. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981-1985. Gabba, Emilio. Dionysius and The History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Gärtner, Bertil. The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation. Translated by Carolyn Hannay King. Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis 21. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1955. Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989.

Secondary Sources

305

-----. “The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered.” Pages 232-50 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. Gauthier, Philippe. Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs (IVe-Ier siècle avant J.-C.): Contribution à l’histoire des institutions. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 12. Paris: École française d’Athènes, 1985. Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. The Acts of the Apostles. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Gera, Deborah Levine. Xenophon’s Cyropaedia: Style, Genre, and Literary Technique. Oxford Classical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Glombitza, Otto. “Der Schluß der Petrusrede Acta 2:36-40, ein Beitrag zum Problem der Predigten in Acta.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 52 (1961): 115-118. Godet, F. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin. 5th ed. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1875. Goldstein, Jonathan A. I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976. -----. II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 41A. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983. Goodacre, Mark. The Case against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2002. Goulder, Michael D. Luke: A New Paradigm. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 20. 2 vols. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Gowing, Alain M. The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992. Gray, Rebecca. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Gray, Vivienne J., ed. Xenophon. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Translation of Die Apostelgeschichte. 14th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1965. Hägg, Tomas. “Callirhoe and Parthenope: The Beginnings of the Historical Novel.” Classical Antiquity 6 (1987): 184-204. -----. Narrative Technique in Ancient Greek Romances: Studies of Chariton, Xenophon Ephesius, and Achilles Tatius. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1971. Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

306

Bibliography

Hata, Gohei. “Is the Greek Version of Josephus’ Jewish War a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?” Jewish Quarterly Review 66 (1975): 89-108. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Conrad H. Gempf. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. Hogan, Derek. “Paul’s Defense: A Comparison of the Forensic Speeches in Acts, Callirhoe, and Leucippe and Clitophon.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 29 (2002): 73-87. Hohti, Paavo. The Interrelation of Speech and Action in the Histories of Herodotus. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 57. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1976. Hornblower, Simon. A Commentary on Thucydides. 3 vols. Vols. 1-2, Oxford: Clarendon, 1991-1996. Vol. 3, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. -----, ed. Greek Historiography. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Horsley, G. H. R. “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 609-14. How, W. W., and J. Wells. A Commentary on Herodotus with Introduction and Appendixes. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1928. Hunkin, J. W. “‘Pleonastic’ ἄρχομαι in the New Testament.” Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1924): 390-402. Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993. Jervell, Jacob. Die Apostelgeschichte. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. Sacra Pagina 5. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992. -----. The Gospel of Luke. Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991. -----. “The New Testament’s Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 419-41. Jong, Irene J. F de. A Narratological Commentary on the Odyssey. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Kallen, Horace M. The Book of Job as a Greek Tragedy. New York: Hill and Wang, 1959. Kawashima, Robert S. Biblical Narrative and the Death of the Rhapsode. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2004. Keck, Leander E., and J. Louis Martyn, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. Kennedy, George A. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Secondary Sources

307

Kilgallen, John J. “Did Peter Actually Fail to Get a Word in? (Acts 11,15).” Biblica 71 (1990): 405-10. Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Kirk, G. S., Bryan Hainsworth, Richard Janko, Mark Edwards, and Nicholas Richardson. The Iliad: A Commentary. Edited by G. S. Kirk. 6 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985-1993. Klein, Hans. Das Lukasevangelium. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Knoppers, Gary N. I Chronicles 1-9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 12. New York: Doubleday, 2003. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Lohmann, Dieter. Die Komposition der Reden in der Ilias. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 6. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21-28. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Ma, John. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. MacDonald, Dennis. Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 126. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1-8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000. -----. Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible 27A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. Marincola, John. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. -----, ed. A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Mason, Steve, ed. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. 6 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2000-. McKay, K. L. “Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek.” Novum Testamentum 34 (1992): 209-28.

308

Bibliography

McKenzie, Steven. 1-2 Chronicles. Abingdon Old Testament Commentary. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. McLaughlin, Margaret L. Conversation: How Talk is Organized. Sage Series in Interpersonal Communication 3. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1984. Minchin, Elizabeth. Homeric Voices: Discourse, Memory, Gender. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Moerman, Michael. Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. Moessner, David P., ed. Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy. Vol. 1 of Luke the Interpreter of Israel. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999. -----. Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1989. Momigliano, Arnaldo. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Morgan, J. R., and Richard Stoneman, eds. Greek Fiction: The Greek Novel in Context. London: Routledge, 1994. Murray, Stephen O. “Toward a Model of Members’ Methods for Recognizing Interruptions.” Language in Society 14 (1985): 31-40. Myers, Jacob M. I and II Esdras: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Anchor Bible 42. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. Neirynck, F. “Minor Agreements Matthew - Luke in the Transfiguration Story.” Pages 253-66 in Orientierung an Jesus: Zur Theologie der Synoptiker, Für Josef Schmid. Edited by Paul Hoffmann, Norbert Brox, and Wilhelm Pesch. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. Neyrey, Jerome. “The Forensic Defense Speech and Paul’s Trial Speeches in Acts 22-26: Form and Function.” Pages 210-24 in Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2d ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Nolland, John. Luke. Word Biblical Commentary. 3 vols. Dallas: Word Books, 1989-1993. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte Religiöser Rede. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1956. Novick, Tzvi. “Tradition and Truth: The Ethics of Lawmaking in Tannaitic Literature.” Jewish Quarterly Review 100 (2010): 223-243. Okamoto, Dina, Lisa Slattery Rashotte, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. “Measuring Interruption: Syntactic and Contextual Methods of Coding Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 65 (2002): 38-55.

Secondary Sources

309

Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. 20 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Padilla, Osvaldo. “Hellenistic παιδεία and Luke’s Education: A Critique of Recent Approaches.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 416-37. -----. The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts: Poetics, Theology and Historiography. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 144. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Parry, Milman. The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Edited by Adam Parry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. Parsons, Mikeal C. Acts. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. -----, and Richard I. Pervo. Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Penner, Todd. In Praise of Christian Origins: Stephen and the Hellenists in Lukan Apologetic Historiography. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 10. New York: T & T Clark International, 2004. -----. “Reconfiguring the Rhetorical Study of Acts: Reflections on the Method in and Learning of a Progymnastic Poetics.” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 425-439. -----, and Caroline Vander Stichele, eds. Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 20. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Pervo, Richard I. Acts: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. -----. “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006): 285-307. -----. Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Pesch, Rudolf. Die Apostelgeschichte. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 5. 2 vols. Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger Verlag/Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Petersen, Norman R. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Plümacher, Eckhard. “Lukas als griechischer Historiker.” Supplement to Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 14 (1974): cols. 235-64. -----. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. 5th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Pulleyn, Simon. Homer: Iliad I. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

310

Bibliography

Rabel, Robert. “Interruption in the Odyssey.” Colby Quarterly 38 (2002): 77-93. Reardon, B. P., ed. Collected Ancient Greek Novels. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. -----. “Theme, Structure and Narrative in Chariton.” Yale Classical Studies 27 (1982): 1-27. Renehan, Robert. “Classical Greek Quotations in the New Testament.” Pages 17-46 in The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of The Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky. Edited by David Neiman and Margaret Schatkin. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1973. Richard, Earl, ed. New Views on Luke and Acts. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1990. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffmann, John S. Kloppenborg, and Milton C. Moreland, eds. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Rood, Tim. “Panhellenism and Self-Presentation: Xenophon’s Speeches.” Pages 305-29 in The Long March: Xenophon and the Ten Thousand. Edited by Robin Lane Fox. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Sacks, Harvey. Lectures on Conversation. Edited by Gail Jefferson. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1992. -----, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (1974): 696735. Sacks, Kenneth. Diodorus Siculus and the First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. Sanders, E. P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origins and Interpretation. London: SCM, 1989. Sandnes, Karl Olav. “Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald’s ‘Mimesis Criticism.’” Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 715-32. Schmeling, Gareth L. Chariton. Twayne’s World Authors Series. New York: Twayne, 1974. Schmid, Wilhelm, and Otto Stählin. Geschichte der griechischen Literatur. 5 vols. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1959-1961. Schneider, Gerhard. Die Apostelgeschichte. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 5. 2 vols. Freiburg: Herder, 1980-1982. Schreckenberg, Heinz. “Flavius Josephus und die lukanischen Schriften.” Pages 179-209 in Wort in der Zeit: Neutestamentliche Studien: Festgabe für Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Edited by Wilfrid Haubeck and Michael Bachmann. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Schwartz, Daniel R. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Secondary Sources

311

Siker, Jeffrey S. “‘First to the Gentiles’: A Literary Analysis of Luke 4:16-30,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 73-90. Sleeman, Matthew. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book Company, 1920. Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994. Spencer, Patrick E. “The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge.” Currents in Biblical Research 5 (2007): 341-66. Stadter, Philip A. Arrian of Nicomedia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980. -----. The Speeches in Thucydides: A Collection of Original Studies with a Bibliography. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1973. Steele, E. Springs. “Luke 11:37-54—A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 379-94. Sterling, Gregory E. Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and Apologetic Historiography. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 64. Leiden: Brill, 1992. -----. “‘Do You Understand What You are Reading?’: The Understanding of the LXX in Luke-Acts.” Pages 101-18 in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker und frühchristlicher Historiographie. Edited by Jörg Frey, Clare K. Rothschild, and Jens Schröter. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 162. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates. London: Macmillan, 1924. Swain, Simon, ed. Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Talbert, Charles H. “The Acts of the Apostles: Monograph or ‘Bios’?” Pages 5872 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington III. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. -----. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. New York: Crossroad, 1997. -----. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986-1990. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae®. University of California, Irvine. Cited 16 June 2011. Online: http://www.tlg.uci.edu. Tiede, David L. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

312

Bibliography

Townsend, John T. “The Speeches in Acts.” Anglican Theological Review 42 (1960): 150-59. Tyson, Joseph B., ed., Luke-Acts and the Jewish People: Eight Critical Perspectives. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988. Underhill, G. E. A Commentary with Introduction and Appendix on the Hellenica of Xenophon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1900. Veltman, Fred. “The Defense Speeches of Paul in Acts.” Pages 243-56 in Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Edited by Charles H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978. Villalba i Varneda, Pere. The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums 19. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Walbank, F. W. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957-1979. -----. Speeches in Greek Historians. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Walters, Patricia. The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Reassessment of the Evidence. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Wilckens, Ulrich. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte: Form- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. 3rd ed. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. Wills, Lawrence. The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995. Winter, Bruce W., and Andrew D. Clarke, eds. The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting. Vol. 1 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Wolter, Michael. Das Lukasevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 5. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Zahn, Theodor. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lucas. 2 vols. Vol. 5 in Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Theodor Zahn. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1919-1921. Zimmerman, Don, and Candace West. “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” Pages 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Edited by B. Thorne and N. Henley. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 1975.

Index of Ancient Sources Classical Texts Achilles Tatius Leucippe et Clitophon 13, 167, 169 8.1.2 169 8.7.1 22, 169 8.11.1 169 Appian of Alexandria Historia romana Prooem.13.49 100 1 100, 102 2 100, 102 2.5.1-13 102 2.5.11 102 2.5.12 102, 108, 111, 118, 226 3 100, 102 4 100, 102 4.5.1 102, 108, 112, 117 6 100 6.36.145 102-3, 111 8 110, 116 8.81.379 85, 103, 110-11, 118, 120 8.90.424 103 8.91.431 103, 111-12, 166, 225-26 8.92.433 104 9.3.4 101 9.9.4 67 10 101 12 110, 116 12.55.221 104, 110-11, 118, 120, 226 12.58.240 104

12.81.365

101

Bella civilia 24, 100-101, 111 1.12.49 105, 110-11 1.25.111 101 1.56.247 105, 110-11 1.72.335 105, 111 2.11.38 106, 111 2.11.40 106, 110-11 2.11.41 106, 110-11 2.12.42-13.46 106 2.15.57 106, 111 2.22.82 107 2.24.91 107, 110-11 2.93.391 101 2.94.393 101 2.137.570-141.591 101 2.142.594 101 3.14.48 108, 112, 117 3.54.221 108, 110, 112, 117 3.88.362 108, 110-11 4.34.145 109-11, 117 4.90.377-100.422 101 4.104.435 109, 111-12 5.6.26 109-11, 118 Aratus Phaenomena 5

122

314 Aristotle Rhetorica 1.3.1

Index of Ancient Sources

24

Arrian of Nicomedia Anabasis Prooemium 97 1.12.4 96 1.12.5 96 2.25.2 76, 97 5.5.1 98 7.8.3 96 7.11.2 97 7.11.7 98, 117 Indica 1.1-17.7 17.7 20.1 36.5 36.5-7 36.7 Chariton Callirhoe 1.1.1 1.2.6 1.5.6 1.10.4 1.11.2 2.1.3 2.9.6 2.11.6 3.2.8-9 3.4.4 3.4.17 4.3.4 5.1.1 5.4.9 5.8.1 5.8.2

98 98 98 98-99, 116 226 99, 117

11, 13, 25 175 177-78, 182, 184 178, 182 177-78, 182 176 177-78, 180, 183-84 177, 179-80, 183-84 177, 179-80, 183-84 180 177, 179, 181, 183, 189 177, 179-80, 182, 184, 226 177, 180, 183-84 176 177 177, 180-81, 183 176, 181

5.8.4 5.8.5 5.8.4-6 6.4.7 6.7.10 7.1.11 7.3.11 7.4.9 7.5.8 8.1.1

182 182 3, 144 181, 183-84 176 177, 181-82, 184 177, 182, 184 175 176 176

Cicero De legibus 1.1.5

42

Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus 4

122

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica 1.67.5 74 1.67.6 74 11.15.3-4 47, 81 12.26.4 72 13.1.2 80 13.19.4 74 13.19.5 74 13.19.6 73-74, 176 13.20.1-27.6 72, 74 13.28.1 73, 131 13.28.2-32.6 72 13.28.4 75 13.28.5 75 13.52.2 80 13.83.4 75-76 13.102.1-2 73, 216 16 212 16.79.3 76, 153 17 212 17.54.4 76 17.54.4-5 184

315

Classical Texts 17.54.5 17.109.3 18.18.2-3 18.31.1-5 18.66.5 18.66.5-67.6 18.66.6 18.67.2 19.79.1 19.81.2 20.1.1 20.43.7 26.18.1 28.11.1 33.5.3 33.5.4 34/35.11.1 37.12.1

76, 97, 117, 145 98 77 29 77 119, 226, 239 77, 198, 209, 247 77 77-78, 119 73 72 18 78 78 79 79 79 79

Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum 2.41 22, 63, 140, 165, 214, 239 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae 1.5.1 81 1.8.1-2 81 1.39.4 84 2.26.5 84 2.51.3-52.1 78 2.56.2 84-85, 151, 199 2.56.5 85 3.28.10 85 3.29.1 85, 118 3.29.2-7 85 3.30.5 85-86 4.10.1 83 4.12.1 83 4.37.3 86 4.37.4 86, 110, 226 4.84.1-2 83 5.11.1 86-87, 95, 110

5.11.2 5.16.2 5.16.3 5.33.1 6.10.1 6.72.2-80.4 6.81.1 6.87.1 7.15.4 7.17.3 7.17.5 7.35.1 7.62.3 7.66.3 8.2.1 8.9.1 8.13.3 8.39.1-59.4 8.47.1 8.48.1 8.71.1 9.10.1 10.41.1 10.45.1 10.47.6 11.4.4 11.4.5 11.4.5-5.1 11.4.6 11.6.1 11.6.3 11.26.1 11.32.1 11.36.1 11.37.6 11.42.1 13.1.1-6.5 19.8.3 20.4.5

87, 110 87, 153 87 88 88, 116, 146-47, 226 88 88, 95 89 83 95 1, 18, 83, 126, 164 89, 110, 119, 239 89, 110 82 83 83 83 102 90, 102, 132 102 90, 110 83 90, 110, 198, 209, 247 91, 226 91 91, 110 19, 83, 91-92 83 92 92, 110 92 91 92-93, 110, 117 93, 110 93 93, 116 102 93-94 94, 129, 153, 158, 181

De Thucydide 9

82, 95 100

316

Index of Ancient Sources

Heliodorus Aethiopica 4.20.1 6.15.1 10.8.1

13 169 169 169

Herodotus Historiae 1.1.1 1.14.1-4 1.47.3 1.50.1-51.5 1.53.2 1.54.1 1.55.2 1.62.4 1.65.3 1.66.2 1.67.3-4 1.85.2 1.91.1-6 1.92.1-2 1.121.1 1.125.1 1.174.5 1.206.3 2.23.1 2.53.2-3 2.116.1-120.5 3.32.3-4 3.64.1-2 3.75.3 3.76.3 3.77.1-79.2 3.124.2 3.141.1 4.14.2 4.29.1 4.32.1 4.137.3 4.155.3-4 5.40.2

175 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 49 49 44 49 42 42 42 45 45 45 45, 153 45 43 49 46 42 42 44 44 44

5.67.1 6 6.86γ.2 6.130.2 7.8α.1-11.4 7.8δ.2 7.9.1-10.1 7.11.1 7.46.1-52.2 7.141.1 7.159.1 7.161.1 7.161.3 8 8-9 8.26.3 8.50.1 8.53.2 8.59.1 8.59-61 8.59.1-63.1 8.61.1 8.64.1 8.90.2 9 9.11.2 9.28.1 9.94.3

42 176 49 44 43 43 43 43, 45 43 45, 49 45, 49 44, 177, 218 42 48, 176 98 46, 117, 184 46, 60 47 47, 118, 226 47 80 47, 49, 118, 226 3, 48, 66, 118, 144, 182 46 48 48, 117 44 45

Homer Iliad 1 1.1 1.6-7 1.33 1.43 1.68 1.75 1.85-91 1.101 1.131-147 1.184-185

27-28 48 30 30 19, 29 19, 29 29, 53, 59, 216 30 36 29, 53, 216 36 30

317

Classical Texts 1.188 1.225-244 1.245 1.247 1.290-291 1.292 1.293-294 1.303 1.304 1.345 1.357 1.457 1.511 1.568 1.595 2.70 2.76 3.125-128 4.30 4.50 4.68 5.274 5.305 5.336-337 5.428-430 5.431 5.431-432 6.144 6.212 6.357-358 7.226-246 7.354 7.365 7.464 8.212 9.189 9.223 9.224 9.194 10.533-539

19, 29 30 19, 29 30 30 21, 24, 31, 33, 36, 56, 113, 118, 175 31 32 3, 48, 66, 118, 144, 182 29 19, 29 19, 29 29 29 29 22 29, 53, 216 28 29 29 29 35, 41 35 35 36 35, 41 36 29 29 28 29 29, 53, 216 29, 53, 216 35, 41 35, 41 28 34, 44, 217 33 28 35

10.540 11.252-272 13.81 16.101 18.95-99 18.96 18.97 18.98 18.368 19.56 19.67 19.75 19.76-79 19.79-80 21.514 22.304-305 23.855

34-36, 38, 41, 60, 128, 179, 181, 189 33 35, 41 35, 41 23 34 34-35 34 35, 41 32 32 32 32 19, 33, 126, 143, 164 35, 41 28 22

Odyssey 1 1.44 1.63 1.80 1.326-327 1.337 1.340-341 1.346-359 2.36-38 2.224 4.620 5.298 5.313 5.355 5.365-366 5.365-367 5.407 5.424-425 7.334 8.94-103 8.97 8.333

42 29 29 29 37 113, 117, 127 37, 105 37 29 29, 53, 216 41 38 38 38 38 42 38 38, 42 41 38, 71, 105 127 41

318 8.536 8.536-543 11.330-332 14.409 15.160 15.259-264 15.493 15.525 16.8-12 16.11 16.11-12 16.321 16.346-350 16.351 16.351-353 16.354 17.166 17.290 18.243 20.100-119 20.172 20.240 21.344-353 22 22.160 22.329 23.288 24.98 24.203 24.383

Index of Ancient Sources 117 39, 155 23, 40 41 39, 45 39, 41 41 39, 45 41 179, 181 40, 60, 189 41 40 40, 60, 69, 179, 181 41, 189 40 41 41 41 39 41 41 37 42 41 40, 84, 102-3, 113, 118, 175 41 41 41 41

Justus of Tiberias See Diogenes Laertius “Longinus” De sublimitate 13.3

42

Longus Daphnis et Chloe 167 4.25.1 169

Lucian of Samosata De historia conscribenda 16 Ninus Romance 168-69 Petronius Satyricon 39 90 98-99 107 Polybius Historiae 1.43.6 1.69.10 1.69.13 1.79.14 1.80.1-4 1.80.9 2.37.4 2.56.10 2.61.5 3.20.1 3.32.2 3.32.7-9 3.82.5-6 3.109.13 3.111.11 4.4.5 4.4.7 4.22.11 4.81.10 4.82.2-4 4.84.7 4.85.4 5.41.1 5.41.4 5.42.1 5.49.2-3

13 169 169 169 169

59 59 59 60, 69, 94, 129, 153, 158, 181 61 61, 70, 166, 225 58 58, 141 61, 66, 70, 166, 225 16, 58 59 58 60 59 59 62 62, 66, 70, 145, 184 62, 70, 94, 119, 129, 153, 158, 181 60 63 63 63, 66, 70, 119, 226 63 63 64, 70 64, 70

319

Classical Texts 5.50.13 7.3.8 9.32.1 11.12.2 11.30.1 11.30.1-4 12.25a.3-5 12.25i.3-9 15.23.4 16.34.5 18.1.1-5 18.4.3 18.4.4 18.37.12 18.46.6 18.46.9 18.52.3 20.9.3 20.9.8 20.10.6 22.8.1 22.8.9 22.9.5 22.10.4 28.4.13 28.23.3 30.29.6 31.24.2-8 31.24.9 31.24.11 36.1.7 38.12.2 38.12.4 38.12.5-7 38.13.1

64 63 59 64, 71, 116 64-65, 69, 94, 129, 153, 158, 181 103 16, 58 16 65, 69 65, 67, 70, 226 66 66, 70, 226 66 66-67, 71, 78, 115, 117 66-67, 71, 116, 198, 209, 247 67 67, 71 67, 71 67, 71 68, 70, 118 59 59 59 59 60 68, 71, 117 60 70 68, 71, 117, 160 69 16, 58 69 69-70, 198, 209, 247 69 69

Quintilian Institutio oratoria 16 3.9.1 22 6.4.11 239

Tacitus Annales

6

Theon Progymnasmata 16 Thucydides Historia 1.1.1 1.22.1 1.22.4 2.72.1 3.38.6 4.65.1 4.96.1 5.85.1 5.85.1-103.1 7.73.1-3 8 8.75.1 8.82.1 8.86.2

175 5-7, 49 49 52 50 49 1, 51 50 50 176 52, 98 51-52 52 51

Xenophon of Athens Anabasis 1.3.12-19 53 2 56 3 98, 175 3.1.15-25 56 3.1.26 56 3.1.27 56, 92, 118, 172 3.1.30 57 3.1.31 56-57, 118, 160, 172 3.1.31-32 57 3.1.35-47 57 3.2.8 57 3.2.8-9 243 3.2.9 57, 115, 119, 153, 160 Cyropaedia 1 1.4.4

25, 53, 168 172 171

320 1.4.9 1.5.2-5 2 2.2.11-16 2.3.7 2.3.16 3 4 4.1.19 4.3.15 4.5.9 4.5.18 5 5.5.5-6 5.5.10-24 5.5.25 5.5.25-34 5.5.35 5.5.36 6.1.19-22 6.1.35

Index of Ancient Sources 173 173 173 170 171 171 173 173 172 171 173 173 173, 175 173 173 171 173 173-74, 184 174 174 174

6.1.37 6.3.2 7.1.32 8.7.10

174, 184 174 175 171

Hellenica 1.4.20 2.3.35 2.3.50 3.1.2 3.1.19 5.1.4 6.5.37 7.2.1

53 53 53 55 1, 54, 60 54 27, 54-55 54

Xenophon of Ephesus Ephesiaca 167 3.3.2 169 3.3.5 169 5.1.12 169

Septuagint Genesis 24 24:15 24:45 29:8-9 29:9 50:17

149-50 128, 137, 139, 149, 18990 128 127-28 149 127-28

Exodus 16:10

128

Numbers 11:49 16:31

150 128

Deuteronomy 13 18:15 27:12-26 34:5

210 210 126 200

1 Kingdoms 1 1:14 1:22 4:18 13 14:19 17:1 17:8-16 18

152 39, 128-29, 137 153 128 152 128 195 195 153

321

Septuagint 18:1 19:9-10

195 127

2 Kingdoms 5:1-14

195

3 Kingdoms 1:14 1:22 1:42

94, 129, 137 94, 129, 165, 181 129, 137, 139, 190

4 Kingdoms 2:11 6:33 8:5 14:1-22 14:7

127 129-30, 137, 139, 189-90 130, 137, 139, 190 130 130

2 Chronicles 25:1-16:2 25:5-16 25:16

130 130 130, 137-38, 165, 202

1 Esdras 3-4

143

Esther 6:4 (OG) 6:14 (OG) // 6:23 (AT)

128 128

Additions to Esther D:15 (OG) 127 Judith

124, 168

Tobit 3:16 (GII)

124, 168 128

1 Maccabees 4 4:19

131 128

5:14 5:21-36

131, 137, 139, 190 131

2 Maccabees 2:19-32 3:22-23 3:24 6:12-17 7 7:29 7:30 9:5 13:26 15:38-39

131 128 63 131 131-33, 138 223 132-33, 138, 164-65, 239 132 131 131

3 Maccabees 6:16

128

4 Maccabees 1:1-3:18 3:19 8-18 9:1-9 9:17 9:17-18 9:17-19 9:19 11:2-6 11:9 13:11-12 13:13-18

132 132 132-33, 138 221 165, 239 133, 138, 166, 239 164 133, 138, 165, 239 166, 239 133, 138, 164-65, 239 17 221

Psalms 2:4 21:8 = 22:7 (MT) 34:16 109:1 = 110:1 (MT) Job 1:16-18

204 204 204 125

131, 134, 137

322 4:1 6:1 8:1 9:1 11:1 12:1 15:1 18:1 18:2

Index of Ancient Sources 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134

Wisdom of Solomon 8:11-12 126 Sirach 11:8 35:3

126, 143, 164 127

Isaiah 2:9 6:9-10 40:5 49:6 56:7

250 242 196, 248 229-30 125

58:9 65:24

135, 138-39, 153, 190 135, 138, 153

Jeremiah 7 7:11 7:20 20:1-2

204 125 250 135, 137-38, 165

Ezekiel 11:13 12:2 37:7

128 242 128

Daniel 4:28 (OG) 4:28 (θ’) 9:4-9:20 9:21 (OG) 9:21 (θ’) 10:9 10:11 10:15

135 135, 138, 149 136 136-37, 139, 190 136 128 128 128

New Testament Matthew 1:20 7:28 9:6 9:15-17 9:18 9:18-26 11:1 12:43-45 12:46 13:53 13:57 16:22-23 17

190 19, 190 22 190 190-91, 202 190 19, 190 200-201 190, 201 19, 190 195 189 191

17:5 19:1 20:31 22:23 24:1-2 26:1 26:41 26:45 26:46 26:46-47 26:47 26:74

190-91, 199 19, 190 193 223 204 19, 190 205 205 191 205 139, 190-91, 206 207

New Testament Mark 1:45 2:10 2:23 4:1 5:17 5:20 5:21 5:35 6:2 6:4 6:7 8:32 8:32-33 9:5 9:6 9:7 10:48 12:18 13:1 13:1-2 14:38 14:41 14:42 14:42-43 14:43 14:72 16:12-13

189 22 189 189 189 189 190 190 189 195 189 189 188-89 198 198 199 193 223 204 204 205 205 191 205 15, 188, 191, 205-6, 208 207 207

Luke 1:1 1:1-4 1-2 1:8 1:13 1:26-38 1:32 1:35 1:41 1:44 1:47 1:66

121, 187, 192 25 194 201 242 193 195 195 242 242 248 242

2:27 2:30-32 2:32 2:49 3 3:4-6 3:6 3:21 3:22 3:38 4 4:1-13 4:3 4:9 4:14 4:16 4:16-27 4:16-30 4:17-27 4:20 4:21 4:22 4:22b 4:23 4:23-27 4:24 4:25-27 4:25-30 4:28

4:28-29 4:29 5:1 5:24 5:29-39 6:18 6:27 7:3 7:9 7:22

323 202 248 196, 234 195 194 25 196, 248 202 195 195 203-4, 209-10, 225, 230, 242-43, 247-48 193-94 195 195 194, 197 193, 216 195 194-95, 210, 242 186, 195 193 194, 198, 210, 225 194, 196-97 194 195 194-96 195 195-97 203 14-15, 26, 186, 194, 19698, 203, 208-10, 225, 234, 237, 241, 243, 246-47 186, 197 196 242 22 123 242 242 242 242 242

324 7:36-50 8:10 8:11-15 8:18 8:21 8:49 9:9 9:33 9:34 9:44-45 10:16 10:24 10:39 11 11:15 11:17-23 11:17-26 11:24-26 11:27 11:27-28 11:28 11:33-36 11:36 11:37 11:37-54 14:1-24 16:1-13 16:14 16:14-15 16:15-31 17:26-33 18:39 19:40 19:46 20:1 20:27 20:42-43 21 21:5 21:5-6 21:6

Index of Ancient Sources 123 242 242 242 242 202 242 198 85, 151, 191, 198-99, 208-9 242 242 242 242 203 200 200 201 200-201 200-201, 203, 208-9 201, 203 201 202 202 201-2, 208-9 123 123 203 203, 210 203 203 125 193 193 125 221 223 125 203 204, 208-9, 236 204-5 236

22:25 22:40 22:45 22:46 22:46-47 22:47 22:60 22:61 23:35 24:31 24:36 24:44-49

160 205 205 205 205 15, 139, 165, 186, 191, 205-6, 208-9 207-9 207 204 207 207-9 125

John 3:2-5 3:9-22 3:27-36 4:44 18:27 20:19

20 20 20 195 207 208

Acts 1:4-11 1:8 1:15 2 2-7 2:13 2:14 2:14-26 2:14-36 2:14-39 2:36 2:37 2:37-40 2:37-41 2:38-39 2:38-40 2:41 2:44-47

4 227, 230, 243 216 230 226 129 225 129 214-15 219 9, 218 12, 15, 214, 218-20, 225, 247 220 226 219-20 214, 220 225 240

New Testament 3 3:12 3:12-26 3:26 3:26-4:3 4 4:1 4:1-2 4:1-3 4:1-4 4:2 4:4 4:24-30 4:31 4:32-37 5:33 5:34 6:7 6:13 7 7-8 7:2-19 7:2-53 7:39-43 7:44-50 7:51 7:51-53 7:53 7:54 7:54-57 7:54-60 7:56 7:57 7:57-58 7:57-8:3 7:58 7:60 8:1-3

209, 221-22 221 221 221, 223 237 230, 240-41 14-15, 221, 223, 228, 235, 240, 247 226, 237, 241 227 222 222-23 222, 227 4 15, 228 240 15, 224, 227 216 243 223 3, 204, 209, 215, 223, 225-26, 230, 232, 238-40 243 224 215, 223 210 224 225 9, 224 224 14-15, 224-26, 240-42, 247 223 227 224-25 14-15, 225-26, 237, 24042, 247 166, 224-25 227 197 225 227

9:31 10 10-11 10-13 10:34-43 10:44 11 11:4 11:5-17 11:15 11:18 12:17 13 13-28 13:16 13:42 13:44-48 13:47 13:48 13:50 14:15-17 15 15:5 15:7 15:12 15:12-13 15:13 15:14-18 17 17:16-21 17:22 17:22-31 17:28 17:31 17:32 17:32-34 18:6 18:14 19 19:28

325 227 227-28, 230 228, 250 243 228 14-15, 219, 228, 240-42, 247 217, 228 217 217 228 217, 240 217 228, 230, 232, 240, 250 230 216 14 230 229-30, 232 228-30, 234, 240-43, 247 197 4 217, 240, 250 216 216 217, 240 217 217 250 215, 231 231 216 215, 231-32 25, 121-22 9 14-15, 231-32, 235, 238, 247 231 230 44, 218 215 15, 197, 232

326 19:33 19:34 20:36 21:40 22 22:21 22:22 23 23:6 23:7 23:8 24 24:10 24:15 24:21 24:22

Index of Ancient Sources 77, 217-18, 226 218 14 217 215, 230, 234, 238-40, 247 9, 232, 234, 238 10-12, 14-15, 232-34, 237-42, 247 235 9, 223, 234 15, 228, 234-35 223 3, 235, 241 217 237 237 15

24:25 24:26 24:27 25:11 26 26:1 26:23 26:24

26:28 27:21 28:25-28 28:26-27 28:28

15, 235-36, 240-41, 249 236 236 236 215, 238, 241, 248 217 9, 236, 238 11-12, 14-15, 140, 166, 226, 235-38, 240-41, 247, 249 14-15 216 210, 242 242 228, 230, 242, 248

1 Corinthians 1:23f.

231

Other Ancient Jewish Sources Texts from the Judean Desert 1QS vi, 10-11 126, 164 Josephus Bellum iudaicum 1 212 1.3 144 1.16 142 1.373-379 6, 142 1.378 78 1.442 145, 162, 184 1.530 160 1.622 145, 162, 165-66, 239 1.629 34, 144, 217 2.9 144 2.26 143 2.33 143 2.34 143

2.119-166 2.130 2.132 2.159 2.165-166 2.430-439 2.453 2.619 3.108 3.294 3.459 3.485 4.146 4.216 5 5.375 5.541 6.108 6.306

156 143 142-43, 164 156 223 146 146, 162, 164 159 144-45 146 160 146 160 143, 216 147 147 147, 162-63, 166, 225 147 147

6.309 7 7.71 7.252 7.337-338 7.389 7.406

Other Ancient Jewish Sources

327

11.266 11.278 12-13 12.261 12.424 13.171-173 13.173 13.301 13.311-312 13.313 14.1-3 14.41 14.91 14.93 14.303 14.326 14.346 14.347 15.69 15.85 15.127-146 15.205 15.228 15.229 16.217 16.384-386 17.94 17.210-212 18.16 18.58

155 160 149 160 155-56, 162 156 142 148 156 156 142 148 148 148 144 156 78 156-57 157 145 6, 142 157 157, 162, 165 157 3, 118, 144, 182 27, 54 146 144 223 94, 157-58, 162, 164-65, 181 94, 158, 162, 164-65, 181 158 158 158-59, 162, 226 221 221 144 143, 216 223 149

147-48 164-65 160 148 148 148, 162-63 162

Antiquitates judaicae 1-2 149 1-11 149 1.4 142 1.246 149 1.286 150 2.130 150, 165, 239 3.297 150, 162 4.326 85, 151, 199-200 5.144 151, 162, 226 5.297 151-52, 162 6.36 148 6.103-104 152, 162 6.146 152 6.331 152, 162 7.349 153 7.351 94, 153, 165, 181 7.359 129 8 18 8.294 153, 162 8.342 153 9.10 143, 216 9.69-70 130 9.224 154, 162 9.225 154 9.226 154 9.265 154, 162 9.277-279 154 11.43 143 11.49 143 11.111 148 11.250 155, 162, 165 11.260 127 11.265 155

18.61 18.62 18.259 18.260 18.264 18.266-268 19.254 19.261 20.199 20.258

328 Vita 36-42 94 96 134 244 251 254-258 255 259 414-429 430

Index of Ancient Sources

140 159, 163, 184 159 143, 216 160, 163, 184 143, 161, 216 166, 239 143, 216 160-61, 163, 165, 184, 239 159 142, 159, 212

Contra Apionem 1.38-41 1.41 1.201-204 1.204 2.217

158 125 125, 149 140 140, 164, 236 76

Philo Legatio ad Gaium 158 364-367 159, 164 Mishnah Avot 5.7

126

Later Sources Eustathius of Thessalonica Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes 106.2 34 Homeric scholia Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem bT Il. 1.292 ex. 32

John Tzetzes Chiliades 2.103-149

78

Index of Modern Authors Aland, Barbara 187, 216 Alexander, Loveday 122-23 Allison Jr., Dale C. 190-91, 199 Ascough, Richard S. 167, 169 Attridge, Harold W. 149 Auerbach, Erich 184-86 Aune, David E. vii, 4, 13-15, 26, 144, 146, 148, 186, 197, 215-16, 219, 222, 225, 231-32, 235, 237, 246 Bacon, Benjamin 212, 247 Barclay, John M. G. 142 Barrett, C. K. 213, 215, 217, 219, 221-22, 225, 228, 231-33, 235-38, 250-51 Bauernfeind, Otto 2, 10-11, 14-15, 225, 231, 233, 237 Beck, Deborah 16, 19, 29, 31-32, 34, 41 Beentjes, Pancratius C. 126 Bers, Victor 1, 55, 143 Bilmes, Jack 16-18, 23 Bock, Darrell L. 202, 237 Bosworth, A. B. 95-97, 99-100 Bovon, François 192, 195-97 Bowie, A. M. 46 Bowie, E. L. 168 Brown, Raymond 20 Bruce, F. F. 5-7, 214 Büttner-Wobst, Theodor 58 Cadbury, Henry J. 3-4, 9, 15, 19, 195, 212, 219-21, 225, 231, 235, 237-38, 241, 247 Cary, Earnest 82 Coates, Jennifer 16 Cogan, Mordechai 130

Conzelmann, Hans 11, 14, 215, 219, 222, 225, 237 Creed, John Martin 194, 196-97 Crockett, Larrimore C. 196 Culy, Martin M. 202, 224 Davies, Margaret 187 Davies, W. D. 190-91, 199 De Long, Kindalee Pfremmer 217 deSilva, David A. 132, 136 Dibelius, Martin 2-4, 6-11, 14-15, 17, 2223, 27, 54-55, 112, 122, 186, 192-95, 215-16, 219-20, 224-25, 228, 230-33, 235, 237, 239, 241, 244 Dickey, Eleanor 31 Dodd, C. H. 6-7, 213-15, 228 Dominik, William J. 22 Donaldson, Terence L. 242 Dunn, James D. G. 222, 235, 237-38, 240 Dupont, Jacques 213, 230, 248 Eckey, Wilfried 220 Edwards, Mark W. 32-35 Ennulat, Andreas 206 Erbse, Hartmut 32 Fanning, Buist M. 22 Farmer, William R. 188 Farrer, Austin M. 187-88 Feldman, Louis H. 148-50 Fenik, Bernard 36-38 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 5, 194-95, 201-3, 219, 222, 225, 237 Gabba, Emilio 82, 85, 90, 148

330

Index of Modern Authors

García Martínez, Florentino 126 Gärtner, Bertil 231 Gasque, W. Ward 3, 214 Gauthier, Philippe 160 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts 219, 225, 237 Gemoll, W. 169 Gera, Deborah Levine 170, 173 Glombitza, Otto 219 Godet, F. 194 Goldstein, Jonathan A. 131-32 Goodacre, Mark 187-88 Goold, G. P. 175-76 Goulder, Michael D. 187-88, 197 Gowing, Alain M. 106, 108 Gray, Rebecca 147 Gray, Vivienne J. 53 Green, Joel B. 194-95, 202-4, 208

Kallen, Horace M. 134 Kappler, Werner 132 Kawashima, Robert S. 18 Kennedy, George A. 4, 7, 12, 15, 24, 215-16, 219, 224, 233-34, 237-38 Kidd, Douglas 122 Kilgallen, John J. 228-29 Kingsbury, Jack Dean 195 Kirk, G. S. 31 Klein, Hans 194, 197, 200, 202, 204, 208 Kolasny, Judette M. 194-97, 242 Knoppers, Gary N. 138

Haenchen, Ernst 11, 220, 222, 225, 235, 237, 239, 241 Hägg, Tomas 168-69, 183, 192 Halpern, Baruch 124 Hanhart, Robert 132 Hata, Gohei 144 Hemer, Colin 4, 60, 141 Hogan, Derek 233, 237-38 Hohti, Paavo 43 Holladay, Carl R. 139-40 Hornblower, Simon 27-28, 49, 52 Horsley, G. H. R. 4, 5, 12-15, 52, 222, 225, 231, 236-37 How, W. W. 47 Hude, C. 5, 49, 53, 56 Hunkin, J. W. 189

Ma, John 160 MacDonald, Dennis 123 Maddox, Robert 248 Marcus, Joel 189 Marincola, John 6, 58, 160 Marshall, I. Howard 194, 197, 201-2, 204, 209, 248 Mason, Steve 143, 159-60, 216 McKay, K. L. 22 McKenzie, Steven 130 McLaughlin, Margaret L. 18 Mendelssohn, L. 100 Miller, Walter 174 Minchin, Elizabeth 16, 23, 30-34, 36, 3940, 245 Moerman, Michael 18 Moessner, David P. 203 Momigliano, Arnaldo 55 Morgan, J. R. 168 Murray, Stephen O. 16 Myers, Jacob M. 124

Jacoby, C. 81 Japhet, Sara 130 Jervell, Jacob 11, 219, 222, 231-32, 23637 Johnson, Luke Timothy 202, 204, 22122, 230, 235, 237, 251 Jong, Irene J. F. de 38-40

Liddell, H. G. 31, 55, 63, 76, 154, 171, 203 Lohmann, Dieter 33-35 Luz, Ulrich 206

Neirynck, F. 190, 199 Neyrey, Jerome 238

Index of Modern Authors Nickelsburg, George W. E. 132, 164 Niese, Benedictus 143 Nolland, John 194 Norden, Eduard 231 Novick, Tzvi 126 Okamoto, Dina 16 Padilla, Osvaldo 3, 8 Parry, Milman 36-38 Parsons, Mikeal C. 7-8, 202, 211-12, 219-20, 222, 224-25, 236-37 Penner, Todd C. 7-8, 183, 224 Pervo, Richard I. 2, 13-15, 25, 28, 16769, 186, 188, 197, 205, 211-13, 218-19, 225, 231-32, 236-38, 240-41, 245-46, 248-49 Pesch, Rudolf 219, 222, 237 Petersen, Norman R. 197 Plümacher, Eckhard 8, 11 Plummer, Alfred 200-201 Porciani, Leone 49 Porter, Stanley E. 22 Pulleyn, Simon 28, 30-31 Rabel, Robert 24, 36, 40 Rahlfs, Alfred 125-26, 136 Raubitschek, A. E. 49 Reardon, B. P. 169, 175-76, 180, 182 Reichel, Michael 170 Renehan, Robert 122 Robinson, James M. 187 Rood, Tim 56 Roos, A. G. 96 Rosén, Haiim B. 43, 46 Rosenblatt, Marie-Eloise 234 Sacks, Harvey 16, 18 Sacks, Kenneth 72 Sanders, E. P. 187 Sandnes, Karl Olav 123 Sandy, Gerald 168

331

Satterthwaite, Philip E. 7 Schmeling, Gareth L. 176 Schmid, Wilhelm 28 Schneider, Gerhard 4, 215-16, 219, 221, 231, 236-37 Schreckenberg, Heinz 141 Schwartz, Daniel R. 131-32 Schwartz, Saundra 167, 169 Siker, Jeffrey S. 196 Sleeman, Matthew 226 Smith, Charles Forster 50 Smyth, Herbert Weir 55 Soards, Marion L. 3-4, 14-15, 213, 216, 219, 222, 225, 231-32, 237 Spencer, Patrick E. 212 Stadter, Philip A. 96-97, 170 Steele, E. Springs 123 Sterling, Gregory E. vii, 123-24, 139, 141, 212, 227, 230 Stigall, Joshua J. 202 Streeter, B. H. 187 Talbert, Charles H. 54, 194, 212, 220, 222, 228, 231, 235, 237 Tannehill, Robert C. 3, 210, 226, 247-48 Tatum, James 170 Tiede, David L. 209-10, 250-51 Townsend, John T. 225 Tyson, Joseph B. 251 Underhill, G. E. 55 Van der Valk, Marchinus 34 van Thiel, Helmut 37 Veltman, Fred 11-13, 15, 233, 237, 239 Viereck, P. 100 Villalba i Varneda, Pere 150 Vogel, F. 72 Walbank, F. W. 6, 49, 58-59, 63, 65, 68 Wallace, Daniel B. 22 Walters, Patricia 211

332

Index of Modern Authors

Walton, Francis 78 West, Martin L. 29 West, William C. 49 Westlake, H. D. 49-50 Wilckens, Ulrich 7, 214-15, 220-21, 228 Wills, Lawrence 124, 168 Witherington III, Ben 14-15, 222, 224, 228, 231, 237

Wolter, Michael 201, 204 Wyatt, William 31 Zahn, Theodor 231 Zimmerman, Don 16-17

Index of Subjects acclamation 44, 52, 54-55, 64, 66-67, 71, 83, 162-64, 182, 184 See also interruption, cooperative Achilles 21, 24, 30-38, 41-42, 48, 56, 7879, 114, 118, 120, 126, 174-75, 249 Acts of the Apostles dating 123 genre 13 historicity of speeches 5-7, 10-12, 14, 213-15 sources 121-23, 139, 141, 213-15 speeches in Acts 3-7, 195, 211-16, 220, 224, 227-29, 243-44, 248 Alexander the Great 76, 96-99, 115-17, 145, 149, 184, 212 allusion 123-24, 175, 232 to Homer 175, 177, 179, 181 anger 14, 29-30, 32, 38, 40, 42-43, 63-64, 93, 114, 118, 129-130, 145, 173, 175, 178, 196-97, 224-25, 234 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 68, 71, 117, 131-32, 138, 164 aorist See verb tense, aorist; verbal aspect, perfective audience 3, 17, 23-24, 31, 35, 42-43, 61, 67, 69, 75, 88, 95, 112, 115-19, 136, 147, 150, 157, 165, 181, 194, 197-98, 204, 208-9, 218-22, 224-27, 230, 234, 237, 242-43, 246-47, 249-50 biography 53, 55, 76, 97, 140, 142, 160, 167, 170, 184, 212, 251 bird omen See omen, bird bT scholia See scholia, bT

Caesar See Julius Caesar Christ See Jesus of Nazareth Cicero, Marcus Tullius 42, 106-8, 11112, 148 claim of interruption See interruption, claim of climax See plot, climax closing formula 19-23, 28-29, 31, 34-38, 40-41, 49, 127, 190 conflict 2-3, 32-33, 36, 47, 70, 89, 91, 95, 105, 110-11, 114-17, 140, 151, 157, 159, 164, 175, 182-84, 222, 226, 229, 241, 243-44, 249-51 conversation See dialogue conversation analysis 16-18, 21 cooperative interruption See interruption, cooperative crowd 12, 33, 66-67, 69, 71, 73-75, 77, 85-86, 89, 93-94, 101, 119, 153, 162-63, 167, 178, 188, 190-91, 198, 200, 205-6, 209, 217, 226, 229, 233, 239 crucifixion 9, 180, 238 defense speech 11, 13, 22, 53, 60, 77, 83, 85, 87, 89, 93, 101, 107, 119, 158, 16566, 177-78, 182, 217-18, 223-24, 232-33, 236-40 deliberative rhetoric See rhetoric, deliberative Delphi 44-45 dialogue 4, 20-21, 43, 50, 53, 99, 133, 141, 150, 170-71, 180-81, 183-86, 193, 216, 220 digression 54, 98

334

Index of Subjects

direct discourse 5, 19, 24, 28, 42-44, 50, 80, 86, 97, 101, 103, 115, 125, 136, 165, 189, 215, 226, 238 discourse analysis See conversation analysis dream 56, 178-79, 184 echo, literary See allusion emotions 24, 34-39, 41-42, 45, 114, 11619, 127-28, 145, 236, 240 See also anger Essenes 142-43, 151, 156, 164 exhortation See rhetoric, hortatory Flavius Josephus See Josephus Four Document Hypothesis 187-88 gender See turn-taking, gender roles genitive absolute 22, 47, 95, 114, 191, 204-5, 208, 221, 237 genre See literary form Gentiles See Luke-Acts, Gentile mission hapax legomenon 31, 33 hearer See audience Herod the Great 3, 6, 54, 142, 144-46, 156-57, 162, 165, 212 historicity 2, 5-6, 169-71, 213-14 historiography, ancient 3, 13, 18-19, 2728, 42, 53-54, 58, 61, 72, 80, 96, 113, 121, 124, 131, 149, 160, 175-76, 184, 212, 251 reliability 5-7, 49, 68, 142 See also universal history Holy Spirit 12, 228, 230, 233 Homeric Question 28 humor 40, 42, 49 imperfect tense See verb tense, imperfect

indirect discourse 5, 24, 43, 45-46, 51, 56, 73, 80, 86, 89, 103, 115, 165, 215, 236 intentional interruption See interruption, intentional interrupted song See interruption, song interruption by external events 10, 23, 29, 35, 3842, 45-46, 48, 51-52, 54, 57, 60, 65, 69, 84-88, 94, 100, 105-7, 113-14, 119-20, 128-30, 133-34, 136-39, 146-51, 15356, 161-62, 177, 179, 181, 183, 188-91, 199, 202, 205-9, 218, 228, 240, 244, 251 claim of 17, 19-21, 23, 27, 33-35, 39, 91, 103, 134, 141, 146, 163, 183, 198, 201, 206, 209, 213-14, 221-22, 231-33, 241, 248 cooperative 16, 57, 68, 71, 83, 88-90, 93, 99, 102, 108, 112, 116-17, 132, 13536, 138, 143, 147-48, 153, 159-64, 174, 178-84, 200-201, 226, 229-30, 233, 240, 242, 244-45 definition 8-18, 31-32, 34, 36-37, 192, 218-20, 244 dramatic function 13, 22-23, 35, 38, 42, 44-45, 47, 65, 69, 73, 78-79, 120, 129, 135, 150, 155-56, 179-81, 183, 191, 203, 207-9, 238, 240, 243-44, 251 historical 1-2, 163, 200, 233, 248 intentional 9, 13-14, 21, 23-25, 27-28, 31, 34, 37, 41-42, 48, 52, 56-57, 71, 76, 89-90, 92, 95, 110-15, 118-20, 131, 133, 135-39, 143, 146-49, 151-52, 15465, 173, 175-83, 188, 192, 197-98, 200, 204, 218, 220-21, 223, 229, 232, 236, 238, 240-41, 243-45, 247-50 literary device 2, 9-12, 14, 21, 24, 27, 37, 63, 81, 141, 208, 211, 215, 219, 228-29, 233, 239 mid-sentence 1, 22, 62, 141, 214

Index of Subjects prayer 39, 41, 128, 130, 136-37, 153, 162, 209 prearranged 60, 65, 94, 129, 137, 153, 157-58, 165, 181 rhetorical function 3, 15, 21-23, 37, 42, 71, 87, 119, 138-39, 183-84, 209, 237-38, 240-41, 243, 247-48, 251 song 37-39, 41, 127, 196, 234, 248 status-based 66-68, 70-71, 76, 91, 105, 107-9, 111, 115-17, 131, 133, 137-38, 145-46, 152, 154-56, 158-59, 162, 16465, 173, 180, 236, 244 stylistic function 13 See also overlapping speech Jesus of Nazareth 2, 4, 19-20, 26, 123, 185, 188-211, 216-17, 221-27, 230, 23335, 237, 240-42, 246-50 exalted 226-27, 237, 241, 247-48 resurrected 221-23, 226-27, 235, 237, 241, 247-48, 250 Jewish-Christian relations 242, 249-51 Jews 2, 14, 126, 131, 139-41, 144-45, 14748, 157-59, 163-64, 197-98, 210, 218, 221-23, 227, 229-30, 232-34, 237-38, 242-43, 248-51 See also Essenes; Pharisees; Sadducees John the Baptist 20, 194 Josephus 13, 110, 141-42, 147-49, 15253, 159-64, 166, 243, 245 Julius Caesar 101, 106, 108 King Herod See Herod the Great L material 187, 203, 207 literary form 25, 212, 251 novel 167-68, 183, 240, 245, 249 pronouncement story 200 symposium 123 See also Luke, Gospel according to, preface

335

Luke, Gospel according to preface 121-22, 187 sources 15, 121-22, 186-89, 192, 195, 199, 206, 208, 213, 246 special material See L material speeches 186, 192-95 Luke-Acts author 8-13, 25-27, 112, 121, 123, 208, 211, 228-29 Gentile mission 2, 196-97, 210, 217, 227-30, 232-34, 236-38, 241-43, 247-50 unity 196, 209-13, 225, 234, 242, 24748 LXX See Septuagint minor agreements 187 monologue 38, 41 Moses 125, 150-51, 162, 191, 199-200, 224, 250 narrative framework See speech, narrative framework narrative rhetoric 3, 227, 230, 242-43, 247-48 narratology 18, 38 narrator 17, 19-21, 23-24, 54, 56, 72, 8788, 135, 159-60, 192 Nicodemus 20 novel See literary form, novel omen 76, 120, 153 bird 39, 45, 140, 207 sneeze 57-58, 114-15, 119, 160 spoken word 39, 87 thunder 39 oracle 44-45, 124-25, 135, 204, 242 See also prophet oratio obliqua See indirect discourse oratio recta See direct discourse overlapping speech 16-19, 83, 87, 89 See also interruption

336

Index of Subjects

parrhesia (παρρησία) 67, 105, 108 paterfamilias 84 pathos See emotions Paul of Tarsus 9, 11-12, 44, 122, 210, 213, 215-18, 223, 229-38, 241-42, 24850 Peter 9, 129, 185, 188-89, 191, 198, 207, 214-22, 225-29, 237, 240-41, 250 Pharisees 123, 156, 193, 202-4, 210, 235 plot 32, 36-37, 42, 44, 48, 98-100, 110, 114, 174, 176, 182, 197, 210, 249 climax 32, 46, 48, 55-56, 70, 98-100, 110-11, 114-16, 120, 132, 148, 162, 164, 174, 176, 180, 182, 248-49 prayer See interruption, prayer present tense See verb tense, present progressive aspect See verbal aspect, progressive progymnasmata 7-8 prophet 44, 125, 129-31, 135, 137, 14748, 152-54, 156, 165, 195, 197, 204, 250 See also oracle Pseudo-Hecataeus 121, 139, 142, 164 Q source 187-89, 192, 213 quotation marks 19-20 rage See anger rhetoric ancient conventions 7-8, 22 deliberative 29, 41, 47, 64, 118-19, 159, 164, 176, 181-84, 198 forensic See defense speech hortatory 51, 56, 64, 71, 74, 88, 132, 146-47, 183-84, 198 rhetorical analysis 3, 24, 227, 243 rhetorical situation 18, 24, 27, 61, 119, 196, 201 rhetorical theory 16 See also audience; narrative rhetoric; progymnasmata

rhetorical interruption See interruption, intentional Sadducees 156, 221, 223, 235 salvation (σωτηρία) 2, 57-58, 92, 114, 119, 150, 159, 163, 196, 229, 234, 24142, 247-49 scholia A 30 bT 31-32 self-interruption 23-24, 40 Septuagint as Scripture 125 scholarly editions 126 threefold division 125 silence 34, 39, 47, 62, 71, 73, 86-87, 9193, 97, 102, 105, 107, 109, 112, 117, 130-31, 133, 146-47, 154, 156, 158-59, 165, 193, 217, 226, 240 simultaneity 18, 38-40, 87, 127, 149, 18990, 201-3, 209 song See interruption, song speaking rights See turn-taking speech composition 16, 49, 58-59, 80-82, 14142, 195, 213-14, 220 definition 3-5, 8, 192-93, 215 narrative framework 19, 21, 23, 49, 87, 95, 125, 134, 214-15, 231-32 See also closing formula; direct discourse; indirect discourse status See interruption, status-based Stephen 9, 204, 215, 223-27, 230, 233, 241, 250 stoning 35, 51, 59-61, 104, 109, 111-12, 147, 166, 225, 240 style See interruption, stylistic function symposium See literary form, symposium trial See defense speech turning point See plot, climax

Index of Subjects turn-taking 16-20, 28-30, 33-34, 37, 41, 43-44, 47, 50-51, 53, 58, 73, 92, 113-14, 116, 126, 144, 171, 177, 226, 239-40 cultural variations 18, 82-83, 108, 126, 142-43, 171 gender roles 37, 102, 109 physical signs 28-29, 32, 34, 59, 61, 73, 91, 96, 101, 114, 131, 143-44, 193, 216-17 violation See interruption See also silence universal history 58, 80, 99, 115

337

verb tense 21-22 aorist 22, 43, 45-46, 132, 171, 190, 202 future 135 imperfect 21-22, 35, 38, 73-74, 78, 104 present 21-22, 47-48, 52, 95, 114-15, 127, 163, 177, 191, 196-97, 200, 204, 208-9, 222, 236, 241 verbal aspect perfective 22 progressive 21-22, 35, 196, 241 wrath See anger