Yesterday I posted a review of Lost Letters of Pergamum by Bruce W. Longenecker. I feel that I left some things out of that post, or rather, that I did not develop my thoughts adequately and give examples.
After posting yesterday, I decided to begin reading it again, since I read only limited segments of it before my review, and those for a different purpose than for review. I read 57 pages last night (lots of white space in this book, though), and found some examples of the points I made yesterday.
I said sometimes Longenecker seems to throw in some statements presumably made by the 1st century writer that seem designed to inform the 21st century reader, and thus did not seem natural in the letter. Here’s an example:
“But after a two week hiatus, Rufinus and I met outside the city walls in the temple of Isis, the mistress of Pergamum, to continue….”
Sixth Letter Series, letter from Antipas to Luke, pages 61-64, quote from page 62.
I doubt a first century writer would have added “the mistress of Pergamum”, as this would have been common knowledge to educated people in the province of Asia at that time. Another example is the discussion on page 63, in the same letter, where Antipas describes the leading cities of Galilee, for the purpose of contrasting them with the low status of Nazareth. After several he says “built [or re-built] by Herod Antipas“. This seems unnatural. Perhaps this statement is justified in that, later in the letter, Antipas remarks on how John the Baptist was critical of Herod Antipas, and thus Antipas wanted to build Herod up by highlighting his pubic building projects. Possibly, but it still has an unnatural feel.
On the other hand, the same letter shows what appears to be Longenecker’s faithfulness to the Roman culture. In the discussion of the lowly position of Nazareth, Antipas says “If the goal of your narrative is to demonstrate Jesus’ claim to honor, it will have a lot of ground to cover.” Thus, the honor of the man is linked to the honor of the town. All I have read confirms this as a dominant thought in the Roman-dominated Mediterranean region. So Longenecker’s having Antipas make this statement adds believability to the book.
He (Antipas) also has this to say about John : “…the John who baptizes…certainly seemed a troubled soul…those priests would not have appreciated John either.” Thus, Antipas seems to be echoing the general thought of the day, that heroes must be perfect. Longenecker shows how this would have been a stumbling block to an educated Roman or Greek who considered Judaism or Christianity. After all, their founder was a liar who wouldn’t protect his wife. The most famous king was an adulterer and a murderer. Their military champions were often nobodies, or corrupt nobodies. Their prophets at times refused to prophesy and, when they did and the people repented, they sulked instead of rejoiced.
I don’t want to make too much of this point. In Greek and Roman mythology, their gods were far from moral. It seems, though, that their human heroes were pretty close to perfect. Been a while since I read Homer, however.
I repeat what I said yesterday: it’s an excellent read, just not a page turner. I suppose that’s why the publisher was Baker Academic.
