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.

I first read the Lost Letters of Pergamum (Bruce W. Longenecker, 2003, Baker Academic) a couple of years ago, at the recommendation of my son-in-law and with his copy of the book. He knew that I love reading letters as literature, as regular readers of this blog will know. My collection of books of letters–some read, some in the queue–include Charles Lamb, Emerson with Carlyle, George H.W. Bush, John Wesley, Cicero, Pliney the Younger, Dylan Thomas, Teddy Roosevelt, Charles Darwin, and a few others. Some of these I accessed on-line and formatted for ease of printing/reading, and printed them.

He also knew I was working on a book about the writing of the gospel of Luke (Doctor Luke’s Assistant), and so recommended this since it deals much with Luke’s gospel. These letters are fiction, created by Longenecker to represent the typical letters of the era, and show how the gospel of Luke might have been viewed/interpreted/accepted by the educated, wealthy class of the time. The protagonist is Antipas, son of Philip, a wealthy merchant/landowner, late of Tyre and now of Pergamum. He writes to Calpurnius, son of Theophilus, of the city of Ephesus. This eventually turns into a series of letters between Antipas and Luke, who lives in Ephesus and is a friend of Calpurnius, the letters being about his gospel (called his “nomograph” by the correspondents). Slowly, Antipas is drawn into the faith. By the end of the book he is a Christian, and dies a martyr to save the life of Simon, of the common people. The relations of the rich to the common is one of the minor themes of the book.

Longenecker makes this Antipas the same person mentioned in Revelation, the the letter to the church at Pergamum: “Antipas, my faithful witness,…was put to death in your city [Pergamum]–where Satan lives.” This is a reasonable basis for the main character. He is further made to have been named in honor of Herod Antipas. The book includes three appendices, which include maps and the characters. The third appendix is the author’s notes of what he feels like is true in the letters, i.e. what can be defended historically, what is speculative but which he feels is probably true, and what is fiction. This is an important addition to the book.

If this book has a fault, it is that the letters sometimes include information that a letter writer would not really include, which appears added only to educate/inform the 21st century reader. Some is tolerable, such as in the first letter to someone who is a stranger. But I think Longenecker gives us a bit too much of this. Certainly, these items help us to better understand the correspondence and times, but make the letters a little less realistic.

I recently reviewed some of these letters to get Longenecker’s take on some of the historical facts. As I read through them for making this post, I was again struck by their excellence, and may keep them a while longer and read them once more before returning them. I highly recommend this book for any who are curious about the early days of Christianity, and how the growing faith was viewed by the educated people of the Roman world. The book has no three-act structure, no conflict, no real angst. No thrilling plot. It’s just great writing in its style.

Please see also the next post on this blog, More Thoughts on “Lost Letters of Pergamum”.

About the time I was to begin teaching my lesson series on Elijah and Elisha to our adult Sunday School class, I came across, in our boxed away books, Elijah by William H. Stephens, (1976, Living Books, an imprint of Tyndale House, paperback ISBN 0-8423-4023-8). I began reading it in March, and finished in late May.

Stephen’s purpose, as stated in the Preface, was “Elijah’s story needs to be told today. The parallels between ninth-century B.C. Israel and twentieth-century A.D. America are striking. The current emphasis on economic power by large corporations and wealthy men, along with the sex orietation that runs throughout our society from advertising to side street pornography, together call for Elijah’s story to be told. Perhaps we can learn from his, and from Israel’s, experience.”

Stephens says he has been true to the biblical record. I find that to be so, with one exception. He fleshes out the biblical narrative found in 1st Kings and 2nd Kings with cultural items, between scene details, travelogue type narrative, and dialogue. Where the writer of Kings gave us the much abridged version due to the expense of paper, ink, copying, and distribution, Stephens tries to give us what might have been written had publishing been as inexpensive then as it is today. How exactly was Elijah fed by ravens? What exactly did he experience on Mount Horeb? How did the mantle ceremony with Elisha progress? What was it like in the midst of the whirlwind near the chariot of fire?

Stephens adds a few supporting characters, of course: a corrupt priest of Yahweh who becomes involved in Baal prostitutes; a greedy business man/farmer; people who sell themselves into slavery; other friends of Elijah. Journeys are described in considerable detail: what route did people take? What was the terrain like? How long did it take them? How did they find provisions and lodging along the way. These are the sorts of things an author might include today, but were left out in the Bible.

The one place where Stephens seems to stray from the biblical record is in the area of Elijah’s first recorded servant. On Mount Carmel, after the fire from heaven scene, Elijah had a servant that the Bible does not name. Elijah left this servant at Beersheba when he went to Mount Horeb over forty days. Stephens names this servant: Elisha. Yes, he makes the assumption that Elisha was a servant of Elijah before the mantle ceremony, but went back to farming when Elijah disappeared into the desert until Elijah designated him his successor. I find this improbable, for I would think the Bible would indicate if Elisha was the first servant, since he later becomes the prophet-designate. I could be wrong, but then again Stephens could be wrong.

This is not a page turner, but the writing is good, the characters and dialogue believable, and the read enjoyable. If anyone can find this older book, it is worth the read.

With Christmas money I purchased Nelson’s Trafalgar by Roy Adkins, First American Edition, Viking. I began reading it a little over week ago, and finished it Saturday night–all except for the credits and bibliography; those came last night.

This is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it for anyone interested in naval issues (especially war), the British/French war brought about by Napolean, sailing ships, or history in general. Before reading this book, I really knew little about the Battle of Trafalgar. Oh, I knew it was an important sea battle won by the British in the early 1800s, but I didn’t really know where it was fought or who they beat. I knew Admiral Horatio Nelson was the British victor and hero, but I knew little about his career, nor that he died during the battle. So for sheer transfer of facts and increase in my knowledge base, this was a great read.

Adkins used a good mixture of his own narrative and contemporary reports about the battle. He did not focus only on the victors, but talked considerably about the combined French-Spanish fleet. He talked about the life of the sailors in the navy, and about the officers. He took several occasions to explain subjects about life at sea and how the battle was waged. Consider this segment about on-board surgeons.

It was during battle that surgeons were most effective, even though they were working in appalling conditions. For much of their time on board ship, they were involved not with battle injuries, but with the daily hazards of disease and accidental injury….As soon as a ship was under fire, a steady stream of casualties arrived on the orlop deck. In most ships the crew were taught the use of tourniquets, to reduce blood loss, and also elementary bandaging, but in the heat of battle such first aid was usually inadequate…While waiting their turn to see the surgeon, some men bled to death whose wounds were otherwise not serious or complicated…putting [surgeons] under pressure to work as fast as possible….In a matter of seconds, he had to decide whether the injuries were fatal, could be dealt with by stiching and dressing, whether amputation was necessary….Usually this was all decided in one hurried glance, in poor lighting, as the surgeon tried to stand steady on a deck juddering from the countershocks of outgoing and incoming broadsides, as well as the normal roll and pitch of the ship.

This type of information is reapeated over and over in the book, for different jobs, such as the powder monkeys or the gun crews. Even with the large amount of information given, the book is an easy read, striking a good balance of popular readability and academic information. Anyone at all interested in these subjects should read this book.