The Greek historian Polybius lived from circa 200 BCE-120 BCE. Most of his works are no longer extant, but his large collection known as Histories survived: it covers the classical period from 246 BCE-146 BCE. Polybius set the agenda for modern-day historiography.
While researching some things for my Epaphroditus post, I came across Histories 1.13.6-7 which reads: τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τὰ κατὰ μέρος ὑπὲρ
τῶν προειρημένων πράξεων οὐδὲν οὔθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγκαῖον οὔτε τοῖς ἀκούουσι χρήσιμον.
οὐ γὰρ ἱστορεῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν προτιθέμεθα, μνησθῆναι δὲ κεφαλαιωδῶς προαιρούμεθα χάριν τῆς προκατασκευῆς
τῶν μελλουσῶν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἱστορεῖσθαι πράξεων.
Notice that ἀναγκαῖον occurs in this passage, the same term that Paul uses in Philippians 2:25.
The Loeb edition for Polybius by W.R. Paton gives this translation: "Now to recount all these events in detail is neither incumbent on me nor would it be useful to my readers ; for it is not my purpose to write their history but to mention them summarily as introductory to the events which are my real theme."
Another similarity noted is that Hebrews 9:5 uses οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/07/paraleipsis-paralipsis-in-scripture-by.html
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
A Brief Note Pertaining to Histories 1.13.6-7 by Polybius
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wonder what the significance of that might be? the term is used many places with similar meanings (being impelled to do something). Do you think this is a kind of trope that might have some exegetical significance? or is this just something you found?
I find the usage interesting for lexical and rhetorical reasons, which ultimately affect how one exegetes the text. Not only does Polybius employ the word, but he uses it in a similar way. Compare 2 Corinthians 9:5. The adjective can be employed in various ways, yet Philippians 2:25 and the Polybius passage are similar. Sociolinguistically, this may be informative for determining the Pauline register and his epistolary methods. Lastly, I've found that Polybius utilizes words in a technical way, different from other writers.
Interesting, this might say something about the class/education make up of the intended audience? And thus how Paul expected his words to be understood?
Good point and that's important as well: knowing the potential composition of his audience and their background. Stan Porter has done work on this front, and the book that I'm reading about the Lord's supper delves into these issues. It goes back to the point that understanding the original context of the biblical writings is vital: we just can't stay in the past as Christians/worshipers of Jehovah, but we have to apply what we learn. However, questions regarding the audience and authorial intention should be addressed.
Post a Comment