as well as others’) focus on the audience reception of the proofs and evidence presented in speeches line up in conjunction. And the evidence from antiquity, from Cicero himself and from numerous others,205 clearly points to the fact that in the ancient world, it was accepted that the gods were intimately involved in the affairs of humanity, which included their pronouncing judgment on human beings as well as guiding their affairs. From the first half of De divinatione, it is readily apparent that there was a worldview in Cicero’s time that included human-divine communications, a worldview which Cicero seems to desire to counter in the second half of the treatise.206 Because this attitude toward and acceptance of the divine existed, it is no surprise that an orator would exploit it in order to win conviction.
A second example is found in the Plutarch’s De superstitione, in which he satirizes dreams207 and ridicules the idea of a soul being tormented after death. As will be demonstrated in the chapter five, however, dreams are extremely important in Plutarch’s Lives, especially when the subject of the bios is near death. Also, in De superstitione, Plutarch attacks eclipses as portents,208 but in the Lives, eclipses are seen as both scientific/natural phenomena as well as omens for the subject of the Life.209 I have shown that in the writings of Cicero, even though he was possibly not personally convinced of the validity of augury and divination, he was not reserved in his use of divine testimony as proofs. In chapter five, I will demonstrate the same point for Plutarch: although in Superst. Plutarch expresses reluctance in completely believing that natural phenomena represented portents, he, too, is quite willing to cite them as proofs in his writings.
Before moving into the analysis of the use of the topos of divine testimony in ancient narratives, including Luke-Acts, it is important to return to the work of W. Wuellner.210 Wuellner argues that the choice of topoi by ancient authors from which they built their arguments was a culturally-conditioned process and was determined by the rhetorical situations they faced.211 Therefore, given first-century culture, a culture which is dominated by the concept of gods who are intimately involved in the lives of human beings and who communicate their pleasure and displeasure through various methods, it is easy to understand why a speaker or author in the first century would select the topos of divine testimony as evidence of what that person is trying to prove.
In sum, in this chapter I first addressed how the term topos is currently being applied to NT studies. The conclusions from this study were that the term topos, when applied to NT studies, is somewhat polyvalent. It can refer to a line of argumentation, literary themes, or moral topoi that receive extensive treatment in philosophical treatises, categories that overlap to some degree. I then surveyed the ancient rhetoricians in order to ascertain their definitions of topos/locus. I have shown that one possible definition for topos is a source of proofs from which an orator can draw in order to bring evidence in a forensic or deliberative speech. In the Latin rhetoricians, and particularly in Cicero, there is a strong emphasis on legal applications of topoi and the use of rhetoric in service to the State. My argument here is that this particular definition is underrepresented in NT studies involving rhetoric and topoi.
I then moved to a particular topos described in many rhetorical writings, the external topos of divine testimony, which receives its fullest explanation in Cicero’s Topica. Through many examples I demonstrated that the testimony of the gods, which occurs through various means, was widely applied in ancient speeches and treatises when arguing a case or seeking to persuade an audience. Specifically, orators often applied this form of testimony in order to praise one’s client, or, conversely, to denigrate an opponent. Likewise, the testimony of the gods was used to demonstrate the gods’ support or lack thereof for a potential course of action. Finally, I argued that ancient audiences would have perceived this particular form of evidence as extremely persuasive.
Given this position, the next task is to examine Luke-Acts and other similar extra-biblical works in order to investigate if and how the topos of divine testimony is applied in these more narrative genres. In the next four chapters of this study, I will attempt to demonstrate that the topos of divine testimony was used rhetorically by ancient authors of narratives, including histories and biographies, in order to praise and denigrate characters, and to convince readers of the validity or inconsistency of a particular course of action.
83. Locus in Latin. When referencing those ancients who wrote in Greek, the word topos will be used; when discussing the Latin rhetoricians, locus will be used. Ultimately, the two terms reference the same general concept.
84. A summary of how the term topos has been particularly understood in NT scholarship will introduce this analysis.
85. For short summaries of the concept of topos, see, e.g., Cope, Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 124–33; J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, 107–19.
86. Curtius, in his influential work, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, 79–105, argues that the ancient rhetoricians considered the topics a “stockroom” of universally applicable concepts, to be employed in the composition of speeches and other forms of literature. For example, he cites the use of the topos of “affected modesty” (ibid., 83–85), and maintains that as early as Cicero this topos was used to ingratiate the orator to the judge overseeing the case. This topos, however, is also found in other literature, including both early Christian and non-Christian.
87. Many of the articles and essays reviewed here are also engaged by Thom, “Defining the topos,” 555–73; Thom makes many of the same points as I in this review of previous scholarship.
88. Bradley, “The Topos,” 238–46. The connection of topos and form criticism is clear in Bradley’s work. He states, “For one such form . . . I have employed as a descriptive name the Greek word topos” (“The Topos,” 240).
89. Mullins, “Topos,” 541–47, esp. 547. Mullins basically takes Bradley’s definition and compares to it several ancient writings, including Greco-Roman, Jewish, and early Christian. Specifically, Mullins agrees with Bradley’s definition of the function of a topos (as seen in the NT), but disagrees with his treatment of the form of the topos.
90. More recently, see also von Lips, “Die Haustafel,” 261–80. Von Lips argues that rather than a Gattung, the familiar Haustafel passages in the NT should be considered a topos; in this he sympathetically cites Bradley’s work. A. Malherbe also argues for this particular view of the topos. He maintains that a topos is a “stock treatment of subjects of interest to the moralist, ” and his analysis concentrates on the topos of friendship as found in Seneca, Plutarch, Musonius, Epictetus, and Dio Chrysostom, as well as Paul in the NT; see Malherbe, “Hellenistic Moralists,” 267–333, esp. 320–25. An example of topoi being applied in the analysis of the New Testament is found in H. D. Betz’s commentary on Galatians (Galatians). In his introduction to the commentary, Betz refers to Paul’s argument in 4:12–20 as a “string of friendship topoi” (ibid., 32). In his comments on the passage in question, Betz restates this expression; he says that Paul is making his argument using “a string of topoi belonging to the theme of ‘friendship.’” He continues by claiming that the theme of friendship was quite well known in the ancient world, and cites several ancient documents as evidence (ibid., 221). See also L. Johnson, “James 3:13—4:10,” 327–47.
91. Brunt, “More on the Topos,” 495–500.
92. Ibid., 496. Brunt
