SOURCE: Hodgson, Jr., Robert. “Valerius Maximus and Gospel Criticism.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51, no. 3 (July 1989): 502-10.

[In the following essay, Hodgson contends that contemporary scholarly criteria justifying the denigration of Valerius's Memorable Doings and Sayings may be obsolete and that the work offers insight into the development of the exempla tradition in its transition from secular Roman to Christian forms.]

I. VALERIUS MAXIMUS¹

In the early years of Tiberius' reign Valerius took to reading Latin and Greek history and collecting anecdotes for an anthology of Roman life. Dedicated to Tiberius and published in the wake of Sejanus' trial and execution, thus late in 31 c.e., Valerius' work has come down to us as the Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Nouem (Of Noteworthy Deeds and Sayings Nine Books) in Codex Laurentianus and Codex Bernensis, both of the ninth century. In addition there are 5th-cent. epitomes by Julius Paris and Januarius Nepotianus found in Codex Vaticanus Paridis, no. 4929 (10th cent.) and Codex Vaticanus Nepotiani, no. 1321 (14th cent.)

The anthology's nine books collect over one thousand anecdotes, two thirds of which (636) are Roman, the remainder foreign. Of ancient writers Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Frontinus, Lactantius, and Priscian used the Factorum as a source.

What we can surmise about Valerius from a few editorial remarks in the Factorum is that he was born into poverty during the long reign of Augustus (4.4.11: paruulos census nostros [“our meager resources”]), yet aspired to a life of letters. He sought and found a patron in Sextus Pompeius, the consul of 14 c.e. When in 27 c.e. Sextus Pompeius accepted the administration of Asia, Valerius joined his expedition, visiting the island of Keos (2.6.8) and the city of Athens (8.11.ext. 3; 8.12 ext. 2) en route. The date and place of his birth and death are unknown. Ironically he who left us with over a thousand anecdotes from the lives of others left us none from his own!

What is the position of Valerius in Latin literature? Schanz-Hosius² place him among the prose historians who wrote between Tiberius and Hadrian. He thus joins the company of Velleius Paterculus, Fenestella, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Cornelius Tacitus, as well as a score of other historians whose works have vanished.

Valerius' medium for history writing was the exempla collection, a form of anthology related to the chreia collection. Exempla appear not only in anthology form but as anecdotes in ancient letters, epics, and history books. Nonliterary forms of exempla are known as well, for example, their use in the plastic arts such as vase painting or in the Paradigmengebet (“exemplary prayer”). Rhetorical handbooks also recognize the exempla as a tool applied in the art of persuasion:³

Exemplification is the citing of something done or said in the past, along with the definite renaming of the doer or author. It is used with the same motives as a Comparison. It renders a thought more brilliant … clearer … more plausible … more vivid. …

The antiquity and popularity of exempla are noteworthy. In Greek literature they appear already in Homer as individual or collected paradeigmata or hypodeigmata. By the Hellenistic age they are regularly featured in philosophical and biographical writings as well as in Kleinliteratur such as the exitus illustrium virorum, “death of noble people.” The earliest surviving instances of exempla in Latin literature are found in Cicero, Sallust, and Vergil. Cornelius Nepos' (99-24 b.c.e.) now lost anthology is said to have been the first compendium. In the NT and early Christian literature there are instances of exempla, too (called hypodeigmata by NT [New Testament] writers): John 13:15; Jas 5:10; 2 Pet 2:6; 1 Clem. 5:1.⁴

II. VALERIUS MAXIMUS AND GOSPEL CRITICISM

For too long now students of the NT have shunned Valerius Maximus' Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Nouem.⁵ He is a valuable laboratory for testing current developments in form, redaction, and literary criticism of the gospels.⁶

The reason behind this neglect is simple enough. There is (to paraphrase T. S. Eliot) a class of Latin writer whose reputation would deter any reader but the most curious. Still, it is odd that Valerius, one of the historians writing between Tiberius and Hadrian, belongs to this group—odd, because of the twenty-five or so historians of this period only five, including Valerius, have survived.⁷ Nor need we tarry over the reasons why Valerius puts off even classical philologists and ancient historians. Suffice it to say that no one has translated him into English in modern times, and that the last critical text is Kempf's 1888 edition.⁸

Our purpose is to present a few passages from Valerius' anthology and briefly indicate their value for assessing some recent developments in gospel criticism. Specifically we will look at the current study of the chreia (or pronouncement story) and the miracle story.

The chreia and the miracle story belong to those NT narratives undergoing close scrutiny by form critics, particularly those versed in ancient rhetoric. Thanks to the publication of Robbins's handbook of pronouncement stories and the partial indexing of the Factorum, Valerius has at last found his way into the discussion.⁹ While Valerius' exempla are not quite the same as chreiai, the difference in form and function is slight enough to be put aside for the sake of the argument. Two aspects of recent work on the chreia can be studied profitably in connection with Valerius: the search for an explanation of how deed and word in a chreia are related and the quest for a formal definition of the chreia.

In his rhetorical study of the pronouncement stories in which Jesus blesses little children, Robbins concluded that “… in the absence of uniform sayings in a story, the possibility must be entertained that a poignant action rather than a poignant saying ended the earliest form of the tradition.”¹⁰ Or again, in his discussion of Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46-48, and Matt 18:1-5 he writes that¹¹

… the building blocks of both traditions are the ethos of Jesus as constituted by his action and speech. … Jesus' act of receiving children lies at the heart of the tradition, and upon this manifestation of Jesus' character the authors of the synoptic gospels build expanded chreiai. …

Such views, though subtle, are nonetheless revolutionary, since they assault one of the bulwarks of traditional form criticism. This is the axiom that sayings of Jesus or of his prophets tossed about freely in the life of the early church, attracting now one life setting, now another.

Do some of Valerius' exempla reveal a similar evolution such that a character's ethos serves as the magnet for attracting words and actions? Let us search for what Robbins says is a “… poignant action within a particular setting (that) has been the occasion for the production of one or more sayings.”¹² Robbins' example is Mark 9:33-37, where an action chreia (Jesus' placing of a child into the midst of his disciples) is expanded by adding a saying in v 37. Altogether the chreiai in Mark 9:33-36 and 9:37 intended to disclose the ethos of Jesus as evidenced by his action and speech. Later in the transmission of the combined chreiai the preaching of Jesus on the kingdom provided the point of the story (Matt 18:1-5).

Book One of the Factorum collects one hundred and fifteen Roman and foreign exempla, organizing them around the theme of religion. Its individual chapters deal with punctiliousness in religion, feigning religion for purposes of state, superstition, auspices, omens, prodigies, dreams, and miracles. Livy and Cicero are the chief sources upon which Valerius has drawn.

Valerius took from Livy an anecdote to illustrate the importance of the auspices for Roman religion. It is the classic scene of the fratricide of Romulus and his subsequent founding of Rome:¹³

Since the brothers were twins, and respect for their age could not determine between them, it was agreed that the gods who had those places in their protection should choose by augury who should give the new city its name, who should govern it when built. Romulus took the Palatine for his augural quarter, Remus the Aventine. Remus is said to have been the first to receive an augury, from the flight of six vultures. The omen had been already reported when twice that number appeared to Romulus. Thereupon each was saluted king by his own followers, the one party laying claim to the honour from priority, the other from the number of the birds. They then engaged in a battle of words and, angry taunts leading to bloodshed, Remus was struck down in the affray. The commoner story is that Remus leaped over the new walls in mockery of his brother, whereupon Romulus in great anger slew him, and in menacing wise added these words withal, “So perish whoever else shall leap over my walls!” Thus Romulus acquired sole power, and the city, thus founded, was called by its founder's name.

Valerius has condensed this scene down into: “It is certain that the city of Rome was founded with the auspices. Thus, Remus spotted first the six vultures; later, Romulus with twelve vultures proved superior to Remus, because, while Remus had the earlier auspices, Romulus had the greater number.”¹⁴ In the transmission of this anecdote three stages are evident. There is first the source upon which Livy draws, then the “commoner story” which Livy adds to his narrative, finally Valerius' anecdote. Let us take this sequence as an example of what Robbins has described as a poignant action to which a poignant saying has been added. The poignant action, capturing the ethos of Romulus, is a scene of devotion, impetuousness, and farsightedness: Romulus takes the auspices, kills his brother, and founds Rome. This action scene originated, we may assume, in Livy's source (Polybius?). But to this poignant action Livy added the “commoner story” with its poignant saying “So perish whoever else shall leap over my walls.” That this saying is expendable is shown by Valerius' treatment of the episode. For, in summarizing Livy, he eliminates the saying, retaining only an epitomized account of the poignant action.

If a single example may be said to support the broad lines of Robbins's thesis, it may also be said to imply a criticism as well. In our view, he has not sufficiently accounted for that stage in the evolution of a chreia in which the poignant action-poignant saying bond is broken, and only the poignant action remains behind. In the NT, for example, Mark's account of the Beelzebub Controversy (3:22-27), when compared with Q's (Matt 12:22-30 and Luke 11:14-23), is perhaps an instance of just such a rupture in the transmission of a chreia. The assumption we make is, of course, that Mark knew the Q chreia, including the poignant saying “He who is not with me is against me” (Matt 12:30 and Luke 11:23), but omitted the poignant saying.¹⁵

What about defining a chreia? Tannehill for instance says that a pronouncement story is:

… a brief narrative in which the climactic (and often final) element is a pronouncement which is presented as a particular person's response to something said or observed on a particular occasion of the past. There are two main parts of a pronouncement story: the pronouncement and its setting. …¹⁶

The climactic saying (corresponding to what Robbins calls the poignant saying) must dominate the story; indeed without such a saying there is no pronouncement story. Although Tannehill is aware that others would see a pronouncement story in a simple poignant action, he believes such cases to be rare.¹⁷

We begin by noting that Tannehill's definition excludes the type of pronouncement story which Robbins called the action chreia and which we compared with a text from Valerius. Indeed Robbins himself abandons his own standard in one study of pronouncement stories in Plutarch's Lives.¹⁸ Here is perhaps a point at which one can profitably look at Valerius' collection of exempla. Are the so-called action chreiai (or action exempla) as rare as Tannehill thought? Here is a tally of Valerius' exempla in 1.1-6 which have a saying either in direct or indirect discourse or none at all.

	With	Without
Chapter One (Punctiliousness)	9	22
Chapter Two (Feigning Religion)	3	6
Chapter Three (Superstition)	0	4
Chapter Four (Auspices)	4	8
Chapter Five (Omens)	8	3
Chapter Six (Prodigies)	4	11

Of eighty-one exempla only twenty-eight have a saying in either direct or indirect discourse. We would submit, then, that this (admittedly small) sample from Valerius' anecdote collection does not support the view that action chreiai are rare. Indeed, in the case of Valerius, action exempla represent sixty-five percent of the collection in 1.1-6.

We turn now to Valerius' relevance for recent work on the formal classification of the miracle story. Based on their studies in the rhetorical tradition, Tannehill and Berger have proposed a shift in how we classify and define miracles. Tannehill, for example, places Mark 3:1-6, The Man with the Withered Hand, among pronouncement stories of the objection type, and Mark 2:1-12, the Healing of a Paralytic, among pronouncement stories of the quest type.¹⁹

While it is not clear to us if Tannehill still would allow the designation “miracle story” to stand, it is apparent that Berger has done away with it. With Theissen's study in mind,²⁰ Berger faulted the traditional formal description of the miracle story for its dubious definition based on subject matter. The consequence of such a definition was a catchall form that included stories as diverse as the Walking on the Water (John 6:16-21), Peter's Release from Prison (Acts 12:8-17), the Discovery of the Foal (Mark 11:2-4), not to mention the healings and exorcisms. Eschewing the traditional definition and classification of miracle stories, Berger has distributed these narratives among such literary types as etiology, epiphany story, prodigy, and anecdote.

What can Valerius contribute to this current reassessment of the position of the miracle story in form and rhetorical criticism? Turning to Factorum 1.8 we discover that the last of Valerius' eight subdivisions under which he has placed his anecdotes on religion is miracula (“miracles” or “marvels”). Under the heading of miracula Valerius gathered twelve Roman and three foreign examples. But the form and content of these miracula differ so startlingly from one another that we are initially tempted to share Berger's and Tannehill's scruples about the aptness of the traditional formal type. After all, Valerius' anecdotes range from epiphany stories, featuring Castor and Pollux, through resurrection and healing narratives, to a report of the wonderful transfer of Asclepius' serpent from Epidaurus to Rome.²¹ Still Valerius saw a common denominator among his examples, and he put it this way.²²

Many puzzling things happen also during the daytime to those who are awake, corresponding to the obscurity of dreams of the night. These occurrences, because it is difficult to discern whence their origin and purpose, are justly called miracles. The bulk of them happened in former times.

According to Valerius Roman religion included a form of divine activity and religious experience called the miracle. Like the omens, prodigies, and auspices he had previously catalogued, the miracles could be exemplified in a list form. What miracula have in common with omens, prodigies, auspices, and so forth is that all are a type of divination. But beyond that, Valerius saw a common denominator in his miracula which comprised their timing (they happen during the day), the mysteriousness of their purpose and origin, and their occurring mostly in primis (“in former times”).

Valerius reminds us then that the ancient categories of religious experience are not lightly conceived and still serviceable as definitions and classifications for the oral and literary traditions of the NT and early Christian literature. Aretalogies connected with the cult of Asclepius as well as apocryphal gospels such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas remind us too that it was not simply the subject matter or even rhetorical function which defined the miracula. Miracles were to the ancient imagination a strategy by which the divine entered into human history as a demonstration of the antiquity, legitimacy, and reliability of a particular religion.²³

III. CONCLUSION

Let us return to where we began. It is true enough that a whole generation of NT and classical scholars have shunned Valerius. Today, however, new directions in research make older objections to Valerius' shortcomings beside the point. Recent work in the fields of form, literary, redaction, and rhetorical criticism will profit by taking Valerius seriously as a study in the craft of the ancient anthologist, historian, and biographer. Specifically, Valerius' anthology can serve as a laboratory for testing results of recent research into the chreiai and miracle story.

Notes

1. Apart from those sources mentioned in nn. 8 and 9 our discussion of Valerius' life and work is indebted to A. Lumpe, “Exemplum,” RAC [Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum] 6 (1966) cols. 1229-57.

2. M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 8/1-2; 2 vols.; 4th ed.; Munich: Beck, 1935) 1. xii-xiii, 588-95.

3. Rhetorica ad Herennium, 4.1.1; 4.7.10.

4. G. Richter's survey of research on John 13 (Die Fusswaschung im Johannesevangelium: Geschichte ihrer Deutung [Regensburg: Pustet, 1967]) indicates that Johannine scholarship has generally eschewed any discussion of the exemplum as exemplum in this text. M. Dibelius (Der Brief des Jakobus [MeyerK; 7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921] 225) remarks that the conciseness of this exemplum presupposes a familiarity on the reader's part with Jewish collections of such anecdotes.

5. Our translations are from K. Kempf, Valerii Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Nouem cum Iulii Paridis et Ianuarii Nepotiani Epitomis (Leipzig: Teubner, 1888).

6. The following texts have informed our views on form, redaction, and literary criticism: R. F. Hock and E. N. O'Neil (eds.), The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric 1: The Progymnasmata (SBLTT [Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations] 27; Graeco-Roman Religion Series 9; Atlanta: Scholars, 1986); G. A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC/London: University of North Carolina, 1984); V. K. Robbins, “Pronouncement Stories and Jesus' Blessing of the Children: A Rhetorical Approach,” Semeia 29 (1983) 43-74; idem, “Classifying Pronouncement Stories in Plutarch's Parallel Lives,” Semeia 20 (1981) 29-52; R. C. Tannehill, “Varieties of Synoptic Pronouncement Stories,” Semeia 20 (1981) 101-19; idem, “Introduction: The Pronouncement Story and Its Types,” Semeia 20 (1981) 1-14; B. L. Mack, Anecdotes and Arguments: The Chreia in Antiquity and Early Christianity (Occasional Papers of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 10; Claremont, CA; Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1987); K. Berger, “Hellenistische Gattungen im Neuen Testament,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.25/2 (ed. W. Haase; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 1031-1432; 1831-85 = Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1984); H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle, and Magic (SNTSMS [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series] 55; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1986); idem, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale University, 1983); A. Dihle, Die Entstehung der historischen Biographie (Sitzungsbericht der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft, phil.-hist. Klasse; Heidelberg: Winter, 1987); C. H. Talbert, What Is A Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

7. According to Schanz and Hosius (Geschichte, 1. 588-95) these five are Velleius Paterculus, Fenestella, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Cornelius Tacitus, and Valerius Maximus. The lost historians include M. Antonius Iulianus, the procurator of Judea in 70 c.e. who wrote an account of the First Jewish War from the Roman point of view. See Josephus, J.W. 6.3.5 §238 and Schanz-Hosius, Geschichte, 1. 649.

8. We note Whittick's sentiment (“Valerius Maximus,” Oxford Classical Dictionary [2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1970] 1106): “The work is shallow, sententious, and bombastic, full of the boldest metaphor of the Silver Age, especially forced antitheses and far-fetched epigrams. …” A generation earlier Norden (as quoted by R. Helm, “Valerius Maximus,” PW [Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft] 8.A.1 [1955] 98) reckoned Valerius among the Latin writers who drove the reader zur Verzweiflung (“to distraction”). For a recent and sympathetic study of Valerius see G. Maslakov, “Valerius Maximus and Roman Historiography,” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.32/1 (ed. W. Haase; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 437-96.

9. V. K. Robbins, Ancient Quotes and Anecdotes (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988). As far as I can judge, earlier studies of the chreia did not take Valerius into account.

10. Robbins, “Jesus' Blessing,” 73.

11. Ibid., 70.

12. Ibid., 45.

13. Livy 1.7.1-3. Translation by B. O. Foster, Livy I (LCL [Loeb Classical Library] 114; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University; London: Heinemann, 1976) 24-25.

14. 1.4: Urbem Romam auspiciis conditam certum est. Itaque Remus prior sex uultures auspicatus: postea Romulus duodecim, potior Remo fuit, quod Remus prioribus auspiciis niteretur, Romulus pluribus.

15. Other exempla in which one might search for a poignant action that has attracted a poignant saying in the course of character development are: 1.1.14; 1.1. ext. 3; 1.4.3; 1.4. ext. 1; 1.5.1; 1.5.3; 1.5.4; 1.5.6; 1.5.7; 1.5.9; 1.5. ext. 2. J. S. Kloppenborg (The Formation of Q [Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987] 125-27) calls Luke 11:23 “an originally independent saying” added to Q late in its redaction history. Its point is to excoriate those who reject Jesus' miracles or preaching. That such a poignant saying might have been added to a poignant action in the character development of Jesus by Q is not considered by Kloppenborg. Q is in his view interested in Jesus' preaching and not in his character. Nor does Kloppenborg consider the possibility that Mark has eliminated the saying.

16. Tannehill, “Introduction,” 1. Hock and O'Neil (Chreia, 23), citing Aphthonius, write: “A chreia is a concise reminiscence aptly attributed to some character.” See Mack, Anecdotes, 4.

17. Tannehill, “Introduction,” 2.

18. Robbins, “Plutarch's Lives,” 31. His pronouncement stories are limited to narratives ending in a saying.

19. Tannehill, “Varieties,” 107, 113.

20. G. Theissen, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten (SNT [Studien zum Neuen Testament] 8; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974). See Berger, “Gattungen,” 1212-18. For cautious but appreciative reviews of Berger's whole enterprise, see F. Lentzen-Deis, “Review of Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments,” Bib 68 (1987) 279-82 and D. Aune, “Review of Klaus Berger, Formgeschichte,” CBQ [Catholic Biblical Quarterly] 48 (1986) 734-35.

21. See 1.8.1; 1.8.2; 1.8. ext. 1.

22. 1.8: Multa etiam interdiu et uigilantibus acciderunt perinde ac tenebrarum somnique nube inuoluta. Quae, quia unde manauerint aut qua ratione constiterint dinoscere arduum est, merito miracula uocentur. Quorum e magno aceruo in primis illud occurrit.

23. Paradoxically, and at the same time that early Christian writers included miracles in their accounts of Jesus' life, they had to ward off a variety of misunderstandings such as those which surface in the Beelzebub Controversy (Mark 3:22-27). For a sensitive study of Mark's ambivalent attitude toward miracles see L. W. Countryman, “How Many Baskets Full? Mark 8:14-21 and the Value of Miracles in Mark,” CBQ 47 (1985) 643-55. The sign source of the Fourth Gospel, like Valerius' list of miracula, gathered up mysterious daytime occurrences of a former age and used them to exemplify Jesus' authority and compelling person. The Fourth Gospel, of course, puts its own signature on the sign source, translating the signs of Jesus ultimately into revelations of Jesus' glory and as invitations to faith. On this last point see R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to John (3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1982) 1. 515-28.

The author wishes to thank the editor and his associates for a sage and encouraging review of an earlier draft of this article.