No abstract

Those who view Rome from the perspective of modern empires have been struck by Rome's longevity (for example, Brunt 1965:267; Doyle 1986:81–103; Syme 1958:1). Attempts to explain this phenomenon, however, have given little if any consideration to why movements of national independence have occurred in modern times, but not in Roman antiquity. This is the more striking inasmuch as nationalist rebellions against imperial rule typically accompanied the dissolution of direct imperial control over native populations during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Certainly the decisions of modern imperialists to give up their empires have been influenced by political idealism or by calculations of economic self-interest unique to their historical situations (Liithy 1964:34). Nonetheless, the role of their subjects must also be taken into consideration, because it was the initiative of the colonial natives, not that of the imperial masters, that typically has resulted in the first calls for independence and, most often, in the nationalist rebellions that provoked imperialists into dismantling their empires. Idealistic impulses and calculations of economic self-interest alike have taken place within the context of that initiative and cannot help but to have been colored by it. It would be a mistake to identify nationalist sentiment and rebellion as the only reasons for the collapse of modern empires, but they must be included among the decisive reasons.

No abstract

The account of Paul's sea journey from Caesarea to Rome, and of the shipwreck off Malta, is probably the “dramatic center” of Acts. It is the moving bridge between the mysterious scene of Christian origins and the awesome power of the Roman forum, and it is an adventure recounted with much more than Luke's usual amount of detail. The task of commenting on the passages in question (27:1-28:16) presents certain difficulties, since it is hard to decide whether Luke is being more litterateur than historian, or whether he is virtually reproducing a document rather than relating the events in his own way. Some scholars contend that the journey narrative has all the ingredients of a Hellenistic romance, while others hold that both the realism and the presence of “we passages” confirm its essential historicity. To complicate matters, there remains the possibility that Luke appropriated a travel story which was originally not about Paul at all, but about someone else who voyaged in the same direction. While these difficulties have encouraged a swell of critical exegesis, however, another problem has had the quite opposite effect.

No abstract