To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In field studies, sprinkler irrigation application of the butyl ester of fluazifop-P, the methyl ester of haloxyfop, and the ethyl ester of quizalofop controlled large crabgrass as well as conventional spray applications. In greenhouse investigations, root uptake of the herbicides from sprinkler irrigation applications injured large crabgrass more than root uptake from conventional applications, but large crabgrass injury from shoot uptake was equal with sprinkler irrigation and conventional applications. Droplets with dilute concentrations of herbicide and crop oil, simulating sprinkler irrigation, were more active when applied to the whorl or second leaf than to the first leaf of large crabgrass. An increase in concentration of nonemulsified oil in the treatment solution increased herbicide deposition and retention.
Experiments were conducted from 1989 to 1991 on two silt loam and two clay soils to determine the effect of herbicides applied to the previous crop on growth and yield of rice. All herbicides were applied preplant-incorporated at recommended rates adjusted as needed for soil texture. Rice was planted the following year. Imazaquin, imazethapyr, alachlor, metolachlor, clomazone, trifluralin, and atrazine did not injure rice the year following application. Norflurazon was the only herbicide to injure rice on silt loam soils, with injury at one silt loam location in one of two years. Norflurazon and fluometuron residues caused rice injury on clay soils, and chlorimuron residues caused injury in one year on a day soil. This chlorimuron carryover injury was from August-planted soybean but did not occur from June-planted soybean. Norflurazon, fluometuron, and chlorimuron temporarily reduced rice dry matter early in the season. No herbicide reduced either rough rice or percent head rice yield on any of the soils.
To be invited to contribute to a volume on Acts and ancient historiography presents a peculiar challenge to one whose published writings argue that Luke–Acts belongs to ancient biography. I assume that my assigned task is to justify my decision to place Acts in the biographical rather than the historiographical tradition and to indicate what difference, if any, I think that makes. That is, in fact, what I shall attempt to do. My chapter will begin with a consideration of certain evidence from Mediterranean antiquity about the genres of history and biography.
In a number of respects ancient history and biography are similar, (i) History is a prose narrative. The dominant type of biography is also prose narration. This sets them apart from epic. (2) Both history and biography are about real people and real events. This sets them apart from romance. (3) Varieties of both share certain aims: apologetics, instruction, entertainment.
Indeed, histories often contain biographical sections (Polybius 9.22; 10.2.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus 5.48.1; Diodorus Siculus 17; Josephus, Antiquities 14–17; Dio Cassius, 45–56; 73 at beginning; 73.11.2–4; Eusebius, Church History 6). Biographies often include a narrative of events. The dominant type of biography is prose narrative, which is similar to history except that it is anecdotal and mostly unconcerned about cause and effect. This is in contrast to biographies which are dialogues (for example, Satyrus, Life of Euripides; Palladius, Life of Chrysostom; Sulpicius Severus, Life of St. Martin) and the biographical collections of sayings like Plutarch's “Sayings of Kings and Commanders” (for example, in D, Plutarch says: “their pronouncements and unpremeditated utterance … afford an opportunity to observe … the working of the mind of each man”).
In spite of its popularity, the contention that the Christian conception of Jesus as a descending-ascending saviour figure was derived from the gnostic redeemer myth faces serious problems. Three are widely noted; another needs attention. (I) The sources from which our knowledge of the gnostic myth comes are late: e.g. the Naassene hymn, the hymn of the Pearl, the Mandean materials, the Manichean evidence, the accounts in the church fathers, and the Nag Hammadi documents. Sources from Chenoboskion like the Paraphrase of Shem, the Apocalypse of Adam, and the Second Logos of the Great Seth do contain a myth of a redeemer that is only superficially christianized. Hence the gnostics may not have derived their myth from Christians. It does not follow, however, either that Christians got it from gnostics or that it is pre-Christian. (2) A redeemer myth is not essential to gnosticism. Though gnosticism may contain a redeemer myth (e.g. the Naassene hymn), it may exist without one. In Carpocrates' system, for example, Jesus' soul remembered what it had seen in its circuit with the unbegotten God. The Ophites in Origen's Against Celsus know of no descending-ascending redeemer. They look to an earthly being who fetches gnosis from heaven. In Poimandres, the writer is the recipient of a vision in rapture. He then teaches the way of salvation. Indeed, the proto-gnosticism of Paul's opponents in I Corinthians apparently did not contain a redeemer myth. Such evidence demands that a distinction be drawn between two issues: (a) whether or not there was a pre-Christian gnosticism, and (b) whether or not there was a pre-Christian gnostic redeemer myth. Since a redeemer myth is not constitutive for gnosticism, the existence of a pre-Christian gnosis is no guarantee for the presence of a gnostic redeemer myth. (3) In the Christian sources where the gnostic myth has been assumed to be influential (e.g. the Fourth Gospel), there is no ontological identity between Christ and the believers as in gnosticism. There is, in the Christian writings, no pre-existence of the soul or redeemed redeemer. Given these difficulties, why the attractiveness of the gnostic hypothesis?