Matthew and His World: The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians Studies in Biblical Theology 9783666539640, 9783727815843, 9783525539644

Citation preview

ΝΤΟ A 61 Benedict Т. Viviano OP Matthew and His World The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians Studies in Biblical Theology

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben im Auftrag der Stiftung BIBEL+ORIENT Freiburg Schweiz von Max Küchler, Peter Lampe und Gerd Theissen

Band 61

Academic Press Fribourg Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen

Benedict Т. Viviano OP

Matthew and His World The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians Studies in Biblical Theology

Academic Press Fribourg Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen 2007

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

Veröffentlicht mit Unterstützung des Hochschulrates Freiburg Schweiz und ungenannter Donatorinnen Die Druckvorlagen der Textseiten wurden vom Autor als PDF-Datei zur Verfügung gestellt. © 2007 by Academic Press Fribourg / Paulusverlag Freiburg Schweiz Herstellung: Paulusdruckerei Freiburg Schweiz ISBN: 978-3-7278-1584-3 (Academic Press Fribourg) ISBN: 978-3-525-53964-4 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen) ISSN 1420-4592 (Novum Testam. orb. antiq.)

To J. Justin Taylor, S.M.

Eras tu, sodalis meus, amicus et familiaris meus, Quocum dulce habui consortium, in domo Dei ambulavimus in coetu festivo. Ps 55(54): 14-15 Psalterium Pianum (1945)

Contents 1.

Introduction: Matthew Studies Today

3

2.

Where was the Gospel according to Matthew Written?

9

3.

The Genres of Matthew 1-2: Light from 1 Timothy 1:4

24

4.

The Movement of the Star, Matthew 2:9 and Numbers 9:17

45

5.

The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study

51

6.

Eight Beatitudes at Qumran and in Matthew

64

7.

The Kingdom of God in the Qumran Literature

69

8.

The Least in the Kingdom: Matthew 11:11, its Parallel in Luke 7:28 (Q) and Daniel 4:14 81

9.

Revelation in Stages (Matthew 11:25-30 and Numbers 12:3,6-8)

95

10. The Historical Jesus and the Biblical and Pharisaic Sabbath (Mark 2:2328; 3:1-6 and Parallels): the Problem of Capital Punishment 102 11. Synagogues and Spirituality: the Case of Beth Alfa

134

12. Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16:13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4:10-17 and Other Models 146 13. The Sin of Peter and Paul's Correction: Gal 2:11-14 as an Ecumenical Problem 171 14. Unity and Symphonic Diversity in the Church: the Dialectic between John 17:20-23 (Matt: 16:17-19) and Matthew 18:18-20 193 15. The High Priests' Servant's Ear: Mark 14:47

220

16. A Psychology of Faith: Matthew 27:54 in the Light of Exodus 14:30-31 229 17. The Perfect Law of Freedom: James 1:25 and the Law

233

18. John's Use of Matthew: Beyond Tweaking

245

19. Matthew's Place in the New Testament Canon and in the Lectionary of the Church Year 270 Index of passages

291

Index of names

301

List of First Publications

1.

Introduction: Matthew Studies Today (unpublished).

2.

"Where was the Gospel according to Matthew Written?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979) 533-546.

3.

"The Genres of Matt 1-2: Light from 1 Timothy 1:4," Revue 97(1990)31-53.

4.

"The Movement of the Star, Matthew 2:9 and Numbers 9:17," Revue Biblique 103 (1996) 58-64.

5.

"The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study," Biblica 78 (1997) 255265.

6.

"Eight Beatitudes at Qumran and in Matthew," The Bible Today 31 (1993) 219-224. Another form of this article was published in Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 58 (1993) 71-84.

7.

"The Kingdom of God in the Qumran Literature," in The Kingdom of God in 20,h-Century Interpretation, ed. Wendell Willis, Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1987, 97-107.

8.

"The Least in the Kingdom: Matthew 11:11, Its Parallel in Luke 7:28 (Q), and Daniel 4:14," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000) 41-54.

9.

Revelation in Stages (Matthew 11:25-30 and Numbers 12:3,6-8) (unpublished).

Biblique

10. The Historical Jesus and the Biblical and Pharisaic Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6 and Parallels): the Problem of Capital Punishment (unpublished). 11. "Synagogues and Spirituality: the Case of Beth Alfa," in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2006, p. 223-235. 12. "Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16:13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4:1017 and Other Models," in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. C.A. Evans. JSP SS 33; SSEJC 7; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000, 312-341.

13. The Sin of Peter and Paul's Correction: Gal 2:11-14 as an Ecumenical Problem (unpublished). 14. Unity and Symphonic Diversity in the Church: the Dialectic between John 17:20-23 (Matt 16:17-19) and Matthew 18:18-20 (unpublished). 15. "The High Priests's Servant Ear: Mark 14:47," Revue Biblique (1989)71-80.

96

16. "A Psychology of Faith: Matthew 27:54 in the Light of Exodus 14:3031," Revue Biblique 104 (1997) 368-372. 17. "The Perfect Law of Freedom: James 1:25 and the Law," in A Bouquet of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of Karl-Gustav Sandelin, ed. K.-J. Illman, Tore Ahlback, Sven-Olav Back, Risto Nurmela. Abo (=Turku, Finland): Abo Akademi, 2000, 217-230. 18. "John's Use of Matthew: Beyond Tweaking," Revue Biblique (2004) 209-237.

111

19. Matthew's Place in the New Testament Canon and in the Lectionary of the Church Year (unpublished).

1

Introduction : Matthew Studies Today

At the beginning of this second collection of essays on New Testament theology, it is appropriate to situate the studies in several ways. First, the title Matthew and His World has been chosen to permit a somewhat wider range of subjects than would a title like Studies in Matthew. In particular the reader might be surprised by several essays which touch the gospel according to John. The explanation is a practical one. Here at the university of Fribourg I offer a yearlong course on Matthew, followed by an alternating year on John. This simple fact has led me to notice some links between these two nature gospels which have not, it seems, been explored before in quite this way. It could even be a good idea to bring the two gospels into dialogue. That is for the reader to decide. Another strange bedfellow in this collection is the article on the mosaic floor of the synagogue at Beth Alfa. That synagogue dates from several centuries after Matthew. But Matthew mentions synagogues nine times in his gospel; they are part of his world, and Beth Alfa is one about which we know more than we do about others. The article is included here as an illustration of Matthew's environment and spiritual situation. The reader may also notice a certain evolution in my studies of Matthew from an earlier interest in the rabbinic context or "background" of his gospel to a greater attention to his use of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible, Deuterocanonicals, Targums and the Septuagint), now known as intertextuality. When I began specialized biblical studies, the Old Testament was a separate department. Students of the New Testament were to concentrate on the extra-canonical writings of the first two centuries B.C. and A.D., for example, the Qumran literature, the Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, the early rabbis, Hellenistic philosophies and religions, the Apostolic Fathers. I am glad I studied all of these. But under the twin influences of living twelve years in Jerusalem (where the Pentateuch reigns over daily life to a remarkable degree), and the example and teaching of my late colleague M.-E. Boismard, I came to realize that the greatest literary influence on the New Testament writers was the Jewish Bible, in all its rich textual variety. Boismard taught us that the marginal references in the Nestle-Aland Greek Testament do not exhaust the question. There is more work to be done in this area. Still an-

4

INTRODUCTION

other strange bedfellow, the essay on the history of the interpretation of Gal 2:11-14, fits readily in this collection once one accepts that Peter plays a significant subsidiary role in Matthew. A major essay is devoted to Peter herein. So Paul's reaction to the role of Peter serves as a dialogue partner to Matthew's approach. From my earlier publications, especially the commentary on Matthew in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (second, revised edition of 1990), and some of the essays in Trinity-Kingdom-Church (2001), it will be clear what my basic assumptions about Matthew's gospel are, and also what my method is. The method is redaction critical, with an occasional dip into historicalJesus research (especially the essay on the Sabbath). The assumptions are that Matthew, the Greek-writing evangelist, was a Jewish-Christian, interested in both a rather full Torah observance (as reinterpreted by Jesus) and in a mission to Gentiles (Matt 5:17-20; 23:23; 28:18-20). He wrote his gospel and let it out to be copied (the ancient sense of the word "to publish") sometime between A.D. 80-95. He wrote somewhere in northern Roman Palestine (e.g., Caesarea maritima, Sepphoris, Tiberias) or southern Syria (Tyre, Sidon, Damascus). On this point the great debate is still with those scholars who hold for a north Syrian provenance, Antioch. Included here is an early essay proposing Caesarea as the provenance. The reader should be clear on two points about this. First, there is no certitude on this question of provenance. So, secondly, the discussion of the question is really about two other issues, (a) Is Matthew a more Jewish-Christian or a more GentileChristian gospel? (b) Was the evangelist in dialogue (however polemical) with the rabbinic salvage operation in Jamnia and elsewhere in Roman Palestine or was he not? If the answer to this second question is yes he was in dialogue, then the northern Palestinian-southern Syrian provenance makes more sense, simply on grounds of easier communication between the two Jewish groups in debate, Matthew's "school" and the vineyard academy at Jamnia-Jabneh. It is further probable that Matthew's gospel received the backing of a major local church, backing which consisted in commissioning it, giving it final approval, distributing it and providing financial support. Manuscripts were expensive to produce; libraries were beyond the means of most private writers. Matthew shows signs, in his use of Scripture, of having a library of biblical resources at his disposal. His gospel was not the product of a solitary genius, but of a qualified representative of a community with its own point(s) of view. The thesis of the evangelist as solitary genius has this degree of truth in it. The final form of the gospel according to Matthew shows signs of careful literary composition in detail. H. Frankemölle, among others, has impres-

INTRODUCTION

5

sively demonstrated this. There has been a single controlling mind at work, a mind responsible for the "final design decisions", as architects would say. This does not exclude occasional slips in fact or structure, though again, some of these "broken patterns" may be intentional. Nor does it exclude the view of the gospel as the heir of a rich tradition stemming from Second Temple Judaism (in all of its amazing creative diversity), Jesus the founding figure, the apostolic oral and written tradition, and a supportive church community. There is a real evangelist, even if he is anonymous. But he was not solitary. Besides ignoring the traditional and community aspects, that idea smacks too much of romantic idealism. Whether or not he was a genius remains an open question, but in any case he was a very able teacher. Apart from the sacred Scriptures, Matthew had two primary sources to draw on in his portrait of Jesus: (a) the sayings source (Logien-Quelle) of roughly 200 verses of mostly sayings of John the Baptist and Jesus; (b) the gospel according to Mark. There are some genuine difficulties in this latter assertion, the "minor agreements" between Matthew and Luke, of which a striking example is the pericope about the love commandments (Matt 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28). Yet for the most part the evidence is so much in favor of Marcan priority that one accepts it, always allowing for some variations in the textual transmission of the gospels, now lost to us, which could solve our difficulties. 1 Besides these two primary sources, the evangelist doubtless had at his disposal a wide range of oral traditions, as well as his own creative reflections on the ancient scriptures in the light of Jesus, for him the Christ or Messiah in his first coming, in humility and poverty, yet also in a foretaste of royal dignity, transfigured and risen glory. Theologically, Matthew is the gospel of the Immanual Christology of 1:23; 18:20; 28:20; his is a moral piety, as expressed in the five great discourses (5-7; 10; 13; 18; 23-25) that play such a great role in his gospel; it is a morality or ethics motivated by eschatological hopes and fears, focussed on justice but aware of God's mercy (9:9-13). Up to this point, what has been said about Matthew here is rather in the mainstream, bordering on the commonplace. (I do intend to be a centrist, in the Davies-Allison line. Davies was my beloved teacher; Allison is an admired friend.) 2

The text of Mark 12:28-34 and parallels is a good example of the difficulties with the two source hypothesis and yet why it should still be maintained. Two recent studies arrive at the conclusion: P . KEITH, Or le second lui est semblable...": Etude de Matthieu 22,35 ά 40 (Etudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 2005); G. THEISSEN, Jesus als historische Gestalt (FRLANT 202; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003) 57-72. In modern research we now have three major commentaries on Matthew which provide basic information on every pericope: W . D . D A V I E S - D . C . A L L I S O N , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: T. &

6

INTRODUCTION

But within what one might call centrist Matthew studies today, I discern one tension which it is perhaps worthwhile to point out and to address. We could describe the first position as follows. Matthew and his gospel stand firmly within early Christianity. That means that they are outside the walls of the synagogue (extra muros), that they have definitely broken with the Judaism of their day. Conflicts and anguish over the separation are a thing of the past. 3 The second position regards Matthew and his gospel as still intellectually within the Judaism of its day (intra muros), but as a beleaguered, fearful, anxious (and thus rancorous) minority. 4 Matthew, his gospel, and his community believe that they are within Judaism, despite having been rejected and perhaps excommunicated by other Jews (the birkat ha-minim or curse of the heretics introduced into the synagogue liturgy at Jamnia). 5 Indeed, they believe the they are the true Israel (even though this phrase does not occur as such until Justin Martyr, ca. A.D. 180), the legitimate heir of the Hebrew biblical and intertestamental heritage, once the Temple had been burnt down. (This sort of harsh internal conflict was not unknown in Second Temple Judaism. The polemics in Qumran literature against the Jerusalem

T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997); J. GNILKA, Das Matthäusevangelium, 2 vols. (HTKNT 1.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988); U. Luz, 4 vols. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK 1:1-4; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985; 1990; 2002; English translation: Matthew 1-7 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Matthew 8-20 Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001); R. SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). 3

G.N. STANTON, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 1992); D.A. HAGNER, "Matthew: Apostate, Reformer, Revolutionary?" NTS 4 9 ( 2 0 0 3 ) 1 9 3 - 2 0 9 ; D . R . B A U E R a n d M . A . POWELL, e d s . , Treasures

New

and

Old:

Contribu-

tions to Matthean Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). 4

A.J. SALDARINL, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago: 1994; D.C. SIM, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTS MS 88; Cambridge: University Press, 1996); D.C. SIM, The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism (Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 1998); J.A. OVERMAN, Matthews Gospel and Formative Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); J.A. OVERMAN, Church and Community in Crisis (Valley Forge PA: Trinity Press, International, 1996), esp. 413-419; D.L. BALCH, ed., Social History of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); D.E. AUNE, ed., The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001); J.H. NEYREY, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); L.J. LAWRENCE, An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew: The Use of the Honor and Shame Model ( W U N T 11.165; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); P. FOSTER, Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel (SUNT 11.177; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004).

5

On the Birkat ha-Minim, see the discussion in W. HORBURY, "The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy," JTS 33 (1982) 19-61; R. KIMELMAN, "Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an Anti-Christian Prayer in Late Antiquity," in E.P. SANDERS, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 2: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period (London: SCM, 1981), 226-244.

INTRODUCTION

7

priests, the disagreements between Pharisees and Sadducees, Acts 23:8, are examples.) 6 Given this tension within Matthew studies, the present work is clearly located in the second camp, but with this difference. Whereas much recent literature emphasizes the beleaguered, anxious, minority state of Matthew's community (e.g., Saldarini) or its bitterness towards the proto-rabbinic "majority", the present work takes as its starting presupposition what might be called a cheerful, confident Matthew. To be sure, Matthew found himself in a situation of competition and conflict on two fronts, as witness his harsh polemics against the heirs of the Pharisees in chapter 23 and elsewhere in his gospel, and his teasing of Pauline Torah-free Christians (e.g., Matt 5:19 compared to 1 Cor 15:9, or Matt 16:17 compared to Gal 1:12). But he was optimistic that in the long run his brand of moderate Jewish Christianity would prevail. What are the reasons for his cheerful confidence? Several may be listed. (1) On the matter of statistics, who held the majority of Jews, who the minority, the truth is that we simply do not know, and neither did Matthew or his opponents. Such a discussion may be importing modern ways of looking at things into the first century world. Paul does use the term "a remnant" for Christian believers within Israel (Rom 11:5), but he is careful to keep things general ("a hardening has come upon part of Israel", Rom 11:25). Whatever the unknown exact statistics, given the fluid regions situation in late first century Palestine, Matthew could not unreasonably expect his to become the majority Jewish positions. He was working in a period which might be called a window of opportunity, after the fall of the Temple and its highpriestly leadership, but before the Bar Cochba revolt (A.D. 132-135) and the expulsion of Jews of all parties from Judea with all its religious prestige. After 135, the lines hardened, the Pauline movement prevailed in early Christianity (though modified by the use of Matthew in its communities). The rabbis prevailed among Jews. But all this occurs after 135. Greek Matthew is working at a time (A.D. 75-95) when he still has a chance to prevail. (2) Matthew's confidence rests on his conviction that he has a better religious "product" than Jamnia, and a richer, more concrete ethics than Paul. With the rabbis he shares a full Torah observance (all 613 commandments, to use a later reckoning) but as interpreted by and personified in Jesus Christ who concentrates the law in the love commands. With all due respect for Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai, Matthew's Jesus need not fear the comparison. At the same time, Matthew's nomistic soteriology, e.g., 25:31-46, judgment 6

J.J. TAYLOR and B.T. VIVIANO, "Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8-9)," JBL

111 ( 1 9 9 2 ) 4 9 6 - 4 9 8 .

8

INTRODUCTION

on the basis of "what you do to the least of my brothers", appeals to practical, humanitarian believers who want to combine faith and works (Gal 5:6 and James), but who also appreciate the concrete guidance provided by the Sermon on the Mount and the list of merciful works in Matt 25:35-36. (3) Matthew's gospel bears within it the prestige of coming from the Holy Land, the land of the Bible, the land of the Holy Places where Jesus and the prophets before him walked the earth, the promised land that Moses was not able to enter (Deut 34). Papias speaks of Judea as the source of Aramaic Matthew. Greek Matthew was composed only a little further away and had the backing of the local church. (4) As regards ecclesiology, for Matthew the risen Jesus is the permanently present Lord of the church (28:20). To this religious conviction, Matthew's gospel adds the subsidiary but real authority of Peter (16:17-20) and the twelve disciples (10:1; 18:1,18), besides other leaders (10:40-42; 23:34). Peter symbolizes a flawed but real mediating figure from the earliest circle of Jesus' followers. In Matthew's own day he (though dead) represented a compromise candidate, a position between Paul and James (Gospel of Thomas 12).7 For these four reasons it is safe to speak of a confident, predominately cheerful Matthew . His gospel was destined to be the most frequently cited by the early church authors,8 and the guide to Christian ethics. It would have an impact even on churches of Pauline foundation.9

7

8

9

B.T. VIVIANO, "The Sins of Peter and Paul's Correction: Gal 2 : 1 1 - 1 4 as an Ecumenical Problem," included in this volume. E. MASSAUX, Vinfluence de l'Evangile de saint Matthieu sur la litterature chretienne avant saint Irenee (Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 1950); 2 n d ed. 1986; English translation, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1990); W.-D. KÖHLER, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus (WUNT 11.24; Tübingen: Mohr-Liebeck, 1987); R. METZNER, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT II. 74; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1995). B.T. VIVIANO, "The Genres of Matthew 1-2: Light from 1 Timothy 1:4," RB 97 (1990) 31-53 (included in this volume); cf. Μ. MAYORDOMO-MARIN, Den Anfang hören: Leseorientierte Evangelienexegese am Beispiel von Matthäus 1-2 (FRLANT 180; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998).

2

Where Was the Gospel According to St. Matthew Written?

This essay is an attempt to explore one of the standard introductory questions and thereby to help us grasp somewhat more concretely the circumstances attending the composition and publication of this gospel. It will consist of two main parts. The first part will survey the evolution of Matthean studies with respect to this question from 1924 to the present, and will conclude with a proposal of Caesarea Maritima as the place where the final redaction of the gospel according to Saint Matthew took place. The second part will endeavor to explore whatever evidence (mainly patristic) exists for this proposal. By "the gospel" is meant the present final Greek form of Matthew. In his 1924 book The Four Gospels, B.H. Streeter placed the final redaction of Matthew in Antioch (i.e., in northwestern Syria) in around A.D. 85.1 This proposal has proven to be remarkably tenacious and may even be said to hold the field still. As the most recent English edition of Kiimmel's standard NT introduction says, "Most scholars assume, relying on Streeter, that Matthew was written in Antioch, or, more generally, in Syria." 2 The general term "most scholars" includes R.E. Brown in his recent work on the infancy narrative, 3 though Brown does not lay great weight on this point, and Kümmel himself is open to the possibility of a Phoenician origin. 4 But in referring to Streeter, we should recall that he derives the Matthean special material from a Jerusalem document dated circa A.D. 60 (his Μ source), and that he had already placed Luke's special material in Caesarea Maritima also circa A.D. 60 (his L source), a decision which subsequently blocks him from considering Caesarea as the place of origin for Matthew. For Streeter did consider Caesarea, 5 but ruled it out not only for the reason just given, viz., that he had already found another place for it in his scheme of things, but also for two other main reasons. 1 2 3

B.H. STREETER, The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1924), 150. W.G. KÜMMEL, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1957) 119. R.E. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1977) 45-7.

4

KÜMMEL, 1 1 9 .

5

STREETER, 5 0 2 .

10

W H E R E W A S M A T T H E W WRITTEN?

1. Caesarea was "the port of entry of Samaria" and as such it is inconceivable for Streeter that a gospel originating there should contain the words "Enter not into any city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5). This argument is a fragile one, since Caesarea did not have longstanding historical associations with Samaria in any exclusive sense. Rather we should understand it as a fairly recently developed port city, which grew up from a small town called Strata's Tower to a major harbor under Herod the Great who renamed it Caesarea after the emperor Augustus in 22 B.C. 6 It quickly became the seat of the Roman procurators of the province of Judaea 7 and its port served the whole of Palestine, along with the old ports, Joppa and Akko, and the formerly Philistine cities to the south. (Haifa dates only from the Middle Ages.) Caesarea need therefore imply no special connection with Samaritans. We can easily explain Matt. 10:5 on theological rather than geographical considerations, especially so since the verse also says "go nowhere among the Gentiles", and the whole matter of the Gentile mission is not settled until 28:19. 2. Streeter's second argument against a Caesarean or any Palestinian origin is quite interesting. Noting Matthew's dependence upon Mark, he observes that "the narratives peculiar to Matthew... so rarely look authentic." 8 Rather, they often seem to be haggadic embellishments. He gives as examples Matt. 27:51-53,24-25. "But if this is so, Mark must have been known in the Church where Matthew wrote long enough to have become an established authority — a document which teachers and preachers expounded by methods familiar in the exposition of Scripture." 9 All of this is unexceptionable, but has no decisive bearing on the question of a Palestinian origin, so we are not surprised that his argument trails off to other, less relevant considerations after this point has been reached. It does not take much cleverness to realize that the place where haggadic or midrashic techniques of scriptural interpretation flourished at this time was Palestine, so that Streeter's argument argues more in favor of a Palestinian origin than an Antiochene one, especially since he concedes that this gospel is "saturated with Jewish feeling." 10 From Streeter's argumentation we retain above all his assumption that a gospel, in order to acquire wide acceptance, must have had the backing of a 6

JOSEPHUS, У. W. 1 . 4 0 8 - 1 4

7

Vespasian, proclaimed emperor at Caesarea, raised it to the rank of Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta, and later Alexander Severus raised it to the rank of Metropolis Provinciae Syriae Palestinae. Pliny, in his History, 2.79, calls it caput Palestinae and mentions the renaming by Vespasian. On coins it is called Colonia Prima Flavia Augusta Caesarea.

8

STREETER, 5 0 2 .

9

STREETER, 5 0 3 .

10

STREETER, 5 0 4 .

WHERE WAS MATTHEW

WRITTEN?

11

major church; we also agree with his elimination of Rome, Alexandria and Ephesus 11 as likely sites for the composition of the gospel. Moving on in our survey we come to G.D. Kilpatrick's 1946 study, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew. He concludes that "Matthew was written in a Greek-speaking community with little or no contact with any Semitic tongue, probably in a Syrian port." 12 After carefully considering the arguments for and against Antioch as the port in question, he inclines toward Phoenicia, particularly Tyre or Sidon, as the place of authorship, 13 that is, a location closer to Palestine than Antioch. He does so because, among other reasons, Matthew has changed Mark's "Greek woman, a Syrophoenician by birth" (7:26) to a "Canaanite woman" (15:22) presumably to avoid irritating his congregants. 14 While this consideration is far from decisive, we cannot but agree with Kilpatrick's observations that Ignatius of Antioch, almost contemporaneous with the writing of the gospel, "shows no trace of the Jewish influence which is so strong in the Gospel", 15 and that Antioch seems to have been the center of the Gentile mission (Acts 11:1926), whereas Peter (with whom Matthew has special affinities) was called to the ministry of the circumcision (Gal. 2:8). Both points tend to disqualify Antioch and to favor a more southerly origin. The next work we need to consider is Krister Stendahl's School of St. Matthew (first edition 1954). Unlike the authors we have just treated, he does not make a specific suggestion as to the geographical location of the gospel writers. But he advances several hypotheses which can contribute materially to a solution of our question. 1. In the formula quotations peculiar to Matthew's gospel the biblical text is treated in somewhat the same manner as in the quotations of the Qumran pesher to Habakkuk. The formula citations would thus have taken shape within the Matthean church's study of the Scriptures. 16 This presupposes careful study of the biblical text in a variety of text-types, the Hebrew and several versions Greek and Aramaic, and such study in turn presupposes a library and some learned activity, perhaps by a team of trained scribes. 2. "The Matthan school must be understood as a school for teachers and church leaders, and for this reason the literary work of that school assumes the form of a manual for teaching and administration within the church." 17

11

STREETER, 5 0 I f .

12

G.K. KILPATRICK, The Origins of the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarend o n , 1946), 133.

13

KILPATRICK, 1 3 4 .

14

KILPATRICK, 1 3 2 .

15

KILPATRICK, 1 3 2 .

16

Κ. STENDAHL, School of St. Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962) 195.

17

STENDAHL, 3 5 .

12

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

3. In the preface to the second (1968) edition he adds: "It is clear that the most obvious polemic in this gospel is directed against 'the scribes and the Pharisees'. In Matthew these are neither the actual opponents of Jesus, nor are they general examples of haughty behaviour, as in Luke. They are the representatives of the synagogue 'across the street' in Matthew's community."18 This is undoubtedly correct. But Stendahl does not venture to answer the question where this synagogue with which Matthew was in polemical dialogue was located. It is the merit of the next work which we shall consider to have attempted such a determination in considerable detail. 19 The most original proposal in W.D. Davies' monumental study, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (1964), is that the gospel according to Matthew was intended to be an almost point for point answer to the challenge posed by the rabbinic academy of Jamnia (Jabneh).20 This means in effect that the synagogue with which Matthew was in dialogue was the famous center of post-destruction proto-rabbinic Judaism begun by Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai to salvage what could be saved of the religious institutions of Israel in that moment of grave crisis. Of course the historical evidence for such a salvage operation is neither abundant nor highly reliable, especially with respect to details of what exactly was accomplished in the earliest period

18

STENDAHL, x i .

19

STENDAHL asserts (p. xiii) that Matthew's gospel grew out of Hellenistic Judaism, probably because "Matthew works in Greek with primarily Greek traditions, Mark, Q, and others" (p. xii η. 1). But J. FITZMYER (in his review JBL 89 (1970) 250) challenges the relevance of these reasons, since Palestine was so mixed linguistically in the first Christian century. See further his article "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.", CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31, and Martin HENGEL'S Judaism and Hellenism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). Also note the earlier works of S. Lieberman and now the very valuable collection of articles selected by H.A. FISCHEL, Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (New York: Ktav, 1977). As a corrective to an exaggerated understanding of the degree of Hellenization of Palestinian Judaism, one may consult E.P. SANDERS, "The Covenant as a Soteriological Category and the Nature of Salvation in Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism", Jews, Greeks and Christians (W.D. Davies Festschrift; ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; SJLA, 21; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 11-44. It is interesting to note that in his short commentary on Matthew in Peake's Commentary on the Bible (ed. M. Black and H.H. Rowley; London: Nelson, 1962), K. Stendahl moves closer to a Caesarean provenance: "One could also seek for its (Matthew's) origin somewhat closer to Palestine, such as one of the Phoenician cities, but none of those places assumed any greater role in early Christianity. For example, Caesarea (by the Mediterranean) could well have hailed Peter as its apostolic founder (see Ac. 10), a fact which tallies with Mt.'s conspicuous emphasis on Peter's leadership; but Caesarea as a Roman centre was perhaps not the haven for Jews, either before or after the Jewish war (A.D. 66-70), which much of the material in Mt. would require as a matrix" (p. 769). W . D . DAVIES, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1964) 256-315, especially 315.

20

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

13

(ca. A.D. 75-85). 21 But that some such organizing activity occurred in the wake of the destruction cannot be doubted. Indeed, if Jamnia did not exist, historians would have to invent it. That there is a good deal of anti-rabbinic polemic scattered throughout the gospel according to Matthew, not to mention the concentrated attack in chapter 23, can also hardly be doubted.22 Davies is quite firm in his emphasis on the location and the importance of Jamnia,23 but he remains vague and uncertain when it comes to the location of Matthew's writing. He is only concerned to establish that the writ of Jamnia ran so far north as Syria, "where Matthew probably originated".24 While not wishing to deny this outright, it simply seems more probable to us that this kind of dialogical confrontation would have been facilitated by greater geographical proximity, if there be any evidence to support it. We believe that there is some external evidence to support it, and to marshal that evidence is the purpose of the second part of our paper, but first we should conclude our survey of research. Davies elsewhere adduces two further reasons which favor a Palestinian milieu for the gospel, besides the dialogue with Jamnia. 1. The Greek of the gospel points to a strong Semitic influence including the use of Semitic words without translation. 2. The audience addressed seems to be composed, at least in part, of Palestinian Jews. There Jewish customs are referred to without explanation (15:2; 23:27); 21

22

M. Sukk. 3:12, m. Ros. Has. 4:1,3,4; m. Mena". 10:5. See J. NEUSNER, A Life ofYohanan b. Zakkai (2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1970) 164-9, 196-215. Also his Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees before 70 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 2.4 and passim. Cf. the treatment in E. SCHÜRER, History of the Jewish People (rev. ed. G. Vermes; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973) 524-7. Usually it is thought that the work of the transferred Sanhedrin at Jamnia included liturgical decisions, the canonization of parts of Scripture, and the beginnings of organization of the oral Torah. On this latter point Davies thinks in terms of the organization of the material into the six sedarim (Setting, 268), Neusner (Rabbinic Traditions, 2.4), in terms of "the redaction in Houses-form of parts of the Oral Torah of Pharisaism." With respect to the canonization of Scripture, Bertil Albrektsson, in a recent address to the ОТ organization meeting in August 1977 in Göttingen, while not denying the drawing up of a canon list at Jamnia, cautions against assuming that any systematic effort to fix the consonantal text of the Hebrew Bible took place there. For the legends about R. Johannan's escape from Jerusalem and his capture by Vespasian see most recently A.J. SALDARINI, "Johanan ben Zakkai's Escape from Jerusalem: Origin and Development of a Rabbinic Story", 7576(1975) 189-204. In addition to Matthew 23, see 5:20 and 16:11-12, and the discussion in DAVIES, Setting, 290-2.

23

Setting, 292-8.

24

Setting, 296. Davies discusses the date and place of origin more fully in his article on Matthew in the revised edition of Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. F.C. Grant; New York: Scribner's, 1963), but while adducing three weighty reasons in favor of a Palestinian setting, he concludes with characteristic caution: "It would seem that, on the whole, we can only pin Matthew to somewhere in Syria."

14

W H E R E WAS M A T T H E W WRITTEN?

so, too, Jewish dress (9:20; 23:5); and a Jewish Christian religious practice and piety are presupposed (5:20; 10:5; 15:24; 23:3; 24:20).25 Of the most recent monographs on the gospel, several move in contrary directions from those we have been pursuing (Trilling, Strecker, Walker, Kingsbury), 26 many remain quite non-commital on the question we are asking (e.g., Sand, Frankemölle, Goulder), and yet some interesting patterns are emerging. If we look at four Matthew books which all appeared in 1974, I think we shall find further support for a Palestinian origin. First of all, Eduard Schweizer, while cautiously noting that the important role of Peter in the gospel (16:16-19) points rather toward Antioch than toward Jerusalem, and insisting on an apparent majority of non-Jews in the Matthean community (21:23), firmly asserts that the gospel must have been written in an area where Judaism continued to rule, that is, Palestine or the neighboring part of Syria. He then refines this to Syria or the continguous regions of Galilee. 27 We are thus with Schweizer very close to Caesarea. Alexander Sand remains unwilling to commit himself to a precise Sitz-im-Leben for the Gospel even at the end of his careful investigations, but he is sure of one thing, "Only this much can be said, that Matthew writes his gospel for a community which stands in a polemically dialogical relationship to the Judaism of its day, which represents the "Israel over against Jesus". 28 This too lends support to a

25 26

27

28

See the article cited in the previous note. W. TRILLING, Das Wahre Israel (SANT 10; 3rd ed.; Munich: Kösel, 1964); G. STRECKER, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (FRLANT 82; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966); R. WALKER, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967); J.D. KINGSBURY, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). Eduard SCHWEIZER, Matthäus und seine Gemeinde (SBS 71; Stuttgart: KBW, 1974) 13840. Recently,Schweizer claims, his conjecture about Syrian provenance has been confirmed by the discovery of the Apocalypse of Peter at Nag Hammadi, which represents a group of "little ones", and opposes those "who name themselves bishops and also deacons" (Apoc. Pet. 79, 19ff; cf. Matt 23:6-10; 18:10). The Matthean church, therefore, was "the body of these little ones who are ready to follow Jesus, a group with an ascetic and charismatic character, that found its continuation in the Church of Syria, finally merging into the monastic movement of the Catholic Church", The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta: Knox, 1975) 178-184. See also his "Observance of the Law and Charismatic Activity in Matthew", NTS 20 (1974): 216. Although the "little ones" do play a significant role in Matthew, it still seems that they are not identical with the disciples who have been given power to bind and to loose (18:18), even if the latter are not called "bishops and deacons" in the Gospel. While Matthew's church includes prophets (see Sand), and provides a basis for asceticism (19:12), it is not directly monastic in character. The Apoc. Pet is thought to have been written in the third century and is clearly Gnostic and Docetic and seems to set the little ones against their rulers. This is a different emphasis from that in Matthew, where the leaders are encouraged to care for the little ones. A. SAND, Das Gesetz und die Propheten (Biblische Untersuchungen 11; Regensburg: Pustet, 1974), 220f. Douglas HARE of course maintains the same view: The Theme of Jewish Persecution (SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1967).

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

15

Palestinian setting. Hubert Frankemölle, in his massive work, also avoids committing himself to a precise setting. He assumes a Syrian location at one point, again because of the Petrine connection with a monarchical episcopate soon to be articulated by Ignatius of Antioch, but, on the other hand, the whole thesis of his book presupposes the deepest engagement of Matthew's community with a specifically Deuteronomic conceptual framework involving covenant fidelity, salvation history, and people of God. This does not compel but certainly points toward a Palestinian setting. 29 And while I cannot follow M.D. Goulder into his more eccentric conclusions, his fundamental insight that there is some midrashic development of Mark going on in Matthew does, I believe, have a basis in fact. The presence of this haggadic element again favors a Palestinian origin. 30 Finally, let us mention J.P. Meier, who, in his careful consideration of the question, inclines toward the usual, Syrian, view but adds two important points which deserve to be taken seriously. First, against Antioch, he notes that it was from the beginning a Hellenistic church, and as such unsuitable as the birthplace of Matthew. But secondly, he mentions the destruction of Jewish-Christian communities in Palestine during the revolt of A.D. 66-73, a fact which he believes excludes Palestine itself as a probable place of composition. 31 This last is indeed a weighty consideration but as applied to the particular case of Caesarea Maritima takes on a special character which may remove the difficulty. The fact of the matter is that Caesarea before the revolt was a predominantly Gentile, Greek-speaking city, but with a large Jewish population in political tension with the majority. These tensions are what led to the revolt in A.D. 66. A massacre of the Jewish inhabitants ensued. Caesarea was changed by Vespasian into a Roman colony, though without the full ius Italicum. What is important for us to keep in mind is that this all happened in A.D. 66 or shortly thereafter, in other words, almost twenty years before we posit Matthew to have been at work on his gospel. In the intervening years the situation of the city had stabilized, its predominantly Gentile character intact, its political, commercial and cultural significance unimpaired. 32 Thus the Caesarean candidature would remain a live option. 29

H. FRANKEMÖLLE, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi (NTAbh 10; Münster: Aschendorff,

30

M.D. GOULDER, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974). Places where I see midrashim are Matt. 18:23-35 on Mark 11:25-26; Matt. 13:24-30 on Mark 4:26-29. J.P. MEIER, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (AnBib 71; Rome: PBI, 1976) 7-9.

1 9 7 4 ) 4 , 156.

31 32

Jos. J.W.

3 : 9 . 1 ; 2 : 1 3 . 7 ; 1 4 . 4 , 5 ; Ant.

2 0 : 8 7 & 9. C f . E. SCHÜRER, History

( N e w York:

Scribners, 1885) 2, 1, 84-87. Cf. Gideon FOERSTER, "The Early History of Caesarea", in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima: Vol. I, Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima (ed. C.T. Fritsch; Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 17, "It would appear that the economic ruin which overwhelmed Judea following the First Revolt, and which took the form of the confiscation of land and various heavy taxes, did not affect Caesarea,

16

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

Summing up this brief survey then we may say that there is much in contemporary Matthean scholarship which points to a Palestinian localization and yet, for the most part, scholars have been reluctant to take the final step of seriously proposing a particular locale within Palestine. I suspect that one reason for this hesitation is that earlier proponents of a Palestinian setting, apart from the uncertain case of Bultmann, were often representatives of a conservative wing of scholarship, men such as Schlatter, Albertz, Guthrie, and Michaelis, who connected this locale with other, less acceptable, assumptions such as the priority and apostolic authorship of the gospel in its present form, and an early date. 33 Moreover, until recently the degree of Hellenization to which the urban centers of Palestine were subject was not so much to the fore, and archaeological and historical research on Caesarea had not advanced very far. As we turn now to the second part of our paper, in which we try to make a case for Caesarea, a case which, given the lack of solid evidence, can only attain the level of a historical probability based on a convergence of scattered data from the Fathers, it is perhaps well to point out that up till a few years ago, as Caesarea lay physically in ruins, its story also was rather neglected by historians. But suddenly in 1974-75 five books appeared regarding the city, dealing with its history and its archaeology, and also with the theological exchanges between Christian Fathers and Jewish Sages, and not only so but a joint expedition has begun to excavate the extensive site systematically. 34 Unfortunately none of the authors was able to consult the works of his colleagues and so could not benefit from their work. So it seems the appropriate moment to reopen the question of Caesarea's possible connection with Matthew. A rapid sketch of what we know of the Christian history of Caesarea begins with the data of the Acts of the Apostles which mention the work of the evangelist Philip, the conversion of Cornelius and his family through a vi-

33

34

since at this time the city contained very few, if any, Jews at all. The city, which was the seat of the government and the chief entrepot for export and import, appears to have flourished and grown in these years." See W.G. KÜMMEL, Introduction to the New Testament, 119, and the works there referred to. For example, A. SCHLATTER, Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart: Calver, 1929). Hans BIETENHARD, Caesarea, Origines und die Juden (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974); N.R.M. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1976); C.T. FRITSCH, ed., Studies; L.I. Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975); idem, Roman Caesarea: An Archeological-Topographical Study (Qedem 2; Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1975). See further the preliminary reports in BASOR: J.H. HUMPHREY, "Prolegomena to the Study of the Hippodrome at Caesarea Maritima", 213 (1974) 2-45; J.A. RILEY, "The Pottery from the First Session of Excavation in the Caesarea Hippodrome", 218 (1975) 25-63; L.N. HOPFE and G. LEASE, "The Caesarea Mithraeum: A Preliminary Announcement", BA 38 (1975) 2-10; R.J. BULL, s.v. "Caesarea", in IDBSup 120.

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

17

sion given to Peter, and an imprisonment of Paul, all taking place in this city.35 Thus Christianity was present in Caesarea almost from the first days of the Church. Following Paul's departure we have no reliable evidence for the history of the Christian community for over a century, but only some tantalizing legends from the pseudo-Clementine literature. We may speak of this as the great gap in the story. But we may fill in this gap to some extent by some general political and geographical facts. The city continued to expand and to flourish in this period and so it is reasonable to assume that the Christian community expanded and flourished accordingly, because, when the silence ends around A.D. 189, Caesarea is the site of a church council in 195, which under the leadership of bishop Theophilus decides the date of Easter in favor of the Gentile churches, e.g., Alexandria, rather than with the Judaizing quartodecimans.36 Caesarea in 222 becomes the metropolitan see for Palestine, recognized as such at Nicea in 325, and only loses out to Jerusalem when the latter becomes a patriarchate at Chalcedon in 451. Thus Caesarea is the real center of the Palestinian church until the fifth century. Geographically, Caesarea is only 30 miles from Jaffa and Jamnia, 75 miles from Jerusalem. Although sometimes treated by ancient authors as part of Phoenicia, she is called by Tacitus Iudaeae caput?1 and she remained the capital of Judea, or Palaestina prima as it was later called, throughout successive bureaucratic reforms. This indicates the border character of Caesarea, the major point of contact between the Empire and the Palestinian interior. From 189 on the church history of Caesarea is one of almost unbroken splendor and distinction, right up to the final taking of the city by the Arabs in 640. Threatened by Caracalla's massacre in 215, Origen moves from Alexandria to Caesarea for the first time (215-16). There, although still a layman, he gives lectures on exegesis at the invitation of the bishops of the province, especially Theoctistus of Caesarea, for two years.38 Here he continues his educational and scholarly activities, besides preaching daily at the request of the bishop. Here he composes some of his commentaries, especially the great one on John, the treatise On Prayer, the massive Contra Celsum, and his magnum opus, the Hexapla.39 Following his death ca. 254, there is a short interval. Then Pamphilus establishes a school and endows the bishopric with the richest library in the East, after the one in Alexandria. Eusebius was educated, wrote, and was bishop there. Jerome consulted the

35

Acts 8:40; 9:30; 10:1,24; 11:11; 12:19; 18:22; 21:8-16; 23:23,33; 25:1-4,6,13.

36

EUSEBIUS, H.E.5.22 TACITUS, Histories, 2. 78.

37 38

EUSEBIUS, H.E.

39

L.I. LEVINE, Caesarea Under Roman rule, 113.

6.19; 6.26.

18

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

library; Procopius, the historian of the reign of Justinian, received his initial formation here. 40 The relevance of these data to our point is only this. Caesarea was not only a center of Christian life as far back as we can trace, but was also from the earliest times a center of Christian learning, dominated by a school and a library and bishops with a taste for learning. The cross-cultural character of this learning, particularly the dialogue with Jewish scholars resident in the city, is also important for us and has recently been made the object of a monograph. 41 The question remains: how far back does this learned dialogical tradition go? Who began it? Could it have been the author or authors of the gospel we call "according to Matthew"? In addressing this question, which of course cannot be answered beyond a cavil given our present state of knowledge, we should begin by looking at a remarkable passage in Jerome. Matthaeus qui et Levi, ex publicano apostolus, primus in Judaea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderunt, Evangelium Christi Hebraeis litteris verbisque conposuit; quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Porro ipsum Hebraicum habetur usque hodie in Caesariensi bibliotheca, quam Pamphilus martyr studiosissime confecit. Matthew, also called Levi, who from being a tax-collector became an apostle, was the first in Judea to compose a gospel of Christ, which thing he did with Hebrew letters and words, for those from the circumcision who came to believe. Who translated it into Greek afterward is not very clear. On the other hand, the Hebrew text itself is preserved to this day in the Caesarean library, which the martyr Pamphilus most carefully caused to be made.42 This passage is the strongest evidence for our proposal. From it we learn that the gospel according to Matthew, at least in its Semitic form, was composed in Judea. If this statement is correct, it rules out a north Syrian provenance, including Antioch, for at least the earliest form of the gospel. Jerome repeats the statement that Matthew was composed in Judea on two other occasions 43 The same assertion is made in the Monarchian prologues, "Matthaeus ex Iudaea sicut in ordine primus ponitur, ita evangelium in Iudaea primus scripsit." 44 These prologues, once widely thought to date from the second or third century, are now put in the fourth century or even later. 45 40

LEVINE, 1 1 3 - 1 3 4 ; FRITSCH, 2 3 - 4 2 .

41

DE LANGE. See above, n. 34. JEROME, De viris inlustribus 3 (ed. Richardson; TU 15.1). JEROME, Prologus quattuor evangeliorum (praefatio in commentarium in Mattheum, Wordsworth-White I, 11-14); Praefatio Matthei (Wordsworth-White I, 11-17). Hans LIETZMANN, Kleine Texte 1. KÜMMEL, 488, citing J. REGUL, Die antimarchionitischen Evangelienprologe (Vetus

42 43

44 45

Latin a 6; 1969) 88-90.

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

19

From the Jerome passage we learn moreover that this Hebrew original was preserved in Caesarea Maritima. Although Jerome does not say that he was an eye-witness, this is likely, since he used the library built by Pamphilus. There is then some factual basis for a connection between the earliest form of Matthew and Caesarea. We do not know with certainty that the gospel was composed or translated there. Origen or Pamphilus could have brought the Hebrew form there from elsewhere in Judea. But they could just as well have found it there, and, given the city's bilingual character, Caesarea would have been an ideal place for the translation and final redaction in Greek. Next we must see what can be gleaned from Eusebius and Pamphilus. Here we are confronted by more questions than answers. For example, why does Eusebius not say that Origen founded a school in Caesarea, since he is quite clear that Origen is teaching there with full episcopal support and approval? This is what he says: But this must suffice on these matters. Now it was in the tenth year of the abovementioned reign that Origen removed from Alexandria to Caesarea, leaving to Heraclas the Catechetical School for those in the city. ... Now at this time Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was distinguished; he displayed such esteem for Origen, that at one time he would summon him to his own parts for the benefit of the churches; at another, journey himself to Judaea, and spend some time with him for his own betterment in divine things. Nay further, Alexander, who presided over the (church) of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, (who presided) at Caesarea, continued their attendance on him the whole time, as their only teacher, and used to concede to him the task of expounding the divine Scriptures and the other parts of the Church's instruction.46 Notice that Eusebius does not say that Origen founded a school. Why is this? Is it because the episcopal school existed already? He does not say, though presumably he could have known. Yet he does tell us that Origen had been invited to lecture there before he finally settled there, and this would fit well with the prior existence of a school. On the other hand, Eusebius does assert that Pamphilus did found a school (h 's synest 'sato diatrib 's) in Caesarea, a short time after Origen's death. 47 This seems very strange, since a school had already existed since at least the time of Origen and perhaps earlier still. No doubt Eusebius explained all of that in his life of Pamphilus but that is unfortunately lost, as is his Defence of Origen. Four explanations of the statement that Pamphilus founded a school which come to mind are that 1. Pamphilus actually paid for the construction of a building; 2. he founded a second school alongside Origen's;

46

EUSEBIUS, H.E. 6.26.27.

47

Eusebius, H.E. 7.32.25.

20

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

3. Origen's school had completely ceased to exist after his death and Pamphilus refounded that school; 4. Origen only maintained a school of higher biblical learning at Caesarea (as distinct from the situation in Alexandria) and Pamphilus added to this a preparatory school for the liberal arts. Perhaps this is the sense of the word diatrib which Eusebius uses for this school. Even more urgent is the question: if the church school in Caesarea had an unbroken continuity going back more than two centuries to the "school of St. Matthew", why does Eusebius not mention this important fact, and especially, why does he not say that the gospel was written in Caesarea if he knows this? This seems to be the most serious objection of all against a Caesarean provenance. Again, there can be no certain answer, but the following considerations may help to relieve the difficulty. 1. Eusebius, in his discussions of the origins of the gospels, tends to content himself almost exclusively with citations of other older written sources, in particular Papias, Irenaeus, Pantaenus, and Origen, as though he did not have at his disposal reliable local oral traditions, which would add anything more concrete to what the earlier authors had said.48 2. Eusebius' entire historical enterprise is to some extent motivated by an apologetic tendency which inclines him to draw a veil over inner-churchly unpleasantnesses. He may have thought it unsuitable to mention that the Gospel in its final Greek form was a non-apostolic school product in part affected by post-70 anti-Jamnian polemic. 3. There was perhaps a shift in the character of Caesarean Christendom which was taking place even as Matthew was writing for a "church in transition", a shift from a predominantly Jewish Christian to a predominantly or exclusively Gentile Christian complexion. 4. Finally, Jerome reports an earthquake which damaged the harbor and the city in 128. This, followed by the devastating war which followed the emperor Hadrian's visit in 130, the Bar Cochba rebellion of 132-5, may have interrupted the continuity within the Christian community and/or within the school, although the war did not destroy Caesarea itself.49 We turn now to Origen himself. He commented on the gospel according to Matthew in extenso — indeed, he was the first to do so. Parts of this have been preserved but not the commentary on the opening chapters. Eusebius 48

PAPIAS,

EUSEBIUS,

EUSEBIUS, H.E.,

H.E.,

3.39.16;

IRENAEUS,

5 . 1 0 . 3 ; ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS, HE.,

EUSEBIUS,

H.E.,

5.8.2;

PANTAENUS,

6 . 2 5 . 4 ; EUSEBIUS a d d s a b i t i n

HE.,

3.24.5; and in 6.17 he mentions an attack by SYMMACHUS the Ebionite on Matthew's 49

Gospel; Quaest. Ad Marinum, PG 22, 941; In Ps 77:2. PG 904. Chronicon (ed. R . Helm; CGS 4 7 ; Berlin: Akademischer Verlag,

JEROME,

1956) 200,

ΡΕ

17.618. See D.H. KALLNER-AMIRAN, "A revised earthquake catalogue of Palestine", IEJ 1 (1950-51) 225, who gives 130 as the date of this earthquake.

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

21

has, however, preserved this brief introductory passage from the lost first book of his commentary. These things he inserts in the above-mentioned treatise. But in the first of his (Commentaries) on the Gospel according to Matthew, defending the canon of the Church, he gives his testimony that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows: "... as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son." And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles (came to believe), the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. 50 This is distressingly terse, From it we glean only an affirmation of apostolic authorship, of a Jewish orientation, and of a Hebrew/Aramaic original text. This all lends support to a Palestinian provenance for any possible Aramaic substratum, but helps us not a wit when it comes to the presently existing final Greek form of the Gospel, and may indeed depend on Papias, as may all the other patristic witnesses except Jerome, who has additional information. To bring this tantalizing series of patristic hints to a close we may mention three items which are all untrustworthy and tend to contradict each other. 1. In the pseudo-Clementines51 we read that the first bishop of Caesarea is Zacchaeus the chief tax-collector whom we meet in Luke 19:1-10. This is intriguing because the name Zacchaeus in Hebrew has the form Zakkai, which is of course the name of the head of the academy at Jamnia. 2. Clement of Alexandria52 tells us that Zacchaeus is identical to Matthias, a name form perilously close to Matthew. 3. To shatter this rosy picture, Hippolytus, in his list of the Seventy Apostles, names a certain Apollo as first bishop of Caesarea, presumably in Palestine,53 a figure otherwise unknown. All of this material is probably legendary and incoherent, and yet the first two items do point to a remote connection between a Zakkai, Caesarea and a Mattai.

50

EUSEBIUS, H.E.,

51

PS-CLEMENTINE Recognitions,

52

Stromateis,

53

HIPPOLYTUS, List of the Seventy Apostles, ANF 5.256.

6.25.3-6. 1 . 7 2 - 4 ; Homilies

3.63-72.

4.6.35.

22

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

This inquiry has endeavored to draw together what direct and indirect evidence there is available to support a Palestinian, Judean, and even a Caesarean provenance for the canonical gospel according to Matthew, and this, not simply out of idle, speculatively historical curiosity, but in order to try to provide a concrete localization for the gospel as it is widely understood in contemporary scholarship, viz., as being in dialogue with the heirs of the Pharisees, breathing a Palestinian atmosphere, yet written in Greek for a Greek-speaking community which is in transition from a more JewishChristian, Torah-true character to being at least open to the Gentile mission, sponsored by a significant church with a tradition of learning and with good communications with the rest of the Empire. Caesarea seems to us the most plausible localization for such a gospel. I would like to conclude with an archaeological anecdote. Six years ago I met Professor Robert J. Bull, of Drew University, the director of the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima. Not daring to ask him about the School of St. Matthew, I said: "Dr. Bull, have you thought of looking for Origen's school?" He replied, "My dear young man, I think we've found it."

Additional note Soon after the original publication of this article, it was subjected to a fourpoint criticism by J.P. Meier, in a book he published with R.E. Brown, Antioch and Rome (New York: Paulist, 1983), p. 20. Meier gives greater weight than I did to the rather Hellenistic, "law free" elements in the origins of the Christian community in Caesarea, e.g., Cornelius and Philip; I did however mention the relevant texts in note 35 above. Meier recognizes that a strength of my argument rests on patristic citations of the second and subsequent centuries; although he cites no patristic text in favor of Antioch other than Ignatius' knowledge of Matthew, he doubts the probative force of the texts I cite in regard to Matthew's composition. His most important point is that Josephus records a massacre of the Jews in Caesarea in AD 66, and adds that some Jews withdrew to Narbata. This massacre was the occasion of the first Jewish revolt against Rome. "Viviano cannot prove any large resettlement by Jews in the following decade" (italics added). Josephus does not say that all Jews left the city. That there was major Jewish resettlement in the next three centuries is evident from Origen and the Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi). That the resettlement began in the decades following A.D. 66, in our present state of knowledge, can neither be proven nor disproved. To that extent we are at an impasse.

WHERE WAS MATTHEW WRITTEN?

23

In the light of this impasse we can reconsider the question in a more cautious spirit. First, we must recognize that we do not know with certainty where Greek Matthew was written (or by whom: Mr. X or Matthew II = Matthew the Greek evangelist as distinguished from Matthew the apostle). Second, the place of composition is itself not of great importance except as it would provide an appropriate setting for the characteristic features of the gospel. Much depends on whether one agrees that the evangelist was in (polemical) dialogue with the proto-rabbinic academy of Jamnia/Yavneh or not. That academy held its sessions there from about AD 75 to AD 90; Matthew's Gospel could then be dated to between 80 and 95. The earliest tradition speaks of Judea as the provenance of the Aramaic gospel. A number of other places have been suggested in modern times as the locale of composition for the Greek gospel: either northern PalestineGalilee-southern Syria (Caesarea maritima, Sepphoris, Damascus, Pella) or northern Syria (Antioch or Edessa) or even Alexandria. Leaving aside Alexandria as eccentric (although one should not forget the flight into Egypt, Matt 2:13,15,19), one is left with two main options: northern or southern Syria (Matt 4:24). If one accepts that Matthew the Greek evangelist was in dialogue with the rabbis at Jamnia, it makes more sense to suppose a southern Syrian provenance, simply on the basis of ease and immediacy of communication. Matt 23 gives the impression that the issues were still lively. If one does not accept such a dialogue, or puts it in the remote past, one could just as easily suppose a northern Syrian provenance. More than that our sparse data do not, I think, permit us to say.

3

The Genres of Matthew 1-2: Light from 1 Timothy 1:4

SUMMARY In a difficult section such as Matt 1-2, one of the primary tasks of the exegete is to determine the literary genre(s) operative in the text. This article makes three points: 1. The author of 1 Tim 1:4 thought that Matt 1-2 contained myth. 2. A primary positive sense of myth in modern history of religions research is as a story of origins. 3. The evangelist Matthew labels Matt 1-2 as a "book of origins". This is perhaps his answer to the question of literary genre.

I

The problems connected with the first two chapters of the gospel according to Matthew are very great. The present writer would gladly evade them, but no honest effort to comprehend this gospel as a whole can afford to so do, since the first two chapters are doubtless an integral part of the Matthean gospel in its final canonical Greek form, no matter what their prehistory may have been. 1 Theologically or thematically they constitute an overture to the rest of the gospel, 2 or, as has been said, they express the entire gospel in nuce} They are of a remarkable compactness and thematic density, due to their brevity (48 verses compared to Luke's 148 verses for his first two chapters and the genealogy of Luke 3:23-38), and to their schematic character. This schematic character consists of a genealogy artificially arranged in three sets of fourteen names (Matt 1:17), and of five short narratives, each punctuated by a quotation from the Old Testament prophets, and each domi1

On the tradition-history of Matt 1-2 see G.M. SOARES PRABHU, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narrative of Matthew (AnBib 63; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976), pp. 294-

2

I.A. FITZMYER, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981)1. 306. R.E. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 1977), p. 8.

3 0 0 , a n d t h e n u a n c e s a d d e d b y J. MURPHY-O'CONNOR, RB 8 4 ( 1 9 7 7 ) 2 9 2 - 2 9 7 .

3

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW

1-2

25

nated by a command-execution structure (the least clear case is 2:16-18). 4 Stereotyped words and phrases abound: five times we encounter dreams and "behold" and "the child and his mother". Four times we hear the fulfillment formula before the Old Testament quotation. Three times we meet the birthing-naming formula (1:21,23,25; cf. 2:2) and Matthew's well-loved linking particle "then" (2:7,16,17). Paranormal and alarming events occur: angelic messages, a virginal conception, a miraculous star, prophecies fulfilled; a city shaken, a court aroused, magi come from the East, infants slaughtered, a family in flight. What more could the author do to tell us that he is not here relating ordinary events? Not without reason has that great lover of biblical historicity, Martin Hengel, suggested that here in Matt 2 at least we are dealing with Oriental legend rather than with history. 5 It is disconcerting to the historically-minded reader that an evangelist who otherwise shows a sober historical interest, even if he often shapes and groups his material didactically and does not forebear to offer occasional midrashic developments of the traditions he has received, 6 should here seem to deviate so markedly from historical plausibility. Yet no good is done by applying a historical method good in itself to material to which it is not suited. That would be a misapplication of a valid method. But in classical biblical studies we speak of the historical-critical method. Implicit in this formula is the possibility of exercising a critical judgment as to the historical or unhistorical character of a given passage or book of the Bible. It all comes down to a question of genre. What is the nature of the text we are trying to understand? What is the author's intention? What were the first readers' expectations? Or, since it is a question not of a whole work but of the first part of a work, should we speak of a subgenre or smaller form? It has even been said that Matt 1-2 are related to chapters 3 to 28 as an overture is to an opera. There are no characters, only themes. But this upon reflection seems quite false. There are characters as well as themes in Matt 1 2, and one of these characters becomes the central figure in the rest of the story. If we ask what answers have been given to the question of the genre of Matt 1-2 over the years, we find a short list of them. In modern times the first answer would be historical, though immediately a distinction would have to

5

6

Rudolf PESCH, "Eine alttestamentliche Ausführungsformel im Matthaeus-Evangelium", BZ 10 (1966) 220-45; 11 (1967) 79-95. Martin HENGEL and Helmut MERKEL, "Die Magier aus dem Osten und die Flucht nach Aegypten (Mt 2) im Rahmen der antiken Religionsgeschichte und der Theologie des Matthaeus", Orientierung an Jesus, ed. P. Hoffmann (FS J. Schmid; Freiburg: Herder, 1973), pp. 139-169. For an extreme Statement of this aspect of Matthew's redactional activity, see Michael GOULDER, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974).

26

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1 - 2

be drawn between a supernatural history, the option of innumerable theologians, preachers and artists, and a naturalizing or rationalist historiography, represented especially by H.E.G. Paulus (1828). Both of these positions were reduced to powder by D.F. Strauss in his Leben Jesu of 1835-6. Strauss chose the genre of myth for the infancy gospels, and by myth he seems to have meant a work of didactic, imaginative fiction. 7 More recently and in the Catholic Church we have been challenged by S. Munoz Iglesias and others, to think of Matt 1-2 as fitting the Jewish genre of midrash. 8 Rene Laurentin holds that the infancy narratives are an inverted midrash, a retrospective glance at the Old Testament to illumine it in the light of Christ, not vice versa. 9 Other suggestions for at least parts of these two chapters are a narrative about the struggle for the succession to the throne between two rival claimats, 10 a dream story modeled on the ancient Egyptian king novella, 11 and tales of the Announcement, persecution and saving of the royal child. 12 After the midrashic suggestion had been buffeted about for a time, R.E. Brown, while not denying the possible presence of midrashic elements in these chapters, nevertheless cautiously preferred the category "infancy narratives of famous men", 13 referring to the tendency of ancient biographers "to shape stories about the infancy and boyhood of those who have become famous in order to show a unity in the pattern of the whole career." 14 So we can see the truth of Wayne C. Booth's remark, "Just what makes a literary 7

8

9

10 11

12

13 14

D.F. STRAUSS, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, ed. P.C. Hodgson, trans. George ELIOT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), esp. pp. 75-87 and 95-205; see further Otto RANK, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, ed. Philip Freund (Germ. orig. 1909; New York: Vintage, 1964), pp. 3-96; Joseph CAMPBELL, The Hero With a Thousand Faces (Bollingen Series 17; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949, 2nd ed. 1968), esp. pp. 3, 30, 245-6, 297-314; Robert COUFFIGNAL, "Le conte merveilleux des mages et du cruel Herode", RevThom 89 (1989) 97-117. Salvador MUNOZ IGLESIAS, "El genero literario de Evangelio de la Infancia en San Mataeo", EstBib 17 (1958) 243-273; "Midra у Evangelios de la Infancia", EstEcl 47 (1972) 331-359. This author has continued to publish in this area. Rene LAURENTIN, The Truth of Christmas (Petersham, Mass: St. Bede's Publicaitons 1986), p. 254, and Part II as a whole, pp. 247-308. Richard HORSLEY, The Liberation of Christmas (New York: Crossroads, 1989). This has not yet been worked out for Matt 1-2, but it struck me as possibly useful when reading Klaus BALTZER, The Covenant Formulary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p. 71. Baltzer bases the literary form on the type of story found in ANET, p. 449, as analyzed by Alfred HERMANN, Die aegyptische Koenigsnovelle (Leipziger Aegyptologische Studien 10; Glueckstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1938); Siegfried HERMANN, "Die Koenigsnovelle in Aegypten und in Israel", Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte und Theologie des Alten Testaments (Munich: Kaiser, 1986; orig. 1954), pp. 120-144. Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthaeus (EKKNT 1/1; Zurich-Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger-Neukirchener, 1985), p. 127 and the table atp. 85. Birth, p. 561. Birth, p. 561.

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

27

genre is a vexing topic that now fills many a book and journal." 1 5 On the matter of infancy narratives of famous men, we may note the remarks of a recent biographer of Alexander the Great: Born in an age when biography had not developed, Alexander is fortunate in the lack of detail for his early years. If children find childhood a time of boredom, the same is seldom true of their biographers, for nowadays, childhood is seen as a source of so much that follows and there may be lasting significance in the experience of youth. In antiquity there was no psychological theory, and not until Augustine would a man write memoirs which treated the child as father of the man. Life's perspective was reversed, and youth was mostly described through a series of anecdotes which falsely mirrored the feats of the adult future; proven kings or bishops were remembered as kings or bishops when young, and so it was said of the boy Alexander, future conqueror of Persia, that he had once astonished Persian ambassadors to his father's court by precocious questions about their roads and resources. Such stories are no less suspect for being fashionable. At least three of Alexander's historians had grown up with him, and one wrote a book on his upbringing; another may have been connected with his first literary teacher, but none of their works survives, and Alexander's youth is left mostly to romance and fancy, to three famous figures, his mother, his horse and his tutor who have inspired a world of legend of their own.16 Thus we see that the category of infancy narrative of famous men in antiquity does not hold out much promise for the modern historian. But before we quit the genre of history, we should note a recent effort to revive the naturalist historiography of Paulus, this time on the basis of a feminist hermeneutics of suspicion and of a history from the side of the oppressed. I refer to the book, The Illegitimacy of Jesus, by Jane Schaberg. 17 This is a carefully argued, well-researched study of the literal sense and authorial intention of Matt 1-2 and Luke 1-2. It concludes that it is the intention of these chapters to teach as delicately as possible, 18 the fact that Mary 15 16

17

W.C. BOOTH, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 208. Robin LANE Fox, Alexander the Great (New York: Dial, 1974), p. 43. On p. 59, Fox suggests one delicate thread to explore, viz., the known influence of Homer's portrait of Achilles on Alexander throughout his life. Fox suggests that Alexander consciously and freely modeled himself on Achilles, myth and all. That Jesus was influenced by the Old Testament is not in doubt. That the evangelists used the Old Testament to help them to explain the Christ and to fill out some of the gaps in his story is also a commonplace of New Testament study. But that Jesus modeled himself on a single Old Testament figure, whether Moses, or Elijah (so GEZA VERMES, Jesus the Jew (London: Fontana, 1976; orig. ed. 1973), p. 90 and chap. 4 passim), or David, is not so clear. Other possibilities which have been suggested are Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. But these figures do not go beyond the level of partial influence; they do not provide an exclusive model. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987). SCHABERG, Illegitimacy, p. 75.

28

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

had been raped and that therefore Jesus was illegitimately conceived. Schaberg, to her credit, fully accepts the canons of historical criticism. She admits all the major objections to her thesis and rarely overstates her case19 (exceptions on pp. 64, 110, 136). She knows that Luke's account, especially 1:38, does not fit her thesis easily, but finds Mark 6:3 and John 8:41 more congenial. She recognizes that many will find her thesis offensive or even repugnant.20 It is hard for me to accept her thesis that both Matthew and Luke did not intend to teach a virginal conception and that they were misread.21 She herself concludes that: We have no evidence from the late first and the second centuries C.E. to indicate that Jewish or Gentile Christians ever entertained the possibility that Jesus was illegitimately conceived, ever regarded the tradition of Jesus' illegitimate conception as a Christian tradition, or ever read the New Testament Infancy Narratives as being about an illegitimate pregnancy. Outside the New Testament Infancy Narratives, the claim that he was illegitimately conceived appears to be solely a Jewish claim.22 Given the overall implausibility of Schaberg's thesis as to the authorial intention of Matthew and Luke in their infancy narratives, however intriguing her strong rereading may be as a contemporary feminist parable, the exegete should feel free to look elsewhere for a solution to the question of the evangelists' intention. It is the first thesis of this paper that Matthew 1-2 was perceived by the author of 1 Tim 1:3-7 as a myth, or, more exactly, as a combination of genealogy, myth and midrash. Or, to put it the other way round, the attack in 1 Tim 1,3-7 on teachers of myths, genealogies and law is directed against the innovations of Matthew who reports the virginal conception and genealogy of Jesus and offers the Sermon on the Mount as a law. For the author of 1 Timothy, Matthew goes beyond what the old Pauline communities were used to. His attack could also have been directed at Luke's gospel. Both these fuller gospels would have come into circulation a few years before 1 Timothy was written (circa A D 100) and would have come to the attention even of Pauline communities. They would have shocked old-time Paulinists who had not felt the need for such detailed presentations of the life and teaching of Jesus. As 2 Cor 5:16 says, "Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer." This thesis immediately raises two related issues. The first is the problem of the history of the reception of individual books (esp. Matthew) into the use

21

SCHABERG, Illegitimacy, SCHABERG, Illegitimacy, SCHABERG, Illegitimacy,

p. 64, 110, 136. p. 194. p. 194

22

SCHABERG, Illegitimacy,

p. 194.

19 20

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

29

of early Christian local communities. The second issue is the problem of conflict between early Christian communities and between their authors. We could also further explore the relationship of 1 Timothy to Luke's gospel. These questions would take us too far afield if we pursued them very far. So we will confine ourselves to a few remarks on the first two issues and pass over the Lucan question altogether. 23 On the reception history of Matthew's gospel we would only call attention to B.W. Bacon's presentation of a fifth century Syriac report of a synod at Rome which took place around AD 120, de recepiendis libris. Matthew's gospel had arrived with Ignatius of Antioch. The elders are troubled by two innovations, the star of the magi and the virginal conception of Jesus, but they accept this gospel in the end. Here we see a reaction to Matthew similar to what we think we have found in 1 Timothy, except that the law is not met with any objection. Recently B.M. Metzger has described Bacon's fragmentary text as a will-o'-the-wisp, because there were no conciliar decisions in regard to the canon of the New Testament till around AD 350. But we must distinguish between a church council on the New Testament canon and one on the reception of a particular book. 24 There is a somewhat parallel case of a letter of the Egyptian bishop Serapion who was consulted by the local church of Rhossus near Antioch as to whether they should allow the Gospel of Peter to be read in church. 25 As for the second issue, conflict between early Christian communities and books, suffice it to say that the view of the early Tübingen school of F.C. Baur that there was such conflict between Pauline and more Torah-true Jewish Christian communities has become a commonplace of critical biblical studies and is here presupposed, despite the revisions that have proven necessary in the dating of some of the New Testament books and in the assessment of the mediating role of John's gospel as a kind of Hegelian higher synthesis. 26

23

On Luke and 1 Timothy, see S.G. WILSON, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles (London: SPCK, 1979); J.D. QUINN, "The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles", in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, ed. C.H. Talbert (Danville, UA: Assoc. of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), pp. 62-75; August Strobel, "Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe", NTS 15 (1968-69) 191-210; Norbert BROX, "Lukas als Verfasser der Pastoralbriefe?", JAC 13 ( 1 9 7 0 ) 6 2 - 7 7 .

24

B.W. BACON, "As to the Canonzation of Matthew", HTR 22 (1929) 151-173; B.M. METZGER, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 160 n. 28. Ignatius could have been the bearer of Matthew's gospel to Ephesus, mentioned in 1 Tim 1:3 as the site where Timothy was to remain, to combat the errors listed in 1 Tim 1:4.

25

EUSEBIUS, Ecclesiastical

26

B.T. VIVIANO, "Matthew, Master of Ecumenical Healing", CurTM 10 (1983) 325-332; "Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matt. 23:1-12,34", JSNT 39 (1990)3-21.

History

6:12:2-6.

30

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

Having stated the first thesis and a few of its implications, let us take a closer look at the key verse, 1 Tim 1:4: μηδέ προσέχειν μύθοι? και γενεαλογίαις· άπεράντοις, αιτινες· εκζητήσεις παρέχουσα μάλλον ή οίκονομίαν θεοί την έν ττίστει. ... not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training (RSV margin: Or, stewardship, or order, NEB: God's plan for us that is in faith. We need to examine four terms in this verse: mythois, genealogiais, ekzeteseis, and oikonomian theou. The first term, myths, is in some ways the most important. The Vulgate gives fabulis for it, which Knox renders legends, betraying a tendency shown already in the Septuagint to avoid this offensive term, even in criticism. 27 At this point we will confine ourselves to its meaning in the context of the Pastoral Epistles. Since the term is not defined in 1 Tim 1:4, we must look to other passages where it is further characterized. In 1 Tim 4:7 myths are called bebelous, profane, worldly, unspiritual, godless; and graodeis, literally, like an old woman, and then in the RSV softened to "silly". More important is the point made in 2 Tim 4:4 "[they] will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." That is, myths are stories opposed to truth, they are false, untrue stories, fantastic fictions. Titus 1:14 adds the adjective iudaikois, Jewish myths, and again, as in 2 Tim 4:4, associates them with "men who reject the truth". From this we learn that the author is not aiming at pagan myths but at myths of a Jewish sort. (The "cleverly devised myths" of 2 Peter 1:16 add little to the picture so far as I can see and may be aiming at a different target. Indeed it is not impossible that in his recounting the transfiguration of Jesus he is defending his synoptic gospel tradition precisely against the criticisms of the author of the Pastorals.) So, gathering together the threads of the Pastorals, we may say that for their author(s), myths are an evil form of untrue story-telling found in Judaism and Jewish Christianity which has no place in his understanding of the Christian faith. We may say that his view of myth is wholly negative and his view has prevailed ever since in the common understanding, to such an extent that when religious scholars try to use it in a positive sense of biblical passages they are inevitably misunderstood. The word genealogiais, genealogies, must now be considered. Its meaning is clear from the Old Testament and it is no less clear that Matt 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 offer genealogies of Jesus, even though they do not call them that. Moreover to many who have sat in liturgical assemblies as the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke are read they do appear endless, even though they are shorter than some in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Chr 1-9). We 27

LXX: Bar 3:23 mythologos; Wis 17:4 Alex; Sir 20:19 mythos.

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

31

could consider the passage in Philo's Life of Moses (II. 45-47) where he divides Genesis into two parts: the creation of the world in Genesis 1-3, and the narrative of the patriarchs in Genesis 4-50 he calls genealogikon meros. This is an unusual use of the term genealogikon in the sense of stories of particular persons (see Loeb ed. note and App. In loco). We may further note that the combination of genealogies and myths referring to the origins of cities occurs already in Plato's Timaeus (22-23). More to the point is this problem: we can understand why the Pastor opposes myths, but why does he oppose genealogies? It is possible that he shared a view expressed in Heb 7:3 where Melchizedek is described: "Without father, mother, or ancestry (agenealogetos), without beginning of days or end of life, thus made to resemble the Son of God, he remains a priest forever." This text implies that the Son of God can have no human ancestry. It is hard to imagine that the Pastor, as a sincere Paulinist, would deny that Jesus was "descended from David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3; cf. Heb 7:14). Yet we do find that Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 3.21.9) argues for the virginal conception on the grounds that if Jesus "had been the son of Joseph, he could not, according to Jeremiah, be either king or heir." He refers to Jer 22:24-30 where the prophet announces that no descendant of Jehoiachin, a Davidide, shall rule Judah. Still, on balance, these farfetched difficulties are unnecessary to explain the author's reservation. A parallel text closer to 1 Tim 1:4 is Titus 3:9: μωράς δέ ζητήσεις και γενεαλογία? και ερει,ς· και μάχας· νομικά? περιίστασο - είσίν γαρ ανωφελείς και μάταιοι. This we may translate: "But avoid foolish midrashim (imaginative interpretations of scripture; for this translation see next paragraph), genealogies, rivalries, and quarrels about the law, for they are useless and futile." These practices are contrasted with the "good works" recommended in the preceding verse and those who engage in them are, it seems, to be regarded as the heretic described in the following two verses. This verse 9 is the only other mention of genealogia in the NT. In context the Pastor's objection to genealogies is simply that they are one of those aspects of Jewish intellectual life which he feels Christians should leave behind along with the quarrels about the law, as "useless and futile" (cf. 2 Tim 2:23). We may add: if the Pastor were only criticizing genealogies, we could more easily imagine that his opponents were Gnostics. But since, as in 1 Tim 1:3-7 and Titus 1:14, he attacks a combination of myths, genealogies and rules or law, then Matthew fits more tightly as the opponent. The third term in our verse which requires consideration is ekzeteseis, Vulg. quaestiones, commonly translated speculations, subtle inquiries, but more literally, a seeking out, searching. Alan Culpepper has suggested in his work

32

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

The Johannine School28 that in Jewish and Christian usage zeteo is the equivalent of the midrashic-mishnaic Hebrew darash with its connotations of Torah study, so that ekzeteseis could have the sense of midrashim, that is, narrative or legal commentaries on the biblical text, often of a sort that goes beyond the plain or surface meaning. This sense fits 1 Tim 1:4 well, when we remember that the author is denouncing a Judaizing type of error (s. Titus 1:14). It would also confirm the view of Munoz Iglesias that we have to do with midrashim in Matt 1-2. We come now to the phrase oikonomian theou ten en pistei. The RSV translates oikonomian theou as "divine training" but offers in the margin "stewardship, or order". The NEB gives "God's plan for us". The Pastor chooses the whole phrase to summarize his (trito-Pauline) position, in contradistinction to the position he is attacking. Since the commentators show some hesitation in its interpretation, we will offer one of our own. The two main senses of oikonomia in the New Testament are, first, concretely, a stewardship, commission, office or what we might call a responsibility (Luke 16:2; 1 Cor 9:17; Col 1:25; Eph 3:2); second, a theological sense proper to Eph 1:10 and 3:9, referring to God's plan whereby the Gentiles will be saved through faith in Christ without works of the law. It is the author of Ephesians' way of referring in a word to the essence of the peculiarly Pauline gospel. I believe it is in this latter, theological sense that the author of 1 Tim 1:4 uses it too. As qualified by the Pauline slogan ten en pistei, the divine economy or plan represents for the author the tradition of his church, his form of Christian faith, as opposed to that of the false teachers of v. 3 that he is denouncing (in v. 4). It is a form of faith which has done without narrative gospels of a sort which contain miraculous infancy stories and detailed ethical programs. As a true Paulinist, at least according to his lights, he is shocked and scandalized at the innovation represented by Matthew. It takes an effort of imagination on our part to recall a time and place in Christendom when Matthew was not a part of the canon, but the canon, we know, is a gradual product, not in place in its main components until the end of the second century. 29 (Matthew's gospel had a prehistory, but we are speaking of the final stage of redaction). Commentators are often at a loss to know exactly what errors the Pastor is attacking. 30 Earlier commentators were misled by Irenaeus (Adversus haere28 29

30

SBLDS 26; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975, pp. 291-299. Hans VON CAMPENHAUSEN, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972; Germ. orig. 1968). Typical is GUSTAVE BARDY: "Les mauvais docteurs ne sont pas autrement designes... lis enseignent d'autres doctrines que l'Apötre, sans que nous puissions dire au juste lesquelles", Epitres Pastorales (Pirot-Clamer, La Sainte Bible 12; Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1938, repr. 1951), in loco. So too Norbert BROX: "recht unbestimmten Beschreibungen

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

33

ses 1 Praef 1-2 and 1.30.9) and Tertullian (De praescrip. haer. 7 and 33) into thinking that the false teaching was of a pagan gnostic sort, since Irenaeus and Tertullian had applied these and other texts to the errors of Valentinus, almost as prophecies before the event. But neither Irenaeus nor Tertullian intended to give a literal interpretation of our text's original sense. Under the influence of F.J.A. Hort's lectures on Jewish Christianity (delivered 1887, published posthumously 1894), English commentators gradually came to abandon this pseudo-patristic exegesis and to seek for a Jewish type of heterodoxy.31 The same shift from pagan to Jewish targets can be seen in the German commentators around the turn of the century.32 But when pressed for examples of such Jewish myths and legends, the best the commentators can come up with is the descent of Noah in Jubilees 8:10-9:15, the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran, and Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Judaicarum with its genealogical interests (also 1 Q S3:13-15). 33 But these are not clearly dangerous or a threat to the Pastor's community, even if he knew about them. The error must be a different form of Christian faith. Yet the commentators do not think of looking to Matthew. Only one modern author, so far as I can find, has dared to look in that direction, the late Samuel Sandmel, who, in a single sentence, opens the door to our hypothesis. He says, "In short, it seems to me possible that our passages in the Pastorals [1 Tim 1:4; Titus 1:10-14] are directed toward such Gospels as the synoptics in

31

32

33

der Falschlehren... Was damit gemeint ist, lässt sich zwar nur noch vermutungsweise... ausmachen", Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT 7.2; Regensburg: Pustet, 1969), p. 102. (Cf. shift from A.E. HUMPHREYS, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: University Press, 1897) to R.F. Horton in the Century Bible commentary on the Pastorals (London: Caxton, n.d. but circa 1910), and Walter Lock (ICC; New York: Scribners, 1924), based also on Ambrosiaster's "de fabulis quas narrare consueti sunt Judaei de generatione suarum originum.") Bernhard WEISS (KEKNT 5, ed. Meyer; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1886); G. WOHLENBERG, Die Pastoralbriefe (Zahn series; Leipzig: Deichert, 1911); Martin DLBELLUS and Hans CONZELMANN, The Pastoral Epistles, trans P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Heremeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972; German editions in 1913, 1931 and 1955). J.A. BENGEL, Gnomon Novi Testamenti, first ed. 1742, Engl, trans. Philadelphia: Perkinpine, 1862) holds that "myths and genealogies" are not a hendiadys (genealogical fables or fabulous genealogies), that the myths refer to the Gnostic invention of Aeons, and that the genealogies are the lists of their successions. Oddly, Norbert BROX, Die Pastoralbriefe, was still holding this ("Archonten- und Äonenreihen") in 1969. J.N.D. KELLY, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles Timothy I and II, Titus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1963); Pierre Dornier, Les Epitres Pastorales (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1969), who adds as a Pauline counter model Gal 3:16, cf. v. 7; C.K. Barrett, The Pastoral Epistles in the New English Bible (New Clarendon Bible; Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), pp. 40-41, tries to combine these two views: "Colossians already bears witness to a combination of Judaism and gnosticism in Christian heresy, and the writings of the Christian gnostics at a somewhat later time are full of fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament (the Law). Even the lists of emanations often reveal striking contacts with Old Testament terms." True, but their later dating makes them irrelevant here.

34

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

particular." 34 Indeed, it could be said that no other text known to us fits the description of 1 Tim 1:4 as perfectly as does Matt 1-2. The conclusion of this first part then is that one could say, on the biblical authority of 1 Tim 1:4, that the literary genre of Matt 1-5 is myth, to which are added a genealogy and midrashic expositions of Scripture. Matt 1-2 is not generically homogeneous, and this is recognized by 1 Tim 1:4 with its list of several genres. The difference in this position that Matt 1-2 contains mythic elements from that of D.F. Strauss is that it is based on contemporary biblical warrant, not merely on scholarly trends of two thousand years later. It suggests that this was how Matt 1-2 was received by at least some Christian leaders at the time. This view contributes to at least the reception history of Matthew's gospel, or rather to its non-reception history, even if it does not tell us directly about Matthew's own literary intention. A final objection to our identification of the opponents described in 1 Tim 1:3-7 with Matthew must now be considered. The Pastor's attack on them culminates in the accusation in v. 7 that they want to be "teachers of the law" (nomodidaskaloi). This charge leads into the next section (vv. 8-11) on the use of the law in which various moral perversions are described. The question may be asked: does the Pastor intend to say that his opponents are guilty of all these perversions? On our hypothesis, is he saying that Matthew's community is grossly immoral? The answer in the immediate context of 1 Tim 1 is: certainly not. Indeed, on the Matthean hypotheses, the text has a quite different and perfectly natural explanation. The Pastor, as a serious spiritual leader in the Pauline tradition, knows the attraction of moral law to many religious souls. Perhaps he is already aware of the powerful impression which the Sermon on the Mount has made on Matthew's readers. He knows further that Paulinists with their law-free gospel are open to the charge of anomia. Thus in his vv. 8-11 he makes a concession to the Jewish Christian viewpoint by insisting that Pauline Christians do not condone the moral abuses he mentions. In other words, so far from accusing his opponents of them, he rather attempts to defend his own community from such suspicions. So the objection to our hypothesis disappears. But the objection is somewhat more difficult to parry if one considers every other designation of opponents in the Pastorals. Let us take them up briefly, letter by letter, noting only the most important texts. In 1 Timothy the only other specific characterization of the opponents occurs in 4:1-5 where the

34

Samuel SANDMEL, "Myths, Genealogies, and Jewish Myths and the Writings of Gospels", HUCA 27 (1956) 201-211. Theodoret of Cyrr (d. 458) seems to have thought of genealogies of Jesus when commenting on 1 Tim 1:4 (PG 82, 787-870). Cf. also J.E. BARRETT, "Virgin Birth", Bible Review 4.5 (1988) 10-15, 29, who assumes on p. 14 that 1 Tim 1:4 refers to Matt 1-2.

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

35

Pastor denounces his opponents' asceticism in harsh, but vague, terms. His specific reproach is that they encourage celibacy and observance of kosher food laws. This could make us think of texts like Matt 19:10-12 (eunuchs for the kingdom), Luke 14:26 and 18:29 (disciples should leave their wives), and Matt 15:1-20 where Matthew's redaction softens Jesus' abolition of kashrut as found in Mark 7:1-23. So 1 Tim 4:1-5 could still fit the Matthean hypothesis. The named opponents of 2 Tim 2:16-18 seems to be of a different character altogether. Their error, to assert that the resurrection has already taken place, is of a Hellenistic sort. This error is irrelevant to the Matthean hypothesis. In 2 Tim 3:2-9, 13 the moral flaws listed are not said to be characteristic of a single group of opponents but are applied quite generally to people living in the last days. The myth-lovers of 2 Tim 4:3-4 are not accused of moral defects other than curiosity. With Titus 1:10-16, esp. v. 14, and 3:9, we are back in the atmosphere of 1 Tim. The opponents are Jewish Christians ("those of the circumcision", 1:10). They are harshly described, but the only moral charge against them is "teaching for sordid gain" (1:11), which may have in mind Matt 10:10, but is in fact a commonplace of invective against one's doctrinal opponents. Summing up, we can say that the Matthew-like errorists of 1 Tim 1:3-7 are not accused by the Pastor of gross immorality, but of defects which are compatible with a group of serious Christians of a Jewish-Christian sort: curiosity, interest in midrashic scriptural interpretations, legal hairsplitting, collecting funds to support their form of teaching, the asceticism involved in observant Judaism and Synoptic-style discipleship. None of this is incompatible with a Matthean form of Christianity, looked at unsympathetically. 35 Now that we have determined that at least some early Christians judged the basic genre of Matt 1-2 to be myth, we may fairly ask the question: what is myth? II Myth is a notoriously slippery concept. It would be easy for us at this point to lose our footing and to fall down a precipice so sharp that we could never climb back. Fortunately biblical scholars have at their disposal today some instruments that make the task of comprehending the meanings and func35

R.J. KARRIS, "The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles", JBL 92 (1973) 549-564, argues that the polemic of the Pastorals is traditional philosophical invective against sophists, but that its charges are specific enough for us to recognize his opponents as Jewish Christian. He adds, "The catalogue in 1 Tim 1:9-10 cannot be used to determine the conduct of the opponents" (p. 557). The polemic of 2 Tim is of a rather different character from that of 1 Tim and Tit. This may be due to its different origin; see Michael PRIOR, Paul the Letter-Writer and the Second Letter to Timothy (JSNTSup 23; Sheffield: Almond, 1987).

36

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

tions of myth less difficult. In my own efforts at understanding I have come to see that the many meanings of myth can be reduced to two, one negative, the other positive. (Rarely is myth used as a neutral concept.) Both views are conveniently combined in the short definition provided by the Byzantine lexicon-encyclopedia that goes by the name of Suidas or the Suda (10th cent. A.D.): λόγος· ψευδής- εικονικών την άλήθειαν, that is, a myth is "an untrue discourse which images the truth." That is, a myth is both an untrue or false discourse or story, and yet one that embodies the truth. That is the basic paradox, from which the two views, positive and negative, take their start. The negative view that myth is an untruth we have already met in Titus 1:14 and 2 Tim 4:4, but it is much older. In Greek literature, myth had originally, in Homer, meant simply word or speech, tale or narrative story. For a time, it rivaled logos for the place of honor as the term for the product of human intellect. But then myth began to mean fiction as opposed to historic truth (logos) in Pindar,36 Plato37 and Herodotus.38 In Aristotle's Poetics myth has the innocent meaning of plot or story line, a step in the dramatic process of mimesis or imitation, a transformation from life to art. But Aristotle does add this distinction between poet and historian: The poet's function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen, i.e. what is possible as being probable or necessary. The distinction between historian and poet is not in the one writing prose and the other verse — you might put the work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a species of history; it consists really in this, that the one describes the thing that has been, and the other a kind of thing that might be. Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars.39 Though this analysis is interesting in shedding light on some gospel parables like the Prodigal Son, it reveals a philosopher's bias in favor of the universal, is insensitive to the intelligibility of the singular, and is simply incorrect in saying that the matter of myth must always be something possible or probable. But in Aristotle the myth is in any case an element in a work of fictive art. In modern times the negative attitude toward myth is associated with the enlightenment view that myth reflects a lack of rationality on the part of its creators, a passing phase, the childhood of the human race. The race needs to outgrow myth by a process of demythologizing. This approach may still 36 37

38 39

0.1. 27 pi. 47, N. 7. 23 pi. Phaedo 61b; Protagoras 320c, 324d, etc.; Resp. 377a, 330d; Leges 636c; Phaedrus 229c; Timaeus 26e; cf. 7 7 Ж Г 4.769-803 (G. Stähelin). Hist. 2.45, 54. Aristotle, Poetics 9, 1451b.

60c,

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1 - 2

37

have the edge in popular understanding, but it must also contend with the opposite one. The positive attitude toward myth in antiquity is connected with the great epic and dramatic poets, with the pagan religions, and with the works of art and architecture. This is obvious and does not need to be presented in detail. 40 The positive attitude toward myth in modern times, viz., that it is a deeply true story about origins (whether the origins of the world, or of humanity, or of a society, its fall, redemption and future), goes back to what has been called the Counter-Enlightenment, especially the anti-Cartesian philosophers of history like Vico and Herder. 41 They were followed by the great Romantic idealists, Görres and the Schlegels, Hegel and Schelling. These last authors have so influenced the positive reception and interpretation of myth that it will simply be referred to hereafter as the Romantic view. One of its early masterworks was Georg Friedrich Creuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, besonders der Griechen ( 1 8 1 0 - 1 8 1 2 ) , from which the philosophers borrowed. Creuzer's unifying idea was that myth reflected a primitive monotheism derived from a primeval revelation. This idea did not survive later scrutiny. "But the association of myth with the 'primal age' and with the ordering of the 'totality' of the world of man... has become firmly established in the study of myth by twentieth-century scholars of comparative religion." 42 In the twentieth century myth has been positively utilized by the Freudian Otto Rank, esp. for our purposes in his early work, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero43 and by the Jungian Joseph Campbell, 44 by the historian of religion Mircea Eliade, esp. with his emphasis on the myth of origins, 45 and by the philosopher Paul Ricoeur 46 who understands myth as a symbolic means of revelation which requires ever new efforts at interpretation. In Eliade's analysis, the relation between myth and

40

41

42

43 44 45

46

Edith HAMILTON, Mythology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1940); Robert GRAVES, The Greek Myths, 2 volumes (Baltimore: Penguin, 1957); Thomas BULFINCH, Mythology (New York: Random House, n.d.; orig. 1855, 1858, 1863). Hiram HAYDN, The Counter-Renaissance (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950); Isaiah BERLIN, Vico and Herder (New York: Vintage, 1979). Wolfhart PANNENBERG, "The Dimensions of Myth in Biblical and Christian Tradition", in his The Idea of God and Human Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 2. See note 7 above. See note 7 above. Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1958), esp. pp. 388-436; The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper, 1955); The Sacred and the Profane (New York: Harcourt, 1959). E.g. The Symbolism of Evil (Boston: Beacon, 1967); cf. Hans JONAS, "Myth and Mysticism", JR 49 (1969) 315-329; Roland BARTHES, "Change the Object Itself: Mythology Today", in his Image, Music, Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977); the symposium Myth and Mythmaking, ed. H.A. Murray (New York: George Braziller, 1960) = Daedalus 88 (1959); "Mythe", DBS 6.225-268 (1957), ed. J. Henninger, Η. Cazelles, R. Marie.

38

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

history is just the opposite of our habitual ways of thinking. For all peoples history is significant time. But for premoderns only sacred time is significant and sacred time is mythic, the time of origins. Thus only myth is historical. What moderns often call history would happen in profane time for premoderns and thus would be insignificant and unhistorical because unmythic. In biblical studies, though the genre term myth has been used for parts of the Old Testament since the days of J.G. Eichhorn and Alexander Geddes at the turn of the eighteenth century, 47 yet many twentieth century interpreters, like Gunkel and Eichrodt, 48 have remained very reserved about the presence of myth in the Bible. This is because they define myths as stories of the gods 0Göttergeschichten) and thus the term is inappropriate in the context of the prevailing monotheism of the Hebrew Bible, though they grant some allusions to ancient Near Eastern myths in biblical poetry. In Catholic circles, after the chill of the anti-modernist period (1903-1914) and the long hiatus under Pius XI (1922-1939), 49 the way was once more opened by the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) with its strong encouragement to look for genres other than history as a key to interpretation. This opening was taken further by J.M. Voste's official letter of 1948 in regard to the early chapters of Genesis which relate, as he said in its most famous passage, "in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of a less developed people, the fundamental truths presupposed for the economy of salvation, as well as the popular description of the origin of the human race and of the Chosen People." 50 This sentence, so liberating for Catholic exegesis at the time it was composed, contains, upon closer look, a number of tensions, besides the fact that it does not mention the word myth. "Figurative language", if developed, can become a parable, a novel, an epic poem, even a myth. The clause, "adapted to the understanding of a less developed people", suggests an Enlightenment contempt for myth as belonging only to the 47

48

49

50

On Geddes, see the monograph by R.C. FULLER, Alexander Geddes (1737-1802), Pioneer of Biblical Criticism (Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 3; Sheffield: Almond, 1984) and, on the use of myth in Old Testament interpretation, the excellent monograph by J.W. ROGERSON, Myth in Old Testament Interpretation (BZAW 134; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), and his article "Slippery Words V. Myth", ExpT 90 (1978-79) 1014; and the article by Wolfhart PANNENBERG cited in n. 41, pp. 1-79. Herman GUNKEL, The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History (New York: Schocken, 1964); Otto EISSFELDT, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 35-37. When, in 1935, Jean Guitton and Eugene Cardinal Tisserant tried to have Pius XI reopen the biblical question, he replied: "Cette question biblique est considerable. Je ne l'ai pas abordee pendant ma vie: il est trap tard. Je la laisse ä mon successeur". Reported in Jean GUITTON, Un siecle, une vie (Paris: Robert Lafont, 1988), p. 194. A. ROBERT and A. TRICOT, Guide to the Bible, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (New York: Desclee, 1960), p. 775; DS 3829-30, 3862-64; cf. the explanation by Augustin Bea, "II problema del Pentateuco e della storia primordiale", La Civilta Cattolica 2348 (1948) 3-14.

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

39

childhood of the human race. "Fundamental truths" and "popular description" are phrases on the other hand which suggest a high romantic appreciation of myth. Finally, the phrase "the economy of salvation" reminds one of 1 Tim l:4's preoccupation with the divine plan to the disdainful neglect of the narrative mode of communicating it. So, to go on with our survey, it was not until J.L. McKenzie's essay on "Myth and the Old Testament", that American Catholic scholars had the problem squarely set before them. 51 McKenzie argued that, despite "the note of falsehood, which popular opinion places in the very definition" of myth, "exegetes ought to face the question", 52 because of its positive use by contemporary philosophers (he had in mind esp. the neo-Kantian Ernst Cassirer) and anthropologists. He listed four characteristics of mythopoeic thought which he further judged to be present in the Old Testament: They are symbolic representations of a reality which is not otherwise known or expressed. This reality reposes upon a divine background which is represented as personal. This background is apprehended in concrete events on a cosmic scale from which the succession of phenomena arises. This reality is apprehended and described in images, words and deeds.53 This description could be said to apply to Matt 1-2, except for the third element about "events on a cosmic scale from which the succession of phenomena arises." This clause seems too tightly bound up with stories of cosmogony, to the exclusion of stories of human origins. It must either be understood more broadly, or else rejected as too narrow. But either procedure could arouse in the listener who is unsympathetic to myth the uneasy feeling that the term myth is a wax nose which can be twisted any which way at the convenience of the interpreter and thus is of dubious scientific value. I would like here to advance the following clarification of McKenzie's description. Beginnings are the time of myths and mythic miracles. Biblically we think of the creation of the cosmos, the formation of the first parents, the first sin, the crossing of the Reed Sea. By contrast, in the story of king David we do not customarily speak of myth or miracle (not even the slaying of Goliath). They are not needed because David is not a beginning in the sacred history of the Chosen People. The Elijah-Elisha cycle too has mostly domestic miracles, very important for understanding the gospel way of narrating the public ministry of Jesus, to be sure,54 but not a beginning in sacred his51

52 53 54

Myths and Realities: Studies in Biblical Theology (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1963), pp. 182200, 266-268. McKenzie, Myths, p. 182. McKenzie, Myths, p. 196. R.E. BROWN, "Jesus and Elisha", Jesus and Man's Hope (Perspective Books, 1: 2 vols; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1970) 1. 85-104; among the many studies of T.L. BRODIE, see for example, "Luke 7,36-50 as an Internalization of 2 Kings 4,1-37",

40

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW

1-2

tory. So too, I think, Americans mythicize Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrim fathers and George Washington, but not Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. All are historical figures, but the first set belongs to their beginning, the others do not. It is moreover obvious from these examples that there is no necessary and eternal opposition between myth and history, but that myth can transcend history in the service of providing a social starting point or foundation. McKenzie was concerned with myth in the Old Testament, as were Pius XII, Voste and Bea. The reentry of serious discussion of myth in the New Testament since the days of D.F. Strauss is associated with the fathers of form criticism, Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius, particularly with Bultmann's essay of 1942 "The New Testament and Mythology", 55 and the long story of its gradual and critical reception in Europe and North America, by Protestants and Catholic scholars. 56 Bultmann saw the New Testament as shot through with myth, starting with its underlying cosmology. His understanding of myth is an amalgam of Enlightenment, romantic (History of Religions theory of the myth of the Primal Man or Heavenly Redeemer), and existential Lutheran views and its chief victims are clarity and consistency. But the main impression left on Bultmann's reader is that for him myth is a negative intellectual phenomenon because (a) it is an unscientific way of thinking and (b) even whatever religious truth it contains is a product of the human mind and thus a form of justification by human works. 57 Thus it becomes necessary even on strictly theological grounds to demythologize the New Testament. It was this newer phase of the problem of myth which the Biblical Commission's Instruction of 21 April 1964 and then the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation the next year had to address. The Instruction did so in its admission of three "times of tradition" (tempora traditionis) or Sitz-im-Leben, of the historical Jesus, of the early post-pascal church, and of the evangelists themselves. The Constitution Dei Verbum did so in its famous paragraph 19, wherein, while asserting the historical character of the

55

56

57

Bib 64 (1983) 457-485; "Luke 7,11-27 as an Imitatio of 1 Kings 17,17-24", NTS 32 (1986) 247-267. Kerygma and Myth, ed. H.W. Bartsch (New York: Harper, 1961), pp. 1-44; see further BULTMANN'S Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Scribners, 1958). E.g., Rudolf Bultmann in Catholic Thought, ed. T.F. O'Meara and D.M. Weisser (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968); C.W. KEGLEY, ed., The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (New York: Scribners, 1966). R.A. JOHNSON, The Origins of Demythologizing, Philosophy and Historiography in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (Suppl. Numen 28; Leiden: Brill, 1974). Helmut KOESTER, "The Role of Myth in the New Testament", Andover Newton Quarterly 8 (1968) 180-195: "The Gospels of the NT (and apocryphal gospels to an even larger degree) testify to a new resurrection of mythological language" (189).

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

41

gospels, it recognizes that the evangelists selected, reduced, explicated and kerygmatically shaped the Jesus traditions they had received. This gives the evangelists considerable room to manoeuvre. But neither church document goes so far as to assert the presence of mythic elements in the New Testament, although we think we have found evidence within the New Testament itself for such an assertion. The Instruction, though it does not discuss myth directly, does reject the idea that Jesus was changed into a "mythical" person. After listing various gospel subgenres or simple forms ("catecheses, stories", etc.) it adds "and other literary forms", thus leaving the door open to the acknowledgment of the presence of mythic elements in the gospels. This brings us round to our starting point, the presence of myth in Matt 1-2. We consider that there is some value in classifying Matt 1-2 as mythic, first of all in the positive Romantic sense of a deeply true story of the origins and birth of the divinely designated savior. These chapters are mythic in the sense that they contain foundation legends of a primal age, a new beginning in history, the birth of the new people of God. This is the sense of myth as developed by anthropologists like Malinowski and Eliade, in continuity with the Romantic thinkers. 58 On this view there is no necessary opposition between myth and history. Primal history and fiction both function mythically as foundational. But there is also a secondary value in that by so labeling these chapters we communicate the warning to the reader that they do not necessarily contain a literal transcription of the events without any admixture of poetry or creative imagination. Against this however there are two difficulties which may be raised. The first is that according to the biblical basis for our view, 1 Tim 1:4 and related texts, a myth is an unnecessary fiction. The second difficulty is that in good method 59 the opinion of an outside source like 1 Tim 1:4 is less helpful in determining the literary genre of a work or the subgenre of a portion of a work than the view of the evangelist himself. In other words, Matthew does not label his first two chapters as myth. What then is his view of the matter? How does he expressly state his generic literary intention? This is the subject of our final section.

58

59

Primal history and fiction both function mythically as foundational. Bruno MALINOWSKI, Myth in Primitive Psychology (1926) as reported in PANNENBERG, "The Dimensions of Myth", pp. 4-6, 8, 17, 25-6, 30, 32. Quentin QUESNELL, The Mind of Mark (AnBib 38; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1969), pp. 46-48; for an application of this method to Matthew see K.P. DONFRIED, "The Allegory of the Ten Virgins (Matt 25; 1-13) as a Summary of Matthean Theology", JBL 93 (1974) 415-428.

42

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

III

As a matter of fact. Matthew labels his first two chapters rather clearly from a generic point of view. He calls them genesis and he does this twice. The first time he does so is in the very first verse: biblos geneseos. The second time is in chapter one, verse 18: tou de Iesou Christou he genesis houtos en.60 The range of lexical possibilities for the meaning of genesis is fairly broad. It could be translated generation, genealogy, table of descent, birth, creation, beginning, lineage, nativity, existence, life, nature, or origin. Moreover, at some point the word became the title of the first book of the Bible in the Septuagint translation, though when exactly this took place is hard to determine. Indeed, Matthew's opening phrase seems to echo LXX Gen 2:4: he biblos geneseos ouranou kai ges, "the book of the creation of heaven and earth". Though the exact meaning of Matthew's first two words is disputed, 61 I understand them in the following way, though my suggestions are only tentative, as will be obvious. Biblos I take to refer first of all to the entire gospel, and to signify intentionally a bookish piece of writing, didactic, scholastic, a manual for church leaders, wherein, despite the narrative framework, the discourses great and small have pride of place. These are "the center of Matthew's positive interest and creativity". 62 We may contrast Matthew's biblos (and John's biblios 20:30) with Mark's more oral, rhetorical euangelion (1:1), or with Luke's more emphatically narrative diegesis (1:1). But in its immediate context biblos seems to be joined with geneseos to refer to the first two chapters of the gospel. Matthew's choice of his next word, genesis, perhaps represents a highpoint of his authorial subtlety with its multiple possibilities of meaning and even paronomasia (cf. Jas 3:6 where there is a word play between genesis and Gehenna). Genesis here I take to mean first of all, given its immediate context in vv. 1-17, quite literally genealogy, generation, descent, lineage. This is its surface meaning. But, as we can see from its second usage in v. 18, it also intends to introduce the story of Jesus' beginning, which includes his conception, his birth, the struggles surrounding his infancy, besides matters of lineage, naming, future destiny, relationship to the events of his time and to Old Testament prophecy. Thus it refers in both occurrences (1:1,18) to the whole of chaps. 1 and 2. This is confirmed indirectly by the variant reading at Matt 1:18 in the mass of koine manuscripts, he gennesis. Gennesis means birth, in the more

60

61 62

The other New Testament occurrences are Luke 1:14; James 1:23; 3:6, this last in the interesting phrase "wheel of nature". See the recent commentaries on Matthew by Gnilka, Luz and W.D. Davies in loco. B . T . V I V I A N O , "The Gospel According to Matthew", New Jerome Biblical Commentary, edd. R.E. Brown, J.A. Fitzmyer, R.E. Murphy (Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), p. 631.

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

43

specialized sense of engendering, nativity. The scribes expected this word and so wrote it in, but the earlier manuscripts indicate that Matthew wrote genesis, a word with a wider range of meanings. (That it refers in a third sense, in 1:1, to the entire gospel as the book of his life, i.e., as a biography, cannot be ruled out either, and indeed enjoys a certain probability due to the link with biblos which refers to the whole gospel.) But in this second sense of beginning which encompasses the first two chapters I suspect Matthew is suggesting a story of origins, of the sort which in antiquity commonly involved mythic elements, and clearly so in Gen 1-11 to which he alludes most explicitly (cf. LXX Gen 5:1 haute he biblos geneseos anthropon). Without entangling Matthew in B.W. Bacon's Pentateuchal theory of Matthean composition, 63 we may nevertheless feel confident in asserting that the evangelist is here sending a signal to the biblically literate reader that he is writing of a new Genesis, a new epoch in the history of salvation. This conclusion has further implications for Matthew's theology. Within a relatively brief period since the death of Jesus, Matthew has attained an astoundingly mature and profound awareness of the extent to which the divine initiative in Jesus constitutes a new salvation-historical beginning. This gives his Immanuel Christology (1:23; 18:20; 28:20) its weight and force of conviction. It also explains his complex relationship to Pharisaic Judaism, one of massive appropriation and bitter repudiation. 64 In the service of this new epoch and Christology Matthew dared to take the dangerous step of composing a prologue to his presentation of the public ministry which would be received by his Jewishly educated readers as containing a complex of Old Testament citations, allusions and midrashim, and would be received by his Hellenistic readers as mythopoetic (1 Tim 1:4). In doing so he tried to play fair as a mythopoetic, haggadic author. By the extreme brevity and sobriety of tone in the stereotyped units whose literary features we have already listed, he has done as much as a narrative author can to signify to the reader that this is not ordinary history but a prehistory such as we find in Genesis 1-11. He gives us a narrative account of the effective origin of the object of Christian faith, the Christ (1:16), the savior (1:21), God with us (1:23). He gives a symbolic narrative representation of this primal reality, a set of symbols which cry out for interpretation and thus give rise to thought, contemplation and proclamation. 1 Timothy's negative

63

64

B.W. BACON, "The 'Five Books' of Matthew Against the Jews", The Exposistor 8th series, 15 (1918) 56-66; BACON, Studies in Matthew (New York: Scribners/London: Constable, 1930). B.T. VIVIANO, "Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matt. 23:11 2 , 3 4 " , JSNT

1990 39 (1990) 3-21.

44

THE GENRES OF MATTHEW 1-2

evaluation of this bold step is justified by the usual ways in which Matthew's prologue has been overliterally (underliterarily) misunderstood, yet it is refuted by the very same popular reception and artistic effectiveness. (The paradoxical ambiguity of myth cannot be escaped.) Because of Matt 1-2 Christians now associate the new year with the octave of Christmas, rather than with some other time of year (though this is a late usage).65

65

Beginning the new year on January 1 comes from the pre-Christian Roman calendar. In the Middle Ages and later the new year was celebrated on March 25, the feast of the Annunciation (itself based on the Infancy Gospels). Christmas and its octave have been celebrated on December 25 and following days since Christian antiquity, from soon after the end of the persecutions in the early fourth century. See Oscar Cullmann, "The Origin of Christmas", in his The Early Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), pp. 17-36.

4

The Movement of the Star, Matt 2:9 and Num 9:17

SUMMARY The star that guides the magi in Matt 2:1-12 is a miraculous star midrashically inspired by the messianic star of Num 24:17. The precise movement of the star has hitherto been left unexplained. It is the thesis of this article that the behavior of the star was suggested to the evangelist by the cloud-fire traditions of the Pentateuch, specifically by Num 9:15-23, esp. 9:17, as transformed by Hellenistic Judaism.

It is a commonplace of commentaries on Matt 2 that the star which leads the magi is a miraculous star,1 and not a natural phenomenon, despite frequent efforts to show the contrary. This miraculous star is somehow inspired by the star which is the messiah mentioned in Balaam's prophecy, Num 24:17 "a star rises from Jacob, a scepter comes forth from Israel", in a sort of midrash or fulfillment of prophecy.2 What has not been satisfactorily explained on a biblical basis is the peculiar movement of the star and the behavior of the magi in relation to it.3

1

2

3

Franz BOLL, "Der Stern des Weisen", ZNW 18 (1917) 40-48, the great expert on ancient astronomy, renowned for his articles on stars and planets in Pauly-Wissowa, made the point authoritatively. W.D. DAVIES-D.C. ALLISON, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1988), pp. 234-5; R.E. BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1977), pp. 195-6; Martin HENGEL, The Zealots (Edinburh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1989; orig. ed. 1961), pp. 237-240; Num 24:17 is quoted in 4Q Testim., and much is made of this in N.A. SLLBERMAN, The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Putnam 1994), p. 273. Martin HENGEL-Helmut MERKEL, "Die Magier aus dem Osten und die Flucht nach Ägypten (Mt 2) im Rahmen der antiken Religionsgeschichte und der Theologie des Matthäus", in Orientierung an Jesus, ed. P. Hoffmann (Festschrift Josef Schmid; Freiburg: H e r d e r , 1 9 7 3 ) , p p . 1 3 9 - 1 6 9 , o n p. 1 5 3 , r e f e r s to E x o d 1 3 : 2 1 ; 4 0 : 3 8 ; N e h 9 : 1 9 ; P s 7 8 : 1 4 ;

105:39 for the cloud-fire tradition but not to Num 9:15-23. In the updated 1993 edition of his Birth of the Messiah, Brown treats the star again on pp. 610-613, and then, p. 614, re-

46

THE MOVEMENT OF THE STAR

The text of Matt 2:1-12 refers to the star four times: "we saw his star at its rising" (αύτοϋ τόν άστε ρ α έ ν τη άνατολη), v. 2b; "the time of the star's appearance" (του φαινομένου αστέρος·), v. 7; the crucial verse which is most explicit on the movement of the star: "And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was" (και ιδού ό αστήρ, öv εΐδον έ ν τη ανατολή προήγεν αύτοΰ?, εως· έλθών έστάθη επάνω ου ήν τό παιδίον), ν. 9; finally, the climatic reaction of the magi: "they were overjoyed at seeing the star" (ίδόντες δε τόν αστέρα έχάρησαν χαράν μεγάλην σφόδρα), ν. 10. For our purposes the thing to note is the twice mentioned fact that the magi see the star at its rising,4 and then, when they have seen it, the star starts moving ahead of them, until it stops over the place of the child. The magi stop, dismount (?), rejoice, enter the house, worship the child and offer their gifts. Granted that the whole narrative is presented in the style of an Oriental legend, perhaps influenced in the telling by various historical incidents, 5 and doubtless developed as a midrashic comment on Num 24:17, many details can and have been explained by earlier scholarship, often on the basis of Mosaic typology. Indeed, the search for Mosaic typology in the gospels is becoming somewhat of a trend in recent gospel studies. 6 Yet, however fine ports on a discussion between G. Segalla and S. Munoz-Iglesias. SEGALLA, in his Una storia annunciata: I racconti dell'infanzia in Matteo (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1987), p. 15, distinguishes between the star as a sign in Matt 2:1-2 and the star as a guide in 2:9b-11, which for him points to two pre-Matthean strains. MUNOZ-IGLESIAS, in his Los Evangelios de la lnfancia TV: Nacimiento e infancia de Jesus en San Mateo (Madrid: ВАС, 1990), p. 211, disagrees: the star is never said to guide the magi, at most it accompanies them. Though we cannot agree with this, we note that he at least does mention Num 9:1523 in passing. But he makes nothing of it. To the relevant ОТ parallels we may add Ps 50:1-6, where God summons the world from the east, and he appears preceded by fire; the heavens bear witness to his justice. Leopold SABOURIN, in his The Gospel according to St Matthew (Bombay: St Paul, 1982), vol. 1, p. 219, also refers to Num 9:17, but does not develop the point. 4

5

6

The translation of en te anatole as "at its rising" supposes a distinction between this phrase and apo anatolon of v. 1. Some translations nevertheless render en te anatole as "in the East" (e.g., the AV). Our argument presupposes "at its rising", and supports such a translation. On the linguistic issue, see BROWN, Birth, p. 173; on the astrological aspect, see B.T. VIVIANO, 'Aramaic "Messianic" Text', ARD (NewYork: Doubleday, 1992) 1.342. Three such incidents are listed in BROWN, Birth, p. 174; the chief being the visit of Tiridates, king of Armenia, who came to Rome in AD 66, with the sons of three neighboring Parthian rulers in his entourage. For discussion, see HENGEL-MERKEL, "Die Magier", and J.E. BRUNS: "The Magi Episode in Matthew 2", CBQ 23 (1961) 51-54. Among such works on Mosaic typology, we may mention D.C. ALLISON, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); M.-E. BOISMARD, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); D.P. MOESSNER, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lucan Travel Narrative

THE MOVEMENT OF THE STAR

47

these studies have been, and however great at times their learning and ingenuity, they have not worked out the biblical source of the movement of the star and its modus operandi in Matthew's haggada. 7 The purpose of this note is to suggest that the source of Matthew's description, particularly in 2:9, is the mysterious and, at first blush, off-putting passage about the cloud and appearance of fire which led the Israelites in the desert as found in Num 9:15-23, esp. v. 17: 15 On the day that the Tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the Tabernacle, the Tent of the Pact; and in the evening it rested over the Tabernacle in the likeness of fire until morning. l6It was always so: the cloud covered it, appearing as fire by night. n And whenever the cloud lifted from the Tent, the Israelites would set out accordingly; and at the spot where the cloud settled, there the Israelites would make camp. 18At a command of the Lord the Israelites broke camp, and at a command of the Lord they made camp; they remained encamped as long as the cloud stayed over the Tabernacle. "When the cloud lingered over the Tabernacle many days, the Israelites observed the Lord's mandate and did not journey on. 20 At such times as the cloud rested over the Tabernacle for but a few days, they remained encamped at a command of the Lord, and broke camp at a command of the Lord. 2lAnd at such times as the cloud stayed from evening until morning, they broke camp as soon as the cloud lifted in the morning. Day or night, whenever the cloud lifted, they would break camp. 22Whether it was two days or a month or a year — however long the cloud lingered over the Tabernacle — the Israelites remained encamped and did not set out; only when it lifted did they break camp. 23 0n a sign from the Lord they made camp and on a sign from the Lord they broke camp; they observed the Lord's mandate at the Lord's bidding through Moses (NJPS trans.). This passage from the Priestly tradition can appear repetitive and redundant, even though it is written in elevated prose. 8 One commentator even calls it a "trivial ... spinning out". 9 Along with Exod 40:34-38 it forms a bracket or inclusio around Leviticus. It also directly prepares the reader for the resumption of the Israelites' march through the desert which begins to be narrated in the next chapter of Numbers.

7

8 9

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Joel MARCUS, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville KY: Westminster, 1992). Cf. D.C. ALLISON, "What Was the Star that Guided the Magi?", Bible Review 9,6 (1993) 20-24, 63 (answer: an angel); L.W. HURTADO, One God, One Lord (London: SCM, 1988), p. 59, refers to Job 38:7 where the morning stars are parallel to the sons of God, i.e., divine beings or angels; he also refers to the Exagoge of Ezekiel where the stars show deference to Moses. B.A. LEVINE, Numbers 1-20 (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 293, 298-300. Bruno BAENTSCH, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri (ΗΚΑΤ 1.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 0 3 ) , pp. 4 9 4 - 5 .

48

THE MOVEMENT OF THE STAR

The passage is usually judged to be a unity, though some have seen vv. 2023a as a later addition, and v. 23b as a still later gloss. 10 The Septuagint abbreviates vv. 21-23. The key terms "Tabernacle" and "at the command of/on a sign from the Lord" are each repeated seven times; they are the linguistic cement which hold the passage together. Yet they are not evenly distributed throughout. Vv. 15-17 are about the cloud, the appearance of fire and travel arrangements. By contrast, vv. 18-23 seem to be more concerned about giving a lesson in obedience. Only with v. 18 does the insistence upon the divine command become explicit. In this regard it is important to recognize that the divine command is not verbal, not spoken. The movement of the cloud and fire is the divine command. 11 That is why the Targum PseudoJonathan always qualifies the cloud as the cloud of Glory, that is, the cloud is the divine presence. We are here presented with an ideal picture of the people's prompt obedience and sensitivity to the (unpredictable) divine guidance, what is sometimes called the honeymoon of the people with its God. 12 Elsewhere in the wilderness story there are many instances of the people's disobedience and rebellious murmurings. This passage from Numbers belongs to the cloud-fire traditions of ancient Israel. 13 These take two main forms. The first (Exod 13:21-22; 14:19-20,24; 33:7-11; cp. Neh 9:12,19) speaks of a pillar ('amüd) of cloud or fire, and is usually assigned to the early narrative traditions (JE). The second form (Exod 16:10; (19:9); 24:15-18; 40:36-38; Num 9:15-23; 1 Kgs 8:10-11), without the pillar, is assigned to the Priestly traditions. The cloud and the fire are connected, but how? On the basis of Exod 40:38, "fire would appear in it [i.e., in the cloud] by night", interpreters conclude that the fire is there permanently; only it is invisible by day, and visible by night. The fire represent the divine presence or glory (Exod 24:17) and is put in parallel with the guiding angel (Exod 14:19-20; cf. 23:20-23). Thus Milgrom's homiletic

10

Jacob MILGROM, Numbers (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), pp. 7072, 306; Dieter KELLERMANN, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1:1 bis 10:10 (BZAW 120; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), pp. 133-140; P. J. BUDD, Numbers (Word Biblical Commentary 5; Waco: Word, 1984), in loco.

11

MILGROM, Numbers,

12

Conrad L'HEUREUX, "Numbers", NJBC (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), p. 84. On the cloud traditions see esp. Jesüs LUZARRAGA, Las tradiciones de la nube en la Biblia у en el judaismo primitivo (AnBib 54; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973), esp. pp. 154-163; he finds a liturgical hymn or poem buried in Num 9:15-23; this seems unlikely but is one way to account for the repetitions. See further Andre DUPONT-SOMMER, "Nubes tenebrosa et illuminans noctem: Esquisse d'une histoire du concept de la nuee dans l'Ancien Testament", RHR 125 (1942-3) 5-31; E. MANNING, "Le symbolisme de la nubes (nephele) chez Origene et les peres latins", RechSR 51 (1963) 96-111; Leopold Sabourin, "The Biblical Cloud", BTB 4 (1974) 290-311.

13

loc.

cit.

THE MOVEMENT OF THE STAR

49

conclusion to his commentary on Num 9, "Israel's march to its promised land was conducted only by the direction of God, not by man, not even by a Moses", can stand so long as it does not exclude the presence of the angel, nor the intermediation of Moses (Num 9:23b). 14 The impact of Num 9:15-23 on Matt 2:9 consists essentially in the behavior of the cloud-fire which (1) rises, (2) moves forward, (3) stops to mark the next encampment. If Matthew had quoted this passage explicitly or extensively, the connection would have been noticed long ago. He does not do that. The only verbal overlap consists in one word: estathe, a word which is common enough. But in Num 9:15 it means "set up" (representing the Hebrew haqtm, cf. Sam. hüqam), and refers to the Tabernacle being erected, not to the resting of the fire-cloud. In Matt 2:9 however it means "stopped" or "stood". The same verb is used in the form este in Num 9:17, to refer to the place where the fire-cloud settled. Thus the verbal coincidence is slight. It is the similarity in the movement which supplies whatever proof of influence there is. But, we may still ask, how do we get from a pillar of fire to the star of Matthew 2? As we have already seen, there is no mention of a pillar in Num 9:15-23. More important, in vv. 15-16 there is the careful phrasing kemar'eh-'esh, "like the appearance of fire", ümar'eh-'esh, "and the appearance of fire by night"; LXX: ώς είδος- πυρός· και είδος πυρός την νύκτα. It is not a long step to say that a star is "like the appearance of fire" in the night. Still, to help us take this step we have the support of mediation of the fire-cloud pentateuchal motif through some texts of Hellenistic Judaism, viz., the Wisdom of Solomon, 10:17 and 18:3. In Wis 10:17 Wisdom is identified with the cloud and fire which guided the people during the Exodus: "she [Wisdom] guided them along a marvellous way, and became a shelter to them by day, and a starry flame (eis phloga astron) through the night". Influenced by Isaiah 4:5-6, the author conceives of the cloud as a canopy or pavilion which covers the whole people and protects it from heat and rain. More important for our concern, the fire by night is explicitly linked to the stars, that is, it resembles a star, it is a starlike flame. A rationalist interpretation has suggested that the pillar of fire has here been reduced to ordinary starlight.15 But the author of Wisdom shows no special interest in reducing the marvellous here, and the pillar is mentioned explicitly in Wis

14

MILGROM, Numbers,

15

A.T.S. GOODRICK, The Book of Numbers (Oxford: Church Bible Commentary; London, 1913), in loco·, J. FICHTNER, Weisheit Salomos (HAT 2.6; Tübingen: Mohr, 1938), in loco.

loc. с it.

50

THE MOVEMENT OF THE STAR

18:3 as we shall soon see. Philo, De vita Mosis 1.166, also takes it in a marvellous sense. 16 After having recalled the plague of darkness, the author of Wisdom describes the exceptional condition of the Israelites during this plague: "But for your holy ones there was very great light ... therefore you provided a flaming pillar of fire as a guide for your people's unknown journey, and a harmless sun (helion de ablabe) for their glorious wandering" (Wis 18:1, 3; cf. vv. 14-15). Here again the mysterious cloud is compared to a star, this time, the planet of the sun, and the function of both fire and cloud is to guide the people to their unknown destination. 17 These texts from Wisdom received their final form only a few years, in all probability, before the start of the Christian era. 18 They show how the cloudfire tradition of the Pentateuch was described or imaginatively presented in a semi-poetic text as a star. Did Matthew know the book of Wisdom? Certainly he does not show the same heavy use of it as the letter to the Romans, chaps. 1-2, or the gospel according to John. Yet we can see an echo of Wis 2:13,18-20, the suffering just one as child of God, in the redactional Matt 27:43, where the mockers at the foot of the cross, citing Ps 22:9, say: "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, Ί am the Son of God'." The last part of this verse does not come from Ps 22, and is often thought to be inspired by Wis 2:13,18. Yet it is not really necessary to establish beyond a cavil that Matthew knew Wisdom in detail, though there are other echoes less clear than this one. It would suffice for our purposes that Matthew was aware of a popular midrashic approach to the cloudfire tradition which happens to find a literary witness in Wisdom but which could just as easily have come to him through oral transmission. In any case the basis of the behavior of the star as rising, moving (and thus leading the magi), and then stopping over the spot where the magi find their goal is to be found primarily in Num 9:17, not in Wisdom. It has been the purpose of this note to suggest that the biblical model for the movement of the star in Matt 2:9 is to be found in the fullest of the pentateuchal cloud-fire texts, Num 9:15-23, particularly in v. 17. Thereby the commonly recognized Mosaic typology which underlies Matthew 2 receives further reinforcement and instantiation, and a hitherto unexplained element in the text finds its inner-biblical explanation.

16

Chrysostome LARCHER, Le Livre de la Sagesse (EBib n.s. 1, 3, 5; Paris: Gabalda, 1983, 1984, 1985) 2.643-4; J.P.M. SWEET, "The Theory of Miracles in the Wisdom of Solomon", in Miracles, ed. C.F.D. Moule (London: Mowbray, 1965), pp. 113-126.

17

C . LARCHER, Sagesse,

18

LARCHER, Sagesse,

3.989-990. 1.161.

5

The Sermon on the Mount in Recent Study

1995 was a banner year for the study of the Sermon on the Mount. Thirteen years ago H. Frankemölle declared 1982 the year of the Sermon on the Mount (henceforth SM), because over ten books had been published on it in Germany, one became a bestseller (H, Alt), and for a time the newspapers were full of it, much of the uproar due to political debates. 1 In 1995 the situation is less politically and militarily charged, and hence more calm. Two major works have appeared, each quite different from the other, by Marcel Dumais and Hans Dieter Betz respectively. 2 Dumais' work is primarily a review and summary of research especially over the last twenty-five years, with a relatively restrained amount of personal views, whereas Betz's work, while also reviewing much literature, is more of an independent study, with a peculiar point of view, viz., its emphasis on the classical, GrecoRoman cultural background. Dumais' recapitulative accent is explained by the circumstance that his study was originally commissioned as an article in the Dictionnaire de la Bible Supplement, and originally published there. There is also an obvious difference in scale, 331 p. versus 695 p. Both works are resolutely academic and are not likely to provoke public controversy, yet both are a boon for the serious student. Betz intends to be measured against F.A.G. Tholuck's monumental three-volume work of 1833, not against Dumais.

I We can thus be relatively brief in reviewing Dumais. It goes without saying that the student will find here a reliable source of information both on the Sermon as a whole and on each section, with ample if not exhaustive bibliographies. Unfortunately no indices are provided. The first part treats the history of interpretation (rather briefly), the theological, historical and literary problems posed by the Sermon, the relation of the Matthean SM to the H. FRANKEMÖLLE, "Neue Literatur zur Bergpredigt", TRev 19 (1983) 177-198. M. DUMAIS, Le sermon sur la montagne. Etat de la recherche. Interpretation. Bibliographie. Paris, Letouzey et Ane, 1995; H. D. BETZ, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:37:27 and Luke 6:20-49) (Hermeneia). Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 1995.

52

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

Lucan Sermon on the Plain (henceforth SP), the relation of the two sermons to their respective gospels, the structure and literary genre of the two sermons, and the Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds. The second part of the book, on the interpretation of the SM section by section, begins with a warning not to expect a detailed exegesis. Rather, for each section one will find a selective, especially recent, bibliography; then, depending on the case, a study of the redactional history, the structure, the literary form, and the background (ОТ and Judaism) of the passage; then the general sense of the text is given, in the light of the authors cited in the bibliography. In this part Dumais takes the SP seriously, yet he does not undertake a completely separate treatment of the SP, and in this differs from Betz. The work concludes with a systematic treatment of Christian existence according to the SM. The book is dedicated to Dom Jacques Dupont and follows his lead wherever possible. In reacting to the book the first task is to point out the author's main original contribution, and then to formulate some criticisms. In his analysis of the structure of the Sermon (84-91), D. follows the path chartered by Giavini, Grundmann, Schweizer and Bornkamm in locating the Lord's Prayer at the center. But he goes beyond them in noticing that in addition to the thematic terms kingdom of God (8x) and justice (5x), there are also 17 references to the Father in the SM; these are concentrated principally in the central section (lOx in 6,1-18). An awareness of this thematic density heightens the religious, the theological dimension of the ethics of the text. It leads the author to some impressive reflections on the relation Father, sons, brothers, based on 5,45.48, as well as on 6,1-18. But he does not notice that the section 6„197,12, difficult to organize in any case, can be understood as containing further instructions on how to love God with one's whole heart (v. 21), one's two yets^im (v. 24), soul (i.e., life, v. 25) and strength (wealth, throughout vv. 19-34); cf. m. Ber. 9,5 and B. Gerhardsson, The Shema in the NT (Lund 1996). This would have strengthened his theocentric argument which is his main contribution. Among criticisms, we may mention that D. does not discuss the view that 5,21-48 can be read as a commentary on the second part of the Decalogue and related Pentateuchal laws. This neglect contributes to his not asking the question, what is the relation of the SM to catechesis, i.e., the use of the beatitudes, the hypertheses, the Lord's Prayer in the instruction of new Christians? D. could reasonably reply that catechesis was not part of his task, yet he is known for his earlier study of and contribution to the responsible "actualization" of the Scriptures. Indeed, his concern for contemporary application occasionally leads him to anachronistic statements, e.g., the timeless destiny of the SM (112), the beatitude of the mourners can be ap-

THE SERMON O N THE M O U N T IN RECENT S T U D Y

53

plied to those who grieve because more people today do not seem to care about God, Christ, spiritual values (146). The main point is however that Matt 5,21-48 centers Jesus' ethical teaching around major ОТ ethical texts, and thus justifies the use of the Decalogue in catechetics. D. is also somewhat careless in dating rabbinic parallels. In his brief treatment of the history of exegesis, D. repeats the usual presentation of the medieval distinction between the precepts which all the baptized are obliged to observe, and the counsels of perfection, reserved for a spiritual elite which freely chooses to pursue them. He rightly sees the major impetus in the writings of the vigorous monastic reformer, Rupert of Deutz. But he dies not refer to Brigitta Stoll's major work. 3 So he does not realize how radical Rupert's position was: salvation by grace is for the laity and secular clergy; salvation through the works of the SM was for the zealous monks. Rupert thus broke with the Augustinian line. It is thus incorrect to identify this with the position of Thomas Aquinas who remained a moderate Augustinian. Though D. refers to S.T., I-II, qq. 107-108, he does not make it clear that there Thomas makes of the SM the written text of the nova lex intended for all Christian, in both its precepts and its counsels (q. 108, aa. 3-4), and that he there cites explicitly the statement of Augustine that the SM contains all the precepts leading to the perfection of the Christian life (q. 108, a. 3 sed c. et corp.). The right way to understand the kingdom of God in the gospels continues to be debated. D.'s treatment (127-129) will not satisfy those like the reviewer who continue to see the origin of the theme in the book of Daniel, where nearly every chapter culminates in a statement about the kingdom, and where it is explicitly given to the "one like a Son of man". If this is the correct background, it follows that the kingdom represents a future theopolitical arrangement on earth (Matt 6,10) as it is in heaven, consisting morally in justice, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14,17; Matt 6,33). The perspective of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom remains predominantly future (Matt 4,17; 6,10), also in the beatitudes, though there is an anticipation of it (e.g., Matt 12,28) in the ministry of Jesus and in the life of faith. But the believer is still offered a twofold hope, for the future of this world, through a new divine intervention into history, the coming of the Son of man with his kingdom (Matt 16,28), and eternal life (19,16.17.29) at the resurrection (22,23.28.30.31). (Admittedly, the earthly perspective is not always sharply distinguished from the heavenly, but this is precisely because both form part of the hope for the fixture.) This is one place where D. would have done well De Virtute in virtutem: Zur Auslegungs- und Wirkungsgeschichte der Bergpredigt in Kommentaren, Predigten und hagiographischer Literatur von der Merowingerzeit bis um 1200 (BGBE 30; Tübingen 1988).

54

T H E S E R M O N O N T H E M O U N T IN R E C E N T S T U D Y

to follow Dupont more faithfully, even though his concern for a present experience of the kingdom is understandable from a Lucan, and from a pastoral, point of view. D. generally ignores the views of modern philosophers on the SM. 4 He does adduce S. Kierkegaard on 6,25-34 (273) appropriately. But he does not mention Nietzsche's rejection of the SM as a slave morality, and Scheler's reply that, on the contrary, the pardon of enemies represents the beau geste of a nobleman's ethic. D.'s generally good judgment slips on the crucial verses 5,17-20, the principles of the law. He follows the view that v. 18d ("until all is accomplished") is to be understood differently from v. 18b ("until heaven and earth pass away"), and refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus, not to the parousia. This is literally unlikely, since the two "until" clauses are in strict parallelism and serve as a frame to the central assertion, that the law will not pass away. A glance at three recent commentaries, Gnilka, Betz and DaviesAllison, shows that they all recognize that the reference to the passion of Christ is an extraneous and artificial harmonization with Paul. Davies, who in 1957 argued intensely for this view, has given it up as eisegetical. D. would do well to consult the old article by H J . Schoeps, 5 where a sharp distinction is made between Matthew's acceptance of the written Torah, and his rejection of the Pharisaic oral torah. Even in those hypertheses where Matthew's Jesus seems to be abrogating the written Torah (e.g., on oaths or divorce), he never does so in a laxist sense; his views on divorce can be understood as within the range of opinion permissible among Jewish sages of his day. 6 This criticism leads into the most serious disagreement of all. It concerns how the command to love our enemies is to be understood. D. courageously states (214) that the teaching of Matt 5,39b-42 is not to be understood as including a prudent or interested calculation that one can thereby win over ("again") or convert one's adversary. He asserts that nothing in the text permits such in interpretation, though he admits that this was the interpretation of the Didache (1,3 "and you will have no enemy"; cf. 6,2), and, we may add, of Rom 12,14-21. He then in the next paragraph says that these words of Jesus are not to be taken literally! He repeats his unconditional interpretation (222) and then argues for it (223-224) on the basis of the threefold poia hymin charts estin ("what grace is to you?") of Luke 6,32.33.34. Against Fitzmyer and Bovon's commentaries (and, we may add, the majority of

5 6

They are conveniently gathered in X. TILLIETTE, Le Christ de la Philosophie (Paris 1990). "Jesus et la loi juive", RHPR 33 (1953) 1-20. See the important article by R. NEUDECKER, "Das 'Ehescheidungsgesetz' von Dtn 24,1-4 nach altjüdischer Auslegung", Bib 75 (1994) 350-387.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

55

translations), D. holds that charts here should be given its full sense of grace and not be reduced to that of reward or credit, as the misthos of Luke 6,35 and the Matthean parallels would lead one to think. The debate may be characterized as one between a romantic-idealist, impractical and unjewish interpretation and a calculating, prudential, conversionary, educational interpretation. The second view is based on a general estimate of the character of Matthew's ethic. In detail it is based on the principle stated in 5,17, "I have come not to abolish but to fulfill". This permits, when taken with the degrees or stages of moral development sketched in 5,38-48, a moral calculus which argues that in some cases the moral sensitivity of the opponent is sufficiently developed so that a non-violent response is appropriate (we may think of Gandhi making such a calculus in regard to Lord Halifax), but in other cases the moral level of the opponents is so low that such a response would be useless (e.g., Stalin or Hitler). In such cases, the believer may resort to lower levels of biblical teaching, in self-defense. This in fact has been the policy of most Christian bodies throughout the centuries, and it need not exclude risktaking, heroic virtue and sanctity, or conscientious objection by individuals. It is supported especially by Rom 12,14-21, which concludes "do not be conquered (nika by evil but conquer evil with good" (v. 21), by the Didache, and by the two swords of Luke 22;36-38. In the matter of the reward, there is perhaps a confusion in D. between the Matthean and Lucan perspectives. Even if "grace" were the correct translation of charis in Luke, this would not necessarily provide the appropriate key to Matthew's point of view. Within the Matthean perspective we may distinguish different kinds of rewards. Usually authors distinguish here between crassly material and spiritual, other-worldly rewards. It is however doubtful whether the Matthean Jesus would have accepted such a sharp antithesis. His perspective is of concern for justice and the future kingdom of God. It is thus essentially social. He offers wise teaching which will prepare for and hasten the coming of the kingdom by a radical instruction on the resolution of human conflicts by breaking the cycle of violence. To the extent that human beings live by this instruction, the Matthean Jesus could reasonably foresee that they would be better off, even in this world, due to the "peace dividend"; better off even materially, although even more so morally and spiritually. It is difficult to do justice here both to the innovative, revolutionary character of Jesus' teaching on non-violence (which always leads some to judge it as romantic, impractical and unjewish) and its (in the long term) hardheaded, practical, realistic wisdom. One can however, in the light of two thousand years of struggle to receive this teaching, begin to think that its wisdom is finally being taken

56

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

seriously even on the level of states and governments. 7 Despite these disagreements, it is obvious that this is a book worth wrestling with.

II Betz's massive achievement has its roots in his work on his Galatians commentary, when, as he says, "the extraordinarily intimate, more precisely adversarial, relationship of ... Galatians and the SM continued to force itself on me". 8 Thus from the start a Bultmannian Lutheran perspective controls the agenda, even though that does not explain all the positions taken. B. prepared carefully for his commentary, one might say that he earned the right to write it, by a series of seven preliminary studies, which were subsequently published as a book in German and English (see previous note). There the main theses peculiar to B.'s approach were clearly stated and are not now revoked. Scholars have therefore had time to react to them in detail. The three principal review articles 9 do not accept these theses but submit them to a searching criticism which has convinced this reviewer. The theses may be reduced to three. The first is that the SM is a corpus separatum, not ascribable either to the historical Jesus or to the final redaction of Q or to Matthew the Greek evangelist. It is the product of Greek-speaking Jewish Christians around A.D. 50, written polemically against other Jews, and was taken over virtually without alteration by both Q and Matthew. It is isolated yet linked with the SP, which is designed for disciples coming from paganism. The second thesis is that the SM is engaged in a polemical dialogue with Hellenistic philosophy, a dialogue whose literary genre is the Epicurean-Stoic epitome of the master's doctrines. The third is that the SM's soteriology does not depend on the saving death and resurrection of Jesus but on the good works and moral righteousness of his followers. The SM is characterized by a relatively low Christology, one in which Jesus is neither Son of man nor Son of God (cf. Sermon, 145, 147-149). B.'s rejection of the criticisms already published suggests that he prefers an eccentric position. Yet it would be closer to the truth to say that the work as a whole is a combination 7

B. URQUHART, A Life in Peace and War (New York 1987) 248-249.

8

H.D. В ETZ, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia 1985) X; id., Studien zur Bergpredigt (Tübingen 1985). D.C. ALLISON, Jr., "A New Approach to the Sermon on the Mount", ETL 64 (1988) 405414. C.E. CARLSTON, "Betz on the Sermon on the Mount: A Critique", CBQ 50 (1988) 47-57; G.N. Stanton, "The Origin and Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount", Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament (FS. E.E. Ellis; [eds G.F. HAWTHORNE-O. BETZ] Grand Rapids-Tiibingen 1987) 181-194, reprinted in G.N. STANTON, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh 1992) 307-325. My own brief review appeared in RB 94 (1987) 147-148.

9

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

57

of centrist and eccentric views, of sudden concessions to the commonplace and odd independent views. The first two of these theses cannot be taken seriously as historically true (they shatter on the reefs of Q and Matthean redaction). Perhaps they are not even intended as such. But they can be accepted as Denkproben, as hypotheses which challenge our habitual ways of thinking. For example, B. tries to interpret the SM against the Matthean redaction. This is both odd and ultimately useless since Matthean redaction is so obviously present in the SM, but it is an interesting experiment. The third, Christological, thesis is exaggerated but based on the restraint in the SM regarding explicit Christology. The problem could be easily solved if the frequent mention of the kingdom of God in the SM always and automatically implied a reference to Daniel 7 and thus implicitly to the Son of man, as I tend to think. Or is the SM like the later targums, where there is frequent mention of the kingdom of God and of king-Messiah but not of the Son of man? This is becoming a major issue in Q and historical Jesus research. The present reviewer presupposes the criticisms of the Essays. He will concentrate on some of the same issues as newly presented in the commentary, as well as on some other aspects which have emerged on reading through the larger work, especially in regard to the value as well as the doubtfulness of B.'s interpretatio graeca, adding some interpretations of his own. The work will be used by two kinds of readers, those who read the whole work, and those who refer to it for light on a particular passage. Both need to know what to expect. The accent here is on the SP, on the Hellenistic context, on the German Protestant tradition of scholarship, and not on the ОТ or rabbinics (for which one may consult Davies-Allison and Luz), though there is much ОТ and rabbinics presented in any case. German Protestantism in this context means first that B. picks up the pre-World War I tradition of German scholarship, with its sound classical learning and its openness to data from comparative religion, a prudent idea in itself, but not always, since it can lead to a neutral, non-committal tone which has a flat effect. (See his conclusion [618] on Luke 6,27-38. It is not false but it is missing the specific sense of joy, boldness and abundance [ekchynomenon, v. 38] characteristic of the early Christian hope of the soon to come kingdom of God. To this extent it is theologically poor). A good exemple is his use of Harnack's great work on Marcion (10, 37, 176, 200-201, 530, 599). B. emphasizes the role of Marcion in the early interpretation of the SM, especially his use of the term "antithesis" to refer to Matt 5,21-48. This innovation has played a formative part in theological history ever since, often unconsciously, until Harnack reconstructed the details. Lack of awareness of this tainted origin has often bedeviled Matthean studies; we have had to wait until Pinchas Lap-

58

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

ide10 to find a better term, "hypertheses", to describe what Matthew was doing. The second sense of German Protestantism for B. means that he is in steady dialogue with the commentaries of Luz and Strecker (and also of Guelich and Dupont where possible) in his study of the SM, but not of Davies-Allison or Gnilka. The third, philological, sense is that he makes much use of TWNT, EWNT, BAGD, Spicq and especially of RAC, which may be described as his special weapon. Fourthly he takes a swipe at Peter as the rock (563-565) with the help of 1 Cor 3,10-15, and is able to find a hint of stimul iustus etpeccator (417) in Matt 6,15. There is a surprise on almost every page awaiting even specialists. Why? Because B. freshens the bibliography by going beyond the exegetical literature to include classical studies. Two examples: to illumine the beatitudes B. adduces the Orphic gold leaves (95); on praütes (meekness) he widens the lens by citing J. de Romilly's work La douceur dans la pensee grecque. The theme turns out to be not only a part of the biblical anawim complex but also a major theme of Hellenistic ethics, the virtue of the sage, like Buddha. On the other hand, the grave difficulties of B.'s view emerge in his interpretation of justice in Matt 5,6 (129-132). Here B. presents the SM as purely Jewish, not even as Jewish Christian, whereas Matthew becomes purely Christian, which for B. means Pauline, and thus not Jewish-Christian either, not Hengel's "wanderer between two worlds". It is more likely that both the SM and Matthew were Jewish Christian, that untidy middle path which B. finds hard to envisage, and that for two reasons. (1) The Jewish Christianity of Matthew was of a moderate kind: written in Greek, after the fall of Jerusalem as a result of which it lost its power base and some of its hybris, it recognizes the mission to the Gentiles, admits Paul as part of the Christian movement even if not with enthusiasm (cf. 5,19 with 5,20), with whose followers it had to be in ecumenical dialogue; it contains two soteriologies in unreconciled tension, a legal-ethical one and a kerygmatic one; it remains (verbally at least) loyal to the written torah, while quite critical of the Pharisaic oral Torah or halacha. Yet it remains silent about the need for circumcision, which means either that it accepts the decision echoed in Acts 15 or that it is remaining diplomatically discreet about its position. Matthew's Jewish Christianity is of the "orthodox" variety described/reconstructed by Danielou, not the heterodox type studied by Schoeps. ("Orthodox" here means acceptable to the later great church which accepted Matthew [as well as Paul] into its canon.) (2) B.'s view of Matthew is flawed from the start in that he accepts (320) Strecker's view that Matthew was a Gentile writing for a church composed primarily of Gentiles. Hummel long ago warned that

10

P. LAPIDE, The Sermon on the Mount (Maryknoll 1986) 45-46.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

59

Strecker Lucanizes Matthew. This (Lucanized) Matthew should have used the SP, both logically and pastorally. Instead, on B.'s view, he preserves the SM as an isolated archaic foreign body, incompatible with his theology (327-328). Is this historically probable? B.'s answer (339) is that Matthew had a high tolerance of diversity and preserved the S M as a relic of former times, almost as a historical curiosity. This seems to imply that Matthew does not take the SM seriously. But 28,18-20 implies otherwise. In the end it remains incredible that Matthew and Luke who elsewhere have no hesitation to edit the material inherited from the Jesus tradition (Q and Mark) should here (SM/SP) refrain from all comment. Such an unreal, artificial position is meaningful only as a hypothesis of research, nothing more. (B.'s pages on the relationship between the S M and Paul [326-327, 546-548] contain an honest and courageous wrestling with a real problem.) One of the main differences between B.'s Essays and his commentary is that in the latter he confronts the SP in detail. He devotes 70 p. to it (571-640), more than most commentators do. One detects a certain loss of speed here, understandable enough, except for the four excursuses, some interesting obiter dicta and the comment on Luke 6,40 (622-626). He admits that the SM is intellectually stimulating (84); by comparison the SP is less interesting (88). More important, B.'s hypothesis is that both the SM and the SP were created by the early Jesus movement, one to instruct converts from Judaism, the other to instruct those coming from a Greek background, both around A.D. 50 (87-88). Thus B. thinks of the SP as separate from the Q sermon. This seems unlikely. The slight Hellenistic retouches are probably due to Lucan redaction (e.g., the "nows" in the beatitudes resemble the "daily" of 9,23 and 11,3). If so, then one could think of the SP as stemming from Q in its contents, with the historical cachet that that can connote (for Harnack and similarly historically-minded scholars), while at the same time accepting that in its present Lucan setting it has the literary form of a Hellenistic instruction. The two viewpoints, historical and literary, are both legitimate. B. continues to deny any Son of man Christology to the SM (554-556), yet he admits it for the SP (582). Thus he embraces the paradox that the more Hellenistic of the two Sermons has the more Jewish, apocalyptic Christology. Once one accepts the link between Son of man and the kingdom of god (the latter frequent in the SM), B.'s interpretation of Matt 7,21-23 seems strained, though he remains basically correct on the soteriological consequences. With regard to B.'s interpretatio graeca, a few general considerations are in order before we descend to particulars. On the one hand, the SM/SP, Jesus and Matthew all lived in the Roman empire which had a common public

60

T H E S E R M O N O N T H E M O U N T IN R E C E N T S T U D Y

culture, Greek, expressed in two main languages, Greek and Latin, though provincial variants, even resistance, were strong, especially in Palestine and Persia. 11 It is not a question therefore of ruling out Hellenistic cultural influence altogether, but rather of a more exact determination of its relevance. Some years ago Quentin Quesnell provided a model of concentric circles as a help in exegetical method: in trying to interpret a passage in Matt, first appeal to other places in Matt, then to the NT, then to the Palestinian-South Syrian culture of the time (for our purpose, mainly the ОТ, Qumran, Josephus and early rabbinic traditions), and only then to the rest of the empire. 12 Thus one can affirm Hellenistic influence, but as tertiary or quaternary, not primary, remote not proximate, implicit rather than explicit, except perhaps to our own cultural presuppositions. So with regard to the genre of the SM, its peculiar fusion of law, wisdom and apocalyptic has its closest parallel in the Qumran rules, not the philosopher's epitome. But even the Serek (1QS) is not an exact parallel or model (e.g., it has a poem and no parable). It is perhaps a disappointment to the learned, but the source to which Matt, the SM, and the rest of the NT make most frequent and public appeal is the ОТ (in its variety of text types, to be sure). One should start there. 13 The positive side of B.'s Hellenism may be seen in his setting the biblical text in a larger than usual context. For example, before his exegesis of 5,1720, he sets out the principles for the interpretation of law in Greek, Roman and Jewish thinking (167-173). If a reader had a strong classical Thomistic philosophical training, with emphasis on Aristotle, much of this would be known. But here it is updated, made more precise bibliographically, and related to the classical case of Socrates. For the reader without this training, much of what B. offers here will be new, fresh and beneficial. Original is his linking of 5,17-48 with the classical legal concern for equity or epieikeia (168-171, 194-195, 206-207). His interest in the Greek philosophers often brings him close to the church fathers, e.g., on usury and interest (604-612), since they shared the same classical training. With regard to the antitheses, he is poor on divorce, while being rich, wise and deep on talion and its relation to ancient legal theory. His treatment of oaths rightly expands it into a discussion of the problem of language (cf. logos, 5,37), and brings Plato's Phaedrus and Cratylus into the discussion, besides Aristotle, Philo, Plutarch and Lucian. 11 12 13

A. MOMIGLIANO, Alien Wisdom (Cambridge 1975). The Mind of Mark (Rome 1969). Cf. the evolution of Davies-Allison from rejection of Mosaic typology in 1963 to embrace of it in 1993, D.C. ALLISON, The New Moses. A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis 1993).

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

61

Methodologically B. is trying to reconstruct the presuppositions underlying a condensed text. This is good and necessary but involves some speculation, which he criticizes in others while often practicing it himself. Indeed, B.'s use of ancient philosophy helps to overcome the view, advocated by disciples of Karl Barth if not by the master himself, that there is such a chasm between the Bible and human reason, between the Greek and Semitic minds, between nature and grace, that no dialogue is possible or pertinent. To be sure, there are differences, but there are also stepping stones from each side which can make the leap of faith not too difficult for the healthy mind aided by grace. On the other hand, B. avoids mentioning modern philosophy except in his outstanding treatment of the Golden Rule (508-519), perhaps the most important contribution of the book. B.'s Hellenism begins to run wild when he interprets (583) the skirtesate ("leap for joy") of Luke 6,23 as the satyrs' dance in the Dionysus cult. On Luke 6,40 , after an excursus on rules for teachers and students, B. provides a philologically thorough commentary (622-626) which is both interesting and flattening (since it turns the verse into a statement of general educational experience), and thus shows the strength and weakness of the whole work. The verse is the basis for B.'s major thesis that the SP has an educational function, like Plutarch's De liberis educandis. Any accents specific to Jesus or his movement are lost. Because of his relative lack of interest in the ОТ, В. has not noticed that Matt 5,14-16 may have been loosely inspired by some of the imagery in three of the night visions of LXX Zech 4 and 5. Common vocabulary includes luchnon, luchnia, horos, oikos/oikia, and, what would be decisive, modion = metron (Heb. ephah). This however is a mere possibility. Given his interest in ancient law, B. might have been interested in the Roman legal principle favorabilia amplianda, arctiora restringenda (permissive laws are to be interpreted to apply to as many people as possible, restrictive laws are to apply to as few people as possible) and its echo in early Jewish law which states that in civil cases the magistrates should proceed with haste, while in capital criminal cases they should take their time. 14 These principles could help in the more humane interpretation of Matt 5,28, as does his second citation of Philo (235). 14

The Jewish basis is found in the discussion of four legal cases which had been grouped together in Philo, Life of Moses, II, 192-245. It is found repeated four times in both Tg Neofiti and in Tg Ps-Jon when the four cases occur: Lev 24,12; Num 9,8; 15,34; 27,5. The targumic distinction between cases of money and cases of life corresponds roughly to the modem distinction between civil and criminal cases. The distinction between prompt and slow decisions corresponds roughly to the Roman distinction between concessive and restrictive laws. In biblical and Jewish law, adultery was a capital offence, thus the restrictive rules apply.

62

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

Unlike many other commentators, B. takes chaps. 6 and 7 of the SM as seriously as chap. 5. Yet neither he nor other commentators, so far as I can see, have noticed the simple fact that the first three petitions of the Lord's Prayer are all saying the same thing, they are essentially the same petition, viz., that the Lord manifest his power in the world as creator and redeemer, to bring in the fullness of his blessing. But this one and the same prayer is expressed three times, each time in a different biblical idiom. The first time it is expressed in the prophetic idiom of Ezekiel and Isaiah, the prayer for the sanctification of the divine name. The second time in terms of Danielic apocalyptic, the prayer for the coming of the kingdom of God in its fullness (which became of course the characteristicum of the Matthean Jesus). The third time it is expressed in terms of sapiential literature, as a prayer that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven. All three stand in a relationship of synonymous parallelism to one another. The final clause ("on earth as it is in heaven") applies to all three sticks, so that the prayer requests that the state of affairs which already exists in heaven may soon be realized on earth. A triple parallelism is uncommon, but here is easily explained if one assumes, as is usually done, that the longer Matthean recension is a liturgical expansion of the shorter form found in Luke 11,2. There one finds only the first two of Matthew's three petitions. In Matthew the first petition has been pushed out of parallelism into a relation with the first Lucan word, pater, which itself has been expanded to "Our father who art in heaven". One may also compare Dupont's analysis of the first three Lucan beatitudes which are all addressed to exactly the same group of people, the poor who are hungry and weep because they are poor (cf. Betz, 378-379). 15 On the bread petition, B.'s remarks (400) on the quantity requested, only what is needed for one day at a time, are correct, but fail to catch the allusion to the daily gift of manna (Exod 16; 2 Cor 8,15-16) and its rule against hoarding. His remarks on the concluding doxology (414-415), while textcritically sound, completely miss its appropriateness, because he has not seen that the central point of the prayer is the petition for the kingdom, consonant with Jesus' preaching in both Q and Mark. Thus the doxology functions as a return of the prayer to its central petition, as a rounding off. The commentary ends abruptly, without a conclusion. Such is provided by several recent articles with which B. has accompanied the big book. 16 In the end, one suspects that for В., there exists somewhere in his religious heart an enchanted garden where Jesus and Paul lie above criticism, un15

16

The connection, without the reference to the different parts of canon, was seen by B. GERHARDSSON, The Shema in the New Testament (Lund 1996) 86-91, and taken up by D. HAGNER, Matthew (WBC 33; Dallas 1993). These articles are listed in the bibliography of the book.

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT IN RECENT STUDY

63

touched by all this human learning. He can afford to write calmly here because his faith is elsewhere. This is the romantic temptation of Franz Overbeck, R.H. Lighftoot and Bultmann himself. B. has a certain delight in the SM as a piece of hellenistic Jewish literature but not as a part of Christian faith. 17 One will always consult this commentary gladly for its patient accumulation of an immense learning. But one will also be aware of its peculiar limitations.

17

One should especially note B.'s article, "Wellhausen's Dictum 'Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew' in the light of Present scholarship", ST 45 (1991) 83-108.

6

Eight Beatitudes from Qumran and Matthew A new discovery from Cave Four

In the January 1991 Revue Biblique, Emile Puech, my colleague at the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, published an important new text from Cave four at Qumran. It is a fragment that contains five wisdom beatitudes. Anyone interested in the Beatitudes that appear in the Gospels (Matt 5:3-12; Luke 6:20-26) will want to be aware of this new text so that comparisons of similarities and differences can be made. The new text will also interest students of the Old Testament since the fragment offers a parallel to Wisdom texts like Sirach 14:20-27. Puech is an expert in deciphering ancient Semitic script. He is a member of the international team dedicated to the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As is well known, the original members of the team have been criticized for their slowness in getting some scrolls out into the public domain. Eighty percent of the texts from the Qumran caves have been published. The remaining texts are in such a poor state of preservation that it is hard to decipher them with any certainty. Scholars like Puech will help speed the process. Given the importance of this fragment, Puech has been asked to prepare both popular and scholarly articles on it. The goals of this article are modest. It will define what a beatitude is. Then it will offer a translation of the Qumran text with some commentary. It will conclude by comparing the Qumran text with Sirach 14 and Matthew. What Is a Beatitude? A beatitude is a literary form common in both the Old Testament (especially in wisdom books and the psalms) and the New Testament, which begins with a short cry of joy like, "You happy person," and then includes a reason for the person's good fortune. The English word "beatitude" derives from the Latin beatus that is, in turn, the equivalent of the Hebrew ashre and the Greek makarios. These terms should be distinguished from the passive form "blessed" that has often been used in English translations of the Bible. This usage can lead to some confusion between a blessing and a beatitude. The Bible uses the passive form ("blessed") only of God. What follows it is an invocation or a wish: "Blessed are you and praiseworthy, О Lord, the God of our ancestors" (Dan 3:26). The adjective "happy" is used to speak of

EIGHT BEATITUDES FROM QUMRAN AND MATTHEW

65

human beings and recognizes an existing state of happiness, represents an approving proclamation of fact, and contains an evaluative judgment: "Happy are they who follow not the counsel of the wicked" (Ps 1:1). The latter form is a proclamation of happiness, not merely a promise of happiness, although in the Beatitudes of Jesus a promise is joined to it: "Happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). The beatitude is a formula of congratulation or felicitation. In the Old Testament, beatitudes occur primarily in the Wisdom literature as proverbial sayings and in the psalms as a prayer form. Beatitudes "are pronounced upon the man who is righteous, who keeps his hand from doing evil and does not profane the Sabbath — such a one may look forward with confidence to such earthly rewards as peace, prosperity, the satisfactions of family life, the joys of temple worship, and renewal of strength (cf. Pss 41:1; 65:4; 84:5; 106:3; 112:1; Prov 8:32; Isa 32:20; 56:1-2)" (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1:370). These rewards are not yet understood by Israel's consciousness as taking place in an eschatological future, but as in the present. Even punishment from God is regarded as a blessing: "Blessed is the one whom you instruct, О LORD, and whom you teach out of your law" (Ps 94:12). The pleasures of a full and happy life are the goals of human existence. But these are related to God's presence to the just. "Blessed are all who take refuge in God" (Ps 2:12). "Blessed is the one whose sin is forgiven" (Ps 32:1-2). "Blessed is the person who fears the LORD, who greatly delights in God's commandments" (Ps 112:1). An important further literary step occurs when beatitudes are grouped together in artistically shaped lists. This occurs in Sirach 25:7-9 where ten happy conditions are laid down. At the top of the ladder-like list, which seems to move from lower to higher values, stand wisdom and fear of the Lord.

Beatitudes from Qumran The newly published Hebrew beatitudes from Qumran are written in script that makes it possible to date the text from 50 B.C. to A.D. 50. Their contents do not reflect the specific ideology of the Qumran community; they are close to late Old Testament Wisdom literature like the Book of Sirach. We should not assume that all texts from the Qumran library represent the unique perspectives of the Qumran community or conform to a single point of view. Some Qumran texts are sapiential. Some are apocalyptic. There are some that are a mixture of both.

66

EIGHT BEATITUDES FROM QUMRAN AND MATTHEW

What follows is the beatitude part of the new text from Qumran. It is important to remember that the first lines of the following text are lost. At least one other beatitude preceded what we have. Happy (is) he who speaks the truth [1] with a pure heart and does not slander with his tongue. Happy (are) those who uphold his statutes and do not take [2] to her paths of perversity. Happy (are) they who rejoice in (her) [= Lady Wisdom] and do not spread themselves in the ways of folly. Happy those who seek her [3] with purity of hands and do not strive after her with a deceitful heart [=mind]. Happy the man who has attained and who walks [4] in the Law(s) of the Most High and applies his heart [=mind] to her paths, who cleaves to her instructions [=admonitions] and in her strikes [=corrections] delights always, [5] and does not forsake her in the afflictions of (his) troubles. And in time of oppression [=distress] he does not abandon her, and does not forget her (in the days of) terror, [6] and in the humility of his soul does not reject her.

The Form of the New Beatitudes What needs to be noted first about this text is its form. These beatitudes are sapiential in form, rather than apocalyptic. They thereby differ substantially from the New Testament Beatitudes. The Qumran beatitudes lack the apocalyptic reversal of fortune. For example, in them no poor become rich or well fed. They offer their readers no paradox to ponder. Their subject is the pursuit of Wisdom. Though the beginning of the series is lost, the available text makes it clear that Wisdom is the subject of these beatitudes. The second clause of each pair is not a reward clause as in the Beatitudes in the Gospels. They are however, in the third person as are Matthew's. The long final beatitude breaks the pattern of couplets arranged in antithetical parallelism. Its parallelism is synonymous and synthetic. It is, of course, much longer than the preceding beatitudes. In this it resembles the last beatitude in both Matthew 5:10 and Luke 6:26. The final beatitude also presupposes the identity of Wisdom and Torah, a bold theological step first taken by Sirach 24:22. It was to be a decisive step on the road to rabbinic and cabalistic Judaism. Christians would take another path when Paul identified Wisdom with Christ (1 Cor 2:24,30).

EIGHT BEATITUDES FROM QUMRAN AND MATTHEW A word needs to be said on the number

67

of beatitudes. Careful students of the

Gospels know that Luke counts four, Matthew seven, eight, or nine (depending on how you judge the manuscript variations and how you analyze the literary structure). Puech wants to argue that eight was a fixed literary pattern at the time. He does so on the basis of Matthew and the beatitudes in Sirach

14:20-27, besides his reconstruction of some fragments in the

Thanksgiving Psalms of Qumran. But this argument rests on too slender a base to be convincing. What is sure is that the Qumran fragment began with more beatitudes than we possess now. A mention of Lady Wisdom at the outset is presupposed by the text we do possess.

The New Beatitudes and the Bible The first Qumran beatitude refers to sins of the tongue or speech. This is not of interest to most New Testament authors, but Matthew takes up the matter twice: his instructions on taking oaths (Matt 5:33-37) and on the abuse of language (23:16-22). (There is a related text in James 3:1-12.) One may also think of the purity of heart mentioned in Matthew's sixth beatitude (Matt 5:8). The second Qumran beatitude reminds us of the saying on the validity of the Law in Matthew 5:17-20. The rejoicing to which we are exhorted in the new third beatitude reminds us of the rejoicing in persecution in the long last Gospel beatitude. The "paths of folly" recall "the broad road that leads to destruction" in Matthew 7:13-14. The contrast between wisdom and folly recalls the parable of the wise and foolish builders at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, as well as the wise and foolish virgins and investors in Matthew 25:1-13,14-30. But there is also a contrasting paradox in Matthew 11:25, where God is praised for having hidden them from the wise and understanding. In the fourth new beatitude we are encouraged to seek wisdom, but in Matthew 6:33 we are told to seek first the kingdom of God and its justice, and the rest will follow. The "deceitful heart" of the fourth Qumran beatitude recalls a whole series of heart passages in Matthew (5:28; 7:11; 9:4; 12:34; 13:15; 15:18-19). It must be kept in mind that within the context of the Bible, the heart is the seat of intellect and thought, not of feeling. Another comparison with the Qumran beatitudes can be made with Sirach 14:20-27. This passage has seven implicit beatitudes dependent on one explicit one — for a total of eight. Materially the passage describes the sage's pursuit of Lady Wisdom in the imagery of the lover. The whole is inspired by the praise of Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 3:13-24, especially verse 18 (see Cant 2:9). Both the poem from Sirach and the new beatitudes from Qumran are the expression of a highly intellectual culture.

68

EIGHT BEATITUDES FROM QUMRAN AND MATTHEW

As for the moral and social content of the beatitudes, there is a simple difference between the Gospel Beatitudes and those of Qumran and Sirach. Both the Matthean and Lucan forms are in the plural. This already gives them a social or collective character. The Qumran beatitudes oscillate between singular and plural. Sirach is exclusively in the singular as befits a Wisdom text. The Gospel Beatitudes are more social in character than the others. It is the theme of God's kingdom that more than any other distinguishes the Beatitudes of Jesus from those found at Qumran or in Sirach. The eschatological references to "afflictions" in the Qumran text are vague, general, and negative. There is a great difference between this and promising the poor in spirit that theirs is the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). Compared with the splendor of this hopeful vision and promise, the beatitudes of Sirach and Qumran seem pale and timid, confined to human fidelity to wisdom-torah in the present age. There are two perspectives. One looks predominantly at what people can do in the present. The other looks predominantly at what God will do in the future for the hungry and downhearted, even if they are not morally or intellectually worthy. Although beatitudes occur throughout the Bible, they are not a common literary form. The discovery of a set of beatitudes at Qumran of this degree of clarity and beauty, with phraseology that resembles that of the Gospel Beatitudes is an important and even exciting event. Besides the resemblances, there are even more striking differences. These differences set in ever clearer light, the unique combination of perspectives (apocalyptic, wisdom, legal, messianic, and salvific) that occurs in the Gospels.

7

The Kingdom of God in the Qumran Literature

The description of Qumran eschatological beliefs and hopes, among which may be numbered the hope for the kingdom of God, is vexed at the present time by several problems of method. This essay will proceed in the following fashion. I will give a definition of terms (I), then a brief presentation of the current scholarly debate (II). These will b followed by a rather austere inventory of the terms for kingdom or rule of God in the published Qumran texts (III). Next will come a closer look at some passages from one of the main eschatological texts, the War Scroll from Cave 1 (IV). Some larger perspectives will form the conclusion (V).

Definition of Terms An inquiry into the hope of a future kingdom of God on earth requires a definition of terms. An apocalyptic eschatology contains a view of life which presupposes a God who can and does act in history, not a deistic god who does not intervene in the world's affairs. This God can act directly or through angels, men, natural events, or miracles. Such an eschatology differs from other biblical beliefs in divine intervention in the past, for example at creation or at the exodus from Egyptian bondage or Babylonian exile, in that it believes that God will yet intervene in history in a definitive, major new act that will usher in a period of full justice, peace, and love. In this future period God's sovereignty and kingship will not only be acknowledged in faith and hope, but will be visible and realized in the structures of society. This latter state is referred to as the kingdom of God in its full earthly realization. This kingdom is not to be confused with God's permanent sovereignty in heaven. In Jewish writings, the establishment of this kingdom is often connected with the military triumph of God's elect people and the elimination of its enemies. This kingdom hope is sometimes connected with messianic figures, sometimes not. The establishment of the kingdom is sometimes thought to follow upon the resurrection of the saints to an earthly life; at times it is thought to precede such a resurrection; and on other occasions, as in the Qumran War Scroll, it is not connected with resurrection at all. (Even though in the NT, both a belief in a future kingdom and in the resurrection are held, they are not usually related; 1 Cor 15:20-28 and Rev 20:1-7 are exceptional in this regard.) A belief in the immortality of the soul may be

70

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

joined to a belief in the resurrection of the body and eternal life with God (this is an early Christian synthesis), but is not so easily combined with the expectation of a kingdom of God on earth. This latter expectation remains characteristically Jewish and Jewish Christian. Apocalyptic eschatology can express its hopes in more or less realistic, more or less Utopian, visionary, terms. Indeed, there can be intense combinations of the realistic and the Utopian, as in the vision of the restored temple and land in Ezek 40-48 or in the War Scroll of Qumran. The realization of the kingdom may be presented as more dependent on human repentance and cooperation, or less dependent. The fluidity of apocalyptic eschatology's precise beliefs and its lack of dogmatic consistency have often been noted.1 But the conclusion that these beliefs were therefore unimportant to those who held them, or to Judaism in general or to early Christianity, is probably wide of the mark. At least for some circles of believers, in some of their moods, they were important, forming the ultimate horizon of their hopes and religious vision. Sapiential and legal literature tend not to mention such hopes, but it is at least possible that one and the same author composed works in all three genres. (See the view of Carmignac mentioned below.) Such hopes and beliefs constitute a unique aspect of Jewish and Jewish Christian literature of the HellenisticRoman period, especially in Greco-Roman civilization, whose outlook tends to be more cyclical and deistic, or else pantheistic. This remains true despite the Stoic belief in fiery consummation (έκττύρωσις) of the present world, since a reconstitution of the present is expected, not a new order. The last judgment scene in Plato's Gorgias (523-26) looks to individual rewards and punishments rather than to a kingdom of God on earth. For our purposes then, a hope for the kingdom of God is a hope for a future divine intervention in history that would establish a realm of justice, peace, and love of God and neighbor on earth. The question is, did the Qumran community share such a hope? Current Scholarship The preceding set of definitions was made necessary in part by a wave of debates over the use of the term "apocalyptic" in connection with Qumran and over the right methodology in the study of eschatology at Qumran. Jean Carmignac has attacked eschatology as an artificial construction of nineSee G.F. M O O R E , Judaism in the Tannaitic Period (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1927) 2:323-95; D.S. RUSSELL, Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964) 285-323; E . E . U R B A C H , The Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979) 649-90; M. SMITH, "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?" JBL 78 (1959) 66-72.

T H E K I N G D O M O F G O D IN T H E Q U M R A N

LITERATURE

71

teenth-century scholarship and prefers to avoid the term altogether. 2 To be sure, there is need for caution in investigating ancient texts, least one impose artificial systems of doctrine upon them or find an artificial unity of thought in works of different authors or in single works of composite authorship. But, in the case of Qumran literature, there can be little doubt that at least several of the sectarian writings share some basic conceptions with the apocalypse genre, and, rightly or wrongly, Carmignac himself holds that the Community Rule, the Thanksgiving Hymns, and the War Scroll were all substantially composed by the same author, the Teacher of Righteousness. 3 Recently J J . Collins, in a survey of eschatology at Qumran, continued the tradition of viewing the Qumran community as an "apocalyptic community. 4 For this he has been severely criticized by P.R. Davies. 5 Davies' thesis is that "in the elucidation of Qumran doctrines the only method that offers even the prospect of success is one of documentary analysis." 6 In this he follows the path pioneered by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor. 7 Literary analysis must be applied to the Qumran documents, to be sure, but this does not solve all problems. Davies' own reconstruction of the types of eschatological doctrine into (a) dualistic (1QS 3:13-4:26; 1QM 1:15-19); (b) legalistic (a reformed Israel will observe a stricter interpretation of the Mosaic law, a solar calendar, and supremacy over the nations [1QM ii-ix; lQSa]); and (c) exilic/jubilee (CD), is not in itself implausible, but leaves many questions open. 8 Are not these three strands capable of being combined? How are we to understand the joining of patterns (a) and (b) in the War Scroll as we know it from the Sukenik manuscript? Are we not permitted to interpret the latest stage of the War Scroll as a unity? How do we account for cols x-xiv of the War Scroll? 9 2

3 4

5

J. CARMIGNAC, Le Mirage de l'Eschatologie (Paris: Letouzey, 1979); idem, "Apocalyptique et Qumran," RevQ 37 (1979) 163-92; idem, "Roi, Royaute et Royaume dans la Liturgie Angelique," RevQ 46 (1986) 176-86; idem, "Regne de Dieu. Qumran," DBS 10 (1981)58-61. J. CARMIGNAC and P. GUILBERT, Les Textes de Qumran (Paris: Letouzey, 1961) 83-86. J.J. COLLINS, "Patterns of Eschatology at Qumran," in Traditions in Transformation (ed. B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 331-73. P.R. DAVIES, "Eschatology at Qumran," JBL 104 (1985) 39-55.

6

DAVIES, "Eschatology," 48.

7

J.MURPHY-O'CONNOR, "La genese litteraire de la Regle de la Communaute," RB 76 (1969) 328-549; his series of analysis of the Damascus Document (in English) in RB 11 (1970) 201-29; 78 (1971) 210-32; 79 (1972) 200-216; 344-64; he is followed by J. POUILLY, La Regle de la Communaute de Qumran: Son Evolution Litteraire (CahRB 17; Paris: Gabalda, 1976).

8

DAVIES, "Eschatology," 49.

9

In his ealier work, IQM, The War Scroll from Qumran (BibOr 32; Rome: PBI, 1977), P.R. DAVIES provides answers to some of these questions. He analyzes cols x-xiiv as con-

72

T H E K I N G D O M O F G O D IN T H E Q U M R A N L I T E R A T U R E

These methodological problems, while important, need not prevent us from providing a survey of Qumran word usage. They do not impede a discussion of the War Scroll, since the parts that most concern us are col i, x-xiv, xvxix, not ii-ix; but they will serve to put us on our guard against sweeping generalizations. They encourage us to concentrate on individual documents or parts of documents.10

Terminology The most elementary task in a study of the kingdom of God in the Qumran literature is a review of the word usage. Beside the main Hebrew word for kingdom, malküt, other synonyms must be noted; melukah, татГкЪ, as well as the words for domination, memshalah, and princely rule, misrah. Not every occurrence is relevant, however, since the same terms are employed for earthly rulers. We must look for usages which combine a religious with political aspiration. Besides the listings in K.G. Kuhn's Qumran concor-

10

taining material — prayers and hymns — of diverse origin, perhaps from a collection of liturgical pieces, "the order of the time [of battle]," and especially two main hymns in cols x-xii. Cols xiii and xiv are independent fragments. Davies understands col i as an introduction which serves to unify the diverse earlier material which follows in cols ii-xix. On this view the author of col i viewed cols ii-xix as a potential unity. In summary of earlier studies of Qumran eschatology, Herbert BRAUN came to the conclusion in Qumran und das Neue Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 2:265-86, that the Qumran texts were apocalyptic. In their view the last generation outside the community is evil; a holy war and last judgment are expected; final salvation includes an eschatological temple and a messianic banquet; but the kingdom of God and eternal life are not the central themes, while immortality and very probably resurrection from the dead are not present at all. Eschatological figures include a prophet, a teacher, and two messiahs — though neither suffers. The Son of man is not mentioned (but may be represented by Michael). There is a not inconsiderable analogy to the NT. John the Baptist's views and activity are particularly close, but he has a different idea of the messiah, a different use of the water rite, and makes his message public, in contrast with the Qumranite esotericism. A comparison with the Synoptic Gospels' portrait of Jesus would show that while Qumran is esoteric, Jesus goes public. Both share a near expectation of a new era of salvation; both erred in this; both believe the process has already begun, and is the fulfillment of Scripture. But for Qumran there is no suddenness of the end, no miracles or atoning death of Jesus as signs of the end's nearness. For both the final generation outside the community is evil and exists at the present time. Regarding the holy war, Jesus does not favor hatred or violence; thus one could say he is anational and apolitical. But, though universal in election, he does have a politics, but it depends on God's supernatural intervention, not on human violence. Both demand conversion in view of the last judgment. The gospel view of final salvation resembles Qumran's in many respects, but differs in respect to the messiah, the resurrection, and the greater emphasis on the kingdom of God.

THE KINGDOM OF G O D IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

73

dance, 1 'we must also note the supplementary concordance, in the Revue de Qumran for 1963, to texts published after Kuhn's work had appeared. Yadin's elegant edition of the Temple Scroll includes a concordance to that work. Malküt occurs 15 times though 3 occurrences are uncertain textually; melukah occurs twice, and татГкЪ once; memshalah occurs 31 times, misrah thrice. Moreover the term melek, king, is applied to God 11 times. And the corresponding verb malak, reign, is applied to God twice, 1QM 12:3 and 4QFlor 1:3, a citation of Ex 15:18: "the Lord shall reign for ever and ever." There are two further references to the kingdom of God in the Aramaic fragments of the books Enoch found at Qumran, 12 but they are not of special importance. A fair sample rather than an exhaustive citation of texts must be offered here, but complete references will be given at the end of the paragraphs devoted to each term. We begin with the term malküt and where it is most frequent in the War Scroll (1 QM). The high priest's exhortation in the battle liturgy contains a call for divine intervention which begins with this praise: "for thou art (terrible), О God, in the glory of thy kingdom, and the congregation of thy holy Ones is among us for everlasting succor" (12:7). This line clearly refers to God's kingdom in its permanent form, which is made presently effective on earth ("among us") by the angels ("thy Holy Ones") as they help God's people overturn earthly kings (the next line makes this clear). 13 The end of col xii is damaged, but in line 15 we may read "Shout for joy, (O daughters of) my people! Deck yourselves with glorious jewels and rule over (the kingdoms of the nations!)" or "rule over the kingdom" or "rule over the queens of the peoples" (so Carmignac, in loco). Here the people of God are exhorted to rule over the nations on earth, which amounts to taking part in God's rule on earth. The next line contains three clear words: "Israel to rule forever." War Scroll 19:7 contains an echo of 12:15, but the part of interest, "rule over the kingdom," is too uncertain textually to be helpful. War Scroll 19:8 echoes 12:16 "Israel for the kingdom forever," but again, it lacks a complete context. Still, one thinks of the everlasting kingdom of Dan 7:14. In the Blessings, Appendix В to the Manual of Discipline (lQSb 3:5), we find this prayer: "May he grant you everlasting peace and the kingdom." This is important because it associates the kingdom with peace, as elsewhere it is associated with justice. These are the kingdom's main moral contents, as 11

K.G. Kuhn, Konkordanz zu den Qumrantexten. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).

12

J.T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch (Oxford: University Press, 1976), 266 and 316. There are allusions to Dt 7:21 and Ps 143:11 in the first part of the line.

13

In Verbindung mit A.-M. Denis, O.P.

74

THE KINGDOM OF G O D IN THE Q U M R A N LITERATURE

Paul knew (Rom 14:17). That the biblical concept of peace is wider than ours is well known, but it still includes the absence of war. In the next column (4:26), part of the priestly blessing runs: "May you attend upon the service in the Temple of the kingdom and decree destiny in company with the angels of the presence (panim), in common council (with the Holy Ones) for everlasting ages." Here the theology of the renewed temple is related to that of the kingdom of God. The priests on whom the blessing is invoked are envisaged as serving God in a purified cult, participating in the divine judgment (Mt 19:28; Lk 22:2830) along with the angels (Mt 23:31). 14 In 5:21 of the same document we read: "the Master shall bless the prince of the Congregation... and shall renew for him the covenant of the community that he may establish the kingdom of his people for ever, (that he may judge the poor with righteousness and) dispense justice with (equity to the oppressed) of the land." 15 Here the kingdom is linked with the theology of the covenant and especially with the moral content of justice for the poor and oppressed (Mt 5:3-11; 6:33; Rom 14:17). In the Patriarchal Blessings of Cave 4, Gen 49:10, the blessing by Jacob of Judah, is cited and then interpreted. The ruler's staff of Genesis is first interpreted (1:2) as "the covenant of kingship" (or "of the kingdom") and this unusual phrase is then repeated in line 4: "for to him (the Davidic messiah) and to his seed was granted the covenant of kingship over his people for everlasting generations." This formula is remarkable both because of its link of covenant and kingdom and because of its messianic interpretation of the kingdom concept. God will rule over his kingdom through his anointed one. In the pesher to Nah 3:10, we find: "Interpreted, this concerns Manasseh in the final age, whose kingdom shall be brought low by (Israel)." In the pesher, Manasseh represents the evil and illegitimate king, here perhaps Alexander Jannaeus. His kingdom represents false or sinful Israel, but this is not the same as the kingdom of Satan of Mt 12:26 and Lk 11:18. In the Angelic Liturgy at Qumran (4QS1 39, line 25) we find: "He shall bless all the (companions) of righteousness who endlessly (praise) the kingdom of his glory." Again we see the link with justice and the allusion to Ps 143:11. In the Temple Scroll (39:17,21), the king's descendants are promised that they will sit on the throne of the kingdom of Israel forever. In this document the king functions as the executor of the will of God, but God is not explicitly presented as the heavenly king of the earthly king.

14

15

On the theology of the temple in both testaments, see Y.J. CONGAR, The Mystery of the Temple (Baltimore: Helicon, 1963). The first part may echo 1 Sam 24:20 (HT 21). The lacuna can be supplied from Isa 11:4.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

75

So much then for melukah. The term melukah occurs in the War Scroll once: "And sovereignty shall be to the God of Israel, and he shall accomplish mighty deeds by the saints of his people." This line (6:6) contains echoes of Ob 21 and Num 24:18. It occurs in a section (col ii-ix) which literary criticism commonly assigns to a different author, but it nevertheless shares the same basic hope as the more theological portions. (There is another occurrence of this word in fragment 25 which I have not been able to examine.) The synonymous term mamlakah occurs in the Thanksgiving Psalms (6:7) in the plural (and damaged at that): "And I am consoled for the roaring of the peoples, and for the tumult of k(ing)doms when they assemble," but this does not refer to the kingdom of God but to its rivals. The term memshalah, domination, occurs over thirty times, too often to cite each case in full. I must select some relevant instances. 16 Outside the War Scroll, the most important occurrences are found in the Community Rule. In the first columns the dominion of Belial is mentioned three times. In the theologically crucial Instruction of the Two Spirits (3:13-4:26) the term occurs five times, mostly in a single passage (3:17-23): He has created man to have dominion over the world, and has appointed for him two spirits in which to walk until the time of his visitation: the spirits of truth and falsehood. ... Dominion over all the sons of righteousness is in the hand of the Prince of light; they walk in the ways of light. All dominion over the sons of perversity is in the hand of the Angel of darkness; they walk in the ways of darkness. And because of the Angel of darkness all the sons of righteousness go astray; and all their sins and iniquities... are because of his dominion, according to the Mysteries of God until the end appointed by him. And all the blows that smite them .... Are because of the dominion of his malevolence. Here we see first of all man's dominium terrae, given him by God in Gen 1:28. Next we notice the dualistic thinking, in which two conflicting spirits are personified as angels who have contrasting moral effects on humanity. The dominions of these spirits are present, interior to man, and moral (or immoral, cf. Mt 12:26). But if one follows the line of thinking of the Instruction, one sees that the struggle between the spirits is not endless, but concludes in the final triumph of the spirit of truth and holiness. The result for those who walk in this good spirit is described in 1QS 4:6-8, and this is the positive content of the future, final kingdom of God for this document: "It will be healing, abundance of peace (well-being) for length of 16

The complete list of occurrences runs: pHab 2:13; 1QS 1:18,23; 2:19; 3:17,20,21, 22,23; 4:19; 10:1; 1QM 1:6; 10:12; 13:10; 14:9,10; 17:3,7; 18:1,11; 1QH 1:11,17; 7:23; 12:6„9,23; 13:11; Frag 34,3„2,3; 4QMa 6; pNah 2:4.

76

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

days, fruitfulness of seed, with all everlasting blessings and eternal joy in life without end and a crown of glory with a garment of splendor in unending light." This is an excellent description of the kingdom of God, rivaling Rom 14:17, but it fails to mention justice explicitly, because it concentrates on the blessings for the individual, rather than society. Most of the uses of memshalah in the Thanksgiving Hymns are not relevant because they are not eschatological. But there is one noteworthy exception. In 7:23 the Teacher of Righteousness prays: "My enemies are like chaff before the wind, and my dominion is over the sons (of the earth, or, of iniquity)." Dupont-Sommer comments: "the idea announced here is very important: the Teacher of Righteousness will rule; he will be conqueror and lord." 17 Unfortunately, this interpretation, which almost amounts to seeing here a messianic kingdom, is probably an overinterpretation. Most probably no more is meant than that the Teacher of Righteousness expresses his trust that God will vindicate him against his enemies. In any case it is poor method to build too much on a single line, and a damaged one at that. The other significant uses of memshalah, as well as the three instances of misrah, are all in the War Scroll, so they will be treated in the next section.

The Kingdom of God and the War Scroll The War Scroll resembles a liturgy of holy war, based on Dt 20:1-20 (cf. Num 21:14 which mentions the book of the wars of God, and 1 Sam 18:17; 23:28 where defensive wars of God are mentioned) and influenced by the description of almost magical conquest in the Book of Judges. Other important biblical influences are the Gog and Magog oracles of Ezk 38-39 and the vision of the last days in Dan 10-12. A war of 40 years' duration is envisaged (col ii), but 5 of these are years of sabbatical rest. Of the 35 years of effective service, 6 are for preparation and 29 for active campaigning. The scroll reflects an obsessive character of paranoid ideation, a mixture of the really practical and of the Utopian, not unlike Ezk 40-48. Even the unreal elements often have a biblical foundation, like the trumpets of col iii which are based on Num 10:1-10. Some aspects are turned into brief reality by the various Jewish revolts of the first and second centuries. Turning to the issue of the kingdom of God in the Scroll, let us begin by recalling our definition of the kingdom hope as a hope for a future divine intervention in history which would establish a realm of justice, peace, and love. Next, let us look at a significant, longer passage from the War Scroll

17

A. DUPONT-SOMMER, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland: World, 1962), 224, n. 4 .

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

77

(12:7-16, repeated in 19:2-8), a passage Carmignac describes as a hymn of enthusiasm, itself part of a longer discourse of the chief priest. The passage is divided into three strophes, each beginning with a vocative: God, hero, Zion. It is debated whether the second strophe is addressed to God or to the Prince of the congregation, but the former seems more likely. The whole hymn draws heavily upon biblical phrases. Because of its importance, we will quote the text in full. For thou art terrible, О God, in the glory of thy kingdom, And congregation of the holy ones is among us for everlasting succor. We will despise kings, we will mock and scorn the mighty; For our God is holy, and the king of glory is with us Together with the holy ones. Valiant warriors of the angelic host are among our numbered men, And the hero of war is with our congregation; The host of the spirits is with our foot-soldiers and horsemen. They are as clouds, as clouds of dew covering the earth, As a shower of rain shedding justice on all that grows on the earth. Rise up, О hero! Lead off thy captives, О glorious one! Gather up thy spoils, О author of mighty deeds! Lay thy hands on the neck of thine enemies and thy feet on the pile of the slain! Smite the nations, thine adversaries, and devour the flesh of the sinner with thy sword! Fill thy land with glory and thine inheritance with blessing! Let there be a multitude of cattle in thy fields And in thy palaces silver and gold and precious stones!

О Zion, rejoice greatly! О Jerusalem, show thyself amidst jubilation! Rejoice, all you cities of Judah; Keep your gates open that the hosts of the nations may be brought in. Their kings shall serve you And all your oppressors shall bow down before you; They shall lick the dust of your feet. Shout for joy, О daughters of my people! Deck yourselves with glorious jewels and rule over the kingdom of the nations! Sovereignty shall be to the Lord and everlasting dominion to Israel. (1QM 12:7-15)

78

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

This hymn gathers together many threads which make up the kingdom theme. It is, especially in its second strophe, a prayer for a future divine intervention in history, based on confidence in God's present and permanent power expressed in the first strophe. This intervention will establish a realm of justice (12:10) and blessing (12:12). This blessing is described as agricultural and mineral prosperity, corresponding to biblical ideas of well-being and peace. The third strophe stresses the theme of joy, expressed as a delight in God and his saving deeds. One component of this joy is contempt for the vanquished enemies. Love of neighbor, of God's people, does not extend to love of enemies. We notice further a bracketing or inclusion: the kingdom dominion is mentioned explicitly in the first and last lines of the hymn. But in the first line it refers to God's permanent reign in heaven, while in the final lines it refers to God's future reign with his people on earth. Despite considerable differences, namely the military imagery and the vindictive tone, one can see the same structure of thought in the hymn as Paul's definition of the kingdom of God as justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). This text and its analysis makes our main point, that there is a kingdom hope at Qumran and that it shares some common presuppositions with the kingdom hope of the NT, while differing from it in several aspects. It remains to look at a few other texts from the War Scroll for additional nuances. The characteristic dualism of the theological framework of the Scroll appears in the mention of Belial and the angels of his empire (1:15 damaged), the dominion of Belial and men of his empire (14:9-10; 18:1,11) for the opposition, and on the other hand the empire of the saints (10:12), the dominion of Israel (17:7), and most notably the empire of the Prince of light (13:10), who is doubtless to be identified as the angelic agent of divine power, Michael. This we learn by turning to a key but complex passage (17:6-7) where the term misrah (a cognate of sar, a word for prince) occurs twice, alongside other related vocabulary. This is the day appointed by him (God) for defeat and overthrow of the prince of the kingdom of wickedness. He will send eternal succor to the company of his redeemed by the might of the princely angel of the kingdom of Michael. With everlasting light he will enlighten with joy (the children) of Israel; peace and blessing shall be with the company of God. He will raise up the kingdom of Michael in the midst of the gods, and the realm of Israel in the midst of all flesh. Justice shall rejoice on high, and all the children of his truth shall jubilate in eternal knowledge. (1QM 17:6-7) This passage is clearly influenced by Daniel. The role of Michael comes from Dan 10:13 and 12:1; he is the national protecting angel of Israel, as there are national angels for the Persians and the Greeks (Dan 10:20). The

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE QUMRAN LITERATURE

79

kingdom of God is the theme of the entire Book of Daniel. The kingdom is handed over to one like a Son of man in Dan 7:13-14, and this mysterious figure is identified by some scholars with the angel Michael. 18 This will explain why the author of the War Scroll can speak of a "kingdom (or supremacy or principality) of Michel." It is important not to overinterpret the passage, by speaking of the incarnation of an angel, but at least the moral content of the kingdom here contains the same elements as in Rom 14:17, justice, peace, and joy, to which are added the intellectual blessings of knowledge and truth. We may also understand better against this background how the NT can speak of the kingdom of the Son of man or of Christ, since the War Scroll can speak of the kingdom of Michael. 19

Conclusion Since the kingdom of God theme belongs to the central message of the preaching of Jesus as presented in the Synoptic Gospels, it is of interest to know what were its connotations in the minds of its hearers. We have investigated the Qumran literature, particularly the War Scroll, for the light it can shed on the peculiar NT usage. We have found kingdom of God terminology in the Qumran literature, particularly in the dualistic theology and eschatology of a section of the Community Rule and in parts of the War Scroll. There is no basis for asserting that every document or member of the Qumran community was absorbed by this theme to the exclusion of the biblical or post-biblical themes. But there also is no doubt that this theme was present in the passages mentioned, even if it is not as central or as public as in the Synoptic Gospels. The kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus may be described as social, political, personalistic (respectful of individual freedom), universal in intent, transcendent in origin, earthly in realization, present in sign, future in its fullness. The Qumran kingdom vision is also social and political, but differs as national rather than universal in its aims; militaristic, vindictive, violent, and somewhat more deterministic in its means, with no hint of love of enemies or forgiveness of sins. The agents of its realization are angelic (this is an element of NT expectation too, e.g., Mk 8:38), but not so clearly messianic, except in 1 QSa, though, to be sure, there is a messianism at Qumran. Qumran's kingdom is also transcendent in origin, earthly in realization, but it prefers to speak explicitly of Michael as the angelic chief agent rather than of the mysterious Son of man. Despite these differences, it is safe to con18

J.J. COLLINS, The Apocalyptic

Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula: Scholars

Press, 1977), 144-46. 19

T h e main texts for this subtheme are Mt 13:41; 16:28; 20:21; Lk 1:33; 22:30; 23:42; Jn 18:36; E p h 5:5; C o l 1:13; 2 T i m 4 : 1 , 1 8 ; 2 Pet 1:11.

T H E K I N G D O M OF G O D IN T H E Q U M R A N L I T E R A T U R E

elude that if these Qumran ideas were in the air in early first-century Palestinian Judaism, Jesus' preaching, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand," would not have been unintelligible to some of his hearers.20

20

For texts and translations I have made eclectic use of Eduard LOHSE, Die Texte aus Qumran (Munich: Kösel, 1964); DUPONT-SOMMER, Essene Writings; Geza VERMES, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963); CARMIGNAC-GUILBERT, Les Textes de Qumran; J. VAN DER PLOEG, Le Rouleau de la Guerre (STDJ 2; Leiden: Brill, 1959); B. JONGELING, Le Rouleau de la Guerre (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 4; Assen: van Gorcum, 1962); Y. YADIN, The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness (Oxford: Oxford University, 1962); P.R. DAVIES, 1QM, The War Scroll from Qumran.

8

The Least in the Kingdom: Matthew 11:11, its Parallel in Luke 7:28 (Q) and Daniel 4:14

Within the earliest layers of the gospel tradition there are a series of sayings which speak about the place of John the Baptist in God's plan of salvation for his people (e.g., Matt 11:7-14). They reflect on his relationship to Jesus and to the new era of salvation history which Jesus inaugurated. They also relate the mission of the Baptist to the fulfillment of ОТ prophecy: they identify him with the angel of the Lord sent to guide the people and to prepare the Lord's path (Exod 23:20-23; Mai 3:1), and/or with Elijah (cf. Mai 3:23-24, (4:5-6)). Since it is historically probable that Jesus himself was for a time caught up in the Baptist's movement and that some of his disciples had previously been disciples of the Baptist, 1 it is understandable that these disciples, or even Jesus himself, should reflect on the overall significance of the Baptist, particularly in the light of later developments, especially the Jesus movement itself. They might also reflect on the Baptist's significance in the light of the previous stages of salvation history, such as are sketched in the four monarchy schemes of Daniel 2 and 7, or in outlines of the [seven] ages or eons of sacred history, e.g., Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to David, David to the Exile, the Exile to [John the Baptist or] Jesus, and Jesus to the Son of man in glory with the kingdom of God in its fullness. Such a scheme is adumbrated in the genealogy of Matt 1:1-17, and anticipated in the seven days of creation in Gen 1 as interpreted by apocalyptic thought in the light of Ps 90:4. 2 The world-week of seven millennia is found in the Testament of Abraham, chaps. 17 and 19, and in 2 Enoch 33:1-2. 3 It is also found in Ps.Barnabas 15.

1

Jerome MURPHY-O'CONNOR, "John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypothesis", NTS 36 (1990) 359-374; R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNT SupplS 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991); Gerd THEISSEN, The Gospels in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), esp. 2 6 - 4 2 , 8 1 - 9 7 .

2

3

It is this combination of Genesis 1 and Ps 90:4 which yields the thousand years or millennium mentioned in Rev 20:2,3,4,5,6,7. According to D. S. RUSSELL, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 224-229. When however these passages are examined in J. H. CHARLESWORTH, ОТ Pseudepigrapha I (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1983),

82

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

I. An Enigmatic Verse One of the earliest of these reflective sayings is to be found in Matt 11:11 par Luke 7:28 (Q), Gospel of Thomas 46, with extensive echoes elsewhere in the synoptic tradition: Matt 18:1 par Mark 9:34; Luke 9:46; Luke 1:15; 22:24,26, and cp. Matt 20:25-28; Mark 10:42-45. Matt 11:11: Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (NRSV). Luke 7:28: I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater [or: there is not a greater prophet] than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he (NRSV). The bracketed word "prophet" is probably a gloss inserted as a lectio facilitans either to avoid ambiguity, since the terser Lucan form lacks the words tou baptistou found in Matthew, or to restrict the sweeping generalization, or inserted "by a pedantic copyist who wished thereby to exclude Christ from the comparison." 4 Gospel of Thomas 46: Jesus said: From Adam until John the Baptist there is among those who are born of women none higher than John the Baptist, so that his eyes will not be broken. But I have said that whoever among you becomes as a child shall know the kingdom, and he shall become higher than John. We note in this version an effort at expansion. The italicized words represent differences from the synoptic versions. The salvation-historical reflection on the periodizations of time becomes more explicit with the introductory words "From Adam until...". The word "higher" replaces the canonical "greater" to make it clear that it is a question of rank. Curiously Jesus cites himself in introducing the second sentence: "But I have said that..." Since for the gnostic redactor the kingdom is present, possessing it is a matter of knowing, not of entering. Becoming a child means in this worldview regressing to a state prior to the more noticeable sexual differences between men and women. This is achieved by a rigorous rejection of sexuality and RUSSELL'S clarity and confidence are seen to rest on shaky foundations. Our argument does not depend upon finding such a scheme in these sources. We refer to them only as illustrations. Christian versions of the world-week scheme tend to skip over the Moses period, perhaps inspired by Matthew or Paul or a combination of the two. Their schemes introduce Noah, so that we have: from Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to David, David to the Exile, the Exile to Jesus. This scheme is documented in a series of learned articles by Alfred Wikenhauser: "Das Problem des tausendjährigen Reiches in der Johannes-Apokalypse", RQ 40 (1932) 13-25; "Die Herkunft der Idee des tausendjährigen Reiches in der Johannes-Apokalypse", RQ 45 (1937) 1-24; "Weltwoche und tausendjähriges Reich", TQ 127 (1947) 399-417. В. M. METZGER, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 143-4.

T H E L E A S T IN T H E

KINGDOM

83

corporality. John is positively viewed as the highest among those who have not yet attained enlightenment. The difficult phrase "so that his eyes will not be broken" or "will not break" may mean that John is not yet definitively dead. Because of his ascetic life, he represents a unique exception and hope is held out that he may still attain self-enlightenment. 5 For our purposes the most important contribution of the Thomas version however is its rendering explicit and thus confirming the salvation-historical perspective of the original saying. A reconstruction of the form of the saying to be found in Q poses little difficulty: I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom is greater than he. 6 The difficulty in understanding this verse does not lie on the level of textual or source criticism, but on the level of interpretation. We may pose several questions. (1) Is the saying a unity or was the second half added as a commentary or gloss in the process of transmission? (2) Who spoke the saying: Jesus or the editor of Q? Or did Jesus speak the first part, and the editor the second? (3) More fundamentally, why would anyone think that John the Baptist was so important, even granting him a certain salvation-historical importance? (4) Has John no chance to be in the kingdom? (5) Who is the "least in the kingdom"? Is it any disciple or believer who has entered? Or is it the Christ himself? (6) Is the eschatology present and realized or future, that is, is the kingdom of God in its fullness already present on earth or is it yet to come? Because of this bundle of still debated questions we can agree with Ulrich Luz when he concludes his commentary on the verse thus: "It must be admitted that a precise interpretation of the logion remains difficult." 7

5

6

7

For the last part of these comments I am following Michael FIEGER, Das Thomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Systematik (NTAb 22; Munster: Aschendorff, 1991), 146-159. In the Q Thomas Reader, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg, M. W. MEYER, S. J. PATTERSON, Μ . STEINHAUSER (Sonoma CA: Polebridge, 1990), Meyer provides a nonGnostic translation but grants that it is not literal: "... no one is so much greater than John the Baptist that the person's eyes should not be averted ... whoever among you becomes a child will know the kingdom, and will become greater than John." J. D. C R O S S A N , In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1983), 325-327, notes the influence of GThom 22 on GThom 46b (Gnostic repudiation of sexual difference) and the use of GThom by later authors, esp. Pseudo-Macarius. This version is found in J. S. KLOPPENBORG et al., Q Thomas Reader, 4 5 . Cf. Ivan HAVENER, Q: The Sayings of Jesus (GNS 19; Collegeville MN: Liturgical Press-M. Glazier, 1986), 128-9. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8-17), (EKK 1.2; Zürich: Benziger/ Neukirchen-Gluyn: Neukirchener, 1990), 176.

84

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

II. A History of Interpretation Having presented the unresolved questions, we now pass to a brief history of interpretation. The main line of patristic interpretation until Jerome took the mikroteros (lesser or least)8 who is nonetheless the meizon (greater, greatest) in the kingdom to be Jesus himself. That is, the fathers took the verse in a Christological direction. Support for this can be mustered from the presence of the article before mikroteros\ the lesser in question is not just anyone but a particular person. This is to be sure a consideration, but not necessarily decisive.9 Of course the fathers took the verse as an authentic saying of Jesus. Thus Tertullian, Against Marcion 4,18: "for he said this either of anyone little through humility or of himself, since he was held to be lesser than John..." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, 37.3: [Jesus was] 'lesser in age and according to his fame with the masses, and because they said he was a glutton and a winebibber, and: "is not this the carpenter's son?'" Hilary of Poitiers, On the Gospel of Matthew, 11:6:10 "And how do we believe that Christ did not know a man who had been sent with the power of an angel to prepare the way for his coming and who, among those born of women, is the greatest prophet who has arisen, with this reservation, that he who is lesser than he, that is, he who is questioned, whom the crowd does not believe, to whom even his works do not bear witness, is greater than he in the kingdom of the heavens." This Christological interpretation has been defended in this century by Franz Dibelius, Oscar Cullmann, and Paul Hoffmann. 11 Jerome, who knew this interpretation, seems to have been the first to break with it, in his Commentaries on Matthew 2.11 (on Matt 1:11): "Every saint who is already with God [in heaven] is greater than one who still stands in the battle [of earthly life]. It is one thing to possess the victory crown, another to be

8 9

10

11

Comparative for superlative, as often in koine Greek, BDF § 60. BDF § 252 distinguishes the individualizing or anaphoric meaning of the article with an appellative, and the generic meaning. The fathers took it here in the former sense, most modern exegetes in the second sense. This comment of Hilary is condensed and difficult, but it does seem to refer the gospel verse to the relation between John the Baptist and Jesus, and to see Jesus' greatness despite his coming in lowliness. F. DIBELIUS, "Der Kleinere ist im Himmelreich grösser als Johannes (Mt 11,11)", ZNW 11 (1910) 190-192; O. CULLMANN, Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1959), 24, 32; idem (more extensively), The Early Church_{London: SCM, 1956), 180; P. HOFFMANN, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 220-224. As a side note we may mention the recent article by С. C. Rowland, "Apocalyptic, the Poor, and the Gospel of Matthew", JTS 45 (1994) 504-518, which revives the idea found in ORIGEN, In loannem Book II, §§ 186-7 (SC 120; Paris: Cerf, 1966), 332-5, on John 1:6, based on the citation of Mai 3:1 in Matt 11:10, Mai 3:1 itself being an allusion to Exod 23:20, the idea that John the Baptist was an incarnate angel.

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

85

still fighting in the front line." Jerome's identification of the "least" with the present disciple has tended to prevail in contemporary exegesis. But before passing to the twentieth century, we may note one medieval exegete. Thomas Aquinas, in his lectura on Matthew's Gospel, summarizes earlier commentators; he also notes the parallels between Matt 11:11a and Deut 34:10-12 which makes Moses the unsurpassed prophet. Thomas adds the special privilege of Abraham (Gen 18:19), which he relates to Abraham's tested faith. 12 We will return to these ОТ parallels in our own interpretation. Interpretation in this century begins inauspiciously with the coarse remark by Wellhausen: "The least Christian is precisely as a Christian more than the greatest Jew." 13 But the basic polarization in this century can be represented by the major commentary on Matthew of W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison on the one hand, and by the detailed study of the logion source Q of Siegfried Schulz on the other. 14 Davies and Allison defend both the unity and the authenticity of the saying, which first circulated as an isolated logion (Gospel of Thomas 46). The unity of the saying is based on its structure in antithetical parallelism: v. 1 l a and b must have always been together, and as such are hard to imagine as a postpaschal creation. The verse is modelled on Zech 12:8: "In that day, the Lord will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and the feeblest of them shall be in that day like David, and the House of David like a divine being — like an angel of the Lord — at their head." Thus the contrast is not primarily between two persons, e.g., the Baptist and Jesus, but between the greatness of the era of the Baptist, and the greater greatness of the kingdom of God. Our two authors thus reject the Christological interpretation of the least who is the greatest, as "out of character" on the level of the historical Jesus. They then outline two other alternative interpretations. The first of these takes the least as anyone in the kingdom (when it comes). Thus the present and the future eons are contrasted and the Baptist would not be excluded from the future kingdom, any more than are the ОТ patriarchs (Luke 13:28). The

12 13 14

Ed. Raphael Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1951) nn. 915-919, 143-144. J. W E L L H A U S E N , Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin: Reimer, 1904), 54. D A V I E S and A L L I S O N , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1991), 250-252; S . SCHULZ, Q Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972), 229-236. D A V I E S and ALLISON rely on the careful treatment of the logion in Jacques SCHLOSSER, Le Regne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jesus (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1980), 155-178. Joachim G N I L K A , Das Matthäusevangelium (HTKNT 1.1; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1986), 45-6, is close to their view but more evasive. J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1994), 142144, does a superb job of arguing the view that the saying is authentic and nonChristological. If we do not follow him here it is only because of the Danielic, ОТ background we think we have found.

86

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

second takes the least as anyone who is already now in the kingdom. This view excludes John the Baptist from the present kingdom (cf. Matt 11:12). The commentators opt for the second of these two interpretations on the level of the historical Jesus, and add that Jesus would have spoken this saying after the Baptist had been murdered by order of Herod Antipas; his admission to the future kingdom is simply not addressed. And on the level of the Matthean redaction, while admitting the possibility of either interpretation, they lean toward the first, which speaks of the kingdom as still to come. In contrast with this position stands that of Siegfried Schulz. For him Matt 11:7-9 parr are authentic words of Jesus; vv. 10 and 11 are comments added early but later than Jesus's earthly ministry. The uncommonly positive judgment in v. 11a is in v. l i b immediately qualified, relativized, even negated. But this state of affairs cannot be explained by assigning v. 11a to Jesus and v. l i b to the community, since the verse is a unity. Due to some subtle observations on present and future eschatology in Q (derived from Athanasius Polag), Schulz concludes: "Even the smallest disciple, teacher and prophet of the Q community outranks the eschatological conversion preacher and baptizer John both in the now already inaugurated kingdom as saving endtime and in the kingdom at the powerful parousia of the Son of man who will soon bring this eon to an end".15 V. 1 lb is not so much a criticism of the Baptist as it is a recommendation of the novum brought by Jesus. Thus there is a polemic against the competing Baptist community. The eternal fate of the Baptist is not discussed. John is obviously saved as are the patriarchs (Luke 13:28) — that is not the point. The point is about his position in salvation history. Thus for Schulz John the Baptist is viewed in a twofold light: (a) he exercises an outstanding eschatological function and so enjoys a high rank in salvation history (Matt 11:7-1 la, 16-19); (b) he is unworthy to tie the shoe of the stronger one who brings a baptism of fire (Matt 3:7-12; 11:11b,12).16

III. A New Key to Interpretation? Dan 4:14(17) Thus far the history of interpretation. If we are to go beyond what has been said, it must be in the direction of exploring the Old Testament sources of the early Q community's reflection on the relative roles of John and Jesus in the history of salvation. Before proceeding in this direction we must state 15

SCHULZ, Q, 2 3 5 .

16

Recently an article has appeared by P. NEPPER-CHRISTENSEN, "Om oversaettelse af og synet pä Johannes D0ber i Matth 11,11", DTT 60 (1997) 46-59, which interprets Matt 11:1 lb as a negative statement about John the Baptist.

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

87

our positions that (a) the verse is a unity due to its antithetic parallelism (derived from an ОТ model, as we hope to show), and (b), while a derivation from the historical Jesus cannot be absolutely excluded (since it is hard to believe that he could have no inkling of his own role in God's plan of salvation), it is easier to understand the verse in its present forms as stemming from the early Q community, especially if, as we also hope to show, the titular or Christological reading of mikroteros turns out to be correct after all. (The main objection to it has always been that it was hard to imagine on the lips of Jesus. Once this is given up, the patristic reading becomes easier to defend.) If there is such a thing as a literary genre of ranking prophets or other human agents of the divine in the Hebrew Bible, it undoubtedly begins or has its locus classicus in Deut 34:10-12: Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. [He was unequaled] for all the signs and wonders that the Lord sent him to perform in the land of Egypt, against Pharaoh and all his servants and his entire land, and for all the mighty deeds and all the terrifying displays of power that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel (NRSV). These words stand as an epitaph at the very end of the Pentateuch. Moses is herein praised as the supreme prophet on the basis of his greater degree of intimacy with the divine; he was God's familiar or confident. The great surprise here is what is not said: Moses is not explicitly praised as the mediator of the Law or for his teaching, but for his miracles. (Why? Because here the Deuteronomistic redactor prepares the sequel in the Deuteronomistic history, Joshua to Kings.) The fact that vv. 11 and 12 are poorly connected syntactically to v. 10 (NRSV has supplied an extra verb which is indicated by the brackets above) suggests that these verses are a later gloss. The final redactor here pulls together various traditions: a future prophet like Moses is promised in Deut 18:15-18; the face to face intimacy is mentioned in Exod 33:11, Num 12:6-8, Deut 5:4; signs and wonders, e.g., in Deut 4:34; that God has "known", that is, called a prophet is said also of Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), Amos (Am 3:2), David (2 Sam 7:20), Abraham (Gen 18:19). Moses is praised in Sir 44:23b - 45:1-15; Heb 11:23-29. (There are counter-traditions that Moses was not the most excellent prophet but rather David, or those who did more extraordinary miracles (Joshua 10:12, Isa 38:8), Elijah (Sir 48:4), or Jesus (John 6:14, Heb 3:5-6).) 17 17

S. R. DRIVER, Deuteronomy (ICC; Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1902); Hubert JUNKER, Das Buch Deuteronomium (Bonn: Hanstein, 1933); Gerhard VON RAD, Deuteronomium (ATD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964); Georg BRAULIK, Deuteronomium II (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg; Echter, 1992), in loco.

88

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

In retelling these verses the Palestinian targums alter the bold "face to face" to "by a living voice". The midrashic tradition on the death of Moses is highly developed but not to our purpose, since it builds on Deut 34:6 which suggests that God himself buried Moses, rather than Deut 34:10-12 which involve Moses in a comparative standing. 18 The high esteem for Moses as the greatest or most excellent of the prophets continues in Philo's Life of Moses, which serves as a model for Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses, and in the middle ages with Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas. 19 It is this comparative ranking of prophets which provides part of the background of the gospel verse we are trying to understand. To be sure, the connection of Deut 34:10-12 with the gospel saying is made more explicit in the koine variant reading at Luke 7:28: "... there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist..." But the idea of such a comparison is present even without the explicit mention of the word prophet, since both Moses and John were commonly regarded as prophets, and Jesus has just previously mentioned that John is a prophet in Matt 11:9 par Luke 7:26. Another ОТ verse has been brought into the discussion of our verse because it explicitly mentions small and great: "Small and great are there, and the servant is free of his master" (Job 3:19). This statement occurs in the first lament of Job; he curses the day of his birth and longs for death and Sheol where all earthly distinctions are set at nought. The rabbis do not like this abolition of all distinctions in the future world, so they interpret the verse in another direction: "He who is little in this world can become great, and he who is great can become little, but he who is little in the future world cannot become great, and he who is great cannot become little {Ruth Rab. 13, on 1:17); Does not everyone know that small and great are there? The verse teaches that in this world it is not known who is small and who is great (Pesiq. R. App. 3 [198b]; The meaning is that he who makes himself equal to a slave in this world for the sake of the words of the Torah will be a free man in the future world (b. B. Me. 85b). 20

18

19

20

See JOSEPHUS, Ant. 4:176-9, 302-326; PS-PHILO, Bib. Ant. 19; As. Mos.; Memar Marqah; m. Sota 1:9; Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 34:6; Sipre Deut §§ 305, 355-7; Deut. Rab.J 1:9-10; Yal. Wayyelek § 940, 667a-f; Abot R. Nat. 12 (Goldin ed., 65-66); Ε . Ε . U R B A C H , The Sages (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 172-177; Klaus HAACKER and Peter SCHÄFER, "Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose", in Josephus-Studien (FS Otto Michel) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 147-174; G. W. COATS, "Legendary Motifs in the Moses Death Reports", CBQ 39 (1977) 34-44. Moses MAIMONIDES, Guide for the Perplexed II, chap. 35; Thomas A Q U I N A S , Summa theologiae, 2-2, q. 174, a. 4. Although Thomas does not here refer explicitly to "Rabbi Moyses" as he does elsewhere, it is nevertheless probable that he consulted him also on this point. Otto MICHEL, "mikros", TDNT4.653, n. 25. Cf. Str.-B. 1.598.

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

89

If our gospel verse speaks of future eschatology or even of realized eschatology, it shares the rabbinic outlook that distinctions of small and great are not abolished in the new eon (cf. Mark 9:33-37; 10:35-45 parr.). Thus far we have noted two ОТ passages which have been brought in to elucidate our puzzling verse because in the one case there is a parallel in the ranking of prophets, in the other a pairing of small and great in Sheol. Till now however in the secondary literature no parallel text has been adduced which has to do with the kingdom of God. It is our thesis that the most proximate ОТ influence on the formulation of Matt 11:11 comes from Daniel 4:14 (4:17), precisely because it speaks of the lowliest governing in the kingdom. The verse forms part of king Nebuchadnezzar's second dream vision. The vision is about a great tree that is cut down (a world tree in the Old Greek expanded text; cf. also Ezek 31). After the tree is cut down, the allegorical tree is more clearly spoken of as the arrogant king against whom a divine judgment is rendered. The king is to be punished for a seven year period. The concluding verse of the dream vision reads: "The sentence is rendered by decree of the watchers, the decision is given by order of the holy ones, in order that all who live may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals; he gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of human beings." The point of the verse is twofold. It first affirms the authoritative basis of the sentence; it is a decision of the divine (angelic) council. Then it gives the pedagogic message that only God is truly sovereign. The earthly kingdom is the kingdom of God. Only when human rulers recognize this divine sovereignty will their affairs prosper. The "kingdom of mortals" of which the verse speaks could be understood, if taken in isolation, as something other than the apocalyptic kingdom of God which is the major theme of [the final redaction of] the book of Daniel as a whole, esp. clear in the four kingdoms scheme of chaps. 2 and 7. However, the framing verses of the chapter, 3:33 (4:3) and 4:31 (4:34) make it clear that the kingdom/kingship/reign in v. 14 (17) is also God's. At the end of v. 14 (17) comes the phrase that interests us: "and [he] sets over it [the kingdom] the lowliest of human beings (shepal 'anashtm\." This phrase occurs only here in the chapter; it is not included when part of the verse is repeated in v. 29 (v. 25). The Theodotianic Greek version does not translate shepal, "lowliest", "most humble", literally (that would be tapeinoteros). Instead it uses the term exoudenema anthropon ("that which is set at naught by men"). So that if the verse contributed to the formulation of Matt 11:11, it was not on the basis of this Greek version. The Old Greek version at 4:31 (Rahlfs; v. 28 Ziegler) is slightly more specific in giving the kingdom of Babylon to "a despised man" (exouthenemenos anthropos) in

90

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

Nebuchadnezzar's household. This version too would not have influenced the editor(s) of Q. The influence, if such there be, would have had to come from the Aramaic text (or from a now lost Greek version). Assuming direct influence from the original Aramaic, there is still another difficulty. In the Greek ОТ, shepal is never translated as mikros or mikroteros. The only way to meet this objection is to argue as follows: the translators of our two extant Greek versions did not translate shepal "literally", that is, with tapeinoteros. Their translations are loose, but they convey the sense. The same could be said for the gospel: mikroteros could be seen as a loose translation of shepal, lowly. It conveys the sense but not the exact word. That is why the parallel has never been noticed before. A few additional philological remarks may be in place here. Strictly speaking, the phrase shepal 'anashim could be translated as a plural, "the lowliest men". A closer look at the versions may help us to see why the translation tradition took the phrase as a singular superlative noun ("the lowliest") followed by a plural ("men" "human beings"), "the lowliest of men". Thus although the impersonal exoudenema in Theodotion is unrelated to the idea of an individual person (such as we find in the Q saying), its substantive form means that Theodotion read the unpointed shpl as a noun.21 The Old Greek version at 4:31 (Rahlfs; v. 28 Ziegler) is slightly more specific in giving the kingdom of Babylon to a "despised man" (exouthenemenos anthropos). The importance of this reading is the singular anthropos. It is not a straight translation of 'arfshlm; it is a step closer to the idea of the "least in the kingdom". Another point to notice is that, while Nebuchadnezzar's dream is recounted three times, the expression shepal 'anashtm (exoudenema anthropon) is mentioned only the first time (4:14), and has been left out of the recurring passage of the two remaining parts (vv. 22, 29). In the Old Greek however exouthenemenos anthropos only occurs the third time the dream is recounted, at 4:31 (28). This state of affairs might suggest that shepal 'anashim was originally an intrinsic element of the recurring phrase in all three parts, but that, for some reason, it has dropped out of two parts of each of these three texts. (The alternative to this is that the phrase is a late gloss.) Finally, we note that the Vulgate translation gives humillimum hominem ("the basest man"). This supports the Old Greek decision to take the phrase as referring to an individual, singular rather than plural. 21

Cf. Hans B A U E R and Pontus L E A N D E R , Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1927), § 94, 320i, vii: "Eine Art Superlativ wird dadurch gewonnen, dass ein Adjektiv statt als nachgesetztes Attribut vielmehr als vorausgestelltes Regens mit einem Substantiv verbunden wird: ιιςραΐ 'αηαςίηι "einen ganz niedrigen Menschen" Dan 4,14; der Ausdruck könnte, wie er jetzt lautet, auch hebräisch sein, und man könnte darin einen echten Hebraismus sehen, vielleicht ist -im aber fehlerhaft. Vgl. Jes 29,19: 'ebyoni >adam "ganz arme Leute".

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

91

If we take a second look at Dan 4:14, we quickly see that its basic message is a common biblical theme, viz., that God can exalt the lowly and humble the mighty and proud. Compare for example Ezek 17:24. After a vision like Daniel's (two eagles and a vine), v. 24 concludes: "All the trees of the field shall know that I am the Lord. I bring low the high tree, I make high the low tree..." Similarly Ps 113:7-8: "He raises the poor from the dust, and lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with the princes of his people." Job 5:11: "he sets on high those who are lowly..." Hannah's song (1 Sam 2:5-8) inspires Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:52) in the same vein. Paul's sociological description of the Corinthian community (1 Cor l:26-30a), "Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth..." runs along the same lines. Zech 12:8: "In that day ... the feeblest (hanniksh a l) of them shall be like David, and the House of David like a divine being, like an angel of the Lord, at their head." Finally, we may note Rev 11:15: "The kingdom of the world (tou kosmou) has become [the kingdom] of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever." This theme of God exalting the lowly, what Aristotle's Poetics calls peripeteia, reversal of fortune or plot reversal, clearly applies not only to Daniel 4:14 but also to our gospel verse, 22 where the lowliest becomes greater than John the Baptist. Consider also "they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (lemiqtsannam we'ad-gedölam), Jer 31:34, a verse which played a major role in the NT; and Num 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek ('"ηΛν), more than all men that were on the face of the earth", with its echo in Matt 11:29, "I am gentle and lowly of heart". Besides the link between the humblest/least being given the kingdom, is there a tight structural similarity between Dan 4:14 and Matt 11:11 ? In Daniel a historical figure (Nebuchadnezzar) is deposed and God (the Most High) gives the kingdom to the lowliest. Here the lowliest (singular) could be understood in a vague way, or it could be understood concretely as an oblique reference, either to the lowly origin of the Neo-BabyIonian dynasty or to the Jewish people in their state of exiled humiliation or under Seleucid domination or even of persecution. But this concrete reading is not much favored by the commentators — usually they do not even consider it (Bentzen is the exception). This neglect by the commentators of a concrete reading of shepal 'anashim (the lowliest of mortals) as a discreet allusion to a historical person or group 22

Of the many fine commentaries, I have found these the most helpful: J. A. MONTGOMERY, Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1927); Aage BENTZEN, Daniel (HAT; Tübingen: Mohr, 1952); J. J. COLLINS, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Ernst HAAG, Daniel (Neue Echter Bibel; Würzburg: Echter, 1993).

92

THE L E A S T IN THE K I N G D O M

may be explained by another neglect on their part. They usually do not comment on the philological fact that shepal 'anashim is not in Aramaic but in Hebrew. That is, Daniel, cc. 2-7, is in Aramaic but this phrase is not, or, more exactly, shepal I could be either Hebrew or Aramaic, whereas 'an"shim is Hebrew. The editors of BHS, noting this fact, have suggested the Aramaic 'anasa' in the apparatus, but without manuscript support. This takes us nowhere. If we ask why the phrase is in Hebrew, we might answer that the phrase is a title. If so, then a concrete reading has a better chance of being correct. Or (and this is not an exclusive alternative) is the entire final phrase of v. 14 a late gloss?, i.e., "and sets over it the lowliest of mortals." This is a part of the verse which is not reproduced in v. 22. (V. 14 gives the dream vision as seen by the king, v. 11 gives the dream vision as interpreted by Daniel.) For our purposes, the possibility that the end of v. 14 could be a late gloss is irrelevant, since it would already have stood in the text used by the NT. Perhaps one should not make too much of the Hebrew 'anashtm, since such minor Hebraisms are found elsewhere in the Aramaic portion of Daniel, e.g., masc. plur. endings in -im rather than in -in. Yet in this case we propose to take it seriously as part of a title: "the lowliest of human beings." The gospel verse sets up a contrast between a historical figure (John the Baptist) in one period and the least (sing.) who becomes greater in a later period, viz., in the kingdom of God, and this least/greater could be a vague reference to any disciple or a concrete reference to Jesus. God is not mentioned. So we can see a connection between Matt 11:11 and Dan 4:14, even if not a perfect fit. 23 As we draw these probes and rambling explorations to a conclusion, we may summarize our results by a return to our initial questions. The six questions are now prefixed by another question: Is Dan 4:14 the key that fits all the locks or only a key that helps to open some of the doors? Now let us begin. (1) Is Matt 11:11 par Luke 7:28 a unity, or is the second part a gloss? We have seen that the antithetical parallelism and the ОТ background, esp. in Dan 4:14, suggest that the verse was a unity from the beginning. (2) As for authenticity, while the saying's origin from Jesus cannot be absolutely excluded, it is easier to understand the saying as a commentary by the editor(s) of Q on Jesus' preceding sayings on the Baptist, a reflection on the relative standing of the two great figures in the unfolding pattern of salvation his-

23

That Daniel, chap. 4, was in the mind of Jesus (and the early gospel tradition) seems evident from the citation of Dan 4: 9,18 in Matt 13:32/Mark 4:32/Luke 13:19 in the kingdom parable of the mustard seed: "the birds of the sky come and dwell in its branches." Cf. also Marc PHILONENKO, "La troisieme demande du "Notre Pere" et l'hymne de Nabuchodonosor", RHPH 72 (1992) 23-31. He sees a reflection of Dan 4:32; 4:35 LXX in Matt 6:10.

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

93

tory. (3) Is what is said of John the Baptist in the saying an unreasonable exaggeration? Now we see more clearly that such appraisals belong to the literary genre of the relative ranking of prophets and to that of peripeteia. They come with the territory, so to say. In the light of Dan 4:14, the Baptist is compared to the mighty Nebuchadnezzar who for a time dwindles to insignificance and then is restored to his kingdom. (4) This leads to the next question: does this saying exclude John from the kingdom? We have seen that the point of the saying is not to exclude John from the future kingdom when it has come in its fullness. The point is the Q community's polemic against the rival Baptist community, according to which in the present, partly realized, epoch, John pales into insignificance in comparison with Jesus, just as Nebuchadnezzar is in a pitiable state during his seven year madness until his restoration, and is replaced by "the lowliest of human beings". (5) On this view, Jesus is to be identified as "the least in the kingdom of God". (6) The perspective is primarily that of realized eschatology, without totally excluding the future aspect. In this too it is rather like Dan 4:14, which not a key that fits all the locks, but does help to open a number of doors. The verse then, coming from the earliest stage of the post-paschal Christian movement in Palestine, expresses a sincere tribute to the great precursor, while at the same time testifying to its own lucid awareness of the new eon of salvation history which had begun with the ministry of Jesus (and would be completed by his return in glory). It was able to be so clear-eyed because of its reflection on the Christ-event with the help of the great reversal announced in Nebuchadnezzar's dream vision, Dan 4:14, and its titular phrase "the lowliest of human beings". This article contains an exploration, not a demonstration. It seeks to show a probable intertextual influence, not a certain one. The motivation for the intertextual influence presupposes the earliest Christians' use of Daniel and other Scriptures to reflect on God's plan of salvation. The motivation consists in their being struck by this phrase in Dan 4:14, "the lowliest of human beings". This phrase stands out in Daniel 4 because it is the only part which is not repeated. The earliest Christians found it helpful in their efforts to shed light upon their conviction that Jesus was the exalted Son of God and yet had come in lowliness. They did not read the Scriptures in a historicalcritical way, any more than did the author(s) of the Qumran pesh'Yim. The accent of this article does not fall on the question of the authenticity or inauthenticity of Matt 11:11, but rather on the probable influence of Dan 4:14 on its formulation. Both Jesus and the authors/editors of Q had access to the book of Daniel. Since the acceptance of the influence of Dan 4:14 on Matt 11:11 leads to a Christological interpretation of the gospel verse, it is easier

94

THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM

for the present writer to understand the verse as a post-paschal reflection on Jesus and the Baptist than as a statement of the pre-paschal Jesus, but such "ease" is not necessarily an all determining consideration.

9

Revelation in Stages (Matt 11:25-30 and Num 12:3,6-8)

Jesus' cry of jubilee and great invitation (Matt 11:25-30) are a major Christological and soteriological moment in the gospel according to Matthew. They are deservedly much studied. 1 They are the more important because at least verses 25-27 are shared with Luke (10:21-22), and thus, on the hypothesis of two early sources of the Jesus tradition, should be assigned to the logia source (Q for short), the earliest of all our sources for the historical Jesus. 2 If v. 27 goes back to Jesus himself, and it manifests an awareness on his part that he is the absolute, unique Son of God, i.e., a filial consciousness, then the classical Christological dogma that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the heavenly Father would find a basis in Jesus' own mind. 3 The road to Nicea (325) would be open. All the main Christological developments, including the gospel according to John, would have their starting point and basis there. Counter to Enlightenment suppositions, it would not be the case that Jesus thought of himself as a nice man and nothing more, and that all Christological beliefs were only the inventions of wicked, money-grubbing priests. 4 With the stakes so high, it was only to be expected that ardent efforts would be made to undermine the historicity (i.e., the Jesuanic authenticity) of v. 27. It is not however the purpose of this paper to enter into that debate. 5

The passage was analyzed in my dissertation book Study as Worship (SJLA 26; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 183-192, where earlier literature is cited; also in my NJBC Matthew commentary, 653. Two earlier monographs should be cited: Felix CHRIST, Jesus Sophia (ATANT 57; Zurich: Zwingli, 1970); M.J. SUGGS, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970). More recent literature can be found in the Matthew commentaries by Ulrich Luz (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 155176; Joachim GNILKA ( H T K N T 1.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988), 4 3 1 - 4 4 2 ; W . D . DAVIESD.C. ALLISON, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T . & T. Clark, 1991), 2 7 1 - 3 0 2 . 2

A. HARNACK, The Sayings of Jesus (London: Williams & Norgate, 1907); J.M. ROBINSON, P. HOFFMANN, J.S. KLOPPENBORG, eds., The Critical Edition of Q (Leuven: Peeters, 2000); G.S. KLOPPENBORG Verbin, Excavating Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), with an extensive bibliography.

3

HARNACK, Sayings,

4

These were views held by, for example, Thomas PAINE (1737-1809) in his work The Age of Reason (1795), partly written in prison. Thomas Jefferson and Immanuel Kant tried to reduce Christianity to its ethical element only. In addition to the commentaries, see especially P. HOFFMANN, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh 8; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 102-142; idem, Studien zur Frühgeschichte der Jesus-Bewegung (Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände 17; Stuttgart: KBW, 1996), 257-272.

5

p. 300.

96

REVELATION IN STAGES

Our intention is rather to explore a possible Mosaic typological background to this passage in Matthew. The study of Mosaic typology in the gospels has become a little trend in recent years. 6 The background in question is found in the book of Numbers, 12:1-16. This chapter continues from chap. 11 the theme of the preeminent status of Moses who is to be above criticism. In summary, Miriam and Aaron dare to criticize Moses because of his exogamous marriage and because they think that, since they too are prophets, their authority should be as respected as his. Then the biblical author (JE) asserts that "the man Moses was very humble" (v. 3). Then suddenly the Lord appears to the three, gives a poetic lesson on (at least) two kinds or degrees of revelation (vv. 6-8), and punishes Miriam with white leprosy. Aaron and then Moses intercede for her, the Lord insists she stay in reclusion for seven days. She is then brought back into the camp (presumably healed) and the people resume their journey. 7 Now to anyone who is familiar with Jesus' statement in Matt 11:29 ("learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart"), the resemblance to Num 12:3 that "Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth" will leap out from the pages. So it is not surprising that at least some commentators have noticed the connection. 8 But other possible connections have not been hitherto noticed. First then let us remark, almost in passing, a feature of somewhat similar, broader context between Numbers and Matthew. As we have seen, the Lord's lesson on two degrees of revelation (Num 12:6-8) follows upon an act of

6

See for example D.C. ALLISON, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 3 ) ; M.-D. BOISMARD, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 3 ) ; D.P. MOESSNER, Lord of the Banguet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lucan Travel №z/rarive(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 8 9 ) ; Joel M A R C U S , The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville K Y : Westminster, 1 9 9 2 ) . Earlier there was T.F. G L A S S O N , Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT 1 . 4 0 ; Naperville: Allenson, 1 9 6 3 ) .

7

See the commentaries on Numbers by P.J. B U D D (Waco TX: Word, 1984), 132-139; J. (Philadelphia: JPS, 1990); G.B. G R A Y , (ICC; Edinburgh: T.& T. CLARK, 1903); B. BAENTSCH (HKAT 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903); Η. HOLZINGER (KHAT4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1903); Α. DILLMANN (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886); J.S. Kselman, "A note on Numbers 12:6-8", VT 26 (1976) 500-504; U. RAPP, Mirjam: Eine feministisch-rhetorische Lektüre der Mirjamtexte in der hebräischen Bibel (BZAW 317; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); Ch. UEHLINGER, "Hat YHWH denn wirklich nur mit Mose geredet?", in: Randfiguren in der Mitte: H.-J. Venetz zu Ehren, ed. M. KÜCHLER, P. Reinl (Lucerne: Exodus, 2003), 15-32; J.R. LEVISON, "Prophecy in Ancient Israel: The Case of the Ecstatic Elders," CBQ 65 (2003) 503-521; ср. K.E. CORLEY, Women ad the Historical Jesus (Santa Rosa CA: Polebridge, 2002), 28. MILGROM

8

DAVIES-ALLISON, Matthew

2.290.

REVELATION IN STAGES

97

rebellion or impudence against Moses1 authority. 9 It may be worthwhile therefore to remember that Jesus' cry of thanksgiving and revelation follows, in Matthew, immediately upon his woes or denunciations of the unrepentant cities (Matt 11:20-24): "At that time Jesus said..." (Matt 11:25a). Now obviously the point is not to argue that the historical Jesus spoke these words immediately after the woes. In Luke for example, between these woes (Luke 10:13-15) and the cry of jubilee (vv.21-22), there intervenes the return of the seventy (vv. 17-20). We only call attention to the Matthean literary sequence. The historical sequence is perhaps beyond recovery. We now come to our main point. The two steps of revelation given in Num 12:6-8, are: (a) prophetic, through visions, dreams and riddles, (b) Mosaic: face to face (peh el-peh, lit. mouth to mouth), confiding ("he is entrusted with all my house"), clear, direct, immediate. At some point in the history of Jewish interpretation of Scripture, certainly after or alongside the closing or fixing of the Hebrew biblical canon at the synod of Jamnia (ca. A.D. 75-85), a threefold distinction in the degrees of revelation arose.10 This threefold distinction corresponded to the three parts of the Hebrew canon of sacred Scripture. The most authoritative degree was the Torah or Pentateuch, attributed directly to Moses (cf. Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 15:21). The next degree, slightly lower in status, were the Former and Latter Prophets (the Neviim). The lowest degree was that assigned to the Writings or Hagiographa (Khetuvim). This lowest degree of Scripture was, to be sure, inspired by the Holy The literature on the murmuring (lün) or rebellion theme in the Sinai desert wandering narratives is considerable. See for example G.W. COATS, Rebellion in the Wilderness (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968); VOLMAR Fritz, Israel in der Wüste (Marburg: Elwert, 1970); Olivier ARTUS, Etudes sur le livre des Nombres: Recit, Histoire et Loi en Nb 13,120,13 (OBO 157; Fribourg: Eds Universitaires, 1997); K.H. RENGSTORF, S.V. gogguzo, TDNT1. 10

7 2 7 - 7 3 7 ; K . D . SCHUNCK, S.V. lün, TW AT 4 . 5 2 7 - 5 3 0 .

On Jamnia and the canonization of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, we might begin with W.D. DA VIES, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1964); J.P. LEWIS, "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?", JBR 32 (1964) 125-132; R. RENDTORFF, Canon and Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); M. HENGEL, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (Edinburgh: T.&R. Clark, 2002); H. von CAMPENHAUSEN, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); J.A. SANDERS, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); idem, Canon and Community (Philadlephia: Fortress, 1984); idem, From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1987); B.S. CHILDS, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: fortress, 1986); D.H. FREEDMAN, "Canon of the ОТ", in IDBSup; E. SCHÜRER, rev. G. Vermes, F. MILLAR, A History of the Jewish People (Edinburg: T.&T. Clark, 1973), 1. 524527. H.S. LEVINSON notes a distinction between Jewish and Christian Bibles in the basic arrangement: Та Na CH versus Та CHa Ν, with the prophetic books either in the middle or at the end, pointing directly to Jesus as the Christ, Harvard Divinity School Bulletin (Summer-Fall 2001), p. 7. On the inspiration of the Psalter, see R.J. TOURNAY, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms (JSOT SS 118; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1991).

98

REVELATION IN STAGES

Spirit, yet neither prophetic nor Mosaic. This degree included both the Psalms and the wisdom books. It is difficult to determine when this third, lowest, step was explicitated out of the two stages presented in Num 12:6-8. It has already been suggested that this could only have occurred after the close of the Hebrew canon with its three parts. We should however note several relevant texts. The three types of personnel connected with the three parts of the Hebrew canon are already listed in Jer 18:18: "Instruction [torah] shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet." The grandson of Ben Sira, in the Prologue to his translation of his ancestor's book, says: "My grandfather Jesus devoted himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors." In both Mark 12:36 and Matt 22:43, Jesus introduces a quotation from Psalm 110:1 (part of the Khetuvim) by saying: "David, [inspired] by the [Holy] Spirit". This manner of reference could be an indication that these evangelists already knew the three levels of divine revelation, of which, contrary to a common Christian way of looking at the matter, inspiration by the Holy Spirit was the lowest level. G.F. Moore, in his classic work on Judaism, 11 sums up the rabbinic Jewish view on revealed religion as embodied in sacred Scripture well: "In all its parts and in every word the Scripture was of divine origin and authority, being either an immediate revelation, such as was made to Moses by God propria persona (Num 12:6-8; Deut 34:10), or through visions and dreams, or given to the prophets and the authors of the various sacred books through the inspiration of the holy Spirit." Moore here clearly has the three levels in mind, and based on Num 12:6-8. But he does not give a source or dating for the third, lowest level. And he does not state, perhaps through haste or inattention, that the revelation through visions and dreams is on the same level as prophetic revelation. Here we need a word of caution. Since the concept of the three levels was not to be found explicitly in authoritative early texts, whether biblical or talmudic, it is not to be expected that every rabbinic author is aware of it or shares it. The rabbis could be carried away by rhetoric to say things like: Moses is the author of the whole Torah, not only the three parts of the Hebrew biblical canon, but also of the entire rabbinic corpus, oral Torah. Such rhetoric, which serves other purposes, obscures the careful, three-layered view. A more careful presentation comes in the opening line of the mishnah tractate Aboth. Here the chain of rabbinic tradition is set forth in chronological, developmental, historical sequence. (The chronology is the intention of the

11

G.F. MOORE, Judaism in the Tannaitic Period (Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1927), 1.247-8, 235-250.

REVELATION IN STAGES

99

author. It does not necessarily conform to professional modern, historicalcritical reconstructions of the relationship of the Pentateuch to the prophets, for example.) "Moses received the Law [Torah] from Sinai [= God] and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Synagogue" (m. 'Abot 1.1).12 In this scheme, the Great Synagogue refers to the period of Ezra and the return from exile and corresponds to the period of the Khethuvim. Here implicitly the tradition is all of a piece. It all flows from Sinai. There is no suggestion of a decline in quality or authority or purity. Indeed, this scheme has been designated as the founding rabbinic myth, a myth which establishes the authority of the rabbis as the legitimate heirs of Moses (and God himself). 13 Nevertheless, the rabbis do discuss what part of the Sinai revelation was communicated directly by God, the Ten Commandments for example, and what came through the mediation by Moses. This could be argued on the basis of the little phrase in Deut 5:22 which comes immediately after the gift of the Ten Words in Deut 5:6-21: "These words the Lord spoke with a loud voice to your whole assembly at the mountain, out of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, and he added no more. He wrote them on two stone tablets, and gave them to me." The words "and he added no more" are very terse in Hebrew: we-lo yasaph, lit. "and he did not add", they were a favorite of Jewish-Christian polemic with the rabbis. In the context of this polemic the rabbis did not like to separate the Decalogue from the rest of the 613 commandments of Torah. 14 But when relaxed among themselves they could play with reducing the Torah to shorter lists (b. Мак. 23b-24a; b. Sabb. 31a), and even claim that only two of the Ten Commandments were "heard from the mouth of the Might [Divine]," the first and the second (b. Мак. 24a). The point here is this. All of these distinctions, and particularly the three-fold one corresponding to the three parts of the Hebrew canon, help us to acquire a more nuanced view of the notions of inspiration and revelation. We can compare the matter to popular ideas of magisterial infallibility. People sometimes think that being infallible is like being pregnant: you either are or you are not. The matter does not admit of degrees. But being pregnant does admit of degrees: it is a different matter to be pregnant at forty days, or three months, or six months or nine months. So too there can be degrees in the

12

B.T. VIVIANO, Study As Worship, pp. 4-7.

13

J. NEUSNER, Formative Judaism (BJS 46; Chico CA: Scholars, 1983), especially pp. 7-57.

14

G. VERMES, "The Decalogue and the Minim", In Memoriam Paul Kahle (BZAW 103; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1968), 232-240; The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion SEGAL (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), especially 1-289.

100

R E V E L A T I O N IN S T A G E S

level of authority of documents. These distinctions, which have their starting point in Num 12:6-8, give us a differentiated, more subtle, view of revelation. In a Catholic model of the question, there has been the following distinction. All the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not all of the Bible contains divine revelation. Only those statements of saving significance which could not be known by reason alone contain divine revelation, e.g., God is triune, the Incarnation, redemption through the blood of Jesus on the cross. 15 This way of posing the question has the merit of acknowledging that much of the Bible contains great resources of human wisdom and insight, including an often shrewd psychology (e.g., Num 13:33). Here the biblical authors have been guided by the Holy Spirit, as to what to select and to put down, but not provided with new "information". Yet this approach wants to admit a further dimension of divine agency in revealing some aspects or glimpses of the divine mysteries or plan of salvation (e.g., Exod 3:14; Matt 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10; Rom 11:25; Eph 1:9; 3:3,4,9). This approach presupposes a distinction of reason and revelation that rationalists like John Locke or Baruch Spinoza would not want to admit, 16 nor even St Anselm. 17 In conclusion, let us return to Matt 11:25-30. The anchor of any comparative study of this gospel passage and Numbers 12 remains Num 12:3, acknowledged in the marginal references of the Nestle-Aland editions of the Greek New Testament. Beyond that, both passages speak of revelation. Numbers makes a sharp distinction between prophetic and Mosaic (uniquely intimate) revelation. The Matthean passage is a little more complex. It does speak of revelation, first to the simple, then to the elect (they could be the same people, if the passage is a unity). And it seems to carry on a polemic against the wise and the understanding from which the revealed things are hidden (cf. Deut 29:29). The passage (esp. v. 27) also claims a unique intimacy and immediacy of communication between Jesus and his heavenly Father which surpasses even the revelation "mouth to mouth" made to Moses. Whatever one makes of such a claim, it is at least worthwhile to consider that, among the many factors that have contributed to the formulation of this Matthean

15

16

17

For example, see Thomas AQUINAS, Summa theologica, II-II, 171-178; Paul SYNAVE and Pierre BENOIT, Prophecy and Inspiration (New York: Desclee, 1961); Pierre BENOIT, Aspects of Biblical Inspiration (Chicago: Priory Press, 1965). Henning GRAF REVENTLOW, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); G.A. KAPLAN, Answering the Enlightenment: Friedrich SCHELLING, Johannes Kuhn and the Recovery of Historical Revelation (Ph. D. dissertation, Boston College, May 2003). See P. TILLICH, Theology of Culture (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1959), 10-29, "The Two Types of Philosophy of Religion", (orig. USQR ([1946]).

REVELATION IN STAGES

101

text of rare wealth and density of meaning, Num 12:1-9 has, in all likelihood, played a significant role, if only as a foil.

10

The Historical Jesus and the Biblical and Pharisaic Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28 parr; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6; Matt 12:112-12)

The relation of the historical Jesus of Nazareth to the Sabbath is an important subject, already much studied.1 In this paper of limited extent, we do not intend to summarize the entire previous discussion. We would like to contribute to the discussion by drawing in some elements from the Hebrew and Old Greek Bibles, and from the rabbis, which are not emphasized in the abundant secondary literature on the gospel passages about the Sabbath. We propose to examine some of the biblical teaching about the Sabbath and Pharisaic developments of this (I) and then to situate the gospels and Jesus in relation to both (II).

I The Background It is first of all important to realize that the commandment to "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" (Exod 20:8-11; cf. Deut 5:12-15, a more developed form), found in the Decalogue, while it prohibits work and enjoins rest, does not define in detail what kinds of work are to be avoided, nor what penalties are to be administered to those who violate the Sabbath rest. Thus it is not surprising that even within the Pentateuch itself, cases are presented to help resolve the doubts of perplexed consciences. One such case is the woodgatherer of Num 15:32-36: 32 Once, when the Israelites were in the wilderness, they came upon a man gathering wood [lit. trees, sticks] on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him as he was gathering wood brought him before Moses, Aaron, and the whole community [LXX: synagoge]. 34 He was placed in custody, for it had not been specified what should be done to him. 3 5 Then the Lord said to Moses; "The man shall be put to death: the whole community [LXX: synagoge] shall pelt him with stones outside the camp." 36 So the whole community [LXX: synagoge] took him out-

See bibliography at the end.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

103

side the camp and [the whole community — LXX] stoned him to death [outside the camp — LXX] — as the Lord had commanded Moses (NJPS). This painful passage is an example of case law which illustrates the rule for highhanded actions (Num 15:30-31). It is one of a number of cases in the Pentateuch which are punishable by death, cases whose penalty seems excessively severe to many sensitive Jewish consciences both ancient and modern. In the analogous case of the rebellious son, Deut 21:18-21, Jewish interpretation began a process of commuting the death penalty very early. Both in the Samaritan Pentateuch and in the Septuagint, the commutation was based on the room for play allowed by varying vocalizations of the consonantal Hebrew text. But Jewish interpreters soon went on to more direct changes in legislation. 2 In the case of Sabbath violators, the rabbis based their trial procedures on the rules for punishment of idolaters found in Deut 17:2-7: first there must be a thorough inquiry and the evidence of at least two or three witnesses. (The rabbis increased this to ten witnesses.) A judicial warning should be administered to a first time offender. The stoning should be begun by the witnesses and then be continued by all the people. 3 The case of the wood-gatherer is important for our purposes for three reasons. There is first a striking formal similarity to Mark 3:1-6: willful act, Sabbath, synagogue, death penalty proposed, a textbook case. And secondly it is a reminder of the intrinsic gravity of the issue of Sabbath observance and Sabbath violation in ancient Israel and Second Temple Judaism. It was literally a matter of life and death. Why? Because the observance of the Sabbath was understood as acceptance of the sovereignty of God, creator and lord of land and people.4 Thus to violate the Sabbath knowingly was tantamount to denying the effective existence of God. (Source-critically, Num 15:32-3 is classified as late Ρ material.) A third reason for considering Num 15:32-36 is the

2

David DAUBE, "Zur frühtalmudischen Rechtspraxis", ZAW 50 (1932) 148-159.

3

Μ. Sanh 7:8. This procedure is suspected by K. Bornhäuser as lying behind Mark 2:2328; 3:1-6: there are two Sabbath violations, not one; there are more than three witnesses. But Mark's narrative does not conclude with a stoning but with a consultation on how to put him to death (3:6). The death penalty is also required for violation of the Sabbath law in Exod 31:14-15 and 35:2. See K. BORNHÄUSER, "Zur Perikope vom Bruch des Sabbats", Neue Kirchliche Zeitung (Erlangen) 33 (1922) 325-334. Matitiahu TSEVAT, "The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath", ZAW 84 (1972) 447459; Arthur Hertzberg, Judaism (New York: Touchstone, 1991), pp. 170-178; H.W. Richardson, Toward An American Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1967, 112-118; Christoph HINZ, "Jesus und der Sabbath", Kerygma und Dogma 19 (1973) 91-108. Tsevat bases this view primarily on the theology of the sabbatical year in Lev 25:3-4, 23, 55. Richardson and Hinz represent efforts at a contemporary retrieval of the sense of the sabbath in the face of modern secularization.

4

104

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

matter of historicity. There is nothing intrinsically unhistorical about the case except the artificial addition "in the wilderness", v. 32, to enable it to be inserted in the Pentateuch. But its historicity is almost irrelevant to the juridical perspective of the biblical author who drains away historical particularities to make clear the general legal principle and applicability involved. Here too there is probably an analogy which could shed light on the historicity of Mark 3:1-6. Because of the extremely serious religious issues involved in Sabbath (and in circumcision) observance, the severe penalties continued to prevail in biblical and postbiblical Judaism on the whole. But there were usually also countervailing tendencies, however slight. The anonymous prophet referred to as Trito-Isaiah, fearing that the Israelites would find the Sabbath a burden, pleads for it to be regarded as a delight ('oneg) (Isa 58:13-14). This may not have bom much fruit at the time but did so in later Judaism at least. Another aspect of Sabbath observance emerges after the close of the Hebrew canon, the issue of warfare on the Sabbath. Once the severe Ρ legislation penalties for Sabbath violation began to be taken seriously, whether before or after the exile, observant Jews refused to fight on the Sabbath. Their enemies were not slow to benefit from this windfall. "They attacked them [the pietists] on the Sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and livestock, to the number of a thousand persons (anthropon)" (1 Масс 2:38; see vv. 29-38). Mattathias, the founder of the Maccabean revolt, and his friends soon made a pragmatic decision, without halachic support: "Let us fight against anyone who comes to attack us on the Sabbath day; let us not all die as our kindred died in their hiding places" (1 Масс 2:41; cf. 2 Масс 15:1-5). The Pharisees accepted this humanitarian or common sense decision which became known as piquah nephesh (lit. watching over life, i.e., saving life). It became a principle which underwent a great development in later Jewish jurisprudence. 5 But the decision required a biblical basis. Hillel the Elder undertook to provide one. He did so starting from the Deuteronomic rules for warfare (Deut 20). There, in the rules for besieging a town, are further rules about cutting down trees. There we read, "You may destroy only the trees that you know do not produce food; you may cut them down for use in building siegeworks against the town that makes war with you, until it falls" (ad rid' tah) or "until it has been reduced" (Deut 20:20, NRSV and NJPS), from the root yrd. Hillel's application of this verse fragment to legitimate combat on the Sabbath is found in t. Erubin 4:7; t. Shabb 15:17; Mek. Exod 31:13. This Hillelite humanizing of Sabbath law which entered the Pharisaicrabbinic tradition was not universally accepted in Second Temple Judaism.

See m. Yoma 8:6 and the gemara thereon.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

105

The Damascus Document (CD) dated to ca. 100 B.C., in its treatment of the Sabbath (10:14-13:5), allows no walking further than 1,000 cubits (10,21), whereas the rabbis allowed 2,000 cubits. One may not lift an animal that has fallen into a pit (11:13-14). The rabbis were divided on this matter. B. Shabb 128b allows feeding the animal and other help, but does not allow lifting it, whereas m. Betza 3:4 allows lifting it up. 6 After the fall of the Temple in A.D. 70 the rabbis began the codification of their halacha, a process which reached its first conclusion in the "publication" of the Mishna ca. A.D. 220.7 They were well aware of the hypertrophe of their Sabbath legislation. They frankly admit: "the rules about the Sabbath, Festal-offerings, and sacrilege are as mountains hanging by a hair, for [teaching of] Scripture [thereon] is scanty and the rules many" (m. Hagigah 1:8). For they had developed a list of thirty-nine classes of work which it is forbidden to perform on the Sabbath (m. Shabb 7:2), "forty save one". Though some of these classes are forbidden in Scripture itself, e.g., reaping or harvesting, forbidden in Exod 34:21, many go beyond clear scriptural warrant. The basic text reads: The main classes of work are forty save one: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing crops, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, sheaving wool, washing or beating or dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying [a knot], loosening [a knot], sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, hunting a gazelle, slaughtering or flaying or salting it or curing its skin, scraping it or cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters, building, pulling down, putting out a fire, lighting a fire, striking with a hammer and taking out aught from one domain into another. These are the main classes of work: forty save one.

It is important to remember that these are only the main classes of forbidden work. Each class was then extended to apply to many other activities. For example, Jesus' healings on the Sabbath were considered a violation of Pharisaic halacha because they were a way of practicing medicine and that was forbidden on the basis of the eighth class, grinding. In antiquity one often made medicines by grinding herbs with a mortar and pestle. This is still a symbol of pharmacies. So it was thought that Jesus was practicing medicine on the Sabbath even though he was not grinding. Rabbinic exegesis sees in the juxtaposition of the prohibition of kindling fire on the Sabbath (Exod 35:3) with the description of the building of the taber6

7

See L.H. SCHIFFMAN, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 84-133; and also Luke 14:5. See S. LiEBERMAN, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: JTSA, 1962; orig. 1950), chap, on the publication of the Mishnah, 83-99.

106

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

nacle, its appurtenances, and the making of the priestly vestments (Exod 35:4-39:32) an intimation that none of this work may take place on the Sabbath (b. Shabb 49b). This was the argued biblical basis for the thirty-nine forbidden activities, according to Rabbi Hanina bar Hama. But this argument is a post-factum artificial rationale and contradicts Num 28:9-10 (see also Isa 1:13 and Ezek 46:4), which requires the offering of sacrifices on the Sabbath. Matt 12:5-8 makes use of this exception to argue for others. The Sabbath rest seems to belong to the very dawn of historical Israel, but the priestly, Pharisaic and rabbinic regulation of it are no doubt largely postexilic.8 For our purposes the question is: how does Jesus fit into this ongoing Sabbath discussion. Is he a gentle halachic reformer in the spirit of Hillel but going beyond him? Does he break with the Pharisaic halacha altogether but respect the biblical legislation? Does he break with the detailed priestly legislation found in the Pentateuch but respect the Decalogue? Does he reject even the basic law contained in the Decalogue and advocate a Sabbath-free new religion in which eventually Sunday would replace Sabbath altogether? Each of these four options has its partisans. It will be the task of our second section to address these questions. But first another word on what went on in synagogues in Jesus' day. The origins of the synagogue have been debated for centuries, with founders proposed who range from Moses to Ezekiel to Ezra.9 But more recent views, based on archeology, suggest a very late date indeed, barely a generation or two before Jesus comes on to the scene of history.10 It is all the more striking that the gospels and Acts present the synagogue as something self-evident, requiring no explanation, but that is the case. The same drastic revisionism has touched the question of the nature of the synagogue service. It was long thought that the great fixed prayer of the synagogue service, the Amidah (standing prayer) or Shemone Esre (Eighteen Benedictions), was of ancient origin. But recent Israeli studies argue that there is no evidence for pre-70 fixed prayers, in either Temple or synagogue. The priests offered the sacrifices in silence; they had enough to do slaughtering the animals. There may 8

G . F . HASEL, ABD

9

I. SONNE, S.V. " S y n a g o g u e " , IDB,

10

J. GUTMANN, ed., Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (BJS 22; Chico,CA: Schol-

5. 8 4 9 - 8 5 6 . 4.476-491.

ars, 1 9 8 1 ) ; E . M . MEYERS a n d R a c h e l H a c h l i l i , " S y n a g o g u e " , ABD

6. 2 5 1 - 2 6 3 ; H . C . KEE,

"The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: its Import for Early Christianity", NTS 36 (1990) 1-24, esp. p. 13; R.E. OSTER, "Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts' Use of Synagoge: A Rejoinder to H.C. Kee, "NTS 39 (1993) 178-208; H.C. KEE, "The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster", NTS 40 (1994) 281-283; L.I. LEVINE, "The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered", JBL 115 (1996) 425-448; H.C. Kee and L.H. Cohick, eds., The Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999).

JESUS A N D THE

SABBATH

107

have been choirs of Levites singing psalms as the offerings were made, and the laity in their court may have offered free personal prayers. But there were no fixed prayers said by all.11 If so, what went on in the synagogues? What is certain is the reading of Scripture, Torah and Prophets, doubtless often followed by an exposition or discussion. This activity would suffice to account for the descriptions in the New Testament, which do not mention the recitation of institutionalized prayers.12

II The Gospels and the Historical Jesus Before descending to the detail of textual analysis, it will be useful to situate the problem of the Sabbath and Jesus between two extremes. On the one hand, as we have already seen, there is the priestly view that the Sabbath is of supreme importance and its violators deserve death by stoning. On the level of comprehensive monographs this view is represented by Samuele Bacchiocchi. 13 On this view, the loss of the Sabbath observance and its spirituality in early Christianity is nothing less than a tragedy and its replacement by Sunday a mistake. Bacchiocchi tries to date the final shift to Sunday as late as possible, and to attribute it to the enormous authority of the See of Rome. But three early Pauline texts (to mention no others) are a thorn in his side: Col 2:16-17; Gal 4:8-11; Rom 14:5-6. On the other hand, we have the fine monograph by the patrologist, Willy Rordorf. 14 For him, Jesus, through his simultaneous Yes and No to the Jewish law and to the Sabbath, inaugurated the process which led to a substantially new religion, free from the ceremonial precepts of Judaism. Christianity's new holy day, Sunday, commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the source for believers of a new life of freedom from sin, death and the Law. This Sunday, for Rordorf, has essen-

11

See the discussion summarized in B.T. VIVIANO, "Hillel and Jesus on Prayer", in Hillel and Jesus, ed. J.H. Charlesworth and L.L. Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 427-457, esp. p. 44 n. 26; Shemaryahu TALMON, "The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel", in his The World of Qumran From Within (Jerusalem-Leiden: Brill, 1989), 200243; E. FLEISCHER, "On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer", Tarbiz 59 (1990) 397-441; I. KNOHL, "Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult", JBL 115 (1996), 17-30.

12

G.

13

S . BACCHIOCCHI,

14

Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1977). See my review in Mishkan 22 (1995) 90-93. STEMBERGER,

W. RORDORF, Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968; orig. 1962).

108

JESUS A N D THE SABBATH

tially little or nothing to do with the Jewish Sabbath. It is a new feast with a new theology, and it does not have anything intrinsically to do with abstention from servile works. Thus Christians are free to commemorate or sanctify this day as they choose. (This book was written in the Swiss context of debates over the loosening of Reformed Sunday observance on the level of the cantonal governments.) Between these two poles there is a middle position which accepts Sunday as the Christian weekly holy day, but tries to fill it with some of the spiritual and legal content of the Jewish Sabbath.15 The point of this wide-angled introduction to the gospel texts is that it helps us to stake out the extremes of the Sabbatarian spectrum or trajectory, according to the Bultmannian principle of discontinuity with both pre-Christian Judaism and full-blown ecclesiastical Christianity. Once again, let us stress that the shift from Jewish Sabbath to Christian Sunday is a radical religious revolution which cries out for historical and theological clarification. The context of Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6 is a series of five controversy stories that runs from 2:1 to 3:6.16 After the introduction of the gospel (1:1-13 or 1:1-15), the evangelist presents a busy day in the public ministry of Jesus (1:16-45). It is important to note that during this "busy day" (if it all took place on a single day), Jesus twice heals on the Sabbath before sundown (1:32), a demoniac (1:21-28) and Simon's mother-in-law (1:29-31), without any complaint about Sabbath violations. So the Sabbath stories in 2:1-3:6 are part of a harsh polemical section.17 Indeed, they form its climax and crescendo, so that 3:6, the plot to kill Jesus, is commonly said to form the conclusion to the entire series, and not just to 3:1-5. This analysis can be criticized, since the break from what precedes and follows is not sharp and absolute, but it is commonly accepted and will be assumed here. In the matter of literary criticism, these two pericopes have provided a field day for the critics who have gleefully poured their analytical acid to cause the coherence and unity of the texts to disintegrate before our eyes. The tearing apart of these two passages into early and late layers along with hypothetically reconstructed earlier forms is of little interest for our specific question unless it is claimed that these earlier forms go back to the historical Jesus. Bultmann may be said to begin the process. Of 2:23-28, he makes quick 15

This position has been studied by K.M. PARKER, The English Sabbath (Cambridge: University Press, 1988). Parker traces the origins of Puritan Sabbatarianism into the Middle Ages, for example, to THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa theologiae 1-2, q. 100; 2-2, q. 122, art. 4.

16

J.G.D. DUNN, "Mark 2.1-3.6: a Bridge between Jesus and Paul on the Question of the L a w " , NTS

3 0 ( 1 9 8 4 ) 3 9 5 - 4 1 5 ; H . - W . KUHN, Ältere

Sammlungen

im

Markusevangelium

(SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 72-81. 17

E. LOHMEYER, Das Evangelium des Markus (Meyer K. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937; repr. 1967), 68.

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

109

work: "The composition is the work of the Church: Jesus is questioned about the disciples' behaviour; why not about his own? I.e. the Church ascribes the justification of her Sabbath customs to Jesus... It is overwhelmingly probable that v. 27 really belongs to the original text of Mark." 18 The argument for community creation is a weak one. Other explanations of the phenomenon that the Pharisees question Jesus about his disciples' behavior rather than about his own are readily available. 19 More important is the silence on how the early church came to its Sabbath practice and what role the historical Jesus played in its development. When he comes to 3:1-6, Bultmann first wants to peel off v. 6, the plot to kill Jesus, as irrelevant to "the principle involved in healing on the Sabbath" (but consider it in the light of Num 15:32-36 and Exod 31:12-17!). Then "its formulation took place in the early Palestinian Church". This is doubtless so on the level of oral formulation but does not tell us anything about its substantial historicity or not. Nevertheless, Bultmann judges vv. 1-5 to be "an organically complete apophthegm", high praise for him on a microform he esteems as often early, and he is further fascinated by the logion in v. 4 as possibly "an originally isolated element in the tradition". 20 This tiny crack in the front of negativity has been exploited by Eduard Lohse and the many who follow him to argue for its dominical origin. 21 To be selective and brief, it might be useful to reproduce Hans Hiibner's analysis of the growth of the tradition in his schematic outline of 2:23-28. A. pre-Marcan: 2:23-24,27-28, bar nasha in v. 28 means generic man. B. pre-Marcan 2:23-24,28, hyios tou anthropou is used as a title. C. pre-Marcan 2:23-24,25-26,28 (titular use). Q? D. pre-Marcan 2:23-28. [ E.] Mark 2:23-28 (plus kai in v. 28). F. Matthew and Luke. 22 18 19

20

R. BULTMANN, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper, 1963), 13-14. Two explanations have been proposed: (1) Jesus was observant of Torah and halacha, but his disciples were rough, uneducated amme' ha-aretz• (2) The Pharisees do not directly question Jesus' own behavior out of politeness; they question it indirectly, through asking about his disciples' behavior, since disciples should imitate their master in these matters. See J. ROLOFF, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 55. BULTMANN, History,

11.

21

Ε. LOHSE, "Jesu Worte über den Sabbat", in Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche. Festschrift für J. Jeremias, ed. W. Eltester (BZNW 26; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960), 80-89; reprinted in Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 63-

22

H. HÜBNER, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (Witten: Luther-Verlag, 1973), 120-121. The whole analysis runs 113-136. One finds similar layerings in P.BENOIT-M.E.

71.

BOISMARD, Commentaire

sur la Synopse

(Paris: Cerf, 1973), 115-119, and in F. GILS, "Le

110

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

Source-critically, we may note in passing that 2:23-28 pose a problem for the two-source hypothesis, since there are no less than ten minor agreements of Matthew and Luke in relation to Mark. 23 Not all of these agreements are of equal importance (for Matthew and Luke to change Mark's legein to eipein is normal). The omission of Abiathar could easily be a correction each made independently. By far the most significant and puzzling agreement is their omission of v. 27. Explanations can be given, but the fact remains enigmatic. Another source critical issue is the relation of Mark 3:4 to Luke 14:5 and Matt 12:11-12. Some had thought that Luke 14:5 and Matt 12:11-12 represented a Q saying, and F.C. Burkitt went on to propose this putative Q saying as an overlap with Mark 3:4.24 If so, this overlap would imply a double attestation and thus a high probability of authenticity.25 But today the consensus is against there being a Q saying on the Sabbath. Nevertheless, as we shall see, there does seem to be early independent attestation in these scattered verses in Matthew and Luke of Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath, and that result will help us in our quest. Another extremely delicate and controversial issue is the sense of the use of the Son of man idiom in Mark 2:28 and parallels. Again, every possible combination has been tried on this problem. Some, for example, have held that both verses [vv. 27 and 28] must have originally — sometime before Mark wrote them — referred to either"man" or "Son of man", not both, and that a mistake was made when someone prior to Mark translated the verses from Aramaic to Greek. C.C. Torrey has translated the verses one way: The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore man is master of the Sabbath. And T.W. Manson has suggested that originally the verses would have read the other way:

23

24

25

sabbat a ete fait pour l'homme et non l'homme pour le sabbat" (Mc, II, 27). Reflexions a propos de Mc, 11,27-28", RB 69 (1962) 506-523. They are listed in H Ü B N E R , Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition, 117-118. Hermann AICHINGER, "Quellen-kritische Untersuchungen der Perikope vom Ährenraufen am Sabbat: Mk 2,23-28 par Mt 12,1-8 par Lk 6,1-5", SUNT 1 (1976) 110-153, gives a very thorough analysis of the source-critical problem. He counts thirteen agreements of Matt and Luke over against Mark, too many to be explainable by accident or textual variants. He proposes a Deutero-Mark which had already omitted Mark 2:27, but he does not explain why it had omitted the verse. I do not find any explanation of this omission historically satisfying and prefer to leave it an unresolved enigma. See J.S. KLOPPENBORG, Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance (Sonoma, CA: Polegridge, 1988), 160-161; F.C. BURKITT, The Gospel History and Its Transmission (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1906; 2nd ed. 1907), 148-168. B.T. VIVIANO, "The Historical Jesus in the Doubly Attested Sayings: An Experiment", RB 103 (1996) 367-410.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

111

The Sabbath was made for the Son of man, and not the Son of man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is lord also of the Sabbath. But here is another way of dealing with the two verses and with the passage as a whole. That is to see that the passage has a history of a development reaching far back behind Mark's Gospel into a primitive Christian community. 26 We have already seen such a layered reconstruction in Hübner, with a shift in meaning from a generic use of the son of man to a titular, in context, Christological, use of the formula. 27 Mark 2:23-28 As it stands in Mark, this is a classic controversy story (an apophthegm in Bultmann's classification, a paradigm in Dibelius') with a two-verse punchline. V. 23. It begins at once with the main issue, the Sabbath. Jesus as subject is presupposed, not named, in a subordinate clause. The disciples are the subject of the main verb. The entire discussion takes place outdoors, where Jesus often taught. He was not a yeshivah boker who "smelt of the lamp". The scene is set in a field of standing grain, in the spring, at harvest time or just before it. That the disciples were "making a path" could be seen as in itself a violation of the Sabbath,28 but the accent does not fall there. Rather, it falls on the disciples plucking the heads of grain. This activity was explicitly permitted by Deut 23:26, so it did not count as stealing. But it was not permitted to do this on the Sabbath, since it was a form of harvesting and thus explicitly forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod 34:21). There is no mention of acute hunger, which might have provided an extenuating circumstance, as it does in Matthew. To anticipate, we see already here the harder, more polemical tone of the Marcan version as compared with the Matthean. It is a matter of a radical,

26

A.J. HULTGREN, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), 111-115, esp. 113; also his article, "The Formation of the Sabbath Pericope in Mark 2,23-28", JBL 91 (1972) 38-43; P.M. CASEY, "Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2,23-28)", NTS 34 (1988) 1-23, tries a radically non-Christological reading of the whole, similar to Torrey's. Cf. F.W. BEARE, "The Sabbath was made for man?", JBL 79 (1960) 130-136; L.S. HAY, "The Son of Man in Mark 2:10 and 2:28", JBL 89 (1970) 69-75. Both Beare and Hay conclude that 2:28 is not authentic but rather a creation of the early Palestinian community.

27

For a cautious summary of the Son of man problem, see R.E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994), 15, 46-47, 52-59, 89-100, 111112.

28

P. Benoit, "Les epis arraches (Mt 12,1-8 et par.)", SBFLA 13 (1962-1963) 76-92, reprinted in his Exegese et theologie 3 (Cogitatio Fidei 30; Paris: Cerf, 1968), 228-242.

112

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

witting, intentional violation of [the Ρ strand] of Torah, not merely of a gentle reform of Pharisaic-rabbinic halacha. To be sure, both Mark and Matthew can be read as radical breaks or as halachic reforms. (P.M. Casey's essay already mentioned is an example of reading Mark in the latter manner, but only when Mark is read through a hypothetically reconstructed Aramaic version.) Nevertheless, as they stand in Greek, Mark's version is harsher than Matthew's. And this difference poses a problem for historical judgment. Which accent comes closest to that of the historical Jesus? V. 24. The Pharisees along with their scribes (2:16) are often the opponents of Jesus in Mark. One could ask what these artisan-scholars are doing in a wheatfield, early on a Saturday morning, that is, before the Sabbath service which begins in the next pericope. The improbability of this occurrence has been used to call into question the whole episode. Ernst Haenchen has proposed that they were not real Pharisees but Galilean peasants sympathetic to the Pharisees. 29 But the hypothesis is unnecessary, once one accepts that the pericope was not originally set in Galilee at all, but rather in the Judean hills near (within the erub of?) Jerusalem. It only acquired a Galilean setting by its being inserted in the series of polemics which begins in Capernaum (2:1) and ends in 3:6.30 That the Pharisees interrogate Jesus about his disciples' conduct rather than his own could be understood in several ways, as we have seen: out of respect for the master, sincere or feigned; because that Pharisees distinguished between a carefully observant master and his vulgar disciples (am ha-aretz)', because disciples follow the example of their master in principle and masters are accountable for the conduct of their disciples. These options are not mutually exclusive. The Pharisees' question constitutes a "canonical" warning, necessary in cases which involve capital punishment. VV. 25-26. Jesus answers with a biblical (1 Sam 21:2-10) example of Torah (Lev 24:5-8) violation in case of extreme need: David and his men fleeing from an angry Saul, and being fed with the shewbread reserved for priests. The text does not explicitly state that this occurred on the Sabbath, but rabbis inferred this from the latter part of verse 6: "which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away", the day being interpreted by some as a Sabbath.31 This event took place at the temple at Nob, and the priest was Ahimelech, not Abiathar.32 The omission of Abia29 30

31 32

E. HAENCHEN, Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1966; second ed. 1968), 119. E.A. RUSSELL, "Mark 2;23-3,6 - A Judean Setting?" SE 6 (TU 112; Berlin: Akademischer Verlag, 1973) 466-472. Str.-В 1. 618-619, based on b. Menah. 95b. For J.W. WENHAM, "Mark 2:26", JTS 1 (1950) 156, the phrase does not mean "when Abiathar was high priest", but rather, "at the passage of Scripture concerning Abiathar";

JESUS A N D THE SABBATH

113

thar's name as a silent correction by Matthew and Luke is an argument for Marcan priority. That Jesus evokes the example of David could be turned into an implicitly Christological suggestion that Jesus is the Son of David, but this is not a necessary inference. One could understand Jesus' argument pragmatically: "Necessity knows no law." As for the historicity of 2:23-26 as a whole, Rudolf Pesch is quite sure that the incident is "based on a concrete tradition from the life of Jesus". He lists five elements in the story which correlate or cohere with other "assured data" of the Jesus tradition: 1. The multiple attestation of Sabbath conflicts; 2. The picture of Jesus and his disciples as itinerant preachers; 3. Jesus as responsible for his disciples; 4. The use of a scriptural argument, which has specific echoes in 1 Cor 9:13 and the Didache 13:2; 5. Jesus' sense of his mission and his own high authority (Mark 2:17-19; 12:35-37 and the sequel here, 2:2728).33 Gnilka, more cautious, still does not exclude historicity.34 V. 27. The correct interpretation of this verse is bedeviled by the sheer exuberance and variety of interpretations. Is it to be taken as an isolated logion, or as a direct continuation of vv. 23-26, and/or as intimately and originally related to v. 28 or not? What is its relation to the rabbinic parallel in Mekhilta on Exodus 31:13-14, "Unto you (pi.) the Sabbath has been delivered (mesurah), and you are not delivered to the Sabbath." Leaving the detailed survey of opinions to Neirynck's major article35, and heeding his cautious admonition to take seriously the many uncertainties that remain (p. 254), we will limit ourselves to a few remarks. Assuming the attribution of the saying to Rabbi Simon ben Menasya and his dating to roughly A.D. 180, we cannot automatically assume that Jesus was citing a rabbinic commonplace. It cannot be excluded a priori that Simon is citing Jesus. Or both could be citing an anonymous earlier author. Here we are only guessing. As for the sense of the rabbinic saying, we hold the common opinion that the point of the saying consists in the relaxation of the Sabbath law within the limits of saving human life (Neirynck, p. 252). This could also be the sense in Jesus' own use of the saying, but if so the application is broader, viz., the saying applies also to cases of human need that do not strictly involve the danger of loss of life. If the saying is authentic, hard to

33 34

35

see Luke 20:37, "epi tou batou" = at the passage about the burning bush. A.D. ROGERS, "Mark 2:26", JTS 2 (1951) 44, rejects Wenham's idea, and following Lagrange in loco, understands it as a reference to the time of Abiathar. R. PESCH, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT II.L; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 183. J. GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK II.l; Zurich: Benziger, 4th ed. 1994; original ed. 1978), 122. F. NEIRYNCK, "Jesus and the Sabbath: Some Observations on Mark 11,27", in: Jesus aux Origines de la Christologie, ed. J. Dupont (Leuven: University Press, 1975), 227-270.

114

JESUS A N D THE SABBATH

prove for the saying taken in isolation, the sense is not likely to be an assertion of Kantian ethical autonomy, but rather a reference to a saner Sabbath practice which takes as it basis God's love for his human creatures, and their duty to love one another. Behind this one suspects Jesus' rejection not of the Sabbath but his rejection of the death penalty for its witting violations (cf. John 8:1-11). The verse is formulated as a chiasm, with antithetic parallelism. У. 28 in its present Marcan form, with hoste and kai, is intimately bound up with the preceding verse and forms its natural conclusion when the son of man phrase is understood non-Christologically to mean: human beings, Israelites, are masters of the Sabbath, i.e., masters of how to interpret and practice it. The ОТ background would lie in humans as the crown of creation and the image of God (Gen 1:26,28), as well as in the parallelism between man and son of man that one finds in Ps 8:5-9, and in the dominion over creation (Gen 1:28-31; Jub. 2:14) given to humans. This reference to creation theology as part of Jesus' own thought is important, since rabbinic Sabbath theology emphasized Sabbath observance as acknowledgement of the divine lordship over creation.36 The conflict is taking place on common ground, but the accents and the results are quite different, at the end of the day.37 The Christological rereading of the verse by Mark would affect not only Son of man but also kyrios. Jesus as Daniel's Son of man would stand as the divine kyrios over the Sabbath. Mark 3:1-6. The story of the man with a withered hand is formcritically an example of a mixture of two genres: a miracle story (in Gerd Theissen's terms, a rule miracle) and a controversy tale. One could add that it contains a biographical apophthegm. In its Marcan context it is tightly linked to the preceding pericope, because neither Jesus nor the spies, nor the synagogue nor the sick man are identified (the disciples are not mentioned at all). Only the day is determined as a Sabbath, and the Pharisees and Herodians are named at the very end. A polemical spirit prevails throughout, which Mark augments in v. 5a. The mention of the Herodians arouses the suspicion that this pericope too might originally have had a Judean setting. The story as a whole represents a climactic escalation of 2:23-28, and indeed of the whole of chap. 2. V. 1. The palin stems from Marcan redaction. The man with the withered hand reminds the reader of 1 Kgs 13:4-6: 'Jeroboam stretched out his hand from the altar, saying, "Seize him!" But the hand that he stretched out against 36

37

LOHMEYER suspects behind our verses a debate over the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2. According to Genesis 1, man is created before the sabbath, according to Genesis 2, he is created after the sabbath. GNILKA does not accept this non-Christological reading and therefore rejects the authenticity of the verse, 124.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

115

him withered so that he could not draw it back to himself... The king said to the man of god, "Entreat now the favor of the Lord your God, and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of god entreated the Lord; and the king's hand was restored to him, and it became as it was before.' This is not a Sabbath story, and the point is rather a divine punishment. But there is a resemblance to the Gospel in this, that both involve a conflict between a man of God and a socially powerful and dangerous agent. There is a further parallel in T. Simeon 2:11-14; Vespasian is said to cure a withered hand in Tacitus, Histories 4:81; Suetonius, Vespasian 7; Dio Cassius 66,8; the same is said of Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus, Vita Ap. 3:39. V. 2. The opponents presuppose Jesus' reputation as a wonderworking healer. Their intention is a judicial accusation. Conviction on the charge would lead to the death penalty (Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36). The matter is quite serious. V. 3. Jesus' command to the man suffering from a chronic illness to stand in the middle represents a great defiance of Pharisaic authority. He could have waited a day, to be sure, but he deliberately chose not to wait, to make a point. V. 4. This double question is intended to show that the entire direction of Sabbath observance must be changed. In Jesus' view, something has gone terribly wrong in the living of God's will when such a banal, self-evident set of questions should seem daring. To Jesus it is clear one must always do good and save lives, and these basic obligations take precedence over others. The rabbis allowed minimal help to the sick and to women giving birth, but generally the strict minimum. Jesus goes far beyond this, by implication, in his interpreting saving life as applicable also to the chronically infirm (v. 5b). A legend preserved in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, cited by Jerome, Comm. in Matth. 12, 13, also in Aland, Synopsis §112, describes the man as a stone mason ("caementarius") who asks Jesus to heal him so that he will be able to leave a life of shameful begging (and return to a productive life), whereby his dignity and social standing will be restored. This legend fits more with Matthew's concern to provide legal justifications for Jesus' conduct, but it cannot be said to be foreign to Jesus' own humanitarian concerns as manifested also in Mark. In the Marcan perspective, the phrase "to save life or to kill it" looks forward to the Passion, as does v. 6, but this would not have been the case originally. The saying is commonly judged to be authentic. The silence of the opponents, who are normally articulate, may be intended by the evangelist to connote at once their dismay at Jesus' bold defiance of tradition and their intention to put an end to it (v. 6).

116

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

V. 5. The anger and sorrow of Jesus are part of the Marcan redactional emphasis, not necessarily unhistorical, since high emotion is regularly drained away by Matthew and in this case by Luke as well. The evocation of hardened hearts is related to the ОТ theology of election, predestination and divine control of history.38 The miraculous healing, by a word of command and a gesture signifying obedience and trust (neither in themselves traditional Sabbath violations) instantiates Jesus' widely attested activity as exorcist and healer. This activity was an embarrassment to later, more refined Christians, since it seemed to them to reduce Jesus to the level of a magician and a purveyor of popular religiosity. Therefore, it is undoubtedly authentic in general, though each individual instance may be disputed. 39 V. 6, the plot to kill Jesus, is remarkable for two Latinisms: Herodiani and consilium habere or capere or facere (Vulg). The invention of Mark? 40 Are they Essenes? 41 Surely they are Rome-friendly partisans of the Herods. But which Herod is meant? In Mark 12:13 they are in Jerusalem. If they are in Galilee here, the Herod would be Antipas who had the right to impose a capital sentence and did so in the case of John the Baptist. If in Judea, it would be Herod the Great, recently deceased, or Agrippa I, who reigned (A.D. 41-44) after Jesus' time on earth and united both Judea and Galilee for a brief period.42 Perhaps what Mark wants to say is that religious and political leaders combined forces against Jesus. In the Marcan redactional intention, the shadow of the cross falls here. This entire pericope bears the marks of authenticity, apart from the traces of Marcan redactional interests and allowing for extreme concision and stylization, characteristic of orally transmitted material. This is the maximalist view (Pesch). A minimalist view would hold to the authenticity particularly of the saying in verse 4 (Lohse). Matthew 12:1-8,9-14. The tendency of the Matthean editing in these two pericopes is to tighten the legal case in the debates, so that Jesus no longer appears in opposition to Torah (as in Mark) or against Sabbath observance, but against the Pharisaic overdevelopment of Sabbath legislation to the point 38

39 40

41

42

Cf. Jer 3:17; 7:24; 9:13; 11:18; 13:10; 16:12; 18:12; 23:17; Ps 81:13; Deut 29:18. Also IQS 1:6; 2:14; 3:3; 5:4; 7:19,24; 9:10; J. GNILKA, Die Verstockung Israels (SANT 3, Munich: Kösel, 1961. This is the argument of M. SMITH, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper, 1978). This is the view of W.J. BENNET, Jr., "The Herodians of Mark's Gospel", NovT 17 (1975) 9-14. C. DANIEL, "Les 'Herodiens1 du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Esseniens?" RevQ 6 (1967) 31-53; "Nouveaux arguments en faveur de l'identification des Herodiens et des Esseniens", RevQ 27 (1970) 397-402. This is GNILKA'S preference, Markus, 128-129.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

117

where it becomes "mountains hanging by a hair" (m. Hag. 1:8). We could speak of a rejudaization of the gospel to protect the authority of Torah and to defend Jesus. Jesus becomes in this Matthean redaction a legal reformer of Pharisaic (and Essene?) halachah, but does not break with Torah or so it could seem to those who do not know well the Ρ strand within the Pentateuch. Matthew accomplishes this in v. 1 by stating that the disciples were hungry and that they ate the grain. These additions provide the basis for a legal excuse and tie the disciples' behavior more closely to the case of David in vv. 34. In v. 4 Matthew adds that only the priests may eat of the shewbread. This stresses the exceptional nature of David and Abimelech's actions. In vv. 5-7 Matthew adds two further arguments to what he found in Mark. The first draws on Num 28:9-10 which requires certain sacrifices to be offered on the Sabbath day. (This argument is linked to the preceding case by the common basis in Lev 24:5-9; see also Ezek 46:4.) The second new argument comes from Hos 6:6, already used by Matthew in 9:13. 43 (This prophetic relativization of the priestly laws is echoed in 1 Sam 15:22; Prov 15:8; Ps 40:7; 51:19.) 44 Together the three arguments represent a "threefold cord" (Qoh 4-8), a combination of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nebiim, Khetubim (see Jer 18:18, and the incipit of the Prologue to Sirach), a type of strong argument much in favor with the rabbis who edited the Mishnah (m. Qidd. 1:10, m. 'Abot 3:7; 6:10). In v. 6 Matthew presses his case with the remark: "I say to you, something greater than the temple is here." This verse is modeled on Jesus' evaluation of John the Baptist in 11:9 as more than a prophet, but especially on the Q saying in 12:41-42 par Luke 11:31-32: "there is something greater than Jonah/Solomon here". (Jonah and Solomon in reverse order in Luke.) The neuters in these verses (meizon, pleion) leave "the greater thing" unclear but it can only be the kingdom of God or the Messiah/Son of man or the two together, since king and kingdom belong together. Thus Matthew in his own way is no less Christological than Mark. Matt 12:9-14 follow Mark closely except for vv. 11-12: "Which one of you who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath will not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable a person is than a sheep. So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." Matthew omits the question posed by Jesus in Mark 3:4, and substitutes one similar to that in Luke 14:5: 'Who among you,

43

44

Since, at the time the final form of Matthew was composed, the Temple was no more, substitutes had to be found for it. Here deeds of loving-kindness replace it, as in 'Abot R. Nat. 4, where Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai also cites Hos 6:6. Matthew might have added that the reaping of the omer (Lev 23:10-14) overrides the Sabbath in rabbinic but not Sadducean law (m. Menah. 10:1,3,9). See E. L E V I N E , "The Sabbath Controversy according to Matthew", NTS 22 (1975-76) 480-83.

118

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

if your son or ox fills into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" If we compare the Matthean and Lucan questions, we will note that the common elements are the problem posed when a piece of living property falls (pipto) on the Sabbath? The differences are: sheep versus son or ox; pit versus cistern or well; the choice of verb, krateo kai egeiro, take hold of and lift out, that is, simple, popular language versus Luke's fancy anaspao, draw out. So far the common elements prevail over the rather trivial differences. But then Matthew adds a qal va-homer argument comparing great (a human being) with small (a sheep). And he drives home the point in his fine didactic manner by drawing the explicit, practical legal conclusion: "So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." In comparison with Mark 3:4 we can see that Matthew has turned Jesus' question into a formal teaching, based it seems on common practice and common sense. This case law argument was later recognized by the Talmud, b. Shabb 128b; b. B. Mes 32b. Jesus thus stands within the law. Yet he works a legal reform. In v. 14 Matthew mentions only the Pharisees as Jesus' enemies. He does not mention the Herodians. Perhaps this is because in his day their heirs, the rabbis, were the only opposition remaining, after the debacle of A.D. 66-74. For our purposes, the saying in v. 11 is crucial. The differences from Luke are only those one could expect in oral transmission. The substance is the same. Even if the saying was not found in Q (the prevailing view, as already mentioned), it is clearly echoing the same tradition in its different formulations, and can be regarded as multiply attested, the most objective of the criteria of authenticity. Thus it is commonly regarded as authentic (Lohse and his many followers). V. 12 could well be attributed however to Matthew's didactic passion. Luke 6:1-5,6-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6. We will only take a more rapid glance at the four Sabbath pericopes in Luke, since with the logion in 14:5, already treated, the essential for historicity has been said. Luke 6:1-5. In v. 1, Luke adds "rubbing the ears of wheat in their hands." This increases the gravity of the Sabbath violation by adding milling to reaping, both forbidden on the day of rest. In v. 4, Luke adds that David "took" the holy bread and distributed it to those with him. This additional verb strengthens the eucharistic associations, especially when one remembers that in 1 Sam 27:3, David asks for "five loaves".45 Between vv. 4 and 5 Codex Bezae adds an agraphon: "The same day he watched a man working on the Sabbath and said to him: Man, if you know

45

J. GRASSI,

point.

"The Five Loaves of the High Priest",

NovT 1 ( 1 9 6 4 )

119-122,

develops this

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

119

what you are doing, you are blessed (makarios)\ but if you do not know [what you are doing], you are cursed and a transgressor of the law." Whatever its authenticity or lack thereof, this saying is formulated in antithetical parallelism characteristic both of Jesus' own style and of the covenant pattern. It points out the grave matters (capital punishment, disrespect for God or faith in Jesus' power over Torah) involved in the man's conduct. 46 Luke 6:6-11 rewrites Mark 3:1-6, improving the Greek as well as the literary clarity: Jesus taught in the synagogue, it was the right hand that had withered, the opponents are named early as "the scribes and the Pharisees". Luke also has Jesus read their thoughts. He suppresses the opponents' hostile silence, as well as Jesus' wrath and sorrow. In v. 11 the opponents are said to be filled with anoia, literally senselessness, madness, but commonly taken to mean that they were out of their minds/beside themselves with anger, rage, fury. Nevertheless, Luke removes the Latinism about taking counsel and suppresses their explicit intention to kill Jesus. This is softened to "discuss what to do about Jesus". (In Luke the Pharisees do not take part in the Passion. They are not mentioned after 19:39). Luke 13:10-17 bears traces of a secondary Lucan composition, created or shaped to provide a gender balance for the man with the withered hand in 6:6-11. One senses the Lucan themes of joy and glory in the conclusion (v. 17). The synagogue leader well states the counterargument: come on any other day than this to be healed (v. 14). In Jesus' reply to this (vv. 15-16), formulated as an argument from analogy and a fortiori, we note first a variant form of the saying in 14:5 par Matt 12:11, with this difference, that the situation in 14:5 is exceptional (the beast falling into a cistern), but the watering of animals must occur every Sabbath. Second, we sense in v. 16 a sense of the Sabbath as an occasion for rejoicing in creation completed and, where necessary, restored. It is a different theology of the Sabbath, closer to Isa 58:13-14 than to the Mishnah. Luke 14:1-6 inaugurates Luke's major instruction on conduct at meals, 14:124, a subject of great importance to him. The Sabbath healing of the man suffering from dropsy (edema, swelling) occurs this time not in a synagogue but at a festive Sabbath meal. It thus takes place in what for Luke as a good Hellenist would be a symposium context. The careful observation by the Pharisaic opponents and their silence in response to Jesus' question remind us of Mark 3:1-6. But the crucial logion in v. 5 most probably stems from an 46

On this agraphon, see more recently W. KAISER, "Exegetische Erwägungen zur Seligprei s u n g d e s S a b b a t a r b e i t e r s L k 6 , 5 " , Z T K 6 5 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 ; J. DELOBEL, " L u k e 6 , 5 in C o -

dex Bezae: The man who worked on the Sabbath", J. Dupont Festschrift (LD 123, Paris: Cerf, 1985), pp. 453-477; E. BAMMEL, "The Cambridge Pericope. The Addition to Luke 6 . 4 in C o d e x B e z a e " , NTS 3 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) 4 0 4 - 4 2 6 .

120

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

early, freely circulating, oral tradition. There is also a textual problem in ν 5. "The difficult reading 'a son' for 'an ass' is textually preferable. It has been accounted for on the supposition of confusion between 'sheep' and 'son' (ois, huios), 'pig' and 'son' (hus, huios), or, in an Aramaic tradition, between 'animal' and 'son' (be'ir, bar). The odd collocation may, however, be original, and depend on Dt. 5:14."47 John 5:1-47; 7:14-24; 9:1-41 The Johannine material on Jesus and the Sabbath is quite extensive. But our treatment will be brief because we presuppose that John knew at least Mark among the Synoptics, apart from independent traditions particularly from Judea and Jerusalem. One has the impression that John takes two miracles from Mark, sets them in Judea and on a Sabbath, and, above all, uses them as a starting point for lengthy, painfully polemical, debates with his opponents. These debates, which have a fatal consequence, stretch from 5:1 to 12:50. They thus dominate a major portion of the Gospel. It is therefore remarkable that John chooses to begin them with Sabbath healing, the cure of a sick man (his illness is not named) at the pool of Bethesda by the Temple (5:1-47). By this strategy, John seems to have grasped the dangerous radicalism of Jesus' Sabbath teaching and healing as found in Mark. It was for him a key case of the newness in Jesus' mission. Lohmeyer had sensed in Mark already this polemical view that any Sabbath healing is a violation of the Sabbath. This hardening of tone goes beyond the problems posed by Pharisaic halacha and becomes a fixed dogmatic-legal concept in Mark.48 John takes the concept from Mark and shows the most profound theological understanding of it. There is in this Sabbath matter a glimpse of the turning of the eons visible at close quarters. There is a fork in the road. John does not alter the historical picture of Jesus already worked out by Mark, but he does make vivid and he develops the implications of the Marcan portrait. John 7:14-24 is of interest for adding a further argument to those provided by the Synoptics, namely, that one circumcises on the eighth day after the birth of a male child (Lev 12:3) even if the day falls on a Sabbath. This is a striking exception to the general rule that one should not practice medicine on the Sabbath. John 9:1-41 turns the healing of a man born blind into a fierce accusation of spiritual, Christological blindness on the part of Jesus' opponents.

47

G.W.H. LAMPE, PBC,

p. 836. S o too J.A.FITZMYER, The Gospel

XXIV (AB 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), 1041-1042. 48

LOHMEYER, Markus,

68.

according

to Luke

X-

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

121

Paul: Gal 4:8-11; Rom 14:5-6; Col 2:16-17. In Gal 4:8-11, Paul criticizes his recent converts from paganism for "observing days, months, seasons and years". These probably include Sabbaths and sabbatical or jubilee years. Here begins the fateful shift from Sabbath to Sunday.49 In Rom 14:5-6 he shows a gentle attitude: those who wish may observe the Sabbath, but those who do not so wish need not. It is a "may" rubric, not a "shall" rubric. Col 2:16-17 returns to the Galatians' defence of the right of Gentile converts not to observe the Sabbath at all. It does so by treating the Sabbath as a mere shadow of the new life ("soma") in Christ. Paul clearly goes beyond what Mark explicitly states, but Mark wrote shortly after Paul had died, and, we believe, in awareness of his radical break with the ritual precepts of Torah. This helps to explain Mark's hard tone.

Conclusion To recapitulate, we have discerned two main pictures of Jesus' relation to the Sabbath, the Marcan and the Matthean. (The others, Luke and John, nuance and develop but do not alter the basic options. Paul goes further but does not base his break on the teaching of the historical Jesus, but rather on a new revelation which authorizes Paul's specific interpretation of Jesus' death on the cross as bringing an end to the ceremonial precepts of the Law, at least for Gentile converts.) In the Marcan picture Jesus, before Paul and John, breaks with the Ρ strand of Torah (death penalty for Sabbath violation; Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36) as well as with Pharisaic halacha (no practicing of medicine on the Sabbath), but not with the Decalogue which enjoins the hearer to keep holy the Sabbath. In the Matthean picture Jesus is a reformer of halacha both Pharisaic and Essene; he creates an alternative halacha but there is no break with Torah, and his scriptural arguments are well marshalled. In this picture Jesus remains within the perimeters of Second Temple Judaism, created in part by the Torah. In the Marcan-Pauline picture there is a Christologically based freedom from the Law. Christianity has become a new religion, separate from but related to Judaism. The Old Testament is retained and mined but is radically relativized. The Matthean picture could be understood as a rejudaization of

49

This shift was not completed by an act of the Roman see, as some would like to imagine, cf. BACCHIOCCHI, From Sabbath to Sunday, n. 13 herein, but by a decree of the emperor Constantine in 321. See RORDORF, Sunday, for details.

122

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

Mark, designed to protect Matthew's Jewish-Christian community from (a) liturgical dislocation, (b) attacks from the proto-rabbis of Jamnia-Jabneh. Both pictures are based, we would conclude, on Jesus' self-understanding, the critically assured minimum base: Mark 2:27; 3:4; Matt 12:11 par Luke 14:5. We take it as historically highly probable that Jesus practiced healing on the Sabbath, since such activity would have been regarded by sophisticated Christians as magical and therefore embarrassing. This practice, and his teaching about Sabbath practice, seems to us to be based on humanitarian principles such as are found in Lev 19:18, Hos 6:6 and the tendency of Hillel's rulings, to which may be added a dash of Hellenistic humanism. 50 But Jesus' practice and teaching seems to us to be based especially on his unique filial consciousness, as manifested in Matt 11:27 par Luke 10:21-22.51 He understands God's will better than others because he is the Son absolutely. (It may be noted here that the combination of Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 is not found in Judaism before Jesus. The combination may plausibly be argued to have been the result of Jesus' hard reflection on the daily recital of the Shema text as one-sided, without the addition of Lev 19:18.)52 Besides embarrassment at miracles, the main criteria of authenticity applicable here are contemporaneous debates within Judaism about Sabbath practice (see the first part of this essay) and multiple attestation, plus the break of the later church with even freer Sabbath observance. For the later church, there was no Sabbath at all; rather, Sunday became the day of worship and rest. So Jesus differs both from most of contemporary Judaism and from later church practice. This is a perfect fit for the criterion of dissimilarity. We may be historically confident that Jesus did have a different position regarding the Sabbath, both in theory (teaching) and practice (healing), different both from the Pharisees and Essenes as well as from the early church. There is no evidence that Jesus advocated observing Sunday rather than Sabbath. That would be anachronistic. No, he goes to synagogue on Sabbath to teach and to heal ('oneg, Isa 58:13-14), and to the Temple on the great feasts. Yet he is freer, more relativizing of Torah, in the light of the love commands, than were the Pharisees and Essenes.

50

51

52

See the exemplary essay by H.D. BETZ, "Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:1518): A Comparative Religion Approach", JBL 116 (1997) 455-472. I have attempted to defend the authenticity of this logion, based on the criterion of double attestation of idiom with Mark 13:32, in RB 103 (1996) 402-405. It goes without saying that this is not a universally shared view. The researches of Birger GERHARDSSON, gathered in his book Shema in Early Christianity (Lund: Novapress, 1996) show how seriously Jesus took Deut 6:5.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

123

We further conclude that the original point of Mark 2:27 was Jesus' rejection of the death penalty for Sabbath violation. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" means that the death penalty prescribed in Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36 should no longer be enforced.

Additional Note The first draft of this paper was presented and discussed in the Task Force on the Historical Jesus at the Catholic Biblical Association yearly meeting held at Notre Dame University, 7-10 August 1999. The principle objection came from the respondent, Prof. Frederick J. Murphy: was the death penalty really still inflicted for Sabbath violation at the time of Jesus, despite the three Pentateuchal texts which prescribe the death penalty (Exod 31:14-15; 35:2; Num 15:32-36)? Do we have evidence that any first century Jew was ever put to death for Sabbath violation? This objection resembles the doubts as to the historicity of Mark 3:1-6 formulated by Profs. J.P. Meier and E.P. Sanders:53 Was someone seriously pursued for breaking the Sabbath by saying something (however effective) as distinct from performing an action? Setting the scene: As we were discussing this issue at Notre Dame, in Israel a Sabbatarian issue risked bringing down the government. "Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel permitted the truck transport of a huge metal turbine part [a superheater] on the Jewish Sabbath today, defying an Orthodox party that forms a crucial part of his coalition Government and raising concerns over a possible Government crisis."54 This incident shows that Sabbath violation is still a serious issue in religious Judaism in the Jewish state. Back to Notre Dame. At the meeting I already sensed a problem due to an anachronistic misunderstanding on the part of the objectors. Polite, civil, urbane, ecumenical, neighborly Americans (and others) have a hard time comprehending the behavior current in today's Balkans, not to mention behavior in the ancient (and modern) near east. I lived in Jerusalem for twelve years. I remember once the car I was driving being stoned as I tried to steer past the Mea Shearim neighborhood in Jerusalem late one Friday night. (The plane had landed late at the airport. Hence the driving during Sabbath eve.)

53

54

J.P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. II (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 681-684; E.P. SANDERS, Jewish Law From Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990), 6-23; see also Sanders' essay in Jesus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d'une enigme, ed. Daniel Marguerat et al. (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1998) for a similar rosy view; so too D. FLUSSER, Jesus (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), p. 49; Geza VERMES, Jesus the Jew (London: Fontana/Collins, 1973), 25. New York Times, 15 August 1999; Time, 30 August 1999.

124

JESUS A N D THE S A B B A T H

The Levant is not, and never was, politically correct from a twenty-first century American viewpoint. One must be willing to enter another world (Schleiermacher's hermeneutical principle of Einfiihlen) to understand it. Even with regard to first century Roman Palestine one must be sensitive to sociological differentiations between urban and rural religious practice. Rural practice might be more literal, less tempered by (Hellenistic) humanistic and humanitarian considerations than urban practice. But there were also urban literalists and rural humanists. Present also in this resistance to the historicity of Mark 3:1-6 is the sharp distinction between deeds and words. But there are situations and cultures in which this distinction is not very sharp. As pointed out by J.L. Austin, there are "performative utterances", such as when the couple says "I do" at a wedding. 55 In much of the Bible, the word of itself can be creative and effective (Gen 1; Isa 55:10-11; Micah 3:5-8, Jas 3:1-12). For the prophet "thus to proclaim salvation is almost as much as to summon it into existence or to bring it about". 56 Two sentences from Sanders illustrate the problem. "It is difficult to imagine him [Antipas] having someone executed for gathering kindling on the Sabbath (the crime in Num. 15)."57 "Talking is not regarded as work in any Jewish tradition, and so no work was performed." 58 It is a matter of a failure of imagination and of not entering into the Pharisaic problematic. The issue in Mark 3:1-6 is not talking but healing, which by analogy is a way of practicing medicine, one of the forbidden works. This is the kind of analogical reasoning which is the basis for the development of Sabbatarian legislation in the Talmud. As for a concrete instantiation from the first century, it will perhaps suffice to cite the stoning of Stephen (Acts 6-7). He is accused of "blasphemous words against Moses" (Acts 6:11). "This man never stops paying things against... the law" (Acts 6:13). His words are taken as punishable deeds. The difficulty of imagination is not confined to Christians. The great Talmudic sage J.B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993) selectively cites a passage from b. Sank. 71a to make the distinction between the real world and the often purely theoretical, ideal world of halakhic-biblical legislation. "There never was an idolatrous city and never will be. For what purpose, then, was its law written? Expound it and receive a reward! There never was a leprous house and never will be. For what purpose, then, was its law written? Expound it and receive a reward! There never was a rebellious son and never will be. 55

J.L. AUSTIN, HOW to do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962).

56

CI. WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary

57

SANDERS, Jewish Law, 17.

58

SANDERS, Jewish Law, 21.

(Philadelphia: W e s t m i n s t e r , 1969), 366.

JESUS A N D THE

SABBATH

125

For what purpose, then, was his law written? Expound it and receive a reword!"59 This abridged quotation cites one line of sages for whom these laws (Deut 13:13-19; Lev 14:33-57; Deut 21:18-21) are not to be put into practice. They are there to be studied and taught as a pious, meritorious act. Call it Talmudic humanism if you will. But when one looks up the passage in the Talmud 60 , one finds something more dialectical. Each time one sage says this law was never put into practice, another says he was an eyewitness of such a practice. For example, regarding the rebellious son, "R. Jonathan said: Ί saw him and sat on his grave.'" The some is true of the story of Baalpeor in Num 25:1-18, painful to modern readers, where the Lord makes a pact of friendship with Phinehas because Phinehas had in his zeal killed an Israelite who had consorted with a Midianite woman. This text has a long and complex reception history in Judaism. But because the story stood in the sacred text, from time to time another Israelite might feel called to imitate Phinehas' zeal.61 So too in the case of the death penalty for witting Sabbath violation. To be sure, the main stream of the rabbinic tradition opposed these extreme measures, in texts written after the gospels. The basic thesis of my paper is that the tendency of Jewish jurisprudence was toward the reduction of the frequency of the death penalty. That is instantiated in Daube's crucial article referred to in my second note. It is also part of my thesis that the historical Jesus was making a contribution to that tendency. Since Jesus was working in the early days of that tendency, it is not improbable that he made some enemies along the way. Hillel had died while Jesus was still a child. Jesus can count, chronologically, as an early reformer. Early reformers are the ones who usually bear the brunt of hostility to change. One could say that Jesus was on the first stage of the road that led to the Rav, J.B. Soloveitchik. It does no service to the truth to foreshorten the historical perspective. I must own that I still have one last lingering doubt. It is an objection I raise myself. In concluding to a basis in the life of the historical Jesus of the traditions recorded in Mark 2:23-28; 3-6, have I allowed myself to be seduced by Mark's surprisingly fine, lawyerly, polemical rhetoric? Have I distinguished sufficiently sharply between Marcan redaction and the historical Jesus? Should I follow the skepticism of B.L. Mack for whom the controversy sto-

59

J.B. SOLOVEITCHIK, Halakhic 24.

60

Babylonian

61

M. HENGEL, The Zealots (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1989), chap. 4, brilliantly reconstructs the reception history.

Man (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983), 23-

Talmud (London: Soncino, 1939), Sanhedrin,

483-484.

126

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

lies are artful myths of innocence62 rather than the confidence of R. Pesch and M. Hooker 63 in the relative historicity of these stories? Does the dictum In dubio pro tradito apply here? What most arouses suspicion is that in some healings on the Sabbath no objection is raised (Mark 1:21-31), while in others it becomes a basis for a charge on a capital offense. Yet this in itself is not decisive since it could have so happened. That Mark has shaped these two pericopai not only literarily as an escalation but also juridically (Bornhäuser's point, see note 3 herein) is convincing to me: to convict, one needed more than one violation and more than two witnesses. Yet the position adopted in the two pericopai (no severe penalty yet respect and practice of the Sabbath) is sufficiently discontinuous both with the practice of Judaism at the time and with the practice of the Pauline communities (the shift to Sunday), to tilt me in the direction of historicity. The four standard criteria of authenticity fit well here: discontinuity; coherence (with the analogies of temple cleansing and the pericope of the woman taken in adultery); multiple attestation (in all four canonical gospels); Aramaisms. 64 In ancient history, where abundant documentation is usually lacking, such arguments must suffice. Mark's two pericopai, like the story in Num 15:32-36, do not have the historicity of a video recording, but that of legal exempla or case studies, stripped of nonessentials. One must distinguish between the historical kernel and the literary presentation.

62

63

64

B.L. MACK, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 177-178. Cf. J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1991), 256-257. R. PESCH, Das Markusevangelium I. 178-197; M.D. HOOKER, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London: A & С Black, 1991), 101-108. P.M. CASEY, "Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23-28)", NTS 34 (1988) 1-23, studies the Aramaic background carefully.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

127

Bibliography on Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6 AICHINGER Η., "Quellenkritische Untersuchung der Perikope vom Ährenraufen am Sabbat Mk 2,23-28 par Mt 12,1-8 par Lk 6,1-5," Jesus in der Verkündigung der Kirche (ed. A. Fuchs; SNT(SU) 1; Linz: A. Fuchs, 1976) 110-153. ALLISON D. С., "Jesus and the Covenant: Α Response to Ε. P. Sanders," JSNT 29 (1987) 57-78. ANDREASEN N.-E., The Old Testament Sabbath: A Tradition-Historical Investigation (Missoula: Scholars, 1972). ANDREASEN N.-E., "Recent Studies of the Old Testament Sabbath: Some Observations," ZAW 86 (1974) 453-469. AUSTIN J. L., How to do Things with Words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962). BACCHIOCCHI S., From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1977) - See review in В. T. Viviano, Mishkan 22 (1995) 9093. BACK S.-O., Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (Äbo: ÄBO Akademi University Press, 1995). BAMMEL Ε., "The Cambridge Pericope: The Addition to Luke 6.4 in Codex Bezae," NTS 32 (1986) 404-426. BARTH G., "Das Gesetzesverständnis des Evangelisten Matthäus," Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (ed. G. Bornkamm, G. Barth & H. J. Held; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960) 54-154. BAUCKHAM R. J., "Sabbath and Sunday in the Post-Apostolic Church," From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 251-298. BAUCKHAM R. J., "The Son of Man: " A Man in my Position " or " Someone "?," JSNT 23 (1985) 23-33. BAUCKHAM R. J., "Jesus' Demonstration in the Temple," Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (ed. B. Lindars; Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1988) 72-89. BEARE F. W„ "The Sabbath was Made for Man ?," JBL 79 (1960) 130-136. BEILNER W., Christus und die Pharisäer. Exegetische Untersuchung über Grund und Verlauf der Auseinandersetzungen (Wien: Herder, 1959) 25-31. BEILNER W„ "savbbaton," EWNT 523-529. BENNET W. J. Jr., "The Herodians of Mark's Gospel," ΝονΤ 17 (1975) 914. ΒΕΝΟΙΤ P., "Les epis arraches (Mt 12,1-8 et par.)," SBFLA 13 (1962/63) 7692.

128

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

BETZ H. D., "Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18): A Comparative Religion Approach," JBL 116 (1997) 455-472. BLACKBURN B. L., "The Miracles of Jesus," Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (eds. B. Chilton & C. A. Evans; Leiden - New York - Köln: Brill) 353-394. BOISMARD M.-E., Commentaire sur la Synopse (Paris: Cerf, 1973). BORNHÄUSER К., "Zur Perikope vom Bruch des Sabbats," NKZ 33 (1922) 325-334. BRAUN H., "Erwägungen zu Markus 2,23-28 Par," Entscheidung und Solidarität. Festschrift für J. Harder. Beiträge zur Theologie, Politik, Literatur und Erziehung (ed. H. Horn; Wuppertal: Hammer, 1973) 53-56. BRAUN H., Jesus - Der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit. Um 12 Kapitel erweiterte Studienausgabe (Stuttgart: Kreuz, 1984) 155-159. BRAUN W., "Were the New Testament Herodians Essenes? A Critique of an Hypothesis," RevQ 53 (1989) 75-88. BROWN R. E., An Introduction to New Testament Christology (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1994). BULTMANN R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 12; 7th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; 1967) 9.14-15. BURKITT F. C., The Gospel History and Its Transmission (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1906; 2nd ed. 1907). CARAGOUNIS С. С., The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). CASEY P. M„ "Culture and Historicity: The Plucking of the Grain (Mark 2.23-28)," NTS 34 (1988) 1-23. CASEY P. M., "Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem," NTS 41 (1995) 164-182. COHN-SHERBOCK D. M., "An Analysis of Jesus'Arguments Concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath," JSNT2 (1979) 31-41. CROSSAN J. D., The Historical Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1991). DANIEL C., "Les " Herodiens " du Nouveau Testament sont-ils des Esseniens ?," RevQ 6 (1967) 31-53. DANIEL C., "Nouveaux arguments en faveur de 1'identification des Herodiens et des Esseniens," RevQ 27 (1970) 397-402. DAUBE D„ "Zur frühtalmudischen Rechtspraxis," ZAW50 (1932) 148-159. DAUBE D., "Responsibilities of Master and Disciples in the Gospels," NTS 19(1972-73) 1-15. DAUTZENBERG G., Sein Leben bewahren. Yuchv in den Herrenworten der Evangelien (SANT 14; München: Kösel, 1966) 154-160. DELEBECQUE E., "Les epis 'egrenes' dans les synoptiques," Revue des etudes grecques 88 (1975) 419-423.

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

129

DERRETT J. D. M„ "Christ and the Power of Choice (Mark 3,1-6)," Bib 65 (1984)168-188. DEWEY Joanna, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6 (SBL S 48; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1980). DILLMANN R., "Die Bedeutung der semantischen Analyse für die Textpragmatik," BN 79 (1995) 5-9. DOEVE J. W., Jewish Hermeneutics in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Van Gorcum's Theologische Bibliotheek, 24; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954) 163167. DRESSLER Η. Η. P., "The Sabbath in the Old Testament," From Sabbath to Lord's Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (ed. D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 21-41. DUNN J. D. G., "Mark 2,1-3,6: A Bridge between Jesus and Paul on the Question of the Law," NTS 30 (1984) 395-415. DUPREZ Α., "Deux affrontements un jour de sabbat: Mc 2,23 - 3,6," AssSeign 11/40 (1972) 43-53. FEUILLET Α., "L'ejxousiva du Fils de l'homme (d'apres Mc II, 10-28 et par.)," RSR42 (1954) 161-192. FLEISCHER E„ "On the Beginnings of Obligatory Jewish Prayer," Tarbiz 59 (1990) 397-441. FLUSSER D., Jesus (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969). GEOLTRAIN P., "La violation du sabbat. Une lecture de Marc 3,1-6," Cahiers bibliques 9 (1970) 70-90. GERHARDSSON В., Shema in Early Christianity (Lund: Novapress, 1996). GILS F., "'Le sabbat a ete fait pour l'homme et non 1'homme pour le sabbat' (Mc II, 27)," RB 69 (1962) 506-523. GNILKA J., Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK II.l; Zurich: Benziger, 4th ed. 1994; original ed. 1978). GNILKA J., Die Verstockung Israels (SANT 3; Munich: Kösel, 1961). GOURGUES M., "Halakäh et Haggadäh chretiennes. Les indications de Marc 2,23-28 et paralleles (les epis arraches) sur " le sens chretien de l'Ancien Testament"," La vie de la Parole. De l'Ancien au Nouveau Testament. Etudes d'exegese et d'hermeneutique bibliques ojfertes ά Pierre Grelot professeur ά l'Institut Catholique de Paris (Paris: Desclee, 1987) 195209. GRASSI J. Α., "The Five Loaves of the High Priest," NovT 1 (1964) 119122. GUTMANN J. (ed.), Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (BJS 22; Chico,CA: Scholars, 1981). HAENCHEN E„ Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968, 1966).

130

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

Hay L. S„ "The Son of Man in Mark 2, 10 and 2, 28," JBL 89 (1970) 69-75. HENGEL M„ The Zealots (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1989). HERRANZ Marco Μ., "Las espigas arrancadas en säbado (Mt 12,1-8 par.) Tradition у elaboration literaria," EstBib 28 (1969) 313-348. HERTZBERG Α., Judaism (New York: Touchstone, 1991). HINZ С., "Jesus und der Sabbat," KD 19 (1973) 91-108. HOOKER Μ. D., The Son of Man in Mark. A Study of the Background of the Term "Son of Man" and its Use in St Mark's Gospel (London: SPCK; Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967) 93-102. HOOKER M. D., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London: A & С Black, 1991). HÜBNER Η., Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition. Studien zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition (Witten: Luther, 1973) 113-136. HULTGREN A. J., "The Formation of the Sabbath Perikope in Mark 2,2328," JBL 91 (1972) 38-43. HULTGREN A. J., Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979). JOÜON P., "Les herodiens de l'Evangile (Mc 3.6 ; 12.13 ; Mt 22.14)," RSR 28(1928)585-588. KAHL W., "Ist es erlaubt, am Sabbat Leben zu retten oder zu töten? (Mark 3:4). Lebensbewahrung am Sabbat im Kontext der Schriften vom Toten Meer und der Mischna," NovTAQ (1998) 313-335. KEE H. C., "The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: its Import for Early Christianity," NTS 36 (1990) 1-24. KEE H. C., and Cohick L.H. (eds.), The Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992). KEE H. C., "The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster," NTS 40 (1994) 281-283. KERTELGE K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (SANT 23; München: Kösel, 1970) 82-85. KIILUNEN J., Die Vollmacht im Widerstreit: Untersuchungen zum Werdegang von Mk 2,1-3,6 (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 40; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1985). KLOPPENBORG J. S., Q Parallels: Synopsis, Critical Notes & Concordance (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988). KLUMBIES P.-G., " Die Sabbatheilungen Jesu nach Markus und Lukas," Jesu Rede von Gott und ihre Nachgeschichte im frühen Christentum. Beiträge zur Verkündigung Jesu ... Festschrift für W. Marxsen zum 70. Geburt-

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

131

stag (D.-A. Koch, G. Sellin, Α. Lindemann eds; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlaghaus, 1989). KNOHL I., "Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult," JBL 115 (1996) 17-30. KUHN H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971). LEITCH J. W„ "Lord also of the Sabbath," SJT 19 (1966) 426-433. LEVINE Ε., "The Sabbath Controversy according to Matthew," NTS 22 (1975-76) 480-483. LEVINE L. I., "The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered," JBL 115 (1996) 425-448. LIEBERMAN S., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: JTSA, 1962; orig. 1950). LINDEMANN Α., "" Der Sabbat ist um des Menschen willen geworden... " Historische und theologische Erwägungen zur Traditionsgeschichte der Sabbatperikope Mk 2,23-28 parr.," WD 15 (1979) 79-105. LOHMEYER E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Meyer K. 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 1937). LOHSE E., "Jesu Worte über den Sabbat," Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (ed. W. von Eltester; BZNW 26; Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1960) 79-93. MACK В. L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). MANSON T. W„ "Mark II. 27f," ConNT 11 (1947) 138-146. MCKAY Η. Α., Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1994). MEIER J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Volume Two, New York: Doubleday, 1994). MORGAN C. Sh„ "When Abiathar was High Priest (Mark 2:26)," JBL 98 (1979)409-410. MURMELSTEIN В., "Jesu Gang durch die Saatfelder," Angelos 3 (1930) 111-120. NEIRYNCK F., "Jesus and the Sabbath. Some Observations on Mark II, 27," Jesus aux origines de la christologie (ed. J. Dupont; BETL 40; Leuven: Leuven University Press; Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1974) 141-168. Neuhäusler Ε., "Jesu Stellung zum Sabbat," BLit 12 (1971) 1-16. OSTER R. E., "Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts' Use of Synagoge: A Rejoinder to H.C. Kee," NTS 39 (1993) 178-208. PARKER К. M., The English Sabbath (Cambridge: University Press, 1988). PARROTT R., "Conflict and Rhetoric in Mark 2:23-28," Semeia 64 (1994) 117-137.

132

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

PESCH R., Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT II.l; Freiburg: Herder, 1976). RICHARDSON H. W., Toward An American Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1967). RIESENFELD Η., "Sabbat et Jour du Seigneur," New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory ofT. W. Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester: University Press, 1959) 210-217. ROBBINS V. K., "Plucking Grain on the Sabbath," Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (eds. B. L. Mack & V. K. Robbins; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1989) 107-142. ROGERS A. D„ "Mark II. 26," JTS 2 (1951) 44. ROLOFF J., Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970)52-66. RORDORF W. Α., Der Sonntag. Geschichte des Ruhe- und Gottesdiensttages im ältesten Christentum (ATANT 43; Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1962). ROURE D., Jesüs у la figura de David en Mc 2,23-26. Trasfondo biblico, intertestamentario у rabinico (AnBib 124; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Biblico, 1990). RÜSSEL Ε. Α., "Mark 2,23 -3,6 - A Judaean Setting ?," Papers Presented to the Fourth International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Oxford (ed. E. A. Livingstone; SE 6 (TU 112); Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 466-472. SANDERS E. P., Jewish Law From Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990) SANDERS E. P., " La rupture de Jesus avec le juda'isme," Jesus de Nazareth: Nouvelles approches d'une enigme (eds. D. Marguerat et al.; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1998) 209-222. SARIOLA H., Markus und das Gesetz: eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 56; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990). SAUER J„ "Traditionsgeschichtliche Überlegungen zu Mk 3,1-6," ZNW 73 (1982) 183-203. SCHENKE L., Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums (SBB 5; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974) 161-172. SCHIFFMANN L. H., The Halakha at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1976)84-133. SCOTT R. H., Jesus and the Sabbath: An Investigation of the Sabbath in Jewish Literature from 200 B.C. to A.D. 100 and its Impact Upon the Ministry of Jesus, Ann Arbor: U.M.I., 1991. SMITH M., Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper, 1978).

JESUS AND THE SABBATH

133

Smith S. H., "Mark 3,1-6: Form, Redaction and Community Function," Bib 75 (1994) 153-174. SOLOVEITCHIK J. В., Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983). STEGEMANN Ε. W., Das Markusevangelium als Ruf in die Nachfolge (Diss. Heidelberg, 1974) 157-168. STEMBERGER G., Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). SUHL Α., Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965) 82-87. TALMON S., "The Emergence of Institutionalized Prayer in Israel," S. Talmon (ed), The World of Qumran From Within (Jerusalem-Leiden: Brill, 1989) 200-243. THEISSEN G., Ergänzungsheft zu R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 1719. THEISSEN G., Urchristliche Wundergeschichten. Ein Beitrag zur formgeschichtlichen Erforschung der synoptischen Evangelien (Studien zum Neuen Testament 8; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1974). THIBAUT R„ "L'enthymeme de Mc., II, 27 suiv.," NRT 59 (1932) 257. TROADEC H., "Le Fils de l'homme est maitre meme du sabbat (Marc 2,233,6)," BVC 21 (1958)73-83. TROSSEN C„ "Das Ährenpflücken der Apostel," TGl 6 (1914) 466-475. TSEVAT M„ "The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath," ZA W 84 (1972) 447-459. VERMES G., Jesus the Jew (London: Fontana/Collins, 1973). VIVIANO В. Т., "The Historical Jesus in the Doubly Attested Sayings: An Experiment," RB 103 (1996) 367-410. VIVIANO В. Т., "Hillel and Jesus on Prayer," J.H. Charlesworth and L.L. Johns (eds), Hillel and Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997) 427-457. WEGENAST К., "Das Ährenrupfen am Sabbat (Mk 2,23-28)," Streitgespräche (ed. H. Stock, K. Wegenast, S. Wibbing; Handbücherei für den Religionsunterricht, 5; Gütersloh : Mohn, 1968) 27-37. WEISS H„ "The Sabbath in the Synoptic Gospels," JSNT 38 (1990) 13-27. WENHAM J. W„ "Mark II. 26," JTS 1 (1950) 156. WESTERMANN K., Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969).

11

Synagogues and Spirituality: The Case of Beth Alfa

Why should anyone be interested in ancient synagogues? For Jews, the answer is obvious: they are an ancient expression of their religion. For Christians, it suffices to mention that neither Jesus nor Paul ever worshiped in a church building. Both began their ministries in synagogues. For Jesus, it begins in the synagogue of his home town, Nazareth, according to Luke 4:1630, a programmatic moment. In Mark, the ministry of healing begins in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mark 1:21-28; cf. Luke 4:31-37). In John the longest chapter is chapter six. There the major "bread of life" discourse takes place in this synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:59). Little wonder then that the rediscovery of this synagogue by the Franciscans at the turn of the century (1905) proved a sensation. (To be sure, the synagogue they discovered was built several centuries later than the time of Jesus. But one reckons in such cases with the continuity of sacred places.) As for Paul, the Acts of the Apostles has him regularly begin his ministry in a town by speaking in the synagogue. The great set piece for this is his address in Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13; see especially vv. 14-15: "On the Sabbath they entered the synagogue and took their seats. After the reading of the law and the prophets, the synagogue officials sent word to them, "My brothers, if one of you has a word of exhortation for the people, please speak." (See also Acts 9:20; 14:1; 15:21; 17:1,10,17; 18:4,7,19,26; 22:19; 24:12; 26:11). Over 100 ancient synagogues have been unearthed and identified in Israel/Palestine, and twenty elsewhere, though nowadays some of these identifications have been contested. The origins of the synagogue are a subject of lively controversy and great uncertainty. Acts 15:21 attributes its start to Moses. In fact Deut 31:9-13 can be considered the earliest descriptions of what became the synagogue service, if not the building. This description is then developed in the liturgically crucial Nehemiah 8. There Ezra is the founder. Ezekiel and the exile have also been listed as agents. See the miqdash me'at of Ezek 11:16, variously translated as a "little sanctuary", a "diminished sanctuary", or as "a sanctuary for a time". Given the later dating of the Pentateuch to the Persian period, currently popular, these various options may not be so chronologically diverse as might at first appear. Hard-nosed scholars refuse to admit any physical evidence before 100 B.C. But the New Testament takes the existence of synagogues so totally for granted, that there can be no reasonable doubt that they pre-existed the birth of Christianity. What went on in them is another hotly contested

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

135

issue. A consensus seems to be forming that the reading and exposition of Scripture preceded the formulation of fixed prayers to be recited repeatedly. Qumran may have contributed something to this formulation.1 I. The mosaic floor of the Beth Alfa synagogue was excavated by E.L. Sukenik in 1929, one of the first successes of Jewish archaeology in the Holy Land. It lies in the Beth Shean valley in lower Galilee and is located in what is today a collective farm called Kvuzat Hefzibah2. The building was on the basilican model, not the broadhouse model. The outer court contained a font, perhaps for the washing of hands. There are a series of raised floors: from court to atrium, from atrium to nave, from nave to niche. There is one row of benches, not steps (i.e., multiple seats) as elsewhere. There is a possible base for a bema (reading stand) near the niche. There is no specimen of carved stone. The aisles and court were covered with mosaics in geometric patterns, indicating that the figures in the central section of the floor were a deliberate choice.

For the earlier literature, see B.T. VIVIANO, "Hillel and Jesus on Prayer", in Hillel and Jesus, eds. J.H. Charlesworth and L.L. Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 427-457; Wolfgang SCHRÄGE, s.v. Synagoge, TDNT 7.798-852; Kurt HRUBY, "La synagogue dans la litterature rabbinique", L'orient syrien 9 (1964) 473-514; Joseph GUTMANN, ed., Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (BJS 22; Chico: Scholars, 1981); J.G. GRIFFITHS, "Egypt and the Rise of the Synagogue", JTS n.s. 38 (1987) 1-15; E.M. MEYERS and Rachel HACHLILI, "Synagogue", ABD 6. 252-263; H.C. KEE, "The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.", NTS 36 (1990) 1-24; R.E. OSTER, "Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts. Use of synagoge: A Rejoinder to H.C. Kee", NTS 39 (1993) 178-208; H.C. KEE, "The Changing Meaning of Synagogue; A Response to Richard Oster", NTS 40 (1994) 281-282; H.C. Kee and L.H. Cohick, eds. The Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999); the four essays in section 5, Die Synagoge und die rabbinische Literatur, in Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Beate Ego et al. (WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999): E. ESHEL, "Prayer in Qumran and the Synagogues", 323-334; Folker SIEGERT, "Die Synagoge und das Postulat eines unblutigen Opfers", 335-356; F.G. HÜTTENMEISTER, "Die Synagoge. Ihre Entwicklung von einer multifunktionalen Einrichtung zum reinen Kultbau", 357370; S. SCHREINER, "Wo man Tora lernt, braucht man keinen Tempel. Einige Anmerkungen zum Problem der Tempelsubstitution in rabbinischen Judentum", 371-392. E.L. SUKENIK, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London: British Academy, 1934). For more general and recent introductions to the archaeology of ancient synagogues, see Eric M. MEYERS and James F. STRANGE, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981), esp. pp. 140-154; L.J. HOPPE, What Are They Saying About Biblical Archaeology? (New York: Paulist, 1984), esp. 58-89; A.T. KRAABEL, "The Diaspora Synagogues: Archeological and Epigraphic Evidence since Sukenik", ANRW II, 19,1 (1979) 477-510; P.R. TREBILCO, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: University Press, 1991).

136

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

The main mosaic consists of three panels and a border; the result gives the impression of a carpet. At the entrance to the main mosaic there are two inscriptions. The first, in Aramaic, half of which is damaged beyond recovery, reads "This mosaic was laid down in the [...] year of the emperor Justin ..." and goes on to record gifts for the building. The second inscription is in Greek. Its letters are well formed and preserved intact: "May the craftsmen who carried out this work, Marianos and his son Hanina, be held in remembrance." (A third language, Hebrew, is used in the first and second of the three main panels; in the first, the Hebrew Bible is briefly quoted; in the second panel, the Hebrew names of the signs of the zodiac and of the four seasons are given. This means that the mosaic is trilingual. This fact further instantiates J.A.Fitzmyer's thesis that the most commonly used language of Palestine in the first century A.D. was Aramaic, but that many Palestinian Jews used Greek, and not only in the big cities. Hebrew was also known and used, at least as a written language.) 3 Thanks to the Aramaic inscription we are able to date the Beth Alfa synagogue to the sixth century A.D., since the text mentions the Byzantine emperor Justin. There were two of them. Justin I reigned 518-527; Justin II reigned 565-578. The synagogue was probably built during the reign of Justin I. The lion and the bull designs flanking the inscriptions look upside down to a person entering. This odd arrangement suggests that they are meant to guard the inner design, not the door. The border mosaics consist mostly of geometric patterns, but two squares show grape clusters and a bread basket; others show a pomegranate, a hen with four chicks (quails?), a tree with three pomegranates, three goblets or drinking horns (containing the water of life?). The hen and chicks may suggest the security provided by religious faith and community (cf. Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 55:6; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4; Matt 23:37 parallel Luke 13:34). The first of the three main panels represents the binding of Isaac, known in Hebrew as the Aqedah (binding), as recounted in Gen 22:1-19: 4 Abraham in chiton (and himation?) and Isaac as a boy held up near the altar, and fierce fire on top of it. Both of the humans are identified by their names in Hebrew. In the upper middle of the panel is a small black cloud (the cloud of unknow-

3

4

J.A. FLTZMYER, "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.", CBQ 32 (1970) 501-31; repr. in his A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula: Scholars, 1979), pp. 29-56. The literature on the Aqedah is abundant. The works which have most influenced me are: R. LE DEAUT, La Nuit Pascale (AnBib 22;Rome: Biblical Institute, 1963); S. SPIEGEL, The Last Trial (New York: Behrman House, 1967); J.D. LEVENSON, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven and London: Yale Univ. Press, 1993).

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

137

ing of apophatic theology? Cf. 1 Kings 8:12, "The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness.") From the black cloud extends a hand, and rays. All these elements represent God. Underneath the hand, two Hebrew words are visible: 'al-tishlach; they are the first words of the divine command to Abraham, knife poised in obedience, to spare Isaac's life: "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withhold your son, your only son, from me" (Gen 22:12). In the middle center is a tree or thicket from which is suspended a ram. Gen 22:13 is quoted in Hebrew: "and behold a ram" "ve-hineh 'ayil." (Because the ram is hanging from the tree some interpreters have suspected Christian influence (so Michael Krupp, orally). This cannot be excluded (see below), but it could also simply be due to lack of space.) To the left are two servants holding the ass (Gen 22:3-5). The upper border contains eight stylized palm trees, perhaps representing paradise (Elysian fields). Unclear remains whether Abraham's head is surrounded by a halo. Still a word on the dark cloud. In Acts 1:9, a cloud takes Jesus from the sight of the apostles. In the Transfiguration narrative, a cloud comes and casts a shadow over the apostles and a voice speaks from it: Mark 9:7; Matt 17:5 (the cloud is photine, light-filled, luminous); Luke 9:34-35. The cloud functions then as an aniconic icon; that is, in biblical religion icons of God are forbidden, yet somehow God's presence and activity must be indicated. This is done by the cloud, the hand, and the words. In neo-Platonic philosophy and in theology influenced by it (Augustine, Denis the Pseudo-Areopagite), and already in Philo, there is a view that we know more what God is not than what he is, so we attribute negative attributes to him such as infinite, that is, not finite, not limited. This is called the via negativa or negative way of knowing God. This is also called apophatic, as opposed to kataphatic, theology. These terms were developed by Dionysius (Denis) the Pseudo-Areopagite, an anonymous, semi-monophysite Christian theologian, hiding out in the region of Gaza and Beth Guvrin (Eleutheropolis) in the late fifth century A.D. His spirituality will be relevant when we turn to the meaning of the Beth Alfa mosaic as a whole. Here, in relation to the dark cloud found in the mosaic, we only want to clarify the two terms he introduced. Apophatic refers to the modest way of knowing God by negative attributes, a way of confessing that we do not know him so as to be able to control or possess him, even mentally. Kataphatic discourse about God boldly dares to attribute positive predicates to him; e.g., God is good, God is just, God is holy. Both ways of speaking about God are found in the Bible. But the two terms, apophatic and kataphatic, though having a background in Philo, Plotinus, Proclus, and in Cappadocian thought, are first found, so far as I can determine, in Dionysius' Mystical Theology, chaps 1-3.

138

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

The meaning of the first panel is to present the offering of Isaac (and the ram) as a symbol of atonement or winning forgiveness for sin and further divine blessing (Gen 22:16-18). For our further considerations it will not be irrelevant to note here that the moving story of the binding of Isaac was found meaningful by Jews (as here), but also by Christians. See Rom 8:32; Heb 6:13-14. Christians very early saw Isaac as a type of Christ.5 The second panel shows the sun god Helios or Apollo riding across the sky in a chariot at the center. Apollo wears a complicated halo, consisting of seven red rays and six trapezoids. The chariot has two wheels and is pulled by four horses with different color combinations. (Think of the four horses of the Apocalypse, Rev 6:1-8, each a different color.) The moon and 24 or 23 stars are also represented. Placed around this central scene are the twelve signs of the zodiac, each in its own segment, with its symbol and its name in Hebrew: 1. Aries, the ram, to the right of Apollo; talah, a different word for ram than that found in the first panel, 'aytl. 2. Taurus, bull, upwards, to the left; shor, with hump. 3. Gemini, the twins, t'orriim. 4. Cancer, the crab, sartan. 5. Leo, the lion, ariyah. 6. Virgo, the virgin, bethulah, seated on a (royal?) throne, with red shoes. 7. Libra, the balance, mognayin. 8. Scorpio, the scorpion, agrab. 9. Sagitarius, the archer, gashet. 10. Capricorn, the goat. Its name is damaged, lost beyond recovery. Perhaps the Hebrew was tayish. 11. Aquarius, the water bearer; we-dali : "and water-drawer or bucket (-boy)." Someone is drawing from a well; there is a bucket at the end of a rope. 12. Pisces, the fish (two are shown), we-dagim. In the four corners of the second panel are figures representing the four seasons, four winged females (cherubs?). 1. Spring, in white, is in the upper left hand corner. The accompanying Hebrew lettering is damaged. One can make out tequphat which means season but not the word for spring. Perhaps Nisan once stood there. 2. Summer, with fruit; tequphat Tammuz (not qayitz, the normal biblical word for summer). 3. Autumn, more fruit, plus a bird on the wing, and amphorae for wine-making; tequphat Tishri. 4. Winter, tequphat Tebet. The four seasons are not synchronized with the twelve months, whether due to error or by intention is hard to say. Helios or Sol Invictus (unconquered sun) was the most important god of the late Empire. 5

H.-P. STAHLI, "'... was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhält:' Die Mosaike von BethAlpha — Bildliche Darstellungen zentraler Aussagen jüdischen Glaubens", Judaica 41 (1985) 79-98, with plates; on the Isaac typology, see James Swetnam, Jesus and Isaac: A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Agedah (AnBib 94; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981). See also Michael Bachmann, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Exegetische Studien zu einem polemischen Schreiben und zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus (NTOA 40; Freiburg Schweiz/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhock & Ruprecht, 1999, chap. 3: "Jüdischer Bundesnomismus und paulinisches Gesetzesverständnis, das Fussbodenmosaik von Bet Alfa und das Textsegment Gal 3,15-29."

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

139

Constantine identified himself with Sol Invictus. Helios is explicitly worshipped in a Hebrew magical handbook of the early Talmudic period, the Sepher ha-Razim or Book of the Mysteries. 6 Two quotes are relevant. If you wish to view the sun during the day, seated in his chariot and ascending; guard yourself, take care, and keep pure for seven days from all [impure] food, from all [impure] drink, and from every unclean thing. Then on the seventh day stand facing [the sun] when he rises and burn incense of spices weighing three shekels before him, and invoke seven times the names of the angels that lead him during the day (Morgan, p. 69). The sun is then addressed in prayer: Holy Helios who rises in the east, good mariner, trustworthy leader of the sun's rays, reliable [witness], who of old didst establish the mighty wheel [of the heavens], holy orderer, ruler of the axis [of heaven], Lord, Brilliant Leader, King, Soldier (Morgan, p. 71). There is no necessary connection beween the Beth Alfa mosaic and this magical text. These passages are quoted simply to illustrate how some Jews at the time (marginal to pure Judaism?) regarded Helios. The mosaic further poses the problem of how Jews who caused the synagogue floor of Beth Alfa (and of Tiberias Hammat) to be built related to the biblical commandments to avoid idolatry as the supreme evil. We will return to this problem in our final remarks. It is possible that these common astral motifs were dead symbols, without pagan associations by the time of Beth Alfa. 7 Some of the astronomical values current at the time were cyclic determinism, hope of immortality (death from life, and life from death), and the great ladder to the world beyond, that is, the great pilgrimage or journey through life to the beyond. For Greek thought, notably Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, to accompany us on this journey we need the virtues. The third panel at Beth Alfa, although it contains no human figures, represents the high point of religious significance from a Jewish aniconic point of view. On the right side we see the curtain drawn. (The curtain veiled the

1

The Hebrew has been published in an eclectic edition by Mordecai MARGALIOTH, Sepher ha-Razim (Jerusalem: Yediot Achronot, 1966). An English translation has been done by Michael A. M O R G A N , Sepher ha-Razim, the Book of the Mysteries (SBLTT 25, Pseudepigrapha Series 11; Chico CA: Scholars, 1983). See E.E. URBACH, "The Rabbinic Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historial Facts", IEJ 9 (1959) 149-165; 229-245; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950, repr. 1962), 115-127; for the biblical period the indispensible work is: O. Keel and Ch. UEHLINGER, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998).

140

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

synagogue ark which contained the Torah scroll, the word of God for believers. We think of the curtain(s) in the Jerusalem Temple and of Mark 15:38 and its parallels.) In the center stands the Torah ark. Its doors are shut. Three cups stand on top of three pillars from which hang the ark doors or curtains. Above the ark is an edicule roof from which hangs the ner tamid or eternal lamp. To either side of the ark are a series of Jewish religious symbols: two menorahs (seven-branched candelabras, the oldest symbol of Judaism), the lion (of Judah?), the shofar or ram's horn, the lulab with ethrog (linked with the great feast of Sukkah or Tabernacles), the incense shovel, and the tree. Only the tree is not a cult instrument in Judaism. The tree represents life, the bird in the tree represents hope of life in heaven. In sum, the third panel is trying to represent God, in an indirect way, out of reverence, or, better: the third panel is trying to represent Jewish ways of trying to come into contact with God through word and festal liturgy. The three panels may be understood to form a unity in which three phases or aspects of religious experience are depicted in crude but effective images: the need for purification or forgiveness of sins before one can come into the divine presence; the long process of growth and maturation through the practice of the virtues (imitatio Dei)·, union or communion with the divine through faith, love (Deut 6:5) and standing in the divine favor or grace, where one shares in the divine liturgy. According to E.R. Goodenough, the design of the three panels is influenced by the then popular (just coming into circulation) spirituality of an anonymous Byzantine author, the Pseudo-Denis, already mentioned. For him the mystic way or spiritual life consists of three "ages": the purgative way when the believer tries to be rid of deliberate sin; the illuminative way in which the believer makes progress in the virtues as he journeys along the spheres of light (zodiac) to the source of light (the sun = God); finally the unitive way in which the believer arrives at unification or communion with the divine. 8 Before we leave the description of this mosaic, we should add as a coda that there is a second such mosaic floor at Tiberias Hammat, just south of the main city of Tiberias. Unfortunately only the last two of the panels are preserved, those containing the astral symbolism of the sun's chariot and the Torah shrine. The level of artistic execution is of a much higher order than the rather naive workmanship at Beth Alfa. This one would expect closer to an urban center. The fact of the duplication suggests that Beth Alfa is not a

E.R. GOODENOUGH, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. I, The Archeological Evidence from Palestine (Bollingen 37; New York: Pantheon, 1953), 241-253.

S Y N A G O G U E S A N D SPIRITUALITY

141

totally isolated phenomenon. The spiritual interest lying behind the Beth Alfa floor was shared by other Jews in Byzantine Palestine. 9 II The thesis of this article is in two parts. (1) the interpretation of the Beth Alfa mosaic by E.R. Goodenough is substantially correct. The mosaic depicts the mystic path as worked out by Dionysius a few years before the mosaic was built. But the mosaic does this by means of Jewish religious symbols, not Christian ones. This is so even though Dionysius is a quite Christian author, full of references to the Scriptures of both testaments, the main Christian sacraments, church order and monasticism. (To be sure, he is also deeply influenced by the neo-Platonic philosophy of the pagan Proclus.) (2) This set of facts can be taken as an illustration of the second part of the thesis: dogmas are truths which partly serve the social purpose of defining one religious community over against others. They create barriers, hedges, fences, not necessarily uncrossable, but requiring negotiation at least. Their social function is to help decide the vexing question: who is in, who is out. In contrast to all this, spiritualities, more personal approaches to religious experience, easily leap over doctrinal hedges and are readily adapted by people of other religious traditions. There are many examples of this in all ages. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was much, not always acknowledged, borrowing of spiritual methods and images between French Catholic devotes, German Protestant Pietists and British Evangelicals (notably John Wesley). There were Protestant editions of Thomas ä Kempis's Imitation of Christ, and Greek and Russian Orthodox editions of Lorenzo Scupoli's Spiritual Combat. The hymns of Angelus Silesius, a Catholic layman, were sung by Protestants. John Bunyan's allegory Pilgrim's Progress was read for edification by Christians of all denominations. Closer to our own day, the spiritual writings of Thomas Merton and Henry Nouwen have been enjoyed by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish readers alike. The same could be said for the works of Buber and Scholem, Bonhoeffer and Kenneth Leech. Beth Alfa is a striking visual example of this phenomenon of spirituality-borrowing and cross-fertilization. That is the thesis. Can it be proven? No, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. That would only be possible if the mosaic explicitly cited terminology from the Pseudo-Denis to explain the panels. That is not the case. All that can be done is to argue that this is the hypothesis that best fits the facts, an argument which can attain a high degree of probability, so that one sees that the hypothesis is reasonable. Further, one can eliminate rival hypotheses, should

See the study by B. LIFSHITZ, "L'ancienne synagogue de Tiberiade, sa mosai'que et ses inscriptions", JSJ4 (1973) 43-55.

142

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

there be any, so that the Dionysian explanation would stand for want of a better alternative. As it happens, no rival global explanation has been proposed, so far as the present writer is aware. A first step is to develop the hypothesis so that one sees what is at stake. The donors were probably lay Jews with sufficient means to pay for the construction, but also with sufficient interest in the then current trends in spirituality to involve themselves in the working out of the design of the mosaic floor. These "lay people" were not necessarily totally submissive to the directives of the priests or rabbis. That would explain the boldness of the imagery borrowed from paganism as well as the underlying Christian ground plan. One could even think of a powerful, independent woman behind the project, a Lydia (see Acts 16:13-15 and 40).10 The donors would also need to be bilingual, since the Dionysian corpus circulated at that time in its own rather cryptic Greek. (There were translations into Syriac, Arabic and Latin after Beth Alfa was built.) Such bilingualism was not uncommon in Byzantine Palestine. The next step is to note the psychological insight underlying the Dionysian scheme. The neo-Platonists were psychologists. They were interested in the journey inward. The reason why the Dionysian pattern of the three ages or degrees of the spiritual life caught on and spread even beyond Christian confines is that it corresponded to what we would today call developmental psychology. We are not exactly the same people at seventy that we were at twenty or at forty-five, not even religiously. We grow and change. It is as simple as that. And it is a universal human truth, that does not stop at denominational frontiers. The Dionysian scheme is often judged too simple. And it is. But there had been earlier schemes which were too complicated. Origen, in his great commentary on the Book of Numbers, develops a scheme with 42 stages. This is based on the 42 starting points or way stations (LXX stathmoi) which Moses recorded in Numbers 33 that occurred during the Israelite marches in the desert (Origen, Horn. Num. 27). But this was too long and complicated. People preferred the simple, tripartite scheme of Dionysius. The contemporary psychological value of this scheme has been well explained by Karl Rahner. 11 The biblical basis of this scheme can be rapidly sketched as follows. Christians divided up Ps 34:15 to correspond to the three ages: "Shun evil (=purgative); and do good (= illuminative); seek amity [integrity, peace, well10

11

On women synagogue leaders, see the study by B.J. BROOTEN, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue (BJS 36; Chico: Scholars, 1982). K. RAHNER, "Reflections on the Problem of the Gradual Ascent to Christian Perfection", in his Theological Investigations, vol. 3, The Theology of the Spiritual Life (Baltimore: Helicon/London: DLT, 1967), 3-23.

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

143

being, shalom] and pursue it (unitive). They saw a three step progression in the ОТ priesthood: Levites, Priests (cohanim), High Priest, and soon applied this to church leaders: deacons, presbyters, bishops (1 Clem 32 and 44; Ignatius, Letter to the Magnesians 2 and 6; Letter to the Philadelphians, 4 and 7). These schemes influenced Dionysius, because in his view the clergy were to help the people to attain to perfection. In Luke 9:23 the disciple must (1) deny himself, (2) take up his cross daily, (3) follow Jesus. In Matthew the story of the rich young man (19:16-30) divides Christian life into two stages or levels: (1) keeping the commandments (Decalogue and Lev 19:18), (2) perfection: "go, sell what you have and give to the poor ... follow me (v. 21). This scheme had an enormous influence due to its role in Athanasius' Life of Anthony of the Desert, and was used to justify the monastic order. It is so influential, that I am tempted to call it the basic scheme of Christian spiritual life. But it needed a middle step to become tripartite. This was found in Paul's famous metaphor of the runner, in Phil 3:13-17, who has not reached the goal but presses forward to the prize. This metaphor suggests the possibility of progress, forward movement, in the spiritual life, an intermediate phase of the proficient, people making progress. Paul also (1 Cor 3:1-2) can distinguish between fleshly (sarkikoi), infant Christians and spiritual (pneumatikoi) people. He can also speak of the perfect (teleioi, 1 Cor 2:6; cf. Matt 5:48; Eph 4:13; Col 1:28; 4:12). The letter to the Hebrews first, in 6:1, exhorts us to "leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity" (AV: "go on to perfection"). Then, in Heb 12:1-2, the letter proposes what may be read as a three part program: (1) "let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin"; (2) "and persevere in running the race that lies before us"; (3) "while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith." Heb 6:1 had a great influence on John Wesley's views of Christian spiritual life. John 14:23 may also be read as implying some growth or development: "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him." The reader will have sensed that, while Heb 12:1-2 and Luke 9:23 may be read in a way which leads to a three-step, developmental sequence in time, such a reading is not imposed by the texts themselves. They could just as easily be read as recommending three actions which could be pursued more or less simultaneously. The three-stage reading was therefore probably due to the influence of the Pseudo-Denis and his schema and only occurred after his works were in circulation. (By contrast, Matt 19:21 and 1 Cor 3:1-2 really do have two built-in, explicit degrees, even though it has become fashionable to deny this, or to play it down.) Before leaving the New Testament period, it might be good to look briefly at the Hellenistic Jewish author Philo of Alexandria (d. circa A.D. 40). In his De

144

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

somniis (1. 129), he describes the athlete as first a trainee or pupil, then as a wrestler, finally as a victor. In the De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 7, he distinguishes the common people from the pupil and the perfect. In several works, Philo describes the journey of the soul along the basilike hodos, the via regis, the royal road or king's highway, in three stages: through (1) the visible world, to (2) the spiritual world, to (3) God. It is a journey of the spirit to God.12 This way of thinking may have influenced the Letter to the Hebrews. 13 Among the early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria distinguished between children, men, and true gnostics. Evagrius of Pontus divided the Christian life into the practical, the theoretical, and the theological. John Cassian divided it into three stages: servile fear, mercenary hope, filial love (Collationes 11:6-12). Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, deeply influenced by the neo-Platonic philosopher Proclus, and choosing pseudonymity because of his moderately monophysite leanings, was obsessed with order (taxis). He wanted to see the entire cosmos as a taxis, in the sense of a hierarchy. Hierarchy is a word that Dionysius invented, for the administration of holy things, and it expresses his concern with order. Orders must have a beginning, a middle and an end, like a Greek play. For Dionysius, hierarchies existed both among the angels and among the members of the church. He drew up a list of nine choirs of angels, one above the other, derived from data scattered in the Bible. These shared in the thearchy or divine government of the universe. In the church on earth he saw gradations toward perfection among the clergy in the familiar series of deacons, priests, bishops. Among the laity he saw the steps of catechumens/penitents, the baptized lay people, and monks. To all these groups applies the imitatio Dei in the three stages we have already seen: purgation (katharsis) and illumination (ellampsis). Both of these are related to the illumination (photismos) of baptism. The perfection of union (teleiosis, henosis) is all-encompassing; it embraces all three stages. Each order or rank is purified, illumined and perfected by the higher preceding rank, and in turn purifies, illumines and perfects the rank below. The scheme is neo-Platonic but not Pelagian. St Paul says that we are "co-workers with God" (1 Cor 3:9), and for Dionysius we are 12

13

De opicifio mundi 69; De mutatione nominis 179-182; De immutabilitate dei 143. On this aspect of Philo, see J. PASCHER, He basilike hodos: Der Königsweg zur Wiedergeburt und Vergöttung bei Philon von Alexandria (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1931), 23-28. On Philo's influence on Hebrews, see Ε. KÄSEMANN, Das wandernde Gottesvolk (FRLANT 55; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1938); translated by Roy Harrisville as The Wandering People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 76; J.W. THOMPSON, The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews (CBQ MS 13; Washington DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1982), 153 and passim.

SYNAGOGUES AND SPIRITUALITY

145

helped by divine grace. We receive the three operations by grace. Thus he says: "I call hierarchy a holy order, a knowing and an acting as close as possible to the divine form, raised up to the imitation of God according to the divine illuminations" {Cel. Hier., chap. 3, par. 1; PG I. 164D).14 The triadic scheme will continue to be developed, not only by Greek theologians like Maximus the Confessor, but also by major medieval thinkers in the West. St Bonaventure wrote a treatise called De triplici via (1259 or 1260) which had a wide distribution. St Thomas Aquinas was not satisfied with the unbiblical labels that Dionysius gave to these stages of Christian life. Thomas therefore avoids the vocabulary of purgative, illuminative, unitive steps. He prefers the more biblical terms: beginners, proficient, perfect (incipientes, proficientes, perfecti), and all are set in relation to the supreme value, charity, or love of God and neighbor. To avoid illusions, Thomas distinguishes between the relative perfection of this life, where venial sins are unavoidable, and the absolute perfection possible only in heaven. His whole analysis is geared to growth in charity.15 By way of conclusion, it will suffice to recall our basic thesis that dogmas tend to divide, to define communities, while spiritualities can sometimes leap over dogmatic barriers to unite non-professional believers. The mosaic synagogue floor of Beth Alfa, which expresses a Christian analysis of the spiritual life in Jewish religious symbols, is a good illustration of this kind of crossfertilization. And then, we should add, the whole phenomenon of Jewish figurative art came to an abrupt end in the region with the arrival of Islam and its associated return to aniconism.

14

G.W.H. LAMPE, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 669. The standard older edition of Dionysius is in Migne, PG 1 or 3 and 4. The current critical edition is ed. by B.R. Suchla, Günter Heil and A.M. Ritter, Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols. (PTS 36; Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1991). The most recent English translation is by C. Luibheid and P. Rorem, Classics of Western Spirituality series (New York: Paulist, 1987). Studies include R. ROGUES, L'univers dionysien (Theologie 29; Paris: Aubier-Montagne 1954). The same author in RAC 3 (1957), cols. 1075-121, s.v. 'Dionysius Areopagita'; with others in Diet. Sp. 3 (1957), col. 244-429, s.v. 'Denys (2), l'Areopagite (Le Pseudo-)'; the same author, W. M. Cappuyns and R. Aubert in DHGE 14 (1960), cols. 265-310, s.v. 'Denys (14) le Pseudo-Areopagite'; A. LOUTH, Denys the Areopagite (London: G. Chapman, 1989); H.U. von BALTHASAR, The Glory of the Lord 2 (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1984), pp. 144-210; I.P. Sheldon-Williams in A.H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1967), 457472.

15

Summa theologiae 1-2, q. 61, art. 5; 2-2, q. 24, arts. 8 and 9; 183, art. 4; q. 184, art. 2; 3 Sent. D. 29, q. 1, a. 8. A. SOLIGNAC, "Voies", Dictionnaire de Spiritualite (Paris: Beauchesne, 1994), 16, 1200-1215. J. de Guibert, The Theology of the Spiritual Life (New York: Sheed and Word, 1953), part 6, chap. 1; Reginald GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, transl. M.T. Doyle (St. Louis: Herder, 1956), 2 vols.

12

Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16:13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4:10-17 and Other Models

I. Mosaic Typology Much has already been written about Peter's confession of messianic faith in Jesus (Mark 8:27-30; Matt 16:13-16; Luke 9:18-21) and Jesus' blessing and commissioning of Peter (Matt 16:17-19).' The following essay only has the limited intention of bringing a hitherto unnoticed Mosaic parallel to the attention of the reader. The search for Mosaic typology in the gospels is becoming somewhat of a trend in recent studies. 2 Yet the principal recent study on Mosaic typology in Matthew, excellent though it be in other respects, 3 does not notice this structural parallel or paradigm. In Exodus, chapters 3 and 4, God calls, accredits and empowers Moses for his great mission to the Israelites and to Pharaoh, to free his people from Egyptian bondage. 4 Such accreditation is necessary not only because of the

1

2

The older literature is listed in Peter in the NT, ed. R.E. BROWN, K.P. DONFRIED, John REUMANN (Minneapolis: Augsburg) New York: Paulist, 1973); from this earlier literature O. CULLMANN, Peter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) is esp. to be recommended. Among more recent comprehensive works we may mention R. PESCH, Simon-Petrus (Päpste und Papsttum 15; Stuttgart: Hiessemann, 1980); G. CLAUDEL, La Confession de Pierre (EBib n.s. 10; Paris: Gabalda, 1988); Ch. GRAPPE, Images de Pierre aux deux premiers siecles (Paris: PUF. 1995); R. MINNERATH, De Jerusalem ä Rome, Pierre et l'unite de l'Eglise apostolique (Theologie historique 101; Paris: Beauchesne, 1995); P. PERKINS, Peter (Studies on Personalities of the NT; Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1994); C.C. CARAGOUNIS, Peter and the Rock (BZNW 58; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990); T.V. SMITH, Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity (WUNT 2.15; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. In addition, the three recent major commentaries on Matthew provide very full bibliographies: J. GNILKA, Das Matthäus-Evangelium (HTKzNT 1.2; Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1988), 70, 80; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK 1.2; Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1990) 450-452; W.D. DAVIES and Dale С. ALLISON, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2 (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991) 643-648. D.C. ALLISON, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); M.Е. BOISMARD, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Minneapolis/Leuven: Fortress/Peeters, 1993); D.P. MOESSNER, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lucan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989); Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the ОТ in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville KY: Westminster, 1992). m y r e v i e w in till

3

ALLISON, The New Moses;

4

According to the usual source analysis Exod 3:l-4a,5,7-8,16-22; 4:1-16 are assigned to the Yahwist, while 3:4b,6,9-15; 4:17 are attributed to the Elohist. The part that most concerns us, 4:10-17, is Yahwistic except for the last verse about the rod.

103 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 137-138.

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

147

reluctance of these two bodies, the Israelites and the Egyptians, but also and especially because of Moses' own hesitation. Moses1 "reluctance, expressed in four objections, must be overcome through signs and dialogue with God (3:1-12,13-22; 4:1-9,10-17)." 5 Moses first objection (3:11), "Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh...," is answered (3:12) enigmatically, "... you shall worship on this mountain." Moses' second objection is that the people will not believe that he speaks for God; hence he asks for the name of the mysterious voice (3:13). And God reveals his name (3:14). To Moses' third objection, that people will not believe him, God responds with three signs, demonstrations of the divine power that Moses can count on in the future: the rod which becomes a serpent, then a hand which becomes leprous and is immediately thereafter restored (3:1-9). After enumerating these two signs (4:8; cp. John 2:11; 4:54; 21:14 and Boismard, Moses or Jesus, cited in note 2 above), God proposes a third sign as a fallback position: changing Nile water into blood. This sign is not however actually performed at this point. It becomes the first plague in Exod 7:14-24. The first sign and the third are reproduced by Egyptian magicians in Exod 7:11,22; the second recurs in Num 12:9-16 as a punishment for Miriam. Now comes the fourth objection, Exod 4:10-17, the one we see as a parallel to Matt 16:13-20: But Moses said to the Lord, "O my Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor even now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." Then the Lord said to him, "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak." But he said, "O my Lord, please send someone else." Then the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses and he said, "What of your brother Aaron, the Levite? I know that he can speak fluently; even now he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you his heart will be glad. You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. He indeed shall speak for you to the people; he shall serve as a mouth for you, and you shall serve as God for him. Take in your hand this staff, with which you shall perform the signs" (NRSV). At the fourth objection the Lord finally becomes angry (4:14) and this provokes him to propose a remarkable solution. Aaron will serve as the spokes5

R.J. CLIFFORD, "Exodus", NJBC 12. On Exodus, see also Umberto CASSUTO, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 48-52; M. NOTH, Exodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 78-79; F. MICHAELI, Exode (Neuchätel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1974), 53-54; B. JACOB, Exodus (Hoboken NJ; Ktav, 1992), 87-100; Cornells HOUTMAN, Exodus (Kampen: KOK, 1993), 403-419; N.M. SARNA, Exodus (PhiladelphiaNew York: JPS, 1991), 21-22; Μ. M. KASHER, Encyclopedia of Biblical Interpretation (New York: American Biblical Encyclopedia Society, 1967), vol. 7, 123-137.

148

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

man for Moses (4:15). More shocking still, Moses will be as God to Aaron (4:16). That for the biblical author this bold manner of speaking is not a solitary lapse may be seen in Exod 7:1 where God says to Moses, "see, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet."6 This is a lively, well-developed passage of dialogue. (Some see a fifth objection in v. 13.) It is almost a playlet. It maintains the reader's interest through shifts and surprises both subtle and substantial, for example: in v. 10 Moses claims not to be a man of words but the rest of the Pentateuch shows him constantly speaking; in v. 11 God is the cause of evil (deafness, muteness, blindness) as well as good (their opposites); in v. 13 Moses' objection is very subtly worded in the original; in v. 15 God will teach Moses what to do, not what to say, as one would have expected from the preceding dialogue; in v. 16 the shock is that Moses is called God (elohim) in relation to Aaron. It is a somewhat neglected passage. The key words which dominate the passage are dibber (speak) and debar im (words) which together occur eight times; pe (mouth), which occurs seven times, and anochi (I) which occurs five times. This last word "I" suggests a battle of wills between Moses and God. It is fairly easy to see a general connection between the structures of Exodus 3-4 and Matt 16:13-20. They both contain a scene of divine revelation, followed by the authorization of a purely human (and weak, flawed) figure for a role of leadership. But beyond this, both Exodus and Matthew can be seen as attributing divine or semi-divine status to Moses and Jesus respectively, and as proposing a subordinate but important role to a second figure, in the first case Aaron, in the second Peter. To be sure, the texts are not strictly parallel; otherwise the links would have been noticed earlier. In the one case the revelation consists in the transmitting of God's name (Exod 3:14), in the second case it consists in Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16). The asymmetry is even more obvious in that the phrase "you shall serve as God for him" (Exod 4:16) comes not as a major revelation, much less as a confession, but rather at the end of a series of objections and responses, almost as an afterthought. The phrase could have The philological details of the two verses which speak of Moses as god deserve attention. In 4:16, in the key final phrase weoo attah tiheyeh-lo elohim there is a lamed prefixed to the word for God, elohim. In 7:1 there is no lamed: natatti elohim leparh. How should we understand this lamed? As a lamed of specification? Or as a sign of a label or inscription, not to be translated? Cf. W. L. HOLLADAY, ed., A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1993), p. 169. The NRSV translates by adding an "as" or "like" before elohim. The sense of this addition is to signal to the reader that this b o l d e x p r e s s i o n is o n l y a m e t a p h o r a n d is n o t to b e p r e s s e d . T h e a n c i e n t v e r s i o n s w e n t

even further in this direction. Cf. my article, "The Trinity in the Old Testament", Theologische Zeitschrift 54 (1998) 193-209. But we must remember that there is no "as" or "like" in the original, esp. not in 7:1.

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

149

been omitted without damaging the main sense of the passage; so at least one might think were it not for Exod 7:1. Further, there is a parallelism between Aaron and Peter, but there are also differences. This can be seen in the succession narrative in Num 20:22-29 (cf. 33:38-39) and 27:12-23 (cf. Deut 31:1-8). In the first of these Aaron is to be succeeded as priest by his son Eleazar. (Actually his office as priest is not mentioned explicitly in 20:22-29; the idea is conveyed by the references to putting on and taking off the vestments. But Aaron is named priest in the second account of his death, Num 33:38-39). In the second succession narrative Moses is succeeded by Joshua, who "shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the decision of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he and all the Israelites with him, the whole congregation" (Num 27:21). Joshua does not here receive the name or title of an office, but one is to understand that he will be the leader in battle, and thus exercise military, political and civil authority. In other words he fulfills the function of a king, although he never bears this title. Whether Eleazar is to be subordinate to Joshua, as I am inclined to think, or Joshua is to be subordinate to Eleazar, as Conrad L'Heureux judges,7 remains uncertain. Perhaps their exact relationship is left undefined. Joshua seems not to have been admitted to the same degree of intimacy with God as Moses.8 Like Peter, Joshua undergoes a change of name: "And Moses changed the name of Hoshea son of Nun to Joshua" (Num 13:16). This is due to a scruple of the Priestly tradition about the divine name, but nothing is made of it narratively.) Nevertheless, Joshua's role is important: "On that day the Lord exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they stood in awe of him, as they had stood in awe of Moses, all the days of his life" (Josh 4:14; cf. 1:5; 3:7; 6:27). This idea of a direct succession to Moses is quite different from what one finds in Matt 16:17-19. There is there no idea of a direct successor of Jesus. Rather is there the idea of Peter exercising the role of a foundation stone (v. 18)9 and of a lieutenant, a grand vizier, a prime

7 8

9

C. L'HEUREUX, "Numbers", NJBC, 56. M. BUBER, Moses (New York: Harper, 1958; orig. 1946), 198; for a different view see J. DANIELOU, From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1960), Book V: The Cycle of Joshua, 229-286. P. LAMPE, "Das Spiel mit dem Petrus-Namen - Matt. 16.18", NTS 25 (1979) 227-245. Despite his immense learning, Lampe's attempt to argue thatpetra/kepha' could not serve to refer to a foundation rock because it meant a (rolling) stone, not a rock, fails to convince for two reasons. (1) Even if the first meaning of kepha was stone, it also, as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the targumim show, meant rock (J.-A. FITZMYER, "Aramaic Kepha and Peter's Name in the New Testament", in his To Advance the Gospel: NT Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981, 112-124. (2) The image behind Matt 16:18 is of a temple being constructed, and in Judaism the temple was founded not upon a rock but upon a (foundation) stone, the eben (etiyyä (cf. the use of eben/lithon in Isa 28:16) (so DAVIES-

150

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

minister, with authority to bind and loose (v. 19). This office of grand vizier or prime minister is developed and illustrated in Isa 22:15-25, with imagery which is echoed in Matt 16:19. There Shebna, whose titles are steward (soken, LXX: tamias) and master of the (royal) household Cager al-habbayit, LXX: v. 23 archon) is deposed from his office, and Eliakim son of Hilkiah is set in his place. There it is said: "I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open... he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house" (Isa 22:22-23; for the throne cf. Matt 19:28 par Luke 22:29-30). The point here is that, as Aaron serves as Moses' spokesperson and assistant, so Shebna and later Eliakim serve as stewards or prime ministers to the Davidide king, and Peter as authorized lieutenant (in the etymological sense of place holder or locum tenens) to Jesus. It is a case of Mosaic and Davidide typology, but among the characters of secondary rank. These characters play a real but subsidiary role in biblical models of succession and leadership. It is a delicate matter of balance. Their function is not to be exaggerated nor is it to be denied altogether. In each of these three cases the flaws and failures of each character are frankly stated: for Aaron in Num 20:24; cf. Num 12:1-16, not to mention the Golden Calf, Exod 32; for Eliakim in Isa 22:25 (prospectively); for Peter in Matt 16: 22-23; 14:30-31; 26:56,69-75. Yet in each case, and despite their flaws, their function is accepted as a practical necessity. To return to the matter of differences between Exod 4:10-17 and Matt 16:13-20. Despite some later Jewish views of Moses as unique, foundational and unsucceedable, for example in Philo and Maimonides (based on Num 12:8 and Deut 34:10), the picture in the Pentateuch at least shows Moses as (a) flawed (see Deut 1-3, esp. 1:37-38; 3:23-28) and (b) as having Joshua as his successor. Moses' office is not clearly defined or titled in the Pentateuch; he simply functions as what we would call the leader. (Philo would later, in his Life of Moses, speak of a fivefold ministry of Moses as legislator, philosopher, king, priest and prophet, Book II, 1-2.) But in at least one strand of the Pentateuch Moses is viewed as a prophet and as a prophet who has successors in his office (Deut 18:18). The expression of Exod 4:12, "I will be with your mouth and teach you what you are to speak", is echoed in Deuteronomy ("and I will put my words in his mouth") and also in Jer 1:9 and less exactly in Isa 6:7-8. 10 By contrast, in the New Testament generally Jesus is portrayed as flawless, as without sin. The exceptions in Mark 3:5,21 are

10

ALLISON, Matthew 2.626). CARAGOUNIS, Peter, takes a line similar to Lampe; (3) in Matt 7:24-25 petra means a solid foundation. New Testament echoes have been seen in Matt 10:19-20 par Luke 12:11-12; Mark 13:11; Luke 21:14-15, but these passages do not at all suggest that anyone succeeds to Jesus' unique, irreplaceable office.

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

151

almost accidental; there is no hint in Mark that he regarded Jesus' anger as a moral fault, or that he shared the view of Jesus' family that Jesus was out of his mind. The sinlessness of Jesus eventually becomes a principle, as in Heb 4:15, and his superiority to Moses as son to servant is explicit in Heb 3:1-6. More important for our purposes, in the New Testament, which accepts that Jesus is the Son of God and risen from the dead, Jesus does not require a human successor, because (a) he reigns as risen Lord present in mysterious ways to his people (e.g., Matt 28:18-20), (b) he sends his Holy Spirit among them as the main mode of his presence. 11 To be sure, in the resurrection narratives Jesus continues to delegate his work to others who continue his ministry. They do so not as successors but as associates who continue to depend upon his authority. This is quite clear in Matt 28:18-20: "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." 12 To sum up the main point, we propose to see a rough Mosaic typology, drawn from Exod 4:10-17, in Matt 16:13-20, where a scene of revelation of Jesus' messianic and transcendent identity is followed by an authorization of a secondary, quite human, figure, Peter, to exercise important ministerial powers. Peter stands to Aaron as Moses to Jesus. The obvious question is whether this passage from Exodus was in Matthew's mind as he composed this scene. That he knew Exodus chap, four well is clear from his quotation of Exod 4:19 in Matt 2:20. That he had Exod 4:1017 in his mind on occasion may be seen in the allusion at Matt 10:19-20. Still, the question remains, was this passage in his mind at Matt 16:13-20? To answer such a question, D.C. Allison lists six "devices" and six guidelines. 13 The six devices used in constructing typologies are: explicit statement, inexplicit borrowing, reminiscent circumstances, key words or phrases, structural imitation, and resonant syllabic and/or word patterns. The six guidelines are: chronological priority of type to antitype; the type must be known to the author of the antitype; if there is no explicit statement, there ought to be a combination of the other devices; the type should be well known, not obscure (here Moses and Aaron); multiple use of a type strengthens the case; unusual imagery and uncommon motifs present in both type and antitype increase the probability of the argument. This is organized

11 12

13

R.F. O'TOOLE, "Activity of the Risen Jesus in Luke-Acts", Bibl 62 (1981) 471-498. T.W. MANSON, The Servant Messiah (Cambridge: University Press, 1961), 89-99; R.E. BROWN, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist, 1984), 124-150. ALLISON, The New

Moses,

19-23, 140.

152

PETER A S JESUS' M O U T H : M A T T H E W

16:13-20

common sense, helpful nonetheless. Elements of devices three to six are arguably present in Matt 16:13-20 in relation to Exod 4:10-17. If we look at the Septuagint of Exod 4:10-17, which contains some minor but real differences from and additions to the Hebrew, 14 we must first of all state frankly that the vocabulary of the two passages is quite different. The vocabulary of HT Exod 4:10-17 is on the whole simple. One might think it a bit anthropomorphic, though the LXX does not blush at it (except in v. 16).15 The vocabulary of Matt 16: 13-20 on the other hand is a complex weave of terminology from various strands of the biblical and extra-biblical traditions: the Christ Son of God stems from Israelite royal language, the keys and the mention of Elijah and Jeremiah are all prophetic, the makarism in v. 17 is sapiential, the image of the gates of the underworld is found in both prophetic and wisdom strands, and binding and loosing come from protorabbinic usage. (What makes our two passages parallel is the partial similarity of content and structure, not a common vocabulary.) Yet there are a few points to notice. (1) In Exod 4:10-11 LXX, Moses says: ischnophonos kai bradyglossos ego eimi, "weak voiced and slow of tongue am /." He uses the ego eimi of self-predication, establishing an identity. 16 In Matthew it is also a question of determining a personal identity. Jesus twice asks about others' opinion of his identity, e.g., 16:15 tina me legete einai. The words are the same but the grammatical forms are different, as the interrogative sentence differs from the indicative. (2) The anger of God in Exod 4:14 parallels the angry words of Jesus in Matt 16:23 which rebukes Peter. (3) There is a parallel in the conferral of a physical instrument or badge of office, in the case of Moses the staff. "Take in your hand this staff, with which you shall perform the signs" (Exod 4:17). Jesus says to Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19a). The material instrument in each case differs: staff, keys. And the staff is real, whereas the keys are normally un14

15

16

In v. 10 the LXX does not make explicit the nature of Moses' incompetence. In v. 11 the MT has "mute or d e a f ; LXX transposes this to "deaf or hard of hearing". In v. 12 MT reads "I will be with your mouth"; LXX: "I will open your mouth". In v. 14 LXX adds that Aaron will speak "for you", thus anticipating v. 16. In v. 16 MT reads: "you will be to him as God"; LXX: "you will be (there) for him for relations with God (ta tou theou)". The LXX thus waters down the boldness of the expression through interpretation. In v. 17 LXX adds to "this staff" the phrase "which has been changed into a snake". It thus assimilates this staff to the staff of vv. 2-4. Cf. A. LE BOULLUEC and P. SANDEVOIR, La Bible d'Alexandrie: L'Exode (Paris: Cerf, 1989), 98-101. The only unusual terms are the technical terms for the handicaps of speech, hearing and vision, and the twice-repeated (vv. 12 and 15) root yrh III, in the Hifil, with the meaning "to instruct". But this word occurs 45 times in HT, well-distributed among the parts of the Bible, so it is not exactly rare. One could think of it as belonging to the special vocabulary of wisdom but not in an exclusive sense. P. B. HARNER, The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970). This provides ОТ and NT usage and further literature.

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

153

derstood to be symbolic and metaphorical (by exegetes, but not by artists). But both instruments fit into a context of bestowal of an office. (4) Both passages include a reference to an earthly office-holder who has a kind of control over divine matters. In Exod 4:16LXX, God says to Moses, sy de auto ese ta pros ton theon, "but you will be for him (in) the matters toward God." In Matt 16:19b, the clauses about binding and loosing on earth and in heaven involve a reverent circumlocution in which heaven stands for the deity. Peter will be involved in ta tou theou, divine matters. He thus will serve as a kind of mouth for Jesus as Son of God. This is the main link between the two passages. These four observations do not guarantee that Exod 4:10-17 was in the evangelist's mind as he composed 16:13-20, but they do make it more probable. If we widen the Matthean context slightly to include 17:1-8, we notice that six days after Peter as a new Aaron has made his confession of Jesus as the transcendent Messiah, comparable to the high priest whose duty it is once a year to pronounce the divine name in the Holy of Holies (M. Yoma 6:2; 3:8; Sofa 7:6; Tamid 3:8; cf. Lev 9:4,22-24; 16), he is privileged with two other leading disciples to witness the revelation of the transfigured Jesus. Our four plus one observations do suggest the presence in Matt 16:13-20 and its context of some of the devices proper to (Mosaic) typology which we listed above. Thus Matthew has borrowed implicitly some motifs of the Moses story in this passage. The circumstance of commissioning Peter to a new series of tasks which together make up an office is reminiscent of God calling and accrediting Moses with Aaron as his prophetic mouthpiece or assistant. We have noted similar phrases and motifs (the question of identity, the anger of God/Jesus, the conferral of a symbol of office (staff, keys), the link of the two offices to divine matters. The conditions set by the six guidelines listed by Allison are all easily met, since Exodus is chronologically prior to Matthew and was certainly known to Matthew. There is a combination of the devices. The type (here Moses and Aaron) was well known to Matthew's readership, and the imagery is sufficiently striking and uncommon as to be memorable. So much for the Mosaic typology which was such a part of Matthew's cultural world. Now we should look at an extra-biblical but early and rival approach to the question of post-pascal leadership in the churches. The Gospel of Thomas, logion 12, contains an interesting parallel to Matt 16:17-19. The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will go away from us. Who is it who will (then) be great over us? Jesus said to them: In the place to which you have come, you will go to James the Just for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.

154

P E T E R A S JESUS' M O U T H : M A T T H E W

16:13-20

This text poses the question clearly: who will be the leader ("great") of the disciples after the Ascension? Jesus' answer here, "James the Just", astonishing as it may be, reflects the view of the Jewish Christian element within early Christianity, its hope, its wish, its ideal, of a Judaism which accepts Jesus as the eschatological Messiah but wants to remain faithful to the Torah and the way of life (customs) to which it leads. Their hero was the by now long dead James the brother of the Lord, not either of the apostles James. He was a man whom Josephus presents as universally admired for his holiness but who died a martyr at the hands of the priests ca. A.D. 62 (Jos., Ant., 20.9.1; Eusebius, H.E., 2.23). This group opposed Paul's mission principle according to which Gentile converts could be admitted to the church without the obligation to observe the ethnic markers or ceremonial precepts of Judaism, notably circumcision. They needed to exalt a figure who would symbolize and embody an alternative to Pauline leadership. In their eyes, Peter was too weak, too impetuous and unstable, too easily intimidated by Paul, to fill the bill. The extremists of this group eventually drifted into what the great church would regard as heresy, whether Ebionite or gnostic or both. This passage from the Gospel of Thomas represents their option, even though this James was not an apostle. They were willing to forego apostolic authority, mindful of the brief experiment in caliphate government (government of the church of Jerusalem by blood relatives of Jesus). 17 This seemed to them even better than apostolic authority. 18 The ecclesial position represented by Matthew, while critical of Paul (Matt 5:19 in relation to 1 Cor 15:9), was not willing to exclude the Pauline mission entirely from its ecumenical outreach. Therefore, though it parodied Paul's words in Gal 1:15-16 and applied them to Peter (Matt 16:17),19 it continued to learn from Paul (Matt 10:8b, possibly) and sought a compromise candidate, a wax nose, that could be influenced by both parties during his lifetime (Gal 2:11-14), 20 but who had unassailable apostolic credentials (even if Andrew was the first called in John's gospel) and who is almost 17

18

19 20

H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, "The Authority of Jesus' Relatives in the Early Church", in H. CHADWICK and H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN, Jerusalem and Rome (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 1-19; R. BAUCKHAM, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1990). Μ. HENGEL, "Jakobus der Herrenbruder — der erste "Papst"?", in Glaube und Eschatologie: Festschrift fiir W.G. Kümmel zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Erich Grässer and Otto Merk (Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), 71-104. In its turn Matt 16:17-19 is probably modulated by John 20:23 and 21:15-19. Cf. the classic albeit polemical article by K. HOLL on later interpretations of this passage, "Der Streit zwischen Petrus und Paulus in Antiochien und seine Bedeutung für Luthers innere Entwicklung", in his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte 3. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 134-146, and the chapter on Gal 2:11-14 in this book.

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

155

always placed first in lists of the apostles (Gal 2:9 is the exception) and who acted as the spokesman of the group of the disciples in all the synoptic gospels. He was thus a man acceptable to moderates on all sides and a man who had sealed his confession of faith as a martyr for his Lord (1 Clem 5:4). If you had to choose a symbolic figure for church leadership you could not do better than Peter both on historic and on psychological-moral-typological grounds, since he by his life illustrated the real weaknesses as well as the strengths of church leaders of every era. Thus the parallel from the Gospel of Thomas is extremely valuable as a means of understanding the struggles behind and the alternatives to Matt 16:17-19. Matthew's is not a text that fell from the blue but, as we now have it in our Greek text, it is the late first century product or end result of considerable early Christian experimentation and exploration. 21 , 22 This experimentation is precisely in the area of ecclesiological organization and authority, as the Thomas parallel helps us to see; it is not only a matter of the personal faith of each individual disciple (of whom Peter is the type) or of the value of faith in general, but of continuity in church structure and teaching. Some authors read Gal 2 as indicating a federation of a Peter/Paul with a James group. In this reconstruction Peter and Paul as coepheroi represent a fusion and union of diverse groups. The Jamesians drift off, except for moderates represented in the New Testament by the gospel according to Matthew and by the letter of James, perhaps also by 2 Peter. It may be that Matthew and others stress Petrine authority against the challenge represented by the Jamesian caliphate. 23 II. Other Models Once we grant that the evangelist Matthew included 16:17-19 as part of an attempt to provide for church leadership and government after Easter, after the crisis of 66-74, the end of the priestly Temple regime in Judaism, and as the original apostles and eyewitnesses were beginning to die off, we may ask 21

22

23

On Gospel of Thomas 12, see K.T. SCHÄFER, "Der Primat Petri und das ThomasEvangelium", in W. CORSTEN, A. Frotz, P. Linden, eds., Die Kirche und ihre Ämter und Stände. F S Joseph Kard. FRINGS (Cologne: J.P. Bachem, 1960), 353-363; T.V. SMITH, Petrine Controversies, 107-111; Μ. FIEGER, Das Thomasevangelium (NTAbh NF 22; Münster: Aschendorff, 1991), 63-66. This dating does not exclude some roots or traces of the blessing of Peter on the level of the historical Jesus. D A V I E S - A L L I S O N , Matthew, in loco, and, in their train, D . H A G N E R , Matthew 14-28 (Waco: Word, 1995), 461-475, have argued for a setting in the life of the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, we hold that the final form of the text in this gospel is a product of the Matthean redaction, and, as such, bears the marks of several decades of early Christian searching for a viable model of post-apostolic authority. E . N O D E T and Justin Taylor, The Origins of Christianity: An Exploration (Collegeville ΜΝ: Liturgical Press/Glazier Books, 1998) 183-254.

156

PETER A S JESUS' M O U T H : M A T T H E W

16:13-20

the question: what models of central religious government were available to him and to his sources? What models could have contributed to his editorial shaping of the verses? Let us draw up a list of some of the possibilities, moving from the least likely to the more probable, before going in greater detail into some of the more probable models. Our work will be exploratory and it must be kept in mind that we are trying to understand the position of Peter for Matthew, not of Jesus as the Christ. The distinction is important, since some of the same models could be or have been used in Christology. We may begin with the Roman emperor. There is nothing explicit in Matthew to suggest this. Matthew stays as much as possible within the perspective of biblical Israel. Only in the trial narrative does the Roman imperial authority come to the surface in a powerful way. In the prologue the child's conflict is with Herod the Great, not with Augustus. The magi come from the east, not the west. The flight to Egypt de facto presupposes the unity of the empire but this is not discussed. The obvious exception is the controversy over paying taxes to Caesar, 22:15-22, but the contrast is between God and Caesar, not between Jesus and Caesar or Peter and Caesar. The references to kings in 10:18; 11:8; 17:25, as well as in the king parables of 18:23; 22:1-14, all seem to allude to the vassal kings of the local variety with which Galileans were familiar. Nevertheless, we must accept that the Roman empire was the remoter horizon of Matthew's political consciousness, and that the emperor bore the title Pontifex Maximus, the title which signified that he was the head of the state religion. Matthew's borrowing of the terms parousia and hypantesis,24 technical terms for the arrival of the emperor for a state visit, 25 and his application of them to the arrival or coming of Jesus in future glory, is a strong indication of his mind, even if the immediate source was 1 Thess 4:13-18 and/or 1 Cor 15:23. That is, these terms were already part of the early Christian eschatological vocabulary, even if avoided by the other evangelists (cf. however John 12:13). Yet none of this seems to have directly influenced the words about Peter. All that we can conclude is that the Roman emperor was a model of central religiopolitical authority current in Matthew's day. (Later, after the end of the empire in the West, the Roman popes did try to fill the imperial gap for a time, in collaboration with Byzantium, but this has no bearing on our understanding of Matthew.) References to Israelite kings are more frequent, especially to the Herods and to David. Matthew refers to David some fifteen times, more often than any 24 25

Parousia·. Matt 24:3,27,37,39; hypantesis: 8:34; 25:1. E. PETERSON, "Die Einholung des Kyrios", Zeitschrift für systematische (1929/30) 682-702.

Theologie 1

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

157

other evangelists, and the christological title Son of David is singularly important for him, often with a healing connotation,26 and his successor Solomon is mentioned as well (1:6,7; 6:29; 12:42),27 whereas his predecessor Saul is passed over in silence. Herod the Great and his son Archelaus figure in chap. 14:1-9. Matthew's interest in and awareness of such local kings is not in doubt. Perhaps his view of them is partly revealed, not only in 10:18 and 11:8 or in king parables (18:23; 22:27), but in the episode of the temple tax, proper to his gospel, where Jesus asks Peter (17:25): "From whom do the kings take tolls or census tax?" What is regrettably absent from these references to kings is any awareness that they were often aided by grand viziers or prime ministers. For example, the gifted assistant to Herod the Great, Nicolaus of Damascus, is not mentioned. This is unfortunate precisely because the symbolism of the key in 16:19 derives from a prophetic reference to such an assisting figure to a Davidic king. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, there has been considerable interest in studying the community structure as described in the sectarian documents found in the caves at Wadi Qumran. (This interest picks up an earlier, pre-Qumran, interest in the possible influence of the Essenes, as described by Josephus and Philo, on early Christianity, manifested by Ernest Renan and others in the nineteenth century.28) The roles of the priests, the Teacher of Righteousness, the mebaqqer and/or the päqid (supervisor) have all been explored for possible influences on Jesus and/or the early church, especially the development of the office of bishop.29 As R.E. Brown says, "the Christian bishop is an excellent parallel to the Qumran supervisor. Episkopos, "overseer" or "supervisor", could be a literal translation of either päqid. or mebaqqer, and the functions attributed to the bishop are much the same as those of the Qumran supervisor, e.g., shepherd of the flock, steward and manager of community property, and inspector of the doctrine of the faithful (1 Pet 2:25; Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7-9; 1 Tim 3:27 ) "30

26

27 28

29

30

D.C. DULING, "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic", NTS 24 (1978) 392-410; DULING, "Solomon, Exorcism, and Son of David", HTR 68 (1975) 235-252; J.D. KINGSBURY, "The Title Son of David in Matthew's Gospel", JBL 95 (1976) 591-602; Ch. BURGER, Jesus als Davidssohn (FRLANT 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970). E. SCHILLEBEECKX, Jesus (New York: Crossroad, 1979), 456-459. Cf. A. DUPONT-SOMMER, The Essene Writings from Qumran (Cleveland, 1961), 13, refers to Frederick II of Prussia and cites Renan: "Christianity is an Essenism which has largely succeeded". J.M. BAUMGARTEN, "The Duodecimal Courts of Qumran, Revelation, and the Sanhedrin", JBL 95 (1976) 59-78; B.E. THIERING, "Mebaqqer and Episkopos in the Light of the Temple Scroll", JBL 100 (1981) 59-74; R.E. BROWN, NJBC 67:110-112. See previous note, NJBC 67:112.

158

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

Applying these considerations to Matthew, the evangelist, inspired by this Qumranite structure, could have seen Peter as such a supervisory figure. But apart from the Teacher of Righteousness who seems to fulfill a unique and unrepeatable role (and thus corresponds more to the role of Jesus in the gospels), there is nothing in Qumran about a supervisor of supervisors who would have universal authority even in a conciliar structure (Matt 18:18). But, while we think that Matt 16:17-19 describes an ongoing office of church leadership, a judge of final instance, we do not exclude a unique, foundational role to Peter and the other members of the Twelve. Their successors do not share in that foundational role, but are nonetheless endowed with sufficient authority to guide the church through its ongoing crises. This seems to be Matthew's idea in this Petrine passage, as in 18:18. Moreover, in regard to Qumran, there is a distinct sacerdotal aspect to their leadership structure, at least as an ideal. And so one could object that Simon Peter is never said to be of priestly or levitical lineage in the Christian tradition. Any connection with Qumran models would then be ruled out. But, alongside the priests, there seem to be non-sacerdotal office-holders at Qumran. (The texts are not absolutely clear about this.) Yet, like the Pharisees, the people of Qumran seem to have striven to live in a state of priestly purity even if they were not of priestly descent, positively to realize the ideal of Exod 19:6, negatively in atonement for the defilements caused, in their view, by the Hasmonean high priests in the Jerusalem temple. 31 Thus some Qumran influence on Matthew's view cannot be absolutely excluded. Indeed, we will return to these semi-sacerdotal models after we consider our next model. In the wake of W.D. Davies' major study of Matthew, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount,32 some tried to understand Peter's authority in this text as that of a grand rabbi. 33 For Davies, in the most original part of his work, had proposed that Matthew's "school" was in polemical dialogue with the early rabbinic academy at Jamnia, founded by Rabbanan Johanan ben Zakkai about A.D. 75. 34 (Jamnia lies some 30 km south of Caesarea maritima on the Mediterranean coast.) As the academy developed, it held annual sessions where the sages gathered and made halachic decisions (hence the label

31

NJBC 67: 108 and the literature there cited; A. SCHENKER, "Ein Königreich von Priestern ( E x 1 9 , 6 ) " , IKZ

32

Communio

2 5 ( 1 9 9 6 ) 4 8 3 - 4 9 0 ; J . M . BAUMGARTEN, "The Q u m r a n - E s s e n e

Restraints on Marriage", in Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Suppl. 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 13-24 (good bibliography); A. STEINER, "Warum lebten die Essener asketisch?", BZ 15 (1971) 1-28. W.D. DAVIES, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964).

33

For example, P.E. ELLIS, Matthew: His Mind and His Message (Collegeville MN: Liturgical, 1974), 125-134.

34

DAVIES, Setting,

256-315.

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

159

"synod"). The academy was governed by a nasi or patriarch, whose lieutenant was called the ab beth din (literally, the father of the court house).Thus Jamnia at times at least involved academic, legislative, judicial and executive activities. The nasi's authority increased once the Romans recognized its usefulness in dealing with the Jews of the region. Should we suppose that this recognition was granted at the outset, then was temporarily withdrawn during the Bar Cochba rebellion (132-135) and its immediate aftermath, and then was renewed when the situation had quieted down and the rabbis could give assurances of a pacific orientation to the restored leadership, with an exilarch or exarch added as civil leader? The historical data are not clear. Did this institution of the nasi inspire Matthew or his sources? One might be inclined to reject such a suggestion until one remembers that Johanan and his colleagues were trying to find a substitute for the lost religious leadership represented by the high priest in the temple. Their substitute was not an exact copy of the temple administration (although they were careful to preserve as much of the traditions of temple procedure as they could, in the latter part of the Mishnah, in the hope that the Temple would soon be restored) but an administration which intended primarily to codify and to continue (and to purify?) the Pharisaic line of tradition within pre-70 Judaism. In the process they created something new, however traditional their intentions. Matthew's community was also interested in preserving a double strain of continuity in the face of the terrible disruption and discontinuity which occurred when the temple was burned. Its concerns were (a) to be the heirs and continuators of what they judged to be the true Israel, and (b) to be the true Israel as reformed and gathered for the soon—to-come eschaton by Jesus. This too represented a considerable set of innovations. So, even if the Jamnian arrangements were not a model that Matthew followed in detail, still we can see some parallel intentions and procedures. The last model for Matt 16:17-19 which we will consider is the Aaronic high priest of the temple in Jerusalem. For Christians, due to the role of the high priest in the trial of Jesus as recorded in the canonical gospels, this office has rather negative connotations. For modern religious Jews it is associated with the Sadducean party, an unloved group in rabbinic sources. Yet as a religious office, founded in the Pentateuch, it was important as a role which, so long as it lasted, provided a unity, a central focal point, and a certain continuity for the widely scattered Jews of the diaspora as well as for the Jews of the Judean mother country. Even the Essenes, who abominated the group that held office in the first centuries B.C. and A.D., were fiercely sacerdotal-levitical in their outlook and lived for the day when they could take over the administration of the temple themselves. In a more quiet manner the Pharisees sought gradually to influence temple practices. The zealots

160

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

took over the temple in the great battle for the city. The average Jew, unaffiliated with any religious faction, doubtless regarded the temple and its priesthood as the outer symbols of his faith, and tried to observe the three annual pilgrim festivals there as often as he could. 35 Even the early Jewish Christians seem to have taken it for granted as the center for worship. For Matthew this is hinted at unreflectively by 5:23-24, where the believer is told to leave the altar (of the temple) to be reconciled with one he has offended before offering his gift (cf. 4:5). Mark's passion narrative symbolism, the rending of the temple veil (15:38), the cutting off of the high priest's servant ear (14:47), 36 and the like, suggests that for the early Christians a break had occurred, that they regarded the temple system as spiritually bankrupt. Now in Christ God was doing something new. A new era of salvation history had dawned. All four canonical evangelists record the cleansing of the temple (Matt 21:12-17 par), implying that it needed to be cleansed. Matthew, in his additional verse 21:14, "the blind and the lame approached him in the temple area, and he cured them", further implies a critique of the restrictions placed on who could enter the temple, in the old regime. Yet this entails a conviction of the desirability of participating in the temple services. Still, after all the implict polemic against the temple in the passion narratives, we are astounded at the ease and naturalness with which Acts depicts the early Christians regularly frequenting the temple to teach and to worship (2:46 "every day"!; 3:1-4:5; 5:19-26). Paul too is there depicted as performing rites in the temple (21:15-26). The Marcan and Lucan views are so different as to be virtually contradictory. Doubtless there was idealization by both authors. Everything was not crystal clear at the outset. It took time for the early Christians to recognize the hiatus and the other implications of the death of Jesus. This recognition was only further accelerated by the burning of the temple. 37 The cessation of the sacrifices by the Levitical priests on the temple mount creates the crisis to which both Jamnia and Matthew respond creatively. For Matthew an additional factor for the creation or envisaging of new institutions was the dying out of the apostolic generation after 70. Something had to be done. Many NT authors react to this crisis.38 At the same time, 35

36

37

E. P. SANDERS, Judaism, Practice and Belief 63BCE-66CE (London: SCM, 1992), 125145. B . T . VIVIANO, "The H i g h Priest's S e r v a n t ' s Ear: M a r k 1 4 : 4 7 " , RB 9 6 ( 1 9 8 9 ) 7 1 - 8 0 ; R . E .

BROWN, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994). K. BALTZER, "The Meaning of the Temple in the Lukan Writings", HTR 58 (1965) 263277; A. GUTTMANN, "The End of the Jewish Sacrificial Cult", HUCA 38 (1967) 137-148; SCHÜRER-VERMES, A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1973), 1 . 5 2 1 - 5 2 4 .

38

R.E. BROWN, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind.

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

161

several of the NT authors have recourse to Mosaic typology as one of the means to explain and to interpret the Christ event, and to meet new difficulties, along with Danielic apocalyptic and chiefly Isaian prophecy and Davidic typology. 39 What is important for our further argument is to see how, even though the early Christians criticized some parts of their Judaic and even their biblical inheritance, they nevertheless continued to make use of it, in the light of Christ to be sure. III. Exegesis, State of the Question, and Ecumenical Implications The reader is entitled to know what my own exegesis of the text of Matt 16:17-19 is. But first my presuppositions regarding Matthew may be briefly stated. I accept the two-source hypothesis; a date of between A.D. 80 and 90 for the Greek gospel; composition somewhere in northern Palestine or south Syria (Caesarea maritima?); the evangelist is a moderate Jewish Christian, in polemical dialogue with the formative Judaism of Jamnia and with the Pauline inheritance. In the new situation created by the burning of the Temple, he is convinced that his church is the true Israel, the legitimate successor or heir to the religion(s) represented in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. One of his subsidiary concerns then, briefly inserted into his primary concerns, is ecclesiological, to provide fully accredited leaders for the church in the new situation. 40 The old center of unity and religious authority, the high priest in the Temple, was no more. The rival groups who competed for the succession to the mantle of authority in Israel provided for leadership as best they could. Matthew provides both an office or ministry invested in a person, represented by Peter, to ensure unity in the sense of a court of final appeal (16:17-19), and a conciliar or synodical organ for collective decision making and discipline (18:15-20, not treated in detail in this paper). Let us turn now to a brief exegesis of the three verses. 41 Formally, verse 17 is a macarism or beatitude. By itself it would suffice as an appropriate response by Jesus to Peter's confession. But Matthew adds verses 18-19. These could be read on one level as an etiological legend explaining Peter's change of name. Together, verses 17-19 provide a foundation story about post-Easter authority in the church (note the future tenses in vv. 18 and 19) and a commission to leadership. Verse 17 says that "flesh and blood has not 39

40

41

C.H. DODD, According to the Scriptures: The Substructure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952). Matthew's primary concern was to tell the story of Jesus so as to show him as messiah, son of God, Lord in word and deed, herald of the kingdom, and even now, in lowliness and suffering, God with us. This primary concern is manifest in Matthew's redaction of 16:13-20, where a cluster of Christological titles occur, and especially in v. 20, which carefully returns the reader's attention back to the main point, Jesus as Messiah. For further details, see my commentary on Matthew, NJBC, 42:105.

162

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

revealed this to you". This may counter Paul's claim in Gal 1:16,16 that, when he was called by God, he did not confer with "flesh and blood" (often now translated as "any human being"). 42 In verse 18 the rock is a pun on Peter's name (Petros, petra)\ in Aramaic both would be kepä'. Cf. Isa 28:1422; 51:1-2; 1 Q Η 3:13-18; 6:25-27. (For the debate between Peter Lampe, Chrys Caragounis and J.A. Fitzmyer on rock versus rolling stone, see note 9 above.) The word church is found only here and in 18:17 (bis) in the four gospels. It refers to the assembly of the people of God, here understood in their universality, in 18:17 understood more locally. The "gates of Hades" or death is a common biblical image for the forces of evil, mortality, finitude; cf. Isa 38:10; Job 38:17; Ps 9:14; Wis 16:13. The keys mentioned in v. 19 are symbols of the grand vizier's or chief steward's office; cf. Isa 22:22-23; Job 12:14; 1 Enoch 1-16. 43 Matthew here relates the church to the kingdom of heaven/God: the church is an interim arrangement which mediates salvation in the time between the earthly ministry of Jesus and the future coming of the kingdom in its fullness. Shall be bound: This periphrastic verb and the parallel "shall be loosed" are future passives in Greek. The passives here are theological or divine passives; that is, if transposed into active verbs, God becomes the subject. It is then God who shall bind and loose what Peter binds and looses. (The verbs binding and loosing are here substituted for the poetically more appropriate opening and shutting, cf. Isa 22:22-23 and Rev 3:7, a substitution made for reasons given below.) This verse gives enormous authority to Peter. In popular imagination he becomes the gatekeeper of heaven. But in fact his ministry is earthly. What is the nature of his authority? Binding and loosing are rabbinic technical terms that can refer to binding the devil in exorcism. 44 They also refer to the juridical acts of excommunication and of definitive decision making (a form of teaching through legislation or policy setting), which can serve the unity of the church through the settling of divisive disputed questions. 45 The authority to bind and loose is given to the disciples in 18:18, but to Peter alone are accorded the revelation, the role of the rock of foundation (Eph 2:20), and especially the keys. These verses are a development of the historical reminiscence that Peter was the spokesman for the disciples during the earthly ministry of Jesus. But the present form of the text comes from the final re42

43

44

45

J. DUPONT, "La revelation du Fils de Dieu en faveur de Pierre (Mt 16,17) et de Paul (Ga 1,16)", RSR 5 2 ( 1 9 6 4 ) 4 1 1 - 4 2 0 , repr. in his Etudes sur les Evangiles Synoptiques (Leuven: University Press, 1985) 2. 9 2 9 - 9 3 9 . G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, "Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee", JBL 100 ( 1 9 8 1 ) 5 7 5 - 6 0 0 . R.H. HlERS, ' "Binding" and "Loosing": The Matthean Authorizations', JBL 104 ( 1 9 8 5 ) 233-250. Cf. J. JEREMIAS, s.v. "Kleis", TDNT 3. 7 4 4 - 5 3 .

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

163

dactor, the evangelist. As a whole verses 17-19 represent a blend of ОТ poetic imagery and institutional legislation. Such a combination is not unusual in rabbinic literature, but here it attains a remarkable density. One last exegetical point. To be sure, Peter's confession of faith makes him in this respect exemplary for all Christian believers, post and present. This is the truth in the oldest patristic interpretations of the passage, for convenience called the Eastern position. But the three verses as a whole cannot be confined to this sense. They make a promise of great ecclesial authority to an individual, particularly v. 19, especially the mention of the keys and the authority to bind and loose on earth. To this extent, as Davies-Allison remark, "Peter is not just a representative disciple". 46 To this extent also Augustine's interpretation that foundation Christ (not Peter) is the rock of the church is not exegetically adequate (exhaustive), as was recognized even in the Reformation tradition. 47 As for the contemporary state of the question, it would be good to survey recent Roman Catholic, 48 Eastern Orthodox, 49 as well as Protestant interpretations. 50 For the sake of brevity, we will reduce the discussion to the last group, and in particular to the work of Ulrich Luz, who in recent years has devoted no less than five studies to this passage, 51 surely a record. To diminish the line of exegesis which we have just summarized, Luz (at times) takes quite seriously the results of Lampe's researches, as applicable on a preMatthean level. He must then accuse Matthew of twisting the meaning of the nickname Peter kepa' from its original meaning (loose stone) to its opposite, solid rock, eine Umdeutung. Once one sees that Matthew is using both Petros and petra loosely here in the sense of lithos, these complicated consid-

46

DAVIES-ALLISON, Matthew,

47

Luz, Matthaeus, 2. 478 and note 173. I think here particularly of P. Hoffmann's "Der Petrus-Primat im Matthäusevangelium", in Neues Testament und Kirche (R. Schnackenburg FS), ed. J. Gnilka (Freiburg: Herder, 1974), pp. 94-114, as well as G. Claudel's work mentioned in note 1. Cf. J. KARAVIDOPOULOS, "Le role de Pierre et son importance dans l'Eglise du Nouveau Testament: problematique exegetique contemporaine", Nicolaus 19 (1992) 13-29, summarized in TD 44 (1997) 149-154, and the studies gathered in The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church, ed. John Meyendorff (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992), esp. the essays by Veselin Kesich and by John Meyendorff. See the studies listed in note 1. Besides his commentary mentioned in note 1, see U. Luz, "Das Primatwort Matthäus 16.17-19 aus wirkungsgeschichtlicher Sicht", NTS 37 (1991) 415-433; "The Primacy Text (Mt. 16:18)", Princeton Seminary Bulletin 12 (1991) 41-55; Matthew in History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), chap. 4, "Peter: The True Christian or the Pope? (Matthew 16)", 57-74; The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1995), 96100. Of these the commentary is the most careful, thorough and nuanced. We will refer to it in what follows.

48

49

50 51

2.643.

164

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

erations become unnecessary. (We have already discussed this issue in note Luz at times can also be hermeneutically skeptical about the possibility or desirability of attaining or even striving to obtain an "objective" or "true" interpretation. 53 Such skepticism can lead to total hermeneutical relativism, anarchy and caprice, as if to say that "all interpretations are equally valid" or that "those interpretations which are most unlikely and hence perverse are to be preferred because of their shock value as stimuli and entertainment". Such nihilistic views would render any non-arbitrary discussion of alternative interpretations impossible. Fortunately, Luz does not go that for. At his best, he argues that any major traditional interpretation, even if exegetically inadequate or poorly grounded, should be cherished for whatever grain of truth it contains. To reject it utterly, in this case Augustine's interpretation of our verses, would spell an impoverishment of the tradition and a loss of part of the Christian heritage. 54 Many a traditionalist and patristic romantic thinks the same. Here the distinction between the literal, historical sense of a text, the one primarily intended by the author, and secondary, often edifying, applications or appropriations of a text, usually in homiletic contexts, comes into play. This brings us to the real ecumenical problem today. Luz's main argument comes not from exegesis but from the history of interpretation, from the post-biblical reception (or rather non-reception) of the text as it is commonly understood by exegetes today, a non-reception particularly in the patristic and medieval periods. 55 The interpretation in terms of a teaching office embodied in a single person, Peter, with or without successors, is not very common or explicit until Jerome and Leo the Great, and remains uncommon in the commentary literature of the first millennium (as opposed to the canonists' decretals). This need not be an enormous difficulty. There are other cases of texts whose modern interpretation is universally accepted yet whose "correct" (from the viewpoint of contemporary exegesis) interpretation was lost for almost two millennia (due to the influence of the Septuagint or Vulgate for example). A good example is the interpretation of the little historical credo of Deut 26:5,

52 53 54 55

Luz, Matthäus 2. 457-458. Luz, Matthew in History, 5-38. Luz, Matthäus, 2. 480. See the important surveys of the history of interpretation in Gnilka, Matthäus, 2. 71-80; Luz, Matthäus, 472-483; and the helpful study by Gert HAENDLER, "Zur Frage nach dem Petrusamt in der alten Kirche", ST30 (1976) 89-122.

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

165

"A wandering Aramean was my ancestor". 56 The difficulty here is rather a confusion due to a foreshortening of historical perspective, whereby, once one sees that Matthew's three verses envisage an authoritative teaching office embodied in a person, one immediately leaps to a discussion of the bishop of Rome. There is no evidence that Matthew had any thought for Rome. Such a leap is anachronistic. The role of the see of Rome is a product of gradual historical development, as is its association with Matt 16:17-19 in the sense of Rome's representing the concrete embodiment of the office there envisaged. One may accept or reject this concrete embodiment (based in part on the presence of Peter's relics in Rome). That has nothing to do with Matthew. But it does raise the question: Granted that Matthew was writing roughly twenty years after the deaths of Peter, Paul, the Jameses, and John, how did he concretely envisage the office he describes in 16:17-19? In this article we have examined some models with which he would have been familiar, the high priest in the Temple at Jerusalem, the head of the rabbinic academy at Jamnia, and so on. Did Matthew envisage a "Petrine officer" or pope as director of his school wherever it was located (Caesarea maritima, Sepphoris, Tiberias, Damascus, Tyre, Sidon, Antioch, or someplace else)? Did he think of himself as such an officer? There is no evidence for any of this. The exegetical school at Caesarea continued to function until the Persian invasion of 614 and then the Islamic conquest of 636-638. But this school did not function as a crucial magisterium after the conversion of Constantinople and Alexandria and Rome. Antioch did reassert its independence after Chalcedon (451). Jerusalem played an important role in the reception of Chalcedon in the East, but otherwise its influence was felt largely in the development of liturgy and catechesis: Cyril and John of Jerusalem, John Damascene (at Mar Saba just outside of Jerusalem), Sophronius. 57 Rome began to play an important role in church life even as Matthew was writing, but it cannot be shown that he was thinking of this as he wrote his gospel. The

56

57

See the provocative article by F.P. DREYFUS ' "L'Arameen voulait tuer mon pere": L'actualisation de Dt 26,5 dans la tradition juive et la tradition chretienne', in De la TSrah au Messie, Melanges Henri Cazelles, ed. J. Dore et al. (Paris: Desclee, 1981), 147-161. D.J. CHITTY, The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire (Oxford: University Press, 1966); Christoph VON SCHÖNBORN, Sophrone de Jerusalem (Theologie historique 20; Paris: Beauchesne, 1972). The story of the exegetical school and bishopric of Caesarea maritima until its closure due to the Persian invasion in 614 is told by G. FOERSTER, "The Early History of Caesarea", in The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima (Vol. I, Studies in the History of Caesarea Maritima (ed. C.T. Fritsch; Missoula MT: Scholars Press, 1975); Η. BLETENHARD, Caesarea, Origenes und die Juden (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1974); N.R. Μ. DE LANGE, Origen and the Jews ((Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976); L. I. LEVINE, Caesarea Under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975).

166

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

connection between Matt 16:17-19, and the Roman see is a leap which the individual believer may make, but has nothing directly to do with the interpretation of Matthew. It has rather to do with a discernment of the divine guidance of the church through history. The historical link between Matt 16:17-19 and Rome is through the tradition that Peter died a martyr in Rome. But this tradition, so far as we can tell, did not lead Matthew to reflect upon any connection between the office he describes and any particular city, other than Caesarea Philippi which never played a role in later church history. In any case, Matthew does not reflect on Rome or the Roman see. Many patristic homiletic commentators tend to give a vague, edifying interpretation of Matt 16:17-19, which applies it to all their hearers in a generalizing fashion. This is perfectly understandable from a pastoral point of view. But in the age of redaction criticism, where the interpreter tries to attend to the specific point of view of each author, such generalizing interpretations, if judged to be not the precise, immediate intention of the individual biblical author, are inadequate, except as secondary applications. What Christian would deny that we should try to share Peter's confession of faith? But is this Matthew's main or exclusive point in vv. 17-19? No, it is not. In the same way, many patristic and later interpretations are harmonizing of Matthew here with other NT passages: For example, these interpretations want to harmonize the statements of Matthew and Ephesians (2:20) about the church being built on the rock (/?eira)/foundation (themelios) of Peter and the apostles, with Paul's statement in 1 Cor 3:10-11, about the church being built on the foundation which is Jesus Christ. (Such a harmonization is not difficult to attain in this case, since Paul here, if one reads the context, clearly states that he himself is laying a foundation, but usually the argument goes the other way: the apostle cannot be a foundation because only Christ is. This ignores 1 Cor 3:10.) All this harmonization violates the rules of redaction criticism and the historical-critical method. We have already mentioned in passing that there is a difference between homiletic commentators and canonists. The canonists, who shared the responsibility for administering churches, which kept getting larger and larger, were interested in clear lines of authority and courts of final instance to which one could appeal to settle a divisive question. Matt 16:17-19 seemed to provide for such a court of final instance, as Matt 18:15-18 seemed to provide for courts of intermediate instance and synodical-conciliar bodies. The focus audiences of the two types of author are quite different. The canonists early discovered the ecclesiological potential in the two Matthean passages just mentioned. The preachers strove to find a general meaning applicable to all their listeners.

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

167

Moreover we may note here an important point made by Luz (Matt-Komm, p. 473): "Mt 16,18 wurde im Unterschied zu Mt 16,17 in der Frühzeit sozusagen nicht rezipiert" ("In contrast with Matt 16:17, Matt 16:18 was not really received in the early period"). That is, the fathers before Leo the Great were so busy making homiletic and harmonizing applications of Jesus' blessing on Peter's confession of faith in v. 17, applications to every believer, that they did not bother to develop a careful, literal interpretation of the ecclesiological content of v. 18. This is doubtless true as a generalization. But in Origen's extensive commentary on the whole passage, which to be sure is extremely homiletical, harmonizing and universalizing, he shows that he knows the difference between the literal sense and the broader, pastoral application. He says: "For on the one hand in this place [Matt 16:19] these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only... but on the other hand in the Gospel of John the Savior having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said..." And he goes on to quote John 20:22. (Origen, Comm. on Matt, Book 12, Chap. 11; GCS Orig X, 87). This passage may be exceptional, but it does show that Origen saw the specific reference to Peter in Matthew. He simply preferred to relate it to other, non-Matthean passages whose reference to the disciples as a group is quite clear. The most difficult case is Saint Cyprian. Here is a man who had the serious responsibility of administering a local church (he was bishop of Carthage and died a martyr in A.D. 258), yet he quite firmly rejected any kind of central authority or primacy as exercised by the bishop of Rome. Despite this he is honored as a saint by the church of Rome. The historian taking the long view can either say that Cyprian was right, and later developments were an error. Or he can say that Cyprian, absorbed as he was by the need to maintain his authority in his own diocese (he had rivals aplenty), suffered from tunnel vision. He did not see the usefulness of support and guidance from outside his diocese, nor did he see the basis for such support in Matt 16: Π Ι 9. To that extent the text and later developments will have proved him wrong. This is the decision the historian is left to make. The exegete can only say that, on the level of Matthean redaction and intentionality, the second alternative has a stronger case. To summarize. Three types of interpretation of the petralrock have circulated since late antiquity. (1) The Eastern interpretation holds that the confession or the faith of Peter is the foundation rock of the church. (2) The Augustinian interpretation holds that Christ is the foundation rock of the church (based on 1 Cor 10:4). (3) The Roman interpretation holds that Peter

168

PETERAS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

as an apostle is the foundation rock of the church. 58 Of these three interpretations, only the third is exegetically correct as a literal interpretation of Matt 16:17-19, taken as it stands in Matthew, without trying to harmonize it with 1 Cor 10:4 or with a homiletic application to all believers. Two problems remain. (1) Does this text refer only to the historical Peter or also to eventual successors of Peter in a "Petrine ministry"? (2) Should this text be referred or applied to the succession of bishops in the Roman see, i.e., the papacy? As for this second question, we have just seen that it is not a question of the exegesis of Matthew, since there is no evidence that Matthew had ever thought about it, much less that he had directly addressed it. It is a question of the interpretation of post-biblical, post-Matthean church history and may be left to patrologists, church historians, ecclesiologists and ecumenists to answer. As for the first question, only to Peter or also to successors of Peter in this ministry of being a judge of final instance in the church, if we again confine ourselves to the level of Matthean final redaction, and if we accept that the final redactor was responsible for the final form of the text as we have it in Greek Matthew, the answer is most likely that the evangelist envisaged a succession in this ministry. One reason for this is that at the time of the final redaction of the gospel (A.D. 80-90), Peter was already dead. Thus the Matthean text would have had comparatively little relevance at the time of writing if no living embodiment of this ministry were intended. This seems far from Matthew's intention. Now we see more clearly the trap laid by the historical-critical position on Matthew. If one holds that the present form of the text was formulated between A.D. 80 and 90, the idea of succession seems most probable. Therefore, some recent commentators have returned to the view of Cullmann: the present form of the text goes back to the historical Jesus and applies only to Peter. 59 While this is improbable on historical-critical grounds, there is no need to deny it partial validity. On the level of the historical Jesus and the historical Peter, there is no reason to doubt that Peter was a prominent figure among the original disciples of the earthly, pre-pascal Jesus. Moreover, Peter seems to have played an important role in the immediate post-pascal situation. All our sources suggest this. Matthew did not create his text out of thin air. It is also commonly held in Christian tradition that Peter and all the original apostles played a unique, unrepeatable role of foundation. But, if the analogy of Aaron and his successors in the high priesthood holds, then, on 58

Luz, Matthäus, 2. 476-479; Klaus Schatz, Papal Primacy From Its Origins to the Present (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996) and the literature there cited.

59

DAVIES-ALUSON, Matthew,

2. 6 1 5 and 6 4 3 ; D.A. HAGNER, Matthew

Dallas: Word, 1995), pp. 4 6 M 7 5 .

14-28

(WBC 33B;

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

169

the level of Matthean exegesis it is most probable that Matthew envisaged a succession in the Petrine ministry, relevant to his own day, even though the successors do not share in the unique role of foundation. There was only one Aaron, but there were later high priests. How in practice Matthew envisaged the exercise of this ministry is not perfectly clear, apart from the complementary data provided in Matt 18:18 and other ecclesiological texts scattered throughout the gospel (e.g., 10:40-42; 23:34). 60 Matthew did not write a second volume.

Additional Note When this essay was presented for discussion at the Matthew Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature at its annual meeting 23 Nov. 1998, the principal respondent was Prof. D.C. Allison, Jr., of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. He was kind enough to give me a copy of his remarks. I would like here to respond briefly to his critical observations. He must first be thanked for his perfect courtesy, modesty and sense of humor. Allison's criticisms boil down to two or even one: your thesis of the influence of Exod 4:10-17 on Matthew in composing 16:13-20 is doubtful simply because it is new. And it is new because it is not very obvious. It lacks a key word or phrase to point the reader to the typology. Moreover, if you admit all the other suggested allusions, notably to Davidic messiah in Isa 22, you are faced with a potential overload or over-density of intertextual references. The basic response to this is that the NT texts are rich and many-layered. It is quite common for Matthew to combine a pentateuchal with a prophetic and even a sapiential allusion to achieve a triple support for an assertion from all three parts of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Jer 18:18 and Sir, Prologue, for the three parts of the Bible; Qoh 4:12 for the strength of a threefold cord; Matt 2:15 for a combination of Pentateuch and prophet, viz. Hos 11,1, Num 23:22; 24:8). It suffices to glance at the marginal references to the NestleAland editors of the Greek NT to see this. And, I stress, those marginal references are for from exhaustive. The rabbis did the same thing in Mishnah Aboth. Psalm 12:6, "The words of the Lord are pure ... seven times refined", is interpreted by the Midrash on Psalms, in loco, to mean that each verse of scripture has forty-nine senses or interpretations. Why was the Exodus 4: ΙΟΙ 7 typology not noticed before? No certain answer can be given to such a question, apart f r o m the already admitted absence of a flashing red light in Matthew which would make the link unmistakable. But we may suggest first 60

See T. FORNBERG, "Peter - the High Priest of the New Covenant", East Asian Journal of Theology 4 (1986) 113-121; B.T. VIVIANO, "Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23.1-12,34", JSNT 39 (1990) 3-21.

170

PETER AS JESUS' MOUTH: MATTHEW 16:13-20

that after the schisms, even had they noticed it, it would not have been in the confessional interests of Jewish, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant interpreters to make much of it. As for the church fathers, we have seen that they did not fully "receive" Matt 16:18-19 before Leo the Great. When they looked at Exodus 3-4, both they and the medieval theologians tended to be dazzled by the revelation of the divine name in Exod 3:14. They concentrated their discussion on that. Our passage was comparatively neglected. Once Christianity became predominantly Hellenistic in culture, the details of the Moses story were neglected (in the sense of verse-by-verse commentaries on ExodDeut), with the obvious exceptions of Origen's commentaries, Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses, and Thomas Aquinas' treatment of the Mosaic legislation in his Summa theologiae I-II, qq. 98-105 (heavily dependent on Maimonides). Another argument was brought forward in the discussion at the SBL meeting by Prof. Robert Gundry. He suggested that the petra of Matt 16:18 could best be explained as the teaching of Jesus which is compared to a petra in Matt 7:24-25. This is an interesting idea and deserves further consideration. First, we note that the rock there is contrasted with the sand (ammos) of v. 26. Thus petra here cannot refer to a loose or rolling stone. This further refutes Lampe. Next, Gundry's point possesses the methodological advantage of drawing from the wider context of the same author. This is a sound general principle but cannot be blindly followed, as we see from the further uses of petra in Matt 27:51 and 60. These clearly have nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus. This principle must yield before the usage of the word in the immediate context. There we see that the petra is connected with the person of Peter by a wordplay, and serves as a foundation for the church. Verse 19 reinforces the reading by three personal addresses to Peter: "I will give to you... whatsoever you shall bind ... whatsoever you shall loose..." This cannot all be explained as the teaching of Jesus in such a way as to bypass the instrumental role of Peter. The primary context here is a provision for institutional continuity of leadership in the church in the post-Easter and post-apostolic period (the role of the future perfect participles). Once this is seen, the point made by Gundry fits in perfectly: Peter and future Petrine ministers function as the church's leaders only insofar as they remain faithful in deed and word to the primordial rock of Jesus' logous. The petra of 16:18 must first be understood in its own context, before it can be related to other contexts.

13

The Sins of Peter and Paul's Correction: Gal 2:11-14 as an Ecumenical Problem

I. The Problem A. Introduction Few passages in Paul's letter to the Galatians are as fascinating to combative theologians and church historians as Gal 2:11-14. In these few verses Paul describes how Peter gradually withdrew from table fellowship, i.e., common meals, with Gentile converts to the Christian message, meals which did not observe the rules of table purity, biblical kashrut and tithing, Pharisaic handwashing. Peter says nothing, he formally teaches nothing, according to Paul's terse report. (This is the traditional, surface, view. For other views, see below.) But by his cowardly withdrawal to the familiar, safe practices of Jewish meal forms, rendered all the easier by the reality of small house churches, Peter was setting a bad example, at least nonverbally. It might have taken the Gentile converts in Antioch some time to notice Peter's absence from their tables, but once they did, they were doubtless hurt by his aversion, his snubbing them. Hurt and perhaps angry, they turned to Paul. After he had heard their complaint, there is no doubt that Paul was angry. And so Paul "resists him [Peter] to his face" (Gal 2:11). Peter's cowardly change in practice was due to his being intimidated by emissaries of the saintly James the brother of the Lord, the leader of the Torah-observant Jewish Christian church of Jerusalem (and elsewhere), a man soon to be martyred by non-Christian Jews, in A.D. 62.1 Paul's brief report does not say whether his sharp reprimand and reproof of Peter was successful at the time. For the most part interpreters have thought he was successful. But today there is more hesitation to say so. To be sure, Paul's view, that the 601 ritual or ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic Torah On the situation, see J. MURPHY-O'CONNOR, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: University Press, 1996), 130-157, esp. 141. On Galatians, I have used the recent commentaries by H.D. В ETZ (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); J.D.G. DUNN (London: A & С Black, 1993); S. LEGASSE ( L D Commentaires 9; Paris: C e f , 2 0 0 0 ) ; J.L. MARTYN ( A B

33A; New York: Doubleday-Anchor, 1997); F. VOUGA (HBzNT 10; Tübingen: Mohr, 1998); and many of the older ones they list, and some of the other secondary literature they cite; see especially J. TAYLOR, "The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20,29 and 21.25) a n d t h e I n c i d e n t at A n t i o c h ( G a l 2 . 1 1 - 1 4 ) " , NTS 47 ( 2 0 0 1 ) 3 7 2 - 3 8 0 .

172

T H E SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

were not binding on the Gentile converts, did eventually prevail in the Great Church. But this victory was probably not immediate. It took the church some time fully to accept the radical Pauline view, a process which was given a powerful impetus by the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 and the ensuing dispersal of the Jewish Christian leaders. Once they had lost their headquarters in religiously prestigious Jerusalem, the Jewish Christian leaders were a less impressive force, even though they had a few late victories before their disappearance, e.g., the Gospel according to Matthew and the letters attributed to James and to Peter (Second Peter).2 These writings, once admitted to the New Testament canon, a canon even of churches founded by Paul and his co-workers, represent a permanent presence of Jewish Christianity, faithful to the 613 precepts of the Torah in their entirety (at least in principle), within mainstream Christianity. Due to their both-faith-and-works soteriology they pose a threat to Christian groups which adhere to a by-faith-alone doctrine of salvation. Thus there remains latent within the Christian tradition a smoldering tension which periodically erupts into streams of molten lava, never more so than during the Lutheran Reformation. It is well known that Luther had a special affinity for Paul's letters to the Galatians and to Romans, because he believed that he found there his doctrine of salvation or justification by faith alone. (He was not aware perhaps to what extent he read Paul through the filter of St Augustine's writings against the Pelagians, written toward the end of Augustine's life.) But it is important to keep in mind that Paul wrote Galatians in anger and exaggeration, before he wrote Romans, which is written in a calm and considered tone, as a revised and expanded edition of Galatians. In contrast, Luther commented on Romans while he was still a Catholic priest and Augustinian friar in good standing. Luther's commentary on Romans was not discovered and published till the early twentieth century and was quickly recognized as a major work. 2

On the flight to Pella , see Eusebius, H E. 3.5.3; Luke 21:20-22; M. SIMON, "La migration Ä Pella: legende ou realite?", Rech SR 60 (1972) 37-54; R.H. SMITH, "Chronique archeologique" on Pella, RB 75 (1968) 105-112; R.H. SMITH, "Pella", ABD 5.219-221; C. KOESTER, "The Origin and the Significance of the Flight to Pella Tradition", CBQ 51 (1989) 90-106. On Jewish Christianity two standard works by H.J. SCHOEPS, Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); J. DANIELOU, The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1964); G. STRECKER, "Judenchristentum", TRE 17, 310-323; A.F.J. KLIJN, "The Study of Jewish Christianity", NTS 20 (1974) 419431; S.K. RIEGEL, "Jewish Christianity: Definitions and Terminology", NTS 24 (1978) 410-415; G.W. BUCHANAN, "Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early JewishChristian Church", NTS 26 (1980) 279-297; R.E. BROWN, "Not Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity but Types of Jewish/Gentile Christianity", CBQ 45 (1983) 74-79; M. BOCKMUEHL, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches (Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 2000); R. BAUCKHAM, James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (London/New York: Routledge, 1999); W. HORBURY, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh, 1998); S.C. MIMOUNI, Le judeo-christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1998).

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

173

Once Luther fell under the papal excommunication (1521) and the bann of the empire (also in 1521), Luther did not return to Romans. Instead he turned to the more radical Galatians and commented on it six times. His favorite work was his Galatians commentary of 1535. It runs to 600 pages on six short biblical chapters. Luther was clearly obsessed with this letter of Paul. He found in it both the essence of his message and the basis for his ecclesial position once he had been excommunicated. He liked to say that he had married the letter to the Galatians, and that it was his Katherina von Bora, that is, his wife. The essence of his message about justification and salvation could be found in Gal 2:15-21. The basis for his ecclesial position was in Gal 2:1114. (Modern interpreters like J.D.G. Dunn, tend to find the kernel of the message in the gift of the Spirit in Gal 3:1-5, but this gift is not separate from the grace of justification by faith.) This basis is not to be found in Romans (Paul does not reproduce Gal 2:11-14 in Romans), and this explains Luther's turn away from Romans to Galatians, after he lost his teaching position within the Roman Catholic Church. 3

B. Peter's Sins Before discussing the exegesis of the passage and then the history of exegesis culminating in Luther's strong view of Gal 2:11-14, it will be well to review quickly Peter's other sins and failings, as related in the gospels. If we take them in narrative order, according to Matthew, we find first Peter's "little faith" in Matt 14:28-31, his momentary doubt while walking on the water to meet Jesus, until rescued by Jesus' outstretched hand. This "sinking" doubt is usually not judged very harshly. It is seen as a human trait, part of his zeal, love for Jesus, and impetuosity. In any case, the doubt is drowned out by the collective confession of faith by those in the boat, "truly, you are the Son of God". In Matthew, this confession precedes Peter's confession in 16:16, and detracts a little from its luster.4 3

4

The literature on Luther to which the present writer is indebted includes: P. ALTHAUS, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966); R. BAINTON, Here I Stand (New York: Abingdon, 1950); G. EßELING, Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); K. HOLL, What Did Luther Understand by Religion? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); HOLL, The Reconstruction of Morality (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979); P. WATSON, Let God Be God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1947); HJ. MCSORLEY, Luther: Right or Wrong? (New York: Newman, 1969); O.H. PESCH, The God Question in Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) and other works by this author; C.E. BRAATEN and R.W. JENSON, ed., Union with Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); E. JUNGEL, Justification (Edinburgh: T. & R. Clark 2001); K. HOLL, The Cultural Significance of the Reformation (Cleveland: World-Meridian, 1959); B. LOHSE, Martin Luther's Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999). The reference commentaries on Matthew today are: W.D. DAVIES-D.C. ALLISON, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 1988, 1991, 1997); J. GNILKA, Das Matthäusevangelium

174

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

Peter's next failure is more serious. Having confessed Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and been praised and rewarded for it in 16:17-19, Peter fails to see the necessity of the cross as the way to glory. After Jesus has predicted his suffering, death and resurrection, 'Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.'" Jesus replies, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do" (Matt 16:21-23; Mark 8:32-33). This is strong language. Peter's sin here is clearly grave. Some have thought that this sin is so serious that it requires a specific act of forgiveness. They have found this act in the story of the Transfiguration, which is recounted soon after this. But that is not our present concern. 5 As the passion narrative proceeds, Peter is included, not specially named or singled out, in the general abandonment and flight of the disciples at the moment of Jesus' arrest in the garden (Mark 14:50; Matt 26:56). Peter's best known sin is his threefold denial of Jesus, recounted in all four gospels. It takes place as Jesus is being interrogated by the Sanhedrin. In Mark (14:66-72), there is an escalation of legal gravity in the narrative presentation, from private and evasive denial, to public and evasive, to public and explicit denial. This is a grave matter, an act of shameful cowardice, yet not so grave as Judas' betrayal which contributes to Jesus' death. Peter's weeping represents his shame and repentance. But an explicit act of forgiveness is only worked out in detail in John (21:15-17). 6 After the death and resurrection of Jesus, Peter presumably recovers his faith, and receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost along with the other apostles. This is the narrative presentation in Acts. Peter becomes a missionary. Returning now to the narrative in Galatians, we learn that the earliest Christian leaders

(2 vols.; HtKNT 1/1,2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986, 1988); U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (4 vols.; EKKNT 1; Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener, 1985, 1990; 1997, 2002); my own commentary appeared in The New Jerome Commentary, ed. R . E . BROWN, J . A . FITZMYER, R . E . MURPHY ( E n g l e w o d C l i f f s N J : P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,

1990),

630-674. 5

6

A serious study which defends this thesis is by Piotr ОКТАВА, in an as yet unpublished dissertation: "Transfiguration de Jesus - Purification des disciples: Marc 8,27-9,13 Ä la lumiere d'Ex 32-34 et de Ml 3" (Fribourg 2003); on the Matthean form, see B.T. VIVIANO, "Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16.13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4.10-17 and Other Models", in: The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. C.A. Evans (JSPSS 33; SSEJC 7; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000), 312-341 (included in this volume). See D. DAUBE, "Limitations on Self-Sacrifice in Jewish Law and Tradition", Theology 72 ( 1 9 6 9 ) 2 9 1 - 3 0 4 , s u m m a r i z e d in VIVIANO, " M a t t h e w " , n. 4 , 6 7 1 ; R . E . BROWN, The

Death

of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 587-626; K. SCHOLTISSEK, "Kinder Gottes und Freunde Jesu: Beobachtungen zur johanneischen Ekklesiologie", in: Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments (FS Karl Kertelge), ed. Rainer Kampling and Thomas Söding (Freiburg: Herder, 1996), 184-211.

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S

CORRECTION

175

recognized that there were two missionary endeavors: Paul entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, Peter to the circumcised (Gal 2:7-8). This division of labor, though immortalized in the mosaics of the basilica of Santa Sabina in Rome, was probably always too schematic and simple to work in practice. One need only recall that Paul often began his missionary preaching in synagogues, that is, to the circumcised (e.g., Acts 13:13-52), to see that this tidy division of labor could not be followed rigidly. On Peter's side, he had earlier encountered a Gentile family in Caesarea Maritima, and, after a revelation that the kosher food laws of Lev 17:8-15 no longer apply, at least not to Gentile converts, he received them as candidates for baptism (Acts 10:1-49, and the sequel in 11:1-18).7 The stage is now set for a closer look at Gal 2:11-14. Before we do so, it is worth our while to pause and reflect that the New Testament, including gospels, Acts and epistles, does not shy away from Peter's sins and failings, even if it often gives him a prominent role as spokesman of the disciples and shepherd of Christ's flock. It does not honor him blindly or one-sidedly. Paul's corrective as recounted in Galatians fits into this wider context. C. Initial Exegesis of Gal 2:11-14 Paul's rebuke to Peter in Gal 2:11-14 stands in a tradition of prophetic criticism. A good example of such criticism is Nathan's reprimand of David for arranging the death of his loyal commander Uriah so that the king could take his wife Bathsheba for himself (2 Sam 12:1-25). This reprimand was carefully prepared by Nathan's parable of the ewe lamb. Paul will have nothing to do here with such indirect methods. He chooses a frontal assault: "I opposed him to his face." But this prophetic background also helps to keep Paul's stance in perspective. The biblical tradition did not demonize David, despite his sin; so too Peter can be rebuked, without being demonized. Another preliminary remark concerns the relation of Gal 2:11-14, the incident in Antioch, to the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35). This is one of the most difficult problems in NT historiography. Normally one assumes that the Jerusalem event (Acts) preceded the Antioch event (Galatians). If so, how do we explain the confusion over kosher meals in Antioch? Jerusalem would seem to have settled the problem. And yet the problem resurfaces in Antioch. Since our focus is on Galatians and its ecumenical implications, it is not to On this episode see the commentaries on Acts, e.g., E. HAENCHEN, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEKNT 3; 6th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968); G. SCHNEIDER, Die Apostelgeschichte (2 vols.; HTKNT V/1,2; Freiburg: Herder, 1980, 1982); J.A. FITZMYER, The Acts of the Apostles (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998); J.J. Taylor, Us Actes des Deux Apotres (EBib NS 23, 30, 41; Paris: Gabalda, 1994, 1996, 2000); C.K. BARRETT, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 1994,1998).

176

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

our purpose to discuss this issue in detail but only to mention it in passing. It is important methodologically, as a first step, to let Paul have his own say, without forcing him into a premature harmony with Acts. Let us then begin with a few literary remarks. The genre of our passage is that of a legal accusation transmitted through a legal narrative, which contains a brief exposition of what happened, the gist of the facts of the case. (This sort of juridical narration occurs regularly in the great Greek orators, like Lysias.) Structurally, the passage begins in v. 11 with a powerful accusation that sounds like a bomb exploding but it is a bombshell expressed in legal terms: "When Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was worthy of condemnation." Verses 12 and 13 then back up to offer a flashback of why the bombshell had to explode. In v. 14 we return to the bombshell itself, and learn in addition that the accusation was public ("before them all") and that it concerned the doctrinal-practical heart of the matter ("the truth of the gospel", cf. v. 5). To be noted are the four temporal adverbs: when, before, when, when. Each verse has one. The argument rests on chronology. Paul is breaking Peter's back on the wheel of chronology, so to speak, to prove his inconsistency in the matter of Jewish observance, to demonstrate the bad example he is giving, and the pastoral damage he is causing. Emotionally loaded words are frequent: fear, dissembling, hypocrisy, being carried away, not walking straight. The whole concludes with a rhetorical question: "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (v. 14b). Carried away by his zeal, Paul exaggerates. 8 The narrative in vv. 12-13 does not suggest that Peter "compelled" anybody to do anything. He was too fearful and confused for that. But the passage is not noted for its serenity or neutral tone. It is after all a combination of prophetic accusation, lawyerly narrative and fraternal apostolic admonition. Passing from form to content, it must be granted that at this distance of time an exact reconstruction of what took place is not possible with any high degree of probability. For example, in v. 11, did Paul treat Peter as a person of greater consequence than himself, or as an equal? One might be inclined to the latter view unless one takes into consideration the tradition that permits correction of persons in positions of higher authority by those in a lower place (see below). Verse 12 uses a verb in the imperfect (synesthien) to indicate repetition: Peter "used to eat" with the Gentiles, as a regular practice. This practice was halted by a fear. Of what? Of the prestige of James as a blood relation of Jesus and as a holy man? Fear of the divinely revealed Torah to Moses? Fear of the 8

Commentators before 1800 could not easily permit themselves such a remark. Luther would strongly disagree with it (see below).

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

177

brewing political tensions in Jerusalem where Jewish Christians needed to show themselves Torah-observant in order to enjoy a measure of tolerance from the Temple authorities, themselves under pressure from the insurrection minded zealous? All of these are possible, singly or in combination, but to what exact degree we cannot say. Verse 13 repeats twice the harsh accusation of hypocrisy. The defection of the leaders was contagious. The other Jewish Christians, even Paul's companion Barnabas, follow Peter's example. It becomes a case of schism, of disunity in the Christian community. Paul acts to rescue the unity of the church, a top priority for him elsewhere (1 Cor 1:1013) and elsewhere in early Christianity (John 17:11,20-23; Eph 2:14-18). Verse 14 employs a verb probably created by Paul to designate Peter's and the others' malpractice: orthopodousin, "they did not walk straight toward the truth of the gospel". Is it a matter of orthodoxy? The verb implies (in light of the biblical use of the verb halach to refer to conduct) that it is a matter of behavior, practice, not formal teaching. Peter was wavering. Yet there are times when principles do not permit exceptions. Paul judged that this was such a moment. The whole future of the mission to the Gentiles was in jeopardy. Could practice here be so easily distinguished from correct teaching? One can see how interpreters have oscillated between the two options, orthodoxy or orthopraxy (see below). Paul then exaggerates, as already noted, in asserting that Peter "compelled" the Gentiles to judaize. To share the blame between Peter and Paul, interpreters were not slow to cite cases where Paul's practice seems to be inconsistent with his principles, where he too seems to be hypocritical (to use that harsh term). For example, according to Acts 16:3, Paul caved in to pressure from local Jews and had Timothy circumcised. Again, on advice of James and the presbyters of Jerusalem, Paul pays the expenses of four men who have taken the Nazirite vow (Num 6:1-24) and purifies himself along with them in the Temple (this according to Acts 21:20-26). Paul had himself taken this vow, according to Acts 18:18. All this could be dismissed as Lucan harmonization or desire to show Paul's legal piety, if one were so minded. Yet Paul himself advocates a flexible policy of being all things to all (1 Cor 9:19-23). Perhaps Peter could have cited Paul in his own defense: "to the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law — though I myself am not under the law — to win over those under the law" (1 Cor 9:20). That might all have been very well for both Peter and Paul in Jerusalem. But it would work less well in mixed communities like Antioch. There was the rub. It has been asked whether Paul himself was a trimmer, 9 one who

9

'"All Things to All Men' (1 Cor. IX.22)", NTS 1 (1954-1955) 261-275; P. "Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14", NTS 26 (1980) 347-362. H.

CHADWICK,

RICHARDSON,

178

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

acts from expediency. Yet does anyone seriously deny Paul's apostolic authority because of these tergiversations or manoeuvres? (Later they would be called "economy" or epikeia.) None of this should be used to dismiss the significance of the admonition in Gal 2:11-14, but it does help to put it in perspective. It is useless to play the blame game or to say that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones or that pots should not call kettles black. Two wrongs (if they are wrongs) do not make a right. Our concern is rather with the ecumenical implications of the text. In that regard, it will be interesting to take a brief look at the use of this text in the lectionaries used for worship on Sundays and weekdays in the Roman Catholic church, Latin rite, dating from 1970. In the triennial cycle of the Sunday lectionary, selections from Galatians are read on the ninth to the fourteenth Sundays of ordinary time, six weeks in a row, in Year C. But, because Gal 2:11-14 is still apparently considered scandalous, it is not read to the mass of practicing faithful on Sundays. It is however read to the more devout on a weekday every two years, safely embedded in a larger narrative (Wednesday of Week 27 in Ordinary Time). This is a hint that the text causes problems or is perceived as dangerous, but not extremely so.

II The history of exegesis of this passage raises some major theological issues. Let us first sketch an overview of the issues and approaches. The scandalous passage, read alongside Acts, poses the problem of the unity and harmony of the New Testament canon. Behind this lies the problem of the divine inspiration and inerrance of Sacred Scripture. For Protestants especially it threatens the principle of "Scripture alone" as the source of Christian faith and preaching. For theologians of all Christian denominations it could call into question a primarily dogmatic approach to problems raised by church history and biblical interpretation. If we now look at the interpretation of the passage in the period of the church fathers (circa A.D. 100 to 800), we will be guided especially by the brilliant work of Franz Oberbeck. 10 Overbeck sets up the story as one of a conflict between historical facts (a real conflict between Paul and Peter, a real tension between the letters of Paul and the edifying narrative of Acts) and theological or dogmatic abstractions, the abstract principles of a harmony of all New Testament doctrinal teachings, of an agreement of all the apostles. He also raises the important issue of whether the Pauline letters should (only) be read 10

F. OVERBECK, Über die Auffassung des Streits des Paulus mit Petrus in Antiochien (Gal. 2,1 I f f . ) bei den Kirchenvätern (Basel: Programm zur Rectoratsfeier der Universität Basel, 1877; reprinted Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1968).

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

179

in the light of Acts, in such a way that Acts would serve as a sort of protective cover. History is often messy and untidy, indecent and disedifying. Dogmatic or systematic theology strives to see logical coherence and beautiful harmonies. Moral theology and spirituality strive for decency and holiness. The story begins with the outsiders. The ultra-Pauline heretic Marcion used the passage to show that only Paul was right among the apostles. The others had betrayed the true gospel. The pagan critic Porphyry drew out of the same passage that Paul was guilty of envious hostility toward Peter, and of childish, frivolous and boastful delight in controversy. The first mainstream Christian theologian who has at his disposal the entire New Testament canon (more or less) and who tries to treat it as part of a unified divine revelation in continuity with the Old Testament is Irenaeus of Lyon. He is writing, among other aims, against Marcion's rejection of the Old Testament. He uses Acts as as gloss on the Letters of Paul. Rather naively, Irenaeus argues from both Acts 10:28-29,47 and from Gal 2:11-14 that Peter was devoted to the God of the Old Testament and its law. Paul too, he argues, had an Old Testament piety. What does not concern this argument against Marcion, Irenaeus ignores. His basic view is that both Peter and Paul observed the Jewish ceremonial law, but permitted the Gentile Christians not to observe it; this is the view of Acts and Justin. So Irenaeus makes no use of the later popular theory of accommodation, that is, that Peter and Paul occasionally accommodated themselves to Jewish ways when they were with Jews and Jewish Christians, but not otherwise (Adversus Haereses 3.12-15). The other very early Christian interpreter who deals with our passage, Tertullian, quickly seizes on the moral issue of Peter's misconduct and tries to limit its gravity. He does so in the classic terms: adeo поп de praedicatione sed de conversatione a Paulo denotabantur, "thus they were not marked out by Paul for (erroneous) teaching but for (erroneous) conduct." This view builds on the implicit silence of Peter (at least in Gal 2:11-14), a concept which will recur in later interpretations. Tertullian, as the first representative of Latin theology, also stresses the moral aspect, in contrast with the" characteristic Greek accent on theory and ideas. He does not deny that Peter erred, as some will, but simply tries to determine the fault exactly and to limit the damage. Overbeck claims that Tertullian begins the process of making excuses for both Paul (he spoke with the fervor of a recent convert) and Peter (Paul admits a common sharing of and unity in preaching, 1 Cor 15:11). Tertullian also remains free of the accommodation theory, which in its stronger form, interprets Gal 2:11-14 from the standpoint of a later period, e.g., one of complete indifference to details of Jewish ritual observance. Tertullian does not read oude (not) in Gal 2:5 (a textual variant also found elsewhere), so that for him,

180

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

Paul permits the circumcision of Titus. For Tertullian early Christianity was unclear about its relationship to the law. In Gal 2:11-14, Paul momentarily forgot himself. Acts' viewpoint prevails over and absorbs the letters. Tertullian fails to come to grips with Gal 2:11-14, taken in itself. We now come to the two great Alexandrian theologians who will determine the approach of the Greek East to our text for centuries to come. Clement of Alexandria notes that Paul here refers to his opponent as Kephas, not as Peter. Clement therefore concludes that the Kephas in question was not at all the apostle Peter, but some minor disciple. Presto, the scandal vanishes.11 Nothing could be simpler. Why does Clement need this vanishing act? Because in his view of the Christian as the true Gnostic, the apostles must be the perfect Gnostics, without error. This is an abstract ideal, half docetic. Three arguments are made in its favor. (1) Peter could not have behaved as described, after Acts 11:17-19. (2) Luke does not mention such a conflict in Acts. (3) If Kephas is Peter, then Porphyry was right to blaspheme Peter. Jerome refutes these arguments with four others. (1) The whole New Testament knows nothing of a Kephas other than Peter. (2) The whole of Galatians contradicts it. (3) Luke omits many of Paul's experiences. Luke does not even mention that Peter settled in Rome. (4) If we listen to the reproaches of pagan critics like Porphyry, we would have to abandon much of the Bible. The simple solution of Clement was soon replaced by one of greater subtlety. Origen denies that the conflict in Antioch was a real one. It was rather a conflict in appearance only, prearranged by Peter and Paul, to illustrate a theological lesson for the edification of the listeners.12 They were illustrating the division of labor presented in Gal 2:7-8. Three arguments support Origen's view. (1) Paul could not possibly have reproved in Peter a conduct which he himself advocates (1 Cor 9:20; 10:31). Elijah's use of Naboth's vineyard (1 Kings 21) is a precedent. (2) Paul's conduct would otherwise violate the rule set down in Matt 18:15: a brother should first be corrected in private. (3) How could Paul have spoken so rudely to someone whom he reveres elsewhere in the same epistle (1:18; 2:8; a pillar, with James and John)? Origen's harmonizing thesis of the agreement of the two apostles must make Paul's words mean the opposite of what they do. This is the accommodation theory in its full form. The Son of God used "economy" to take on human flesh. So too the apostles here. This interpretation of Origen was accepted by Didymus,

11

12

This solution of Clement's is recorded by E U S E B I U S of Caesarea in his Church History, 1.12.2. Origen states this view most fully in his commentary on Galatians, now lost, as reported by Jerome in the first preface to his own commentary on Galatians. Origen also discuss this passage in Galatians in his Contra Celsum II. 1-7, and in his commentary on Matthew, Book XI, section 8 (on Matt 5:1-2).

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

181

Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of Heraclea, Eusebius of Emesa, but also by the masters of the exegetical school of Antioch. (It is now thought that the differences between this school and that of Alexandria were not so great as once supposed, at least not until the late fourth century.)13 For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia argues that it must have been a conflict in appearance because Peter remains passive and silent (unlike his usual manner), and there are no consequences from the exchange. Paul is praised for his frankness, Peter for his humility. John Chrysostom develops Origen's view to the fullest extent. Chrysostom prepares his defence carefully in his interpretation of all that precedes in the epistle. (Ultimately any satisfactory exegesis of Gal 2:11-14 must do likewise.) His goal is that both apostles emerge from the conflict without a spot on them. Only the theory of an only apparent conflict can save Paul from the fault of lack of charity. How could Peter be afraid of the Jews, to whom he had so boldly preached at Pentecost (Acts 2) and been a missionary ever since? Chrysostom then invokes the theological concept of condescension (synkatabasis) to explain the behavior of both apostles. Chrysostom is then followed by Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophylact, and even by Jerome, until Augustine shakes him out of it.14 The tradition of the Latin West begins with Cyprian. He builds much on Peter's silence. Cyprian interprets this silence not as a proof of Peter's innocence of doctrinal error, but as a sign of his humility after a temporary deviation. This virtue acts as a satisfaction for his error, which is not denied.15 Tertullian's view, which we have already mentioned , comes close to this. It is formulated in crisp, concise Latin so: conversationis fuit Vitium, поп praedicationis; "the vice was of conduct, not preaching" (i.e., teaching, doctrine) {De praescrip. 23).16 The Latin west up until the fourth century was so busy with overcoming pagan violence and usages, and with church discipline and policy, that it could rest content with this solution, which grants Peter's error. This would begin to change with Caius (or Fabius) Marius Victorinus the Rhetorician (not Victorinus of Pettau) and Ambrosiaster. Victorinus treats James as a heretic, and denies he was an apostle. Peter sinned. His sin did not consist in his temporary simulation or hypocrisy (even Paul could do this), 13

M. SIMONETTI, "Le origini dell'Arianesimo", Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 1

14

J. CHRYSOSTOM, Homilies on Galatians (NPCF, 1st series, vol. 13; Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 18-20. See also F.P. DREYFUS, "Divine Condescendence (Syntabasis) as a Hermeneutic Principle of the Old Testament in Jewish and Christian Tradition", Immanuel 19 (1984-85) 74-86; French original in IOSOT Congress volume Salamanca 1983 (SVT 36; Leiden: Brill, 1985), ed. J.A. Emerton, 96-107. CYPRIAN of Carthage, Epistle 70 (71), 3 (ANF 5; Peabody MA: Hendrichson, 1999), 377378. TERTULLIAN, On prescription against heretics, 23 (ANF 3; Peabody MA: Henrickson, 1999), 253-254.

( 1 9 7 1 ) 3 1 7 - 3 3 0 ; R. WILLIAMS, Arius (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2 0 0 2 ) , 16-17.

15

16

182

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

but in his unworthy motive, fear, and also in his running the risk of deceiving the Gentiles Christians who thought they were being forced to live like Jews because they did not understand that Peter was only simulating Jewish observance while the visitors were still there. So Victorinus is not free of all harmonizing but he takes the letter of the text more seriously than do the Greeks.17 Ambrosiaster tries to distance himself from these "Greek sophists". But he has a strong view of church hierarchy and dogma. He does not perceive the irony with which Paul refers to the "pillar" apostles. He too tries to harmonize Acts and Galatians. He cannot admit a fundamental discord between Peter and Paul on doctrine. He grants a momentary erring of a moral nature on Peter's part. Peter's fault consists primarily in not explaining the sense of his conduct to the Gentile Christians. In this he differs from Paul, who, while he allows Titus to be circumcized (the oude is omitted), makes it very clear that this action is meaningless and of no effect (Gal 2:3-5). Paul thereby avoids judaizing consequences, and Peter should have followed his example to prevent misunderstanding of his pure "economic" (tactical) conduct.18 The patristic story of the interpretation of this passage ends with the celebrated exchange of letters between saints Jerome and Augustine. Jerome presents the Greek view that the conflict between Peter and Paul was only an apparent one, a bit of pedagogical play acting. Augustine is usually presented as the hero of the debate. In the name of historical honesty he rejects the Greek view. Overbeck, while retaining this view in broad outline, refines it first by pointing out that Jerome did not present the Greek view as his own, but only reported it in Latin. Then Overbeck attempts to show that Augustine was not interested in pure history for its own sake. He was partly exercised by the moral theology of lying, on which he wrote a treatise. But he did not free himself from concern for the harmony of the canon in all its parts or from a concern for apologetics. One of his concerns was the Christian relationship to early Judaism. How could the ritual law be abrogated without wounding the sense of piety owed to it by the church's recognition of the Old Testament? His opponent here was the Manichaean Faustus, who rejected the Old Testament, as had Marcion long before. Jerome defended the Origenistic thesis by arguing that the key phrase kata prosopon in v. 11 could be interpreted, instead of "to his face" or literally "against his face", to mean "according to appearance" or "in appearance" or "apparently", and should be so translated because (a) kata does not mean 17

18

Marii victorini Opera Pars II, ed. Franco Gori (CSEL 83.2; Vienna: Hoelder-PichlerTempsky, 1986), 118-122; PL 8. Ambrosiastri Qui Dicitur Commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas, ed. H.J. Vogels (CSEL 81.3; Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1969), 25-27; PL 17.

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S

CORRECTION

183

"against" with the accusative as here, but with the genitive; (b) prosopon often means appearance or outward aspect in the gospels, e.g., Matt 16:3; Luke 12:56; cp. kat'opsin, John 7:24. Another fine point is that kategnosmenos in v. 11 should not be translated "he was blameworthy", but "he had been blamed"; that is, he was blamed by the weak and ignorant, even though he was not blameworthy. Against all this, Augustine quotes Gal 1:20, "In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie". If Paul told an obliging lie, the authority of all Scripture would totter. 19

Ill The debate between the two great doctors of the church remained unresolved until the Middle Ages. The Glossa ordinar ia presents both opinions, but Jerome has the final word, perhaps because of his great prestige as an interpreter. Thomas Aquinas however supports Augustine here, because his interpretation is more faithful to what Paul says. But, Thomas goes on, the apostles could not sin mortally after having received the grace of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. So they sinned venially, due to their human weakness. 20 Nicolas of Lyra supports this view. He recognizes that Gal 2:11-21 represents the high point of the report that begins in 1:11. It is the conclusion which demonstrates the genuineness and the completeness of his gospel. The text must therefore be taken seriously. Peter failed to observe the measure of appropriate concern for the Jewish Christians, and thus scandalized the Gentile Christians, thereby committing a venial sin.21 At the Renaissance Lefevre d'Etaples (Faber Stapulensis), though he understood Paul well, refused to enter the learned debate between Jerome and Augustine, because he felt that such disputes contribute nothing to edifica19

20

21

The Jerome-Augustine debate is scattered over a number of their works and letters. Jerome's letters 102, 105, 112, 115 to Augustine, plus his letter 48, to Pammachius, and his letter 70, to Magnus, all relevant, are available in English in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 6 (Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 1999). His commentary on Galatians is found in Migne, PL 26, cols. 363-367 (on our passage). Augustine's relevant letters are epp. 28,40, 67, 71, 73, 82 to Jerome, and 74, to Praesidius, and are available in English in NPNF, 1st series, vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999); his treatise against Faustus the Manichaean is found in the same series, vol. 4, 155-345; the relevant part is Book 19:17 (245-6); his treatise on lying is found in the same series, vol. 3, 457-477, esp. p. 461; his commentary on Galatians is found in Migne, PL 35, cols. 2113-2114. THOMAS AQUINAS, Super Epistolas S. Pauli Lectura, ed. Raphael Cai (Turin: Marietti, 1953), ad Galatas II, lectio III,§76-89, 582-584. Thomas draws the following lessons from the incident: "Prelates can learn humility, so that they do not disdain to be corrected by younger and subordinate (lower ranking) church members; subordinates can find here an example of zeal and freedom, that they not be afraid to correct prelates, especially if the crime is public and runs the risk of endangering many" (§77). NICOLAS OF LYRA, Biblia cum glossa ordinaria (Basel, 1498), vol. 6, in loco.

184

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

tion. They come from the flesh. We should rather shrive for spiritual understanding, which always brings harmony. 22 Erasmus decidedly favors Jerome, for whom he had special affinity. He accepts Jerome's fine philological arguments and thus incurs Luther's scorn.23 Luther himself returned to this text throughout his life. Luther's inner development has been traced through his successive interpretations of this text in a celebrated essay by Karl Holl,24 written in 1919. Holl begins his study with Luther's commentary on Romans of 1515 and ends with the Leipzig disputation of 1519. He does not take the story up to Luther's great commentary on Galatians of 1535. Luther saw already in 1516 that this passage was of contemporary significance, not just a question for scholars. Since Paul had liberated Christians from every law, that could mean that church ceremonies, the decretals and other collections of canon law, even monastic vows were not necessary for salvation but rather harmful, at least if accepted with a servile attitude. The Christian can practice all of this, from inner freedom, out of love for the weak; but it is superstition to think that he must do this for the salvation of his soul. Peter's cowardly behavior had led the Gentile Christians into the grave error of thinking that the practice of a law was necessary for salvation. Peter's sin was a mortal one, and this only shows that even the most serious sin cannot block the grace of God. The commentary on Romans was only discovered and published late (1908).25 The same is true of the first lectures on Galatians delivered in 1516/17. They were only published in 1918, by Hans von Schubert.26 Holl regards them as disappointing, not Luther's own manuscript but a student listener's notebook, full of gaps in the sequence of thought. What emerges in these student notes is that Luther rejects the subtleties of Jerome and Erasmus, he sees Peter's error to consist in not acting recta fronte, that is, in a frank and clear manner, and thereby let the Gentile Christians imagine that

22

23 24

25

26

FABER STAPULENSIS (Lefevre d'Etaples). Epistolae divi Pauli apostoli cum commentariis (Paris 1512), 155. On Lefevre's method of interpreting the Bible, see G. T. BEDOUELLE, Lefevre d'Etaples et I'intelligence des Ecritures (Geneva: Droz, 1976). Desiderius Erasmus, Novum Testamentum ... cum annotationibus (Basel 1516), 512. K. HOLL, "Der Streit zwischen Petrus und Paulus zu Antiochien in seiner Bedeutung für Luthers innere Entwicklung", in his Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 3 Der Westen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1928), 134-146. Luther's commentary on Romans (1515-1516) was first published by Johannes Ficker in Leipzig, 1908. The same editor published it again in the standard Weimar edition (Weimar: Böhlau, 1938). It was translated into English by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961). Hans von SCHUBERT, ed., Luthers Vorlesung über den Galaterbrief 1516/1517 (Abhandlungen der Heidelburger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, no. 5; Heidelberg, 1918).

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

185

these observances were necessary for salvation. But, according to this notebook at least, Luther did not yet draw any ecclesiological consequences for his own time. In the years 1518-1519, Luther wrote a proper commentary on Galatians.27 In between the notebook and this commentary, the controversy over the sale of indulgences had exploded and become a conflict with the archbishop of Mainz and the Roman curia. So Luther now begins to draw ecclesiological conclusions, but still only in a mild form. (A complete presentation would have to draw on the entire commentary. Here we concentrate only on Luther's treatment of Gal 2:11-14.) For Luther, "Paul is fighting against compulsion and on behalf of freedom. For faith in Christ is all that is necessary for our righteousness. Everything else is entirely without restriction and is no longer either commanded or forbidden. Consequently, if Peter had observed both customs in the proper spirit, as Paul boldly observed both customs, it would not have been necessary to censure him."28 After this sweeping reduction of the problems to one issue, it does not surprise us that this time Luther is rather indifferent as to whether Peter's sin was mortal or venial, though he never doubted the gravity of the consequences. Luther goes on: "How I wish that this passage ... were very well known to all Christians, especially to the members of monastic orders, the clergy, and the many superstitions people who, because of papal laws or ordinances of their own, not infrequently subvert both evangelical faith and evangelical love! They do not even have judgment enough to lay aside their burdens when brotherly love demands it, unless the people again buy dispensations and special permissions with cash — although neither the popes nor the church can impose anything except to allow the free exercise of love and mutual beneficence". 29 "Paul unquestionably showed himself superior to Peter. But this superiority ... was no cause for pride, because it has to do with man's person, which God does not regard. Yet in time past it was man's person that caused the sees of Rome and Constantinople to contend...; ... as though the unity of the church rested on man's person and on superior power rather than on the faith, hope and love that are in the Spirit".30 On the basis of these views Luther makes a polemical use of Gal 2:11-14 in his Resolutio super propositione XIII de potestate papae.31 The Pauline passage now serves him as a lever to overthrow the Catholic evaluation of Matt

27

28 29 30 31

Luther's Works, vol. 27, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St Louis: Concordia, 1964), Lectures on Galatians 1519, 211-218 (= WA II, 483-489). Ibid., 213. Ibid., 215-216. Ibid., 217-218. WA II, 194.

186

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

16:17-19 and John 21:15-17 as bases for the Petrine ministry of the bishops of Rome. He claims that Peter neither called, nor created, nor sent the other apostles on mission. Paul especially was called from heaven and according to Galatians, did not owe his ministry to others. Jesus said to Peter, "feed my sheep". He did not say, "feed all my sheep". Gal 2:7 limits Peter's mission to only a segment of the ancient world. So Peter has no universal jurisdiction. Gal 2:9 lists Peter after James. So Peter has no primacy. From Gal 2:11-14, Luther concludes that Peter's error makes any talk of papal infallibility impossible, and further that there is a priesthood of all believers. Finally, all this took place before either Peter or Paul had traveled to and settled in the city of Rome. So even if there were an ecclesial primacy, it had nothing to do with Rome. Equipped with these radical theses, Luther set out to meet Johannes Eck, the imperial and Catholic theologian, at the disputation in Leipzig (1519).32 Scholars debate who of the two "won" at Leipzig. Given the harm to the church that resulted, it hardly matters. Holl is convinced that Luther showed his superiority. In the debate neither contender relied exclusively on Galatians, yet the epistle played a significant role in Luther's approach. First he used Gal 2:6 and 1 Cor 3:5 to argue that neither the primacy nor the person of Peter belong to the essence of Christ's church. Peter's error shows that he cannot be the rock on which the church rests (Matt 16:18). Against the Catholic theory (not yet defined) that the pope could not err (later precisions would add "when he is speaking ex cathedra"), Luther shoved forward the fact that he had erred. Luther will soften his radicalism a few years later, when he has to face the challenge on his left posed by the Anabaptists and the peasants' revolt. But these conclusions he never abandoned. By the time he arrives at his longest and final commentary on Galatians (1535), he is ready to pour most of his characteristic theological insights into his exposition of these verse.33 He calls it a "marvelous account", even though unbelievers have accused Paul of pride, lack of modesty and humility. It concerns the "principal doctrine of Christianity," justification. He cites Matt 10:37 to overcome the prestige of Peter. It is the "cause of God himself" which makes us appear proud and stubborn. Prophets can err (2 Sam 7:3), and so can apostles. Yet here "Peter did not err; but he did sin gravely".34 Either Paul or Barnabas sinned (Acts 15:39), and this should comfort us. Luther understood what we would call depression as a sin (Anfechtungen) and he suffered from it; some think he 32 33

34

WA II, 271-320. Luther's Works, vol. 26, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St Louis: Concordia, 1963), Lectures on Galatians 1535, 106-120 (= WA XL, 191-215. Ibid., 108.

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

187

was manic-depressive or bipolar. This could explain his listing the flaws of Elijah, Jonah and Job. He criticizes an exaggerated view of Christian holiness; "Christ is our entire holiness" and that suffices. Peter's weakness was to inject a scruple into the consciences of the Gentile Christians. (Luther suffered from neurotic scrupulosity, so he was very sensitive to this issue.) Peter's charitable concern for the Jewish Christians provokes this outburst: "A curse on such charity and on all the duties and acts of charity! For to avoid foods this way is to deny Christ, to tread his blood underfoot, to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, against God, and against everything holy... it is better to lose a brother than to lose God".35 Luther then presents his famous dialectic of Law and Gospel, his attack on reason, his late medieval experience of the terrified conscience, and his mysticism in a single remarkable paragraph. "Here let reason be far away, that enemy of faith." "Ascend into the darkness." "So the conscience must be free from the Law, but the body must obey the Law."36 He goes on to make a schizoid attempt to locate the Gospel in heaven and the Law on earth. His pastoral concern for the terrified conscience leads him to an extreme subjectivism and interiority which cuts the religious life of the believer from the sociopolitical order and leaves the church out entirely. All this helps to create the modern world and the romantic cultural movement but takes him far from the concerns of the historical Paul. Paul was concerned, we recall, with missionary strategy, not with subjective states of consciousness. We have seen the perspective on this text shift from the medieval concern for the degree of gravity of the sin to the Reformation interest in dismantling an ecclesiology of Petrine primacy. The dawn of the nineteenth century saw the rise of a historical-critical methodology. This gradually undermined the principle of Scripture alone as the religion of Protestants by taking more seriously the diversity within the canon of the New Testament books (F.C. Baur).37 An apriorisitic, deductive approach to biblical inerrancy, canonical harmony, and church history slowly gave way to more inductive exegesis. Indeed, Adolf von Harnack advocated the thesis that dogma had ceased with the Reformation, a view shared in practice by Franz Overbeck. 38 For Roman Catholics,

35 36 37

38

Ibid., 111. Ibid., pp. 113-114. On the Protestant Tübingen School of the 1830s to the 1850s, see S. NEILL, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), 12-28; W.G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 120-205; H. HARRIS, The Tubingen School (Oxford: Blackwells, 1975); U. KÖPF, "Tübinger Schulen", TRE 34, 165-171. On Harnack, see esp. K.H. NEUFELD, Adolf von Harnack: Theologie als Suche nach der Kirche (Paderborn: Bonifacius, 1977); idem, Adolf Harnacks Konflikt mit der Kirche (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1979); my review of these two works in RB 94 (1987) 473-475; T.

188

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

the Second Vatican Council (1962-5) included a limitation on the range of biblical inerrancy {Dei Verbum, no. 11) and a salvation historical approach to theology and catechesis which accepted, at least implicitly, the historicity of truth. Even after the Council, a Lutheran theologian, Inge Lönning, regarded Gal 2:11-14 as a fundamental problem in controversial theology.39 He recapitulates the history of interpretation we have reviewed and boils it down to two main views of Peter's sin which still influence exegetes. The first is the dominant Latin view, from Tertullian to Lagrange and the present writer: Peter's sin was one of behavior, not of doctrine; conversationis fuit vitium, поп praedicationis (De praescriptione haereticorum 23). It was a sin of cowardice and omission, withdrawal from table fellowship with the Gentile Christians, comparable to the denial of Christ in Mark 8:32 and 14:66-72. Because of its grave doctrinal and pastoral implications it could well have been a mortal sin, though such judgments are best left to God. It was simulatio adversus veritatem evangelii, but not formal heresy. Like Paul in 1 Cor 9:20-22, Peter was being weak to the weak. This view depends heavily on the silence of Peter, a sustainable view if one concentrates on 2:11-14, and does not read 2:15 and 17 as Peter's objections to Paul, an interesting but speculative interpretation. This view also at least implicitly reads the "compel" (anagkazeis) of v. 14 as an exaggeration, Paul being carried away by his polemical zeal. He was after all a former zealot (Gal 1:14). The second view of our passage derives from Luther and holds that Peter committed formal heresy and therefore is a pastor haereticus. From this Luther concludes further that Peter loses his primacy. From that conclusion it would follow that there is no Petrine ministry, office, primacy or infallibility. (In practice, this led to handing over ultimate authority in the Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia to the territorial princes, as the Summepiscopat (the prince or king as supreme bishop), a type of ecclesiology which elsewhere is called Erastianism or caesaro-papism.) At Leipzig, Luther appeals to Scripture as above tradition. Our little study of the history of interpretation of Gal 2:11-14 has opened up, we hope, its ecumenical implications for today. We would like now to take up Lönning's challenge and suggest briefly how at least one Roman Catholic theologian would deal with some of the different issues raised. On the relation of Scripture and church tradition, the most satisfactory solution is that of J.R. Geiselmann. He summarizes it thus.

39

HÜBNER, Adolf von Harnacks Vorlesungen über das Wesen des Christentums (Bern: Lang, 1994). I. LÖNNING, "Paulus und Petrus. Gal 2,1 Iff als kontroverstheologisches Fundamentalproblem", Studia Theologien 24 (1970) 1-69.

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

189

How is now the relationship between the Holy Scriptures and the unwritten traditions to be determined? We have, by means of the proof from tradition that there is a contentual sufficiency of Holy Scripture in what concerns faith, and there is a contentual insufficiency in what concerns mores, consuetudines et leges (usages, customs and laws) of the Church, we have, I say, created the presupposition to be able to answer the question concerning the relationship between Scripture and tradition. As a result, it becomes apparent that this relationship cannot be determined unequivocally. With respect to faith, the Holy Scripture is contentually sufficient. But, thereby the Sola-Scritura principle is not yet expressed. For the Holy Scripture is, with respect to the canon of the Scriptures, dependent upon Tradition and upon the decision of the Church. For it was the Council of Trent which first definitively settled the canon of Holy Scripture. And with respect to the understanding of Holy Scriptures, it needs the clarifying tradition of the Fathers in matters of faith and morals. Tradition in these cases exercises the function of traditio interpretative!. Besides, the Holy Scripture is dependent upon the sensus which the Church maintains and has always maintained, for the explanation of its contents which concern faith and morals. Here thus holds true with respect to faith the principle: totum in sacra scriptura et iterum totum in traditione, completely in Scripture and completely in tradition. The situation is otherwise with respect to the mores et consuetudines of the Church. Here Scripture is insufficient and needs tradition for its contentual completion. In these cases, tradition is traditio constitutiva. Here holds true with respect to the mores et consuetudines the principle: partim in sacra scriptura, partim in sine scripto traditionibus, partly in the Holy Scriptures, partly in tradition.40 This nuanced view seems to me to do most justice to the actual best practice of the church over two millennia. It is a positioned tolerated by the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum, no. 9). Not all Catholic theologians are happy with it.41 But it has never been condemned. Can the pope be a sinner? Yes, of course. He has a confessor and confesses weekly.42 Can the pope be a heretic? Yes, indeed, as a private theologian. The classic case is Pope John XXII, an Avignon pope in the fourteenth century,

4 0

41

42

Die Heilige Schrift und die Tradition (Freiburg: Herder, 1 9 6 2 ) , 2 8 2 , my translation. The first 100 pages of this work were translated into English, but not this conclusion. J. RATZINGER, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977 (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1998), 124-130. G. RICCIOTTI, Paul the Apostle (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953), 283-286. J . R . GEISELMANN,

190

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S CORRECTION

who taught unsound views on the beatific vision, but only as his personal opinion. It did no harm to the papal teaching office. 43 Even if a pope were a heretic, his office of primacy as a church administrator or governor would remain intact. He can be fraternally corrected, as Pope St Gregory the Great himself taught.44 St. Catherine exercised this duty of fraternal correction with success, Savonarola, without (immediate) success.45 Theologians obsessed with logic and system endure contradictions in Scripture and church teaching with discomfort. Yet in the real world of evolving church history, contradictions and confusions are a dialectical necessity. The contradictions are only resolved gradually, over time. In this case, the contradictions are not primarily a matter of Scripture versus Tradition, as of Scripture in conflict with Scripture. And this is so in many ways. First there are quite different soteriologies in Matthew and James as contrasted with Galatians and Romans. Then there are conflicts in history between Acts and Paul (Luther began to see this, as he also devalued James.) Then there are tensions within Paul's own letters, between Galatians and Romans, with their polemic against the Judaizers, and 1 and 2 Corinthians, with their polemic against Gentile Christian libertines. The question has been asked: was Paul a libertine or a legalist.46 Paul's teaching on judgment on the basis of works brings him in some ways close to Matthew-James. 47 One can even discern differences between Galatians and Romans and within Galatians itself. In the patristic period one can note within, for example, St. Augustine various tensions. After the Reformation Catholics clung to the institutional Augustine of his anti-Donatist works, Lutherans and Reformed, to the free-grace Augustine of his anti-Pelagian writings. Or, on Galatians, one can distinguish between the younger Augustine's "naively" Pelagian commentary on the epistle and the elderly Augustine's pamphleteering, polemical use of it against the Pelagians. Similarly, historians note that Luther is anti-institutional in his fight with Catholics, while he becomes quite institutional in his fight with the Anabaptists and the peasants. John Calvin claims to support Luther on justification and yet ends up as the father of the Puritans, with an extreme worksrighteousness and pietism which eventually infect even some Lutherans.

43

H.

Structures of the Church (New York: Herder & Herder, 1963); X. L E O N Life and Death in the New Testament (San Francisco, 1986), 282-298. THOMAS A Q U I N A S , Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 33, arts. 1-8, esp. arts. 2 and 4 where he quotes Gregory the Great, Moralia 23.8. Y. C O N G A R , Vraie et Fausse Reforme dans VEglise (Unam Sanctam 20; Paris: Cerf, 1950). J . W . D R A N E , Paul Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Theology of the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975), esp. 132-136. See for example K.P. DONFRIED, "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul", ZNW 67 (1976) 90-110 = Interpretation 30 (1976) 140-152. KONG,

DUFOUR,

44

45

46

47

THE SINS OF PETER AND PAUL'S CORRECTION

191

F.C. Baur tried to find a way out of the tensions within the New Testament canon by means of the Hegelian triadic dialectic: thesis: James and Matthew; antithesis: Paul; first attempt at a synthesis: Luke-Acts; second attempt at a synthesis: John. 48 But this still leaves us with the question of what to do with the elements which do not fit into the synthesis and are yet retained in the canon. We are led to perceive that logic is a tool of limited value faced with the spontaneity of life and the Spirit. Hermann Gunkel presented the Spirit itself as source of both wild, orgiastic dithyramb and of the summits of high culture (e.g., Beethoven's Ninth), dressed at times in war paint and loin cloth, at other times in white tie and tails. 49 Commentators have even noted that Galatians 2:15-21 is somewhat dated for contemporary readers, whereas 3:15 is more relevant. 50 The present writer accepts that there is a pluralism of soteriologies within the New Testament canon, whereas Luther accepted only one. Hans Kiing was once asked why he did not become a Protestant. He replied: I cannot claim to know exactly what the Gospel is. That is, he did not think one should reduce it to one formula, one doctrine, one idea or theme, or even one kerygma. For some decades there has been a discussion of a canon within the canon. Ernst Käsemann's criterion for his selection of what to retain as normative was Luther's phrase "was Christi treibet", what promotes or urges Christ, meaning by that justification by faith alone. 51 One could discern two kerygmas within the New Testament: the classical Paschal mystery of the saving significance of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and the pre-Paschal kerygma or preaching of Jesus himself, the soon-to-come kingdom of God on earth. This last was largely ignored for centuries by theology, only to be rediscovered in the late nineteenth century and institutionalized by the Jehovah's Witnesses. 52 Within the Roman Catholic Church one could discern different accents between the Jesuits (the Society of Jesus, which accents the four gospels), and the Jansenists, who accent Paul and Augustine. The defining "exclusive particle" alone (sola), so important in shaping Lutheran identity, by faith alone, by grace alone, by Scripture alone, is itself unscriptural (but compare James 2:24). It can be useful as a heuristic device, in the way a

48

49 50

51 52

See the presentation in K. BARTH, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2002). H. GUNKEL, The Influence of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). J.D.G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul's Letter to the Galatians (Cambridge: University Press, 1993); idem, "The Incident at Antioch", JSNT 18 (1983) 3-37, reprinted and revised in Dunn's Jesus, Paul and the Law (Louisville KY: Westminster, 1990). E. KÄSEMANN, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), 95-107. J. WEISS, Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; orig. Ed. 1892); B.T. VIVIANO, The Kingdom of God in History (Wilmington DE: Glazier, 1988).

192

THE SINS OF PETER A N D PAUL'S

CORRECTION

disjunctive syllogism can be, but cannot handle, by itself, the whole Bible, the whole Tradition of the church, or the complex realities of church life and history. Interestingly, there is no definition of the biblical canon within the Lutheran confessional documents, and this out of several well founded fears. It was otherwise with Trent and Calvin. Martin Hengel, a Lutheran theologian, has recently opted for the longer canon of the Septuagint. 53 It is rare in religious history that laxism succeeds. Paul therefore had to fight hard and had to claim a purely supernatural basis (Gal 1:12) for his gospel which included the implication that the ceremonial precepts of the Mosaic law were not to be observed either by the Gentile Christians now brought within the fold of the covenant people of God, or by the Jewish Christians, at least not as a matter necessary for salvation. The perennial attraction of the law, that is, detailed religious observances, is due in part to the emptiness of a freedom which is not further specified. Lutheran pastors say that if you want a full church preach the law. In the case of the Galatian Christians we can apply the thesis of Rene Girard about mimetic desire to explain why they were tempted to follow Peter into Jewish practice.54 They wanted something that the Jewish Christian had and that they did not. Only when the Gentile Christians developed their own set of practices and taboos, could they accept their freedom from Jewish practices. Their freedom was no longer empty. If the meals at Antioch and Galatia involved the Lord's Supper, the case would be even move serious. For a moment in the youth rebellions of 1968, some members of the same monastery wanted separate eucharistic services for the leftists and the rightists. This was instinctively felt not to be a good idea. In the midst of our diversity, the body of Christ should not be divided. The unity of the church is both Christ's prayer and God's gift, and also our task.55

53

54

55

M. HENGEL, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 2002); Id., Der unterschätzte Petrus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); Id., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979; M. BOCKMUEHL, Seeing the Word (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2006), pp. 121-136. R. GIRARD, Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U.P., 1977; idem, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (London: Athlone, 1987); Id., The Scapegoat (London: Athlone, 1986); Robert North, "Violence and the Sacred: the Girard Connection", CBQ 47 (1985) 1-27; R. HAMERTON-KELLY, Sacred Violence (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); R. SCHWAGER, Must There be Scapegoats? (New York: Crossroad, 2000). B.T. ViviANO, "Unity and Symphonic Diversity in the Church: the Dialectic between John 17:20-23 and Matthew 18:18-20", next chapter.

14

Unity and Symphonic Diversity in the Church: the Dialectic between John 17:20-23 (Matthew 16:17-19) and Matthew 18:18-20

In Christian circles interested in the unity of the church, otherwise known as the ecumenical problem and task, it is customary to begin with Jesus' prayer for unity as presented in John 17:20-23: 20 I ask not only on behalf of these [present believers], but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be [one] in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Cp. John 17:11. In ecumenical circles this passage is taken to mean that it is the express will and desire of Jesus Christ that those who believe in him should be one. (The word church is not used in the gospel according to John, but it is commonly assumed that the gospel did have some notion of Christian community and, in this sense, that it had its own ecclesiology.) The text goes on (vv. 21b and 23b) to argue that the finality of this desired unity is a missionary or evangelistic one: "that the world may believe", "that the world may know". This implies an almost causal link between what we would today call ecumenism (work for the unity of the church) and mission (bringing the kerygma to people who are not yet Christian believers). This double mention of the world (ho kosmos) helps to broaden the field of interest of the prayer to the whole inhabited world, the oikoumene. And that fact alone prevents the text from being reduced to a narrow sectarian, monotonous tract. Nevertheless, many modern readers, especially ones active in smaller churches, do not like this text. They find its notion of unity too one-sided, too suffocating or undifferentiated. It does not make room for legitimate diversity, does not allow for "wiggle room", room for manoeuvre, the delight in difference, Joseph's "many-colored coat" (Gen 37:3 LXX).

194

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

The present essay is intended to offer some biblical resources to help us grasp richer concepts of unity, concepts which are not suffocating, crushing, totalitarian or tyrannical, but which also avoid the pitfalls of arbitrary anarchy, in favor of a responsible ecclesiology. To do this we propose to look at relevant texts in both John and Matthew, as well as a brief consideration of the philosophical background. I When one looks intently at John 17:20-23 in itself and in the scholarly discussion, one quickly encounters some puzzlement at the internal structure of the text (why the repetitions?, does the main textual variant play a significant role or not?), as well as some surprise that not all commentators think that the text means what the ecumenically minded think it means. First, let us look more closely at the text itself. Where does its thematic accent fall? Martin Buber taught that the repeated word is often the clue to the biblical author's intention as to what is more or less important in a passage. 1 If we look at these four verses for terms of theological significance, we note Father once (and many uses of pronouns that refer to the Father and to Jesus). Verbs for believing, giving, loving, sending, plus the noun for world, occur twice each. Glory, perfecting, knowing, word (logos) occur once each. But hen (one, neuter sing.) occurs four times, or five if a key textual variant be admitted. So the dominant theme is oneness or unity, and all the other terms develop or enrich this theme and are linked to it. If the four verses are laid out in short stichs, a remarkable parallelism emerges between the subordinate clauses of v. 21 and those of vv. 22-23. Each unit has three purpose or result clauses introduced by hina (that, in order that) and one comparison clause introduced by kathos (as, just as) which separates the first and second hina clauses. There are six hina clauses in all, another major repetition. The first two hina clauses in each unit refer to "the oneness of the believers, while the third refers to the effect on the world. The second hina clause does not merely repeat the first but develops the notion of unity. The kathos clause in each block holds up for the believers the model of the unity of Jesus and the Father." 2 But why is there all this repetition? One view is that doublets refer to two sources. For Jürgen Becker and Rudolf Schnackenburg, vv. 22-23 are original, and vv. 20-21 are a later editorial addition to make a sharp division be-

1 2

M. BUBER, The Prophetic Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1949), 8-9, 27. R.E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (AB 29; Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1966; 1970), 769.

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

195

tween the disciples and all believers. 3 But no such sharp division is to be found in chap. 17.4 It is better to retain the present text as an original whole. In that case, the repetitions can be explained as due to the rules of biblical poetry (or, as in this case, poetic prose) which expresses itself in parallelism of members or lines. Repetition is also, as we have already noted, a means of emphasis, and it is an aid to learning as well. The emphatic repetition is here reinforced by an emphatic position at the climax of the chapter-long prayer. Despite the fact that the Johannine authors can be divisive and difficult with people who think or believe differently (e.g., John 8:44; 2 John 10), their Hellenistic, Platonic culture (as well as their affinities with the Qumran literature), makes unity a central value for them. As in a work of musical counterpoint, the evangelist keeps adding slight variations, that is, connected themes, to create a richer development of the main theme. Here we could say that the first block (vv. 20-21) states the prayer for unity simply, as the main theme, while the second block (vv. 22-23) adds to this basic prayer the themes of glory, perfection and love. A problem that flows from the close parallelism of thought in this passage is one of textual criticism in v. 21. Should we read "that they may be one in us" (so Sinaiticus, Koridethi, the common Byzantine as well as the Latin tradition) or simply "that they be in us" (so, it seems, papyrus 66, Vaticanus, Ephraemi rescriptus and Bezae)? The first, longer, reading strengthens the parallel with v. 23b. But perhaps the evangelist did not want such a strict parallelism, on the grounds that that would be too mechanical and monotonous. Lagrange rejects the hen on the grounds that it adds nothing. Bultmann regards it as a facilitating correction, but not as false in content. Brown retains the hen, on the basis of an accidental scribal omission through a type of homoioteleuton. We can reject it on literary and theological grounds. On either reading, v. 21b is a development over v. 21a, "since it asks not only for unity but also for divine indwelling" (Brown). Literarily, the evangelist chose to avoid a parallelism that would be mechanical and monotonous. Theologically, the evangelist wished to avoid a confused anticipation of v. 23. There it becomes clear that the divine indwelling occurs in Jesus. Jesus is the connecting link or middle term between the believing community and the Father. The longer reading could nourish the idea that the believers have immediate

3

J. BECKER, "Aufbau, Schichtung und theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Gebets in Johannes 17", ZNW 60 (1969) 56-83; Rudolf SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel according to St John (NY: Crossroad, 1982), 3:188-194. G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, John (WBC 36; Waco TX: Word, 1987).

196

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

access to the Father, without going through Jesus. But that would not be good Johannine theology. Now that these preliminary questions have been tentatively settled, the next step will be to state directly our understanding of the passage, and of its relevance for the quest for Christian unity. To do this, other relevant passages from John will be drawn into the discussion. Once this step is taken, it will be appropriate to tackle the most stubborn opposite view, that of Rudolf Bultmann, who is here followed by C.K. Barrett, Udo Schnelle, Jürgen Becker, Pheme Perkins, 5 namely, that the unity sought is not one of organization, institutions and dogmas. (J.H. Bernard partly precedes Bultmann here.) 6 Verse 20 turns Jesus' prayer for his disciples from the present to the future, and resumes the theme already enunciated in v. l i b : "Holy Father, protect [keep, preserve, tereson] them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one." But now it prays for those believers who have been won over by the present disciples, by their preaching or word (,logou). (Cp. Deut 29:14-15.) Verse 21 gets to the heart of the matter and is the best known and most frequently memorized part of the unit, "that all may be one." The model is the unity in diversity and distinction between Father and Son, what will later be called a Trinitarian as opposed to a monist unity. The unity of believers has its source and root in the divine. It is a divine gift, but this does not exclude its concrete manifestation in history or its visibility, as the next clause shows: "so that the world may believe that you have sent me." For the world to believe it has to know and to see something. Some external expression is necessary. 7 Compare Jesus' explanation of his prayer to the Father in John 11:42: "I know that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me." This is immediately followed by the raising of Lazarus, a visible sign. The Christological content (what would later be called the 5

6

7

R. BULTMANN, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 512-518; C.K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John (2nd ed.; London: SPCK, 1978), 518519; PHEME Perkins, "John", NJBC (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 979; J. BECKER, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 2 vols. (ÖTK 4: 1-2; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn; Würzburg: Echter, 1979-1981), 628-631; U. SCHNELLE, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 258-259; despite this position, SCHNELLE seems to have distanced himself from the BULTMANN school in that he thinks that the Johannine school has a real and a strong ecclesiology which expresses itself in a world mission through baptism and eucharist, in a consciousness of being guided by the Paraclete, in a drawing out conclusions from the incarnation of the Son, even if it does not express itself in an interest in a structured ministry; see Udo SCHNELLE, "Johanneische Ekklesiologie", NTS Ъ1 (1991) 37-50. J.H. BERNARD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St John, 2 vols. (ICC: Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1928). B.F. WESTCOTT, The Gospel according to Saint John (London: Murray, 1882; rep. 1908).

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

197

dogmatic content) of the faith involved is also made clear, that the Father has sent Jesus, that Jesus is the emissary, apostle, revealer of the Father (cf. Martha's confession in 11:27 and its conformity to the goal of the entire gospel as stated in 20:31). Verse 21 suggests that disunity was already a problem for the church at the time the evangelist was writing. Verse 22 raises the theme of Jesus' glory which he now gives to believers, and then returns to or relates this to the theme of unity of the community. In what does this glory consist? It has been said that "The faith of the community can be called its doxa (glory)." 8 But it is hard to see that Jesus' own glory consists in this. Other views include: 1. miracles (so Chrysostom and Zahn); 2. the divine nature of Jesus (Lagrange); 9 3. adoption as children of God (Schanz, Durand, Tillmann); 4. the symbol and nourishment of this share in the divine life is the eucharist (Loisy). In the light of the Prologue (1:12-13) it seems best to understand that the glory which in due measure believers are given through faith in Jesus consists in being children of God (cf. 14:23). What greater glory could there be for mortal creatures? Further explicitations of being children of God, not expressed in John 17, would be participation in the flesh and blood of Jesus (John 6:51-58), and, outside the Johannine school, participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4; John 10:34 "I said, you are gods" (from Ps 82:6) is probably not relevant here). 10 Verse 23 further develops this thought of unity in the direction of a relationship of love, love of the Father for Jesus, love of the Father for those who believe in Jesus (3:16,35). This unity consists of more than merely mental mirroring There is a dimension of mutuality, of intimacy, of reciprocity. 11 Love is the cement, the glue, that must hold the church together. As J.A. Moehler says, "the church should be a community of love" 12 . The analogy here is important. The analogy of unity here is that of persons in relation, not a union which is subhuman or merely biological or organic. But also not like the doomed suicidal late-Romantic love of Wagner's Tristan und. Isolde, where the lovers' Liebestod or love-death duet runs: So stürben wir um ungetrennt, ewig einig, ohne End',

BULTMANN, John, 9 10

515.

M.J. LAGRANGE, Evangile selon saint Jean (EB; Paris: Gabalda, 1925), 450-451. Bengel, Gnomon NT, comments: "quanta maiestas christianorum!"

11

G . R . O'DAY, John ( I B C ; N a s h v i l l e T N : A b i n g d o n , 1 9 9 5 ) .

12

J.A. MOEHLER, Unity in the Church (Washington DC: the Catholic University of America Press, 1996), passim.

198

U N I T Y A N D S Y M P H O N I C D I V E R S I T Y IN T H E C H U R C H

ohn' Erwachen, ohne Bangen, namenlos in Lieb' umfangen, ganz uns selbst gegeben, der Liebe nur zu leben. (O might we then together die, each the other's own forever. Never fearing, never waking, nameless, blest delights of love partaking, — each to each wholly given, in love alone our heaven.) That would be suffocating indeed. Rather should we think of a mature marriage or family, where each person's individuality is recognized, respected and appreciated. Verse 23 also introduces the idea of being perfected in unity, and this could suggest the idea of degrees of unity. The achievement or attaining of unity would then be a gradual process, like the gradual maturing of a human person. The passive voice of the participle teleleiomenoi suggests that God is at work in this process, that this unity is a divine gift or grace. That it is a gradual process supports those theologies of grace which allow for some human cooperation with God's grace (as well as for some sinful human resistance). God is the principal but not the only agent. The process is slow because the church on earth consists of slow learners who are on a long journey through history (16:12-13). The perfection or perfecting involved could make us think that it will only be attained in the eschaton, in heaven, in eternity. But John has a partly realized eschatology (4:23; 5:25; 11:2526), so that he might well intend that the unity prayed for be realized already now, as well as in the beyond. Besides the use of the language of perfection in Matthew, Paul, and the letter to the Hebrews, this language is also found in 1 John 2:5; 4:12,17,18, in the context of the individual's being perfected in love. Here Westcott's remark is apt: "that which is completed at once on the divine side has to be gradually realized by man... the essential unity is personally apprehended, and issues in the perfection of each believer as he fulfills his proper part." 13 This is too individualistic to fit the communitarian context of John 17, but the idea of a gradual realization is appropriate. That gives us an overview of the content of the four verses. Now let us look at some other verses in John that could help us round out our understanding of John's intention here. Of these, clearly the most important is John 10:30: "I and the Father — we are one." We note at once that there are two aspects of this tiny verse. One is singular: "one". The other is plural: "we" (in Greek esmen), besides the two persons mentioned at the outset. That some form of unity is being affirmed between the two is not in doubt. The question is:

13

WESTCOTT, John, in loco.

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

199

what sort of unity is affirmed? The early church wrestled long and hard with this question, as it groped its way to Nicaea. Is it a merely moral union, a union of minds and hearts, of plans and intentions? That seemed too loose and weak to do the verse justice, although this view was retained by the Arians. Is it then a modal or Sabellian union, where there is one reality, God, of which Father and Son are only accidental aspects or modes? That seemed to ignore the plurality of persons. Finally the church fathers arrived at the solution of a unity of nature or substance and a distinction of persons. 14 These later developments are not decisive for our understanding of 17:2023. We need only retain the fact of an affirmation of a unity within a duality or a unity with distinctions in 10:30. Or that would be so were it not for an almost comical exchange between two authors in the pages of the Expository Times in 1959. There, building upon his earlier work, Т.Е. Pollard argued that, since (a) the unity of believers must be modeled on that of Father and Son, and since (b) that unity is a unity with distinctions and allows for distinction within unity, it follows that "to argue for uniformity or for union of churches in one Church with one form of government, worship, etc., is to take a Sabellian view of the unity of the Church which is just as unbiblical as the Sabellian view of the unity of the Godhead." 15 He goes on however to say that it is "equally unbiblical to take an Arian view of the Church by so emphasizing the distinctions that the unity of the Church is lost." As the Father and Son interpenetrate each other, a concept later called perichoresis or circumincession, so too the churches should have perichoresis. So far so good. But Pollard goes on to deny that Jesus in John 17 is praying that there may be one Church, in the sense of one all-inclusive organization. Perichoresis for Pollard means a loose cooperation between denominations, with intercommunion and interchange of ministries, but without worrying about the validity of orders. (This is the Free Church model of pulpit and altar fellowship.) These last points are more precise in their modalities than the Johannine text. Soon after Pollard's article, another appeared by E.L. Wenger. 16 He criticizes Pollard's model for allowing denominations in good conscience "to go their separate ways and compete with one another in the same spheres of operation. Nothing less than a complete organic union can come anywhere near the pattern of that deep union between Father and Son whose distinction is only in their separate spheres of operation and is not through any failure to 14

15

16

Т.Е. POLLARD, "The Exegesis of John 10,30 in the Early Trinitarian Controversies", NTS 3 (1957)334-349. Т.Е. POLLARD, '"That They All May Be One" (John xvii.21) — and the Unity of the Church', Expository Times 70 (1959) 149-150. E.L. WENGER, "That They All May Be One", Expository Times 70 (1959) 333.

200

U N I T Y A N D S Y M P H O N I C D I V E R S I T Y IN T H E C H U R C H

see eye to eye on the same things!" He then goes on to propose the unions of churches in India and Pakistan as examples of organic church union which yet respect the need for a "variety of expression within a living together in a unity of spirit in which the competitive temper has been done away." This too goes beyond the text of John. But we note (a) that "the competitive temper" is not always a bad thing. It can energize to excellence in ministry, education, creativity and evangelism. But it is also not at all incompatible with coexistence in a single, organically united church body. Examples are the healthy rivalries between different religious orders in the Roman Catholic church. Or different parishes or church schools (with their sports teams) within a city, (b) Wenger's view is that John's message certainly favors organic, organizational unity, even if it does not explicitly demand it. This does not seem erroneous, so long as the unity allows room for considerable diversity. For example, granted a full unity of faith in the sense of doctrinal beliefs on essentials, and full sacramental communion, there can coexist a variety of rites in a single church. The real problem consists in the question of who decides what diversity is legitimate and what is not. It becomes then a question of the mechanisms of decision-making, of the exercise of authority, and of the common recognition of a referee or court of final appeal. The New Testament has some things to say about all of that, but to discuss it would take us beyond John 1 -20, where we should remain for the present. Another Johannine verse relevant to the matter of unity is 10:16: "I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." This verse is from the Good Shepherd discourse. Its deep concern for unity is obvious from the last part of the verse. It is further evident from the context that the Good Shepherd is Jesus. The only questions are: who are the other sheep, what is "this fold"? Because the language is metaphorical, it is not easy to pin down its exact referents. On the one hand, the total perspective of the fourth gospel includes an interest in non-Christian religious seekers, both Jewish and pagan (see 1:9, to cite no other text). This is relevant today. But in this immediate context, on the other hand, the reference seems rather to be to the unity among those who already believe in Jesus. The opening words could be pressed in this sense: "I [already] have other sheep." "This fold" would then refer to the Johannine community. Then it would clearly be a case of church unity which is in view. A glance at the older commentators 17 shows that they thought of "this flock" as Israel the elect people of God, now become the people led by Jesus (cf. Ezek 34:23; 37:24) as the Davidic king. Some feel that the verse is a secondary insertion and unambiguously refers

17

LAGRANGE a n d BULTMANN, in

loco.

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

201

to one, universal church of which Jesus is lord, a church extended by the missionary work of the disciples. 18 More recent commentators 19 judge that the "other sheep" are (a) future generations of believers (cf. 17:20; 20:29); and/or (b) the future coming of the Gentiles, "the Greeks" (7:35; 12:20-22); and/or (c) other Christian communities, Petrine or Gnostic, who are not (yet) part of or united with the Johannine fold. In any case the ecclesial relevance of the verse and its structural implications seem beyond dispute. Another gospel verse of potential relevance for the clarification of John 17:20-23 is 11:52. Here, after the climactic sign, the raising of Lazarus, 20 and the perception of a Roman danger to the Temple and to the nation of Israel, the high priest Caiaphas prophesies, according to the evangelist, that Jesus is about to die for the nation. The evangelist goes on to comment: "and not for the nation only, but to gather into one (synagoge eis hen) the dispersed children of God." Those commentators who address the question (Wikenhauser, Brown, Schnackenburg) are agreed that the dispersed children of God refer in John not only to the Jews of the diaspora, as would be the case in the Hebrew Bible (Isa 1:12; Mic 2:12; Jer 23:3, Ezek 34:16), but also to the Gentiles who have become Christian believers. John does not mention the church here, yet the most natural reading of v. 52 is that Jesus gathers the believers into one, that is, into one church. Very soon the passage was linked to the gathering of the fragments in John 6:13, to arrive at a sacramental ecclesiology (Didache 9:4): "As this broken bread was scattered 0dieskorpismenon) upon the mountains, but was brought together (synachthen) and became one, so let your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth..." Here what is implicit in John, the reference to the church, is made explicit. The evangelist chose not to use terminology from a later period when writing of the time of Jesus, as he also insisted upon maintaining a Palestinian geographical frame of reference, but here his broader interests in Gentiles, mission, and church are fairly obvious. In his view "a single new people of God made up of Jews and Gentiles is already being formed as a result of Jesus' death." 21 This resembles Paul's view in Gal 2:7-8, where a ministry to the circumcised and to the uncircumcised is discussed. 22 Behind 18

BULTMANN, 3 8 3 .

19

E . g . , PERKINS, in

20

For J.L. STALEY, The Print's First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel (SBLDS 82; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), chapter 11 is the central, major turning point of the gospel plot; 66-73.

loco.

21

SCHNACKENBURG, John,

22

See also C.H. DODD, "The Prophecy of Caiphas: John XI.47-53", first published in Neotestamentica et Patristica (O. Cullmann FS; Leiden: Brill, 1962), 134-143; repr. in DODD, More NT Studies (Manchester University Press, 1968), 58-68; J.J. TAYLOR, "La fraction du pain en Luc-Actes", in The Unity of Luke-Acts, ed. Jos Verheyden (BETL 142; Leu-

v o l . 2 , p. 3 5 0 .

202

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

the reference to the children of God there probably lies an idea of divine election. But what is important for our purposes, is that, once again, as in 10:20 and in 10:16, the fourth evangelist shows quite clearly his concern for the unity of Christian believers. John 17:20-23 should not come as a complete surprise to the attentive reader. It has been carefully prepared for in the earlier portions of the gospel. John may seem never to tire of the theme of unity. The image of the vine and the branches in John 15:1-17 could, in modern English translations (wherein you can be singular as well as plural), give the impression that here the Johannine Jesus is referring to the necessity of the union between the individual believer and Jesus, but not to the need for unity in the community, the unity of members of the church with one another. But this impression is impossible to the reader of the Greek text, since in it the addressees are always in the plural except when a metaphor is used, the branch (singular). The union of the members is here expressed in terms of mutual love (v. 12). 15:8-17 deals particularly with the internal life of the church. 23 Besides this parable or imagery, some have seen in the untorn, seamless tunic of Jesus (John 19:23-24) and in the untorn net full of fish in the Epilogue (John 21:11) symbols of the ideal unity of the church. 24 This interpretation of the tunic goes back to Cyprian, 25 but Bultmann rejects it as incompatible with or at least ignoring the casting of lots for it. On the other hand, Bultmann concedes this allegorical meaning for the untorn net, since he attributes this to the churchly redactor. Although one could extend the circle of comparative material endlessly, for example, to the entire New Testament and beyond, and notably to the model of church unity found in Ephesians 4, our intention is to limit ourselves to three sources: the Johannine letters, then, after a discussion of the main alternative view on the meaning of John 17:20-23, that of Rudolf Bultmann, to look at the Qumran yahad (literally, unity, but in the Qumranite usage, a way of referring to their community) and some texts in Matthew. In beginning with the Johannine letters, our view is not that they were written by the same author as the one who wrote John 1-20. That the letters share a "family resemblance" with the gospel is undeniable however. We accept the view that they come from the same "school", and from a somewhat later time, but before John 21 was added to the gospel. 26 Their relevance to our inquiry is

23

ven: Peeters, 1999), 281-295, where the links betwen Didache 9:4; John 11:52; and Ezek 34 are explored. R.H. LlGHTFOOT, St John's Gospel: A Commentary (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1956), p. 280).

24

HOSKYNS and DAVEY, The Fourth

25

De cathol. Eccl. Unit. 7. On the Johannine letters, see R.E. BROWN, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979); idem, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City NY: Doubleday,

26

Gospel,

2 n d ed., p. 5 2 9 ; LIGHTFOOT, pp. 3 1 6 , 3 4 0 ) .

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

203

that they show how the Johannine community developed, how what remains implicit in the gospel (for whatever reason), becomes explicitly ecclesiological in the epistles. The first thing that strikes one in the letters is how, right at the beginning of 1 John (l:3bis, 6, 7), the term "fellowship" (koinonia) is met, a term clearly communitarian in meaning, a term which never occurs in the gospel. And it refers in the letter precisely to the sort of unity between believers with one another and with the Father and the Son which is envisaged in John 17:2023. The parallelism of thought is extremely close. The thought of the epistle seems to flow directly out of the gospel. In 1 John 2:19, the author comments bitterly on a group of schismatics, people who separated from or left the Johannine community: "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us... By going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us." Here we see that the Johannine prayer for unity emerges from a concrete experience of disunity, not only between Jewish and Gentile Christians or between Christians claiming different forms of authority, but even within the Johannine, Spirit-led community itself. This verse comes in the midst of a discussion of antichrists (1 John 2:18), who are defined doctrinally in 1 John 2:22: "the one who denies the Father and the Son." (The sense of this denial is probably as follows: the schismatic believed in both Father and Son until the moment of his illumination or recognition (anagnoresis) came. From then on the believer became divine himself and had no further need of Father or Son as Savior and Lord because he was now saved.) Talk of the antichrist continues in 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7. The picture which is emerging is of a church community which defines itself doctrinally and suffers from centrifugal tendencies. This picture is re-enforced by 1 John 2:26-27; 3:7, where the recipients of the letter are warned about teachers who seek to deceive them. Here the ecclesiological weakness of the community, at this point in its evolution, becomes visible, to wit, the lack of apostolic authority or clout. "The anointing that you received [i. е., the Spirit] from him [the Son] abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him" (v. 27). The sense of this verse is that the Johannine community may already be a church fellowship with firm doctrinal convictions, but it does not yet see the need for apostolically accredited and in that sense authoritative teachers: "you do not need anyone to teach you." They still think they can get along and flourish, guided by the

1982); on the Johannine "school", see R.A. CULPEPPER, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools (SBLDS 26; Missoula: Scholars, 1975).

204

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

seal of the Spirit alone (the Spirit of the Son). This is an illusion, as their frustration with the schismatics shows. Its illusory character is also shown by the existence and necessity of the letter itself. The author (or authors) who stands anonymously or vaguely behind it obviously felt authorized to write it. This contradicts the expectation that the community could be guided by the Spirit alone, without human intermediaries. But such illusions die hard. In this case they will be overcome by John 21:15-17. For the present, it suffices to note that (a), for the author of 2 John 10, no welcome is to be given a heterodox teacher, and (b) the term church (ekklesia) is finally found in 3 John 6, 9, and 10. Like Luke with Acts, the Johannine school waits till a later moment to discuss the church explicitly, the Johannine epistles. These examinations, however rapid, of Johannine parallels to John 17:20-23 have prepared the way for us to tackle one of the two hardest problems these verses offer. That is, alongside the problem of a too close, suffocating, unity which the verses seem to pray for (a problem still to be addressed), there remains the problem posed by Bultmann and his disciples, namely their view that this unity cannot be "manufactured by organization, institutions or dogma." 27 Put another way, as C.K. Barrett does, "John has little interest in the church as an institution". 28 These views represent a direct challenge to the ecumenical sense of these verses. What can be said of them? First, these views should not be exaggerated. It is true that John is not interested in the church in the same way as a professional canon lawyer is, or even in the way Matthew or Paul are interested and explicitly discuss the church. But John is not altogether ignorant of the fundamental elements of the earliest ecclesiology. He knows of the existence of the Twelve (6:67, 70, 71; 20:24). He knows of the concept of apostle (13:16), however much one minimize its significance in his gospel. Peter is often the spokesman of the Twelve, in John as in the other gospels, notably in the confession of 6:68-69. 29 Indeed, on the older hypothesis that John knows the work of the other evangelists, which includes their ecclesiologies, John diminishes the role of Peter, in favor of the Beloved Disciple, but he does not demonize him. 30 Probably John's greatest contribution to ecclesiology (as well as to a theology of faith 27

BULTMANN, John, 5 1 2 - 5 1 8 ; BARRETT, John, 5 1 8 ; Perkins, "John", 979; U. SCHNELLE, Johannes, 2 5 8 - 2 5 9

28

BARRETT, John,

29

On this passage see P.N. ANDERSON, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 (WUNT 2, 78; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1996; Valley Forge PA: TPI, 1997). Other important passages in John where Peter speaks are at the

518-519.

footwashing (13:6,8,9,24,36,37); at the arrest of Jesus (18:10-11; cf. A.J. DROGE, "The

Status of Peter in the Fourth Gospel: John 8:10-11", JBL 109 (1990) 307-311); Peter's denial (18:15-18,25-27). 30

Β.Τ. VIVIANO, "John's Use of Matthew: Beyond Tweaking", RB 111 (2004) 209-237, included in this volume.

U N I T Y A N D S Y M P H O N I C D I V E R S I T Y IN T H E C H U R C H

205

or religious belonging) is his strong development of the theme of abiding (,menein).31 For John, the believer must accept the absolute and permanent lordship of Jesus Christ. There are to be no pagan gods alongside Jesus, nor may the believer, once enlightened, become a free-floating divine being, no longer acknowledging the lordship of Christ over him (cp. 13:13 with 15:1415). This notion of permanent, enduring adherence to Jesus is an important corrective to Bultmann's view that the unity of the church does not perdure through time, but only "takes place again and again", that is, now and again, from time to time, in privileged moments. 32 Although our text does not mention any dogma as such, it does presuppose the unity of Father and Son and that presupposes the Johannine conviction that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). 33 This comes as close as one can to a fundamental Christian dogma, even if the terminology of "dogma" is rather anachronistic (but cf. Acts 16:4)34 in this context. Barrett goes on, "unlike Ignatius, he [John] does not appeal for unity in institutional terms." 35 This echoes Bultmann who grants that Ignatius thought of John's prayer as for a unity of organization, but denies this for John himself. 36 Ignatius' text reads: "For if I in a short time gained such fellowship with your bishop as was not human but spiritual, how much more do I count you blessed who are so united with him [the bishop] as the church is with Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may sound

31

32

33

34

On this theme of abiding, see for example Jürgen HEISE, Bleiben: Meinein in den Johanneischen Schriften (HUTh 8; Tübingen: Mohr-Sieberk, 1967); Edward Malatesta, Inferiority and Covenant: Α Study of einai en and menein en in the First Letter of Saint John (AnBib 69; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978); L.W. COUNTRYMAN, The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987); Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, In Ihm Sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den Johanneischen Schriften (HBS 21; Freiburg: Herder, 2000). This view, which BULTMANN shares with Karl BARTH and others, has been carefully examined and corrected by J.-L. LEUBA, New Testament Pattern (London: Lutterworth, 1953), a transl. of L'Institution et l'Evenement (Neuchätel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1950). The French title is clearer on the issue. Ernst KÄSEMANN, The Testament of Jesus (London: SCM, 1968), 23,25-26,48-49,54, 65,77. The classic criticism of this little book is by Günther BORNKAMM, transl. in John ASHTON, ed., The Interpretation of John (London: SPCK, 1986), 79-98; it does not attack him on this point. In A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G.W.H. Lampe (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 377-8, besides the older sense of "opinion", the sense of "fixed belief" as applied to Christian doctrines is first found in TATIAN, ATHENAGORAS, CLEMENT of Alexandria's Stromateis, and esp. in CELSUS apud Origen, Cels. 1.2; 2.14. See also J.N.D. KELLY, Early Christian Doctrines (London: A. & C. Black, 1977; 5th ed.), 29-51.

35

BARRETT, John, p. 518.

36

BULTMANN, John, p. 512 and note 5.

206

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

together (symphona) in unity {en henoteti)."37 We see in Ignatius here a remarkable higher synthesis of John 17:20-23 and Matt 18:18-20 (it is perhaps the earliest allusion to and commentary on both), but with a new element proper to him, the mention of the bishop. This mention is not at all in John or Matthew. But to grant that is not quite the same as to say that John does not see the unity for which Jesus prays in institutional terms. (Matthew expressly mentions church three times in his gospel, and a/the church is an institution, at least as much as the family is, but we will return to Matthew.) As we have seen, John does have a sense of the Christian community or church, even if he does not use the term, and this community, however loosely structured, is, according to 17:20-23, a visible social body and, to that extent, an institution. So we must distinguish between an institution with a bishop (Ignatius) and one without (John, so far as we know from John 1-20). But it is simply false to say that John does not appeal for unity in institutional terms. As Ignatius of Antioch represents a trajectory of Johannine ecclesial development, so too does John 21:15-17. In this late epilogue to John's gospel, Peter's threefold denial of Jesus is replaced by a threefold profession of love of Jesus, wherein Peter receives a charge to tend Jesus' sheep. No doubt John 21:15-17 concretizes John 17:20-23 in the spirit and direction of Matt 16:17-19 and Luke 22:31-32. 38 But John 17:20-23 shows that John was already concerned about visible church unity. This passage not only prepares the way for the addition of chap. 21, but also for the later inclusion of John in the eventual canon of the books of the New Testament. For John, despite his semi-sectarian tendencies, and perhaps due to his superiority complex, was too large-hearted, too big thinking, too Platonic, to be satisfied with a sectarian ecclesiology. Jesus' prayer in John 17 expresses the evangelist's desire for a large, united body of believers, one in which his interpretation of the gospel would prevail. To a considerable degree his desire was realized, despite the existence in later church history of schisms, heretical divisions and antipopes. 39 37

38

39

IGNATIUS of Antioch, Ephesians, 5.1, in Kirsopp Lake, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (LCL; Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1952), 178-9. R.E. BROWN, Community of the Beloved Disciple·, Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, "Kinder Gottes und Freunde Jesu: Beobachtungen zur johanneischen Ekklesiologie", in Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments (FS Karl Kertelge), eds. Rainer Kampling und Thomas Söding (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder, 1966), 184-211. On John 17, besides the commentaries and the older literature already mentioned, we may note the following monographs: Hubert RITT, Das Gebet zum Vater: Zur Interpretation von Joh 17 (FzB 36: Würzburg: Echter, 1979); Wilhelm THÜSING, "Die Bitten des johanneischen Jesus in dem Gebet Joh 17 und die Intentionen Jesu von Nazaret", in Die Kirche des Anfangs (FS Heinz Schürmann), ed. R. Schnackenburg, J. Ernst und J. Wanke (Freiburg: Herder, 1978), 307-337; M.-T. SPRECHER, Einheitsdenken aus der Perspektive

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

207

The background for the Johannine concept of unity had earlier been sought in Pythagoras, the Stoics and in Gnosticism. In the Qumran literature the sectarians spoke of themselves as the yahad or "unity". The term occurs some seventy times in the community rule (1 Q S) alone. This parallel strengthens the impression that John is presupposing a Christian community, even though he does not say so explicitly. "The Johannine picture of Christian unity, with its eschatological and vertical elements and its opposition to the world, has much in common with the Qumran yahad.'"10 The roots of the Johannine concept of unity in the Hebrew Bible have not, to my knowledge, been much studied. Without pretending to exhaust the subject, we could say a few words. The cause of the interest in unity in ancient Israel was primarily the tragedy of the divided kingdom after the death of king Solomon. The kingdom consisting of the twelve tribes was split as a result of the revolt of Jeroboam against Rehoboam. The religious and politicals differences of the two kingdoms which resulted from the split, Judah to the south and Israel to the north, were great. When reunions were attempted, troubles resulted. Yet after both kingdoms had fallen to foreign invaders and their leaders had gone into exile, both psalmists and prophets began to pray for and to envisage a reunification. This hope of reunification is thematically related to prayers for return (Ps 137) and restoration (Ps 80), but not identical with them. The blessing of Moses speaks of the "united tribes of Israel" (Deut 33:5 NRSV; literally, the unity of the tribes of Israel, Heb. yahad). This is the ideal state. Psalm 133 can be read as a prayer for national, and not just for familial or communitarian unity. It expresses a hope for the reunification of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, with Jerusalem as capital and a descendant of David as king. The hoped-for reunification is symbolized by the linkage of Mount Hermon in the far North and Zion (Jerusalem) in the South. 41 The psalm begins: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity" (Heb. gam yahad, lit. quite in unity, more

von Joh 17: Eine exegetische und bibeltheologische Untersuchung von Joh 17,20-26 (Europ. Hochschulschriften Theologie 495; Bern: Lang, 1993); Johan FERREIRA, Johannine Ecclesiology (JSNTSS 160; Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), reviewed by C.H. Williams in JTS 52 (2001) 258-262. FERREIRA claims that John 17 is John's definitive statement of his (Christological) ecclesiology and is anti-Paraclete. This claim seems exaggerated to the present writer. 40

R.E. BROWN, John, 2. 111.

41

This is the reading provided by J.S. Kselman in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, 3rd edition (Oxford: Univ. Press, 2001), p. 891. H.J. KRAUS, Psalms 60-150 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), pp. 484-486, is forced to alter the text drastically (he eliminates "to the hills of Zion" as topographically impossible and also absurd), and classifies the psalm as a wisdom psalm, a didactic poem.

208

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

emphatic than the usual translations). It is perhaps this psalm which provides the closest Hebrew biblical parallel to John 17: (a) both are prayers; (b) the terms unity and eternal life (Ps, v.3; Jn, vv. 2 and 3) are explicitly mentioned in both; both have a priestly dimension (Aaron in Ps., v. 2); (c) both are characterized by a predominantly cheerful tone (over against an implicit somber, sordid background), in the one case, "how good and pleasant", in the other, joy (Jn, v. 13). On the other hand, the psalm is very short, the Johannine prayer is much longer and contains many more themes than does the psalm. On the sadder side, Lamentations, chap. 2, laments the division of the kingdom. The theme of reunification of the divided kingdom is fairly frequent in the Hebrew prophets. There is a vision of it in Isa 11:12-13: "He will raise a signal for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart, the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile towards Ephraim." Here Ephraim-Israel represents the Northern Kingdom, and Judah the Southern. This could be a post-exilic prophetic vision which reflects JewishSamaritan hostilities (cf. Ezra 4:l-3). 42 Parallel passages in the prophets include: Jer 3:18; 23:5-6; 31:1; Ezek 34:23; 37:15-28; Hos 2:2 (= 1:11); 3:5; Amos 9:11-15 (more restoration than reunification); Isaiah 27:6; Obadiah 19-21; Micah 2:12; 7:7-13; Zech 10:3-12; 11:7-17. This last reference is to the two staves that recall the two sticks of Ezek 37; yet both staves are cleft in two, a perhaps somewhat despairing conclusion. But the main point for our purposes is that the Hebrew scriptures do manifest a long-standing concern and prayer for unity, reunion and reunification of the people of God in their political and religious institutions. Of the texts to which we have referred none is as close in spirit to John 17 as is Psalm 133. Among recent commentators, G.R. Beasley-Murray is the frankest in admitting that John expresses the need for institutional church unity. He goes further and asserts that present church division is a sign of sin.43 Benedikt Schwank also addresses the ecumenical issue, but then adds two troubling quotes from the Koran (2:254 and 5:17) on the disunity of Christians as

42

See Otto

Isaiah 1-12 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), pp. 263-267; Hans Isaiah 1-12 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp. 486-498; Paul A U V R A Y , Isaie 1-39 (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1972), pp. 145-149; B.S. Childs, Isaiah (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), pp. 104-105. The geographical references in the oracle of Ps 60:8-10 (6-8) may also suggest a reunification of Ephraim and Judah. So R.J. Tournay, Seeing and Hearing God with the Psalms (JSOT SS 118; Sheffield: Academic, 1991), pp. 177-180. G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, John, in loco. KAISER,

WILDBERGER,

43

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

209

willed by God and as a punishment for their forgetfulness of the full revelation. 44 Still another word or two on Bultmann will be necessary. His commentary on our verses is an amalgam of historical exegesis of John and contemporary theological reflection and interpretation. Our own remarks will here therefore have more the nature of a commentary on Bultmann than on John. 45 Bultmann admits at the outset that the prayer is for the unity of the community. He has thereby conceded the main point, though he would be reluctant to admit this. (His own highly individualistic conviction would probably be happier if the were no hint of a community, if it were only a matter of the believer and God, but that would be too remote from the gospel.) But for him the unity is a unity in the tradition of the word and of faith (based on John 17:20 and 1 John 1:3). All classical Christians would gladly agree that tradition plays an important role in the life of the church, but tradition manifests itself in many ways: doctrine, values, ministry, sacraments, prayer and so on. Yet there can be no question of sacraments for Bultmann. They have already been edited out of what he judges to be the original gospel. Thus the tradition is reduced to the word alone, to preaching alone. This is very stark. Bultmann then goes on to say that organization, institutions or dogmas cannot produce this unity, but they can bear witness to it. Comment: We have early on said that, for John, this unity is a divine gift, so that it is not primarily a human project, but, depending on one's theology of grace, human efforts can help (or hinder) this desired unity, can contribute something, can collaborate. Indeed, Bultmann next concedes that the preaching requires institutions and dogmas, yet these cannot guarantee the unity of proclamation. Comment: This is a major concession, that, humanly speaking, church institutions are indispensable. To be sure, our ultimate trust is in God. But Bultmann then comments on the present situation: "The present disunion of the church, which is, in passing, precisely the result of its institutions and dogmas, does not necessarily frustrate the unity of the proclamation." This sentence makes two affirmations. The first purports to explain a complex phenomenon, the division of the churches, by a single cause. Usually the disunion is explained by human sin and willfulness, to which may be added

44

45

Benedikt SCHWANK, Evangelium nach Johannes (St. Ottilien: Eos Verlag, 1998, 2nd ed.), 415-416. R. SCHNACKENBURG concludes his treatment of John 17:20-23 thus: "The Johannine idea of unity points the way for contemporary ecumenical endeavors, since it presents reunion not as something that has to be sought superficially within the institutional framework, but as a deep reality that has to be aimed at in shared Christian faith, in communion with God and in prayer and love", John 3. 188-194. It is not obvious that institutional necessarily means superficial. BULTMANN, John, pp. 512-518, esp. 512-513.

210

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

linguistic and cultural misunderstandings and political-financial interference. The essential dogma of the church is expressed in the apostolic kerygma, e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-5, as restated in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. This dogmatic confession still holds most churches together and is the basis for mutual recognition of baptism, for example. It is not therefore evident that church institutions and dogmas as such are the main cause of disunity. 46 The second affirmation is that the disunity does not frustrate the unity of proclamation. While it is true that God's holy Spirit is greater than the church and can work around it (John 3:8), it was nevertheless the scandal of disunity as a hindrance to effective mission which launched the modern ecumenical movement, beginning with the World Missionary Conference, held at Edinburgh in 1910. The fact is that disunion usually does frustrate the unity of the proclamation. 47 Bultmann continues: "the authenticity of the proclamation cannot be controlled by institutions or dogmas" (italics added). He may here have in mind heavy-handed interventions by church authority such as the encyclical Pascendi and the decree Lamentabili, both of 1907, as well as the oath against Modernism of 1910, as well as the struggle of his teacher Harnack over the Apostles' Creed. 48 His colleague at Marburg for many years was the Old Catholic Friedrich Heiler, a former seminarian who had been discouraged by such measures. 49 But there are less brutal measures by which the church can struggle to purify and articulate her witness to the world, such as councils and synods. Both Matthew (18:15-17) and Paul (1 Cor 5:9-13; 6:1-6) allow excommunication in cases of grave threat to the life of the community, as 46

C.H. DODD, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper, 1936); Hans-Georg LINK, Schritte zur sichtbaren Einheit (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1984).

47

See RUTH ROUSE and S.C. NEILL, eds., A History

48

49

of the Ecumenical

Movement

1517-

1948 (London: SPCK/Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954), esp. pp. 353-363; H.E. FEY, ed., The Ecumenical Advance: A History of the Ecumenical Movement, vol. 2, 1948-1968 (London: SPCK/Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970). The opening chapter of the first volume of this work, by S.C. NEILL, is on the New Testament basis for seeking church unity. It does not mention John 17:20-23. This is a very strange, even scandalous omission. For the text of the operative clauses of Lamentabili see DS, nos. 3401-66, for Pascendi, DS nos. 3475-3500; for the oath, DS, nos 3537-3550. From the abundant secondary literature, standard works include A.R. VLDLER, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1934); Emile POULAT, Histoire, dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste (Paris: Casterman, 1962; 3rd ed. Paris: Albin Michel, 1996, with additions); Gabriel DALY, Transcendence and Immanence: A Study in Catholic Modernism and Integralism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980); on Harnack and his troubles with authority, see K.H. NEUFELD, Adolf Harnacks Konflikt mit der Kirche: Weg-Stationen zum "Wesen des Christenums" (Innsbrucker theologische Studien 4; Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1979); Otto WEISS, Der Modernismus in Deutschland (Regensburg: Pustet, 1995); Otto WEISS, Modernismus und Antimodernismus im Dominikaner Orden (Regensburg: Pustet, 1998). On Heiler, see Günter LANCZKOWSKI, "Heiler", TR Ε 14 ( 1 9 8 5 ) 6 3 8 - 4 1 .

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

211

does 2 John 10, as we have already seen. So some efforts at church "control" do occur, with all the variety of results that church history recounts. Bultmann's most astonishing and weakest assertion is that "the authentic unity of the community is invisible". It is astonishing because it so directly contradicts the sense of John 17:20-23, "that the world may know". It is weak because it manifests Bultmann's ecclesiological weakness. For him the unity is neither worldly not historical but rather it is eschatological, that is, in other terminology, otherworldly or supernatural. Again, any commentary must be nuanced. It is here painfully obvious that Bultmann does not take very seriously the fleshly visibility of the Incarnation; he is more comfortable with a pure gnosis. To be sure, church unity should not be reduced to church politics and organization only. Faith, hope, love and the presence of the Holy Spirit are more important. But politics and organization also have a place in the whole process. The reader's patience will have been tried by this effort to rebut the thesis that John 17:20-23 has no bearing on the unity of the church in the sense understood by the ecumenical movement. Once done, whether successfully or unsuccessfully is for the reader to decide, we are free to address again what should be the true problem of these verses. And that is the question whether the unity prayed for in these verses is too close and suffocating. The answer given in the verses themselves, as we have already seen, is that the unity of the believing community should resemble that communion, intimate and co-penetrating, which exists between Father and Son, that is, to use later language, between persons in relation. Much remains unclear when that is said, but at least it implies that there is to be no loss of personal identity, no annihilating fusion, no tyranny. As John 15:15 says: "I do not call you servants any longer ... but I have called you friends..." For greater clarity it will be interesting to venture outside the Fourth Gospel.

II The problem of unity, as contrasted with disunity, division, schism, multiplicity, diversity, variety, in the community of believers, could be understood, for a start, as a particular application of the problem of the one and the many in classical philosophy. (See additional note after the conclusion.) The master ecumenist Yves Congar has recognized this in his book Diversity and Communion,50 a condensed summary of his long experience with inter-

50

Yves CONGAR, Diversity and Communion, transl. John Bowden (London: SCM/Mystic CN: Twenty-Third Publications, 1984); orig. ed. Diversites et Communion (Cogitatio Fidei 112; Paris: Cerf, 1982); note the plural in the original title; in the Eng. ed., esp. 70-71,

212

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

church dialogue. Because Congar is primarily concerned, in the chapter referred to, with the relation between the Eastern and Western churches as the two "lungs" of the one church, his task is easier than ours. He considers primarily dualities, not multiplicities. But the circumstances of the Protestant Reformation have led to a complex splintering. To find a biblical way of viewing this multifarious variety positively, at least partially, we need a biblical text from outside of John's personalist or familial model. Such a text is to be found in Matt 18:18-20: 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree (symphonesosin) on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them. This is not the place for a complete exegesis of this passage. 51 It will suffice for our purposes to situate it in its context and to analyze a few aspects of it in order to come quickly to the point, the verb in v. 19, symphonein. This pericope is located in Matthew's fourth major discourse (18:1-35; some analyses begin it with the dialogue on the temple tax or didrachma (17:2427); the ending is guaranteed by the formula "When Jesus had finished these things...," in 19:1). It is commonly referred to as the community discourse, turned inward to give guidance or direction to the disciples and little ones. The term church is used explicitly twice in v. 17. The most debated question is: to whom is the discourse addressed? Often the answer is: to all the disciples, and these are understood as coextensive with the total membership of the community. Others would however see a distinction in chap. 18 between the disciples, understood as the educated members of the community (disciple means learner or student) who follow the stringent demands laid down by Jesus for them (10:38-39; 16:24-28), and the little ones or mikroi (18:6,10,14; cf. 10:42), the less educated members. In the latter case, the discourse would begin as addressed to the leaders, and this would continue until v. 21 when the admonitions broaden out to address all in the community as "brothers", suggesting that all are on the same level when it comes to

and all of chap, seven. For the philosophical discussion, see the additional note at the end of this article. For a detailed exegesis, see the great reference commentaries by W.D. DAVIES-D.C. ALLISON, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (ICC; Edinburgh: Т. & T. Clark, 1988-1997); Joachim GNILKA, Das Matthäusevangelium, 2 vols. (HTKzNT 1.2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986-1988); Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (EKK 1.3; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1997).

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

213

forgiveness. Thus both opinions about the identity of the addressees have a basis in the text. 52 As for the location of vv. 18-20 within the discourse, it will suffice to note that these verses are sandwiched in the middle of a section which is arranged in a simple ring or bracket, A В A', in the sense of a parable (vv. 10-14, the lost sheep), the legal kernel (vv. 15-17,18-20, rules for procedure in the case of an erring brother), and another parable (vv. 21-35, on forgiveness). This rough outline passes over several nuances to be made about the framing passages. Our concern is with the central section or legal kernel, which is itself divisible in two: the trial procedure in vv. 15-17, and something broader, harder to characterize, in vv. 18-20. If vv. 15-17 represent something like canon law, where the local church must make a difficult decision, vv. 18-20 represent a sort of theology of church meetings, for study, for prayer, for decision-making, whether for legislation or for conducting a trial. This unit is comparable to the little puff of eschatological theology or spirituality which is often found at the conclusions of Mishnah tractates like m. Berakhoth and m. Sota and called a siyyum (an ending or celebration of closure). It seems strange to modern readers to mix legal with poetic or theological modes of thought, but in Jewish Palestine such a combination was common. The law was becoming their poetry and their spirituality. In vv. 18-20, we find first (in v. 18) an important affirmation or assurance of divine accreditation of decisions made by earthly church leaders acting as a group. The verse expresses the conciliar or synodical element of church government, as Matt 16:17-19 represents the same divinely guaranteed authority for a single individual. The authority conferred in 16:17-19 is called the Petrine ministry. 53 How the two instances of church leadership are related to one another is partly clarified by the additional elements of 16:1719: the revelation, the blessing, the role of the rock of foundation (cp. Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 3:9-11), and especially the power of the keys (Isa 22:22) are granted to Peter only; and partly it remains the dialectical dance of church history. The phrases "will be bound in heaven", "will be loosed in heaven" are theological future passives. The future refers to the post-Easter situation when Jesus will no longer be physically present to guide them. The passives 52

53

On Matthew 18, see esp. W.G. THOMPSON, Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community (AnBib 44; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1970); B.T. VIVIANO, "The Gospel according to Matthew", in NJBC, 661-2; R.S. ASCOUGH, "Matthew and Community Formation", in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. D.E. Aune (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 96-126. B.T. VIVIANO, "Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16.13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4:10-17 and Other Models", in: The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition, ed. C.A. Evans (JSPSS 33; SSEJC 7; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 312-341.

214

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

are theological, that is, a reverent idiom current at that time, which, if transposed into the active voice, would yield God as the subject: God will bind, God will loose. These are weighty claims for the authority behind church synods (cf. Acts 15:28; John 16:12-13). Binding and loosing are rabbinic technical terms that can refer to binding the devil in exorcism, to the juridical acts of excommunication and of definitive decision making (a form of teaching through legislation, policy setting). 54 The final verse (v. 20) brings the unit to a beautiful, Christological conclusion. Not surprisingly, it is the best known part of the passage. Basing our view on the rabbinic parallels in m. 'Abot 3:2,6; 4:11, we conclude that the gatherings or convocations referred to in the verse can be for prayer, study of Scripture, or, as in the context, decision making (cf. John 15:7). The rabbinic parallels also help us to see that this verse identifies Jesus with both the Torah and the divine presence or Shekinah (Matt 1:23; 28:20). Christologically, that is saying a great deal. 55 The verse that most concerns us is the central verse of the unit, v. 19: "If two of you agree (symphonesosin) on earth about anything for which they are to pray [ask], it will be granted to them by my heavenly Father." Four elements call for attention. The "two" are an echo of the "two or three" of v. 16, reprised in v. 20, and ultimately from Deut 19:15. The agreement is peri pantos pragmatos, "about any subject matter". That is, it can be about either intellectual or practical-material matters, yet it is thirdly an object of prayer (aitesontai, ask), and "it will be done for you by my heavenly Father". This is a characteristic Matthean turn of phrase: future perfect passive, Father in heaven. The fourth element is the word symphonein, to agree. This is a musical term, which literally means "to voice or sound together". It refers to the harmony or rich sound which a group of singers or instrument players can make when they play different notes, even different melodies, yet with a pleasant resulting sound, polyphonic harmony, not cacophony or discord. This can be the case even when there are three or four hundred players or singers, as in a large symphony orchestra or an opera chorus. (Mahler even wrote a symphony called "of a Thousand".) The point to be retained is that the resulting sound is enriched, better than that of a single tone or line of 54

55

R.H. HIERS, '"Binding" and "Loosing": The Matthean Authorizations', JBL 104 (1985) 233-250; J. Jeremias, s.v. kleis, TDNT3. 744-753. Literature in VIVIANO, NJBC, p. 662, to which may be added now David Flusser, "Ί am in the midst of them" (Mt. 18:20)', in his Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 515-525; Joseph Sievers, '"Where Two or Three", the Rabbinic Concept of Shekhinah and Mt. 18:20', in: Standing Before God (FS J.M. Oesterreicher) (New York: Ktav, 1981), pp. 171-179; Petr POKORNY, '"Wo zwei oder drei versammelt sind in meinem Namen..." (Mt 18,20)', in: Gemeinde ohne Tempel, ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange und Peter Pilhofer (WUNT 118; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 477-488.

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

215

music. This analogy is the contribution of Matthew's gospel to the question of church unity. It is the enlarging of the model of unity to include symphonic diversity. But this verbal usage is not unique to Matt 18:19. Let us look at the concordance for a little word study. The verb symphonein (to agree) occurs six times in the NT, three times in Matthew. Besides 18:19, it recurs in 20:2 and 13, in the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, to refer to agreeing over a wage. Luke 5:36: "the piece from the new will not match the old". Acts 5:9: Peter asks Ananias and Sapphira: "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?" Acts 15:15: at the synod of Jerusalem James says of Peter's words, "This agrees with the words of the prophets". In addition we may look at three nouns which occur once each. 2 Cor 6:15: "What agreement (symphonesis) does Christ have with Beliar? This case is particularly helpful to catch the resonances of the word because of the three synonyms in the surrounding verses: v. 14, metoche (partnership), koinonia (fellowship), v. 16, synkatathesis (agreement). The semantic range is clear. Luke 15:25 in the story of the prodigal son and his elder brother, is important because it gives us the prime analogate of the use elsewhere in the NT, namely music. "The elder son ... heard symphonia (music) and dancing." Finally there is an adverbial construction in Paul's advice to married couples, 1 Cor 7:5: "Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement (ek symphonou) for a set time..." Of these nine cases, all make a metaphorical application of an originally musical term, except the one instance of Luke 15:25, where the original sense pops out. Speaking of the natural wonders which accompanied the Exodus, the author of the book of Wisdom uses a comparable musical figure: "For the elements changed places with one another, as on a harp the notes vary the nature of the rhythm, while each note remains the same" (Wis 19:18). The Greek uses a word for harmony: metharmozomena. So then we can see that Matthew 18:19, with its affirmation of symphonic or harmonious diversity within the agreement of church members or bodies, complexifies and enriches dialectically the prayer for unity which is offered in John 17:20-23. To complete the picture, a word should also be said about the Pauline tradition, however briefly. Unity in Christ is a note of the Pauline churches, as both a result of faith and a task of love (1 Cor 12:12-13; Gal 3:28; Eph 2: ΜΙ 8; 4:4-6). Paul in his own way distinguishes unity from uniformity when he mentions unity alongside the variety of charisms (Rom 12; 1 Cor 12), and when he encourages respect for church members who think differently (Rom 14-15). For the Pauline tradition, unity does not mean the loss or removal of the individually different, but their union in love "which is the bond of per-

216

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

fection" (Col 3:14). This is well illustrated in the exhortation to husband and wife in Eph 5:21-33. 56

III Let us summarize and conclude. Our starting point was that the ecumenical text par excellence, the Johannine prayer, was found to be too suffocating, too undifferentiated, for some Christian leaders. They need room to breathe. There followed an analysis of the prayer. The model of unity there proposed is that unity in diversity and distinction between the Father and the Son, what will later be called a Trinitarian unity. It is a unity then of persons in relation, not a union which is subhuman or merely biological or organic. It is comparable to a mature marriage or family, where each person's individuality is recognized, respected and appreciated. We saw then how this interpretation is re-enforced by parallel or related texts in John (17:11; 10:30; 10:16; 11:52), besides the Johannine letters and John 21:15-17 and the Qumran yahad. We also tried to show that the view of Bultmann and his followers, that the unity prayed for has nothing to do with institution, organization or dogma is an under-interpretation of John, that John knew more about church institutions, like the Twelve, than appears at first eye, and that he has at least one Christological dogma, if not others on the Paraclete and the sacraments (which we did not discuss). Finally, we drew into the discussion a Matthean passage which contributes a further precision or clarification that makes room for a diversity of voices, for discord, conflict, and disharmony, which however are to be so orchestrated as to be taken up into a richer, more complex, more developed agreement and harmonic unity. How it is to be decided what degree of disharmony is incompatible with symphonic unity is itself a disputed question. We have seen in Matthew and John the options of conciliar and Petrine decision-making, ideally of course themselves in harmony. If we look at the contemporary church world, we see several alternatives. First, we see the Roman Catholic Church with its papal primacy and quinquennial world synods, besides its complex network of bishops' conferences. Secondly, we see the World Council of Churches, which facilitates communication between its member churches but which is not itself a church and does not act as one. Thirdly, there are international bodies like the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran World Federation. Neither of these are churches yet they are moving in the direction of acting as such. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches is under pressure from one side of its membership to evolve in the same way, yet there exist power56

Michael THEOBALD, "Eine, das Eine, Einheit", in: LTK, 3rd ed., 3. 540.

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

217

ful counterpressures to become loosely informal, charismatic church bodies rather than a large international church institution. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, though united in faith and liturgy, yet have great difficulty in acting together, despite the long-standing efforts of the Pan-Orthodox synod preparatory commissions. Where organs for decision making are wanting, the capacity to rebuild wider unity does not exist and reunion becomes, humanly speaking, impossible. This remains an ecumenical dilemma. Yet the prayer of Jesus in John 17:20-23 that the community of believers be one, even institutionally one, as a motive of credibility for the world, remains itself a force that impels contemporary Christians to pursue paths that make for unity, within a symphonic diversity.

*

Additional Note

The Problem of the One and the Many in Classical Philosophy, John and Matthew The problem of the one and the many is a classical theme within the philosophical tradition. Plato and Aristotle each devoted significant attention to it. Plato's dialogue Parmenides and Aristotle's Metaphysics, Book Ten, are both concentrated on it, for example. It is commonly thought that philosophers are obsessed or haunted by the quest for unity, at least in the sense that they seek to discover the coherence of things in the universe. It is indeed commonly thought that they are incapable of delighting in diversity of the world, "incorrigibly plural". 57 For example, Sartre's philosophical novel Nausea, of 1938, has the hero become sick to his stomach at the fullness and multiplicity of being. After the Second World War Karl Popper, the Austrian thinker in London, denounced Plato as at the origin of intellectual tyranny, in his two-volume

57

An allusion to Louis M A C N E I C E ' S poem "Snow", the middle stanza: "World is crazier and more of it than we think, / Incorrigibly plural. I peel and portion/ A tangerine and spit the pips and feel/ The drunkenness of things being various."

218

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

work, The Open Society and Its Enemies.58 Heidegger explained one task or constituent element of thinking, the proper task of the philosopher for him, from the etymology of cogito.59 Cogito, cogitare, to think, derives from cogo, coercere, to force. Cogo is itself derived from con (with, together) and agere (to lead, drive, act). The original sense was "to drive a herd of cattle". In life our senses are bombarded daily by a multitude of images and impressions, never more so than today, in the media age. We would soon go mad, if we did not pause to digest our experiences, whether we do so by prayer, meditation, yoga exercises, or at least by a sound sleep (with dreams) or a solitary walk in the woods or around the duck pond (for those fortunate to live close to nature). During these quiet periods we digest our experiences, that is, we think them through to a manageable "unity", a unified concept. This enables us to label, classify and thus to "handle" our experiences. 60 The issue is often presented in terms of a contrast between Parmenides and Heraclitus, among the pre-Socratic philosophers. 61 Parmenides believed that all reality was one, multiplicity was an illusion. Heraclitus rather thought of an even-flowing current of historical being which was ever-changing, unstoppable and uncontrollable, but somehow held together by the Logos. 62 The mature thinkers Plato and Aristotle then went on with greater subtlety to accept the multitude of beings but with different accents. Plato strove to see the unity through the universals or ideas which he reified. Aristotle placed the universals or "forms" or species in the individual beings and thereby better defended the reality of pluralism. Plato's preferred designation for the highest being was "the One" (identical with the Good), Aristotle's "the Unmoved Mover" or "Self-Thinking Thought". Because for many the last word in Greek philosophy was spoken by Plotinus, Greek thought as a whole is, perhaps unfairly, commonly assumed to incline to be a monism, rather than a dualism or a pluralism. It is however the view of Heinz Heimsoeth that, after all its contemplation of the world, which it thinks in terms of values, 58

59

60

61

62

K.R. POPPER, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1: The Spell of Plato; vol. 2: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971; 1st ed., 1945). Martin HEIDEGGER, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1977), 88, 150; German originals in Holzwege (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1952), the essays: "The Word of Nietzsche: "God is Dead"", (1943), and "The Age of the World Picture" (1938). See also, on the general subject of the One and the Many, Heidegger, Identity and Difference (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969), esp. 23-41 (German original: Identität und Differenz (Pfullingen: Günther Neske, 1957)). Hannah A R E N D T , The Life of the Mind (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1978), One/Thinking. The fragmentary texts are found, for example, in G . S . K I R K , J . E . R A V E N , M . SCHOFIELD, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (2nd ed. Cambridge: University Press, 1983). KIRK and R A V E N , The Presocratic Philosophers, fragments 2 8 6 - 3 1 3 , 1 9 0 - 2 5 0 .

UNITY AND SYMPHONIC DIVERSITY IN THE CHURCH

219

the tendency of Western metaphysics in antiquity was toward dualism, to an outcome in an irreconcilable duality. 63 A detailed tracing of the sequel to this philosophical debate need not concern us here. 64 It will suffice to conclude with a scheme derived from the study of the "great books of the Western world" at the University of Chicago some decades ago. After some years of experience, it was concluded that the authors of these books can be arranged on a (static) spectrum as follows: (1) the atomist or monist who sees only the unity and identity of the discrete part (Democritus, Spinoza, Leibniz); (2) at the other extreme, the encyclopedist who sees the multitude of data without coherence (e.g., Cicero); in the center are the major figures: (3) Plato, who as a holist tries to see the parts in terms of the whole or unity, and (4) Aristotle, as a "merist", who tries to see the whole in terms of its parts. Most subsequent thinkers can be classified roughly in terms of these last two categories. For our purposes, it is clear that John inclines to be a holist, Paul and Matthew are more of the merist persuasion. 65 But even John does not speak of a unity of total identity, but rather of discrete persons in loving relation, so there is still room to breathe.

63

64

Heinz HEIMSOETH, Die sechs grossen Themen der abendländischen Metaphysik und der Ausgang des Mittelalters (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1922), chap. 1 Gott und Welt, die Einheit der Gegensätze, 18-60. Manfred ZAHN, "Einheit", in Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe (Munich: Kösel, 1973) 1. 320-337; Werner BEIERWALTES, "Hen", in Lexikon ßr Antike und Christentum 14. 4 4 5 - 4 7 2 .

65

See the remarks on the different accents of Platonism and Aristotelianism in R.A. Knox, Enthusiasm (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950), p. 581, and in David Newsome, Two Classes of Man: Platonism and English Romantic Thought (London: John Murray, 1972).

15

The High Priest's Servant's Ear: Mark 14:47

SUMMARY The puzzling incident of the unnamed bystander who cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant in Mark 14:47 can be explained as a symbolic gesture disqualifying the temple establishment as unworthy of its high office.

In Marks account of the arrest of Jesus, after the actual account of the seizure of Jesus (14:43-46), the evangelist introduces a bit of byplay which heightens the dramatic action, enables Jesus to comment on the arrest and to suggest a fulfillment of Scripture, and introduces the mysterious figure of the young man who flees naked (14:47-52). This second half of the arrest acene is given only a B-rating by form-critics, that is, it is not regarded as belonging to the earliest stratum of the passion-narrative,1 and it is full of fairly obvious redactional touches. A more discriminating analysis however separates v. 47 from what follows. Probably it does not belong to the earliest stratum, but neither is it likely to belong to the last layer of Marcan free composition. For here the absence of Mark's characteristic vocabulary and the high number of hapax legomena 2 suggest that the incident is derived 1

2

R. BULTMANN, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper, 1963), 268f, 275284 (actually Bultmann does not decide that v. 47 is later); V. TAYLOR, The Gospel According to Mark (New York: St. Martin's, 1969) 524-6, 653-664; D. DORMEYER, in his very thorough study of the Marcan passion narrative, Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell (NTAbh, N.F. 11; Münster: Aschendorff, 1974), has worked out a three-stage analysis of the text: Τ = the earliest redaction of the passion narrative; Rs = the secondary redactor of the passion (this stage is the most weakly attested; see the review by J. DONAHUE, CBQ 38 (1976): 102f); Rmk = the final redactor of the Marcan passion. The first stage is a typical "acts of the martyrs" story. The second is a "dialogization" of the acta in the interests of Christology. The third is a parenetic actualization of the passion for the edification of the community. Dormeyer regards verse 47 as belonging to the second, pre-Marcan stage of redaction, Rs. Earlier, Eta LINNEMANN, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte (FRLANT 102; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), had argued that there was no connected pre-Marcan passion account but only fragement of tradition (p. 54). Παρίστημι: 4:29 (ОТ citation), 14:47,69,70; 15:35,39. σπάομαι: here only in Mark, παίω: here only in Mark, δοϋλος: 10:44; 12:2,4; 13:34; 14:47. Ά φ α ι ρ ε ω : here only in Mark, ώτάριον: par John 18:10, otherwise only here in N.T. The case derived from

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S E A R

221

from the tradition, although from a secondary or intermediate stage of it.3 The verse reads: e l ? 8e Tis των παρεστηκότων σπασάμενο? την μάχαιραν επαισεν τον δοΰλον τοϋ άρχιερέως και άφεΐλεν αύτοϋ τό ώτάριον. R S V : but one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off (lit.: took away) his ear (lit.: little ear or earlobe). As it stands, the verse represents something of an enigma. The bystander's act appears a useless gesture without effect or echo. We are not told that the bystander was a disciple, much less that he was one of the twelve. Nor are we told that Jesus said anything or did anything about it. The incident remains in isolation, an apparently meaningless fragment. The servant's ear continues to bleed, with no one to attend to his wound. It is this agonizing state of affairs which has provoked the well-known efforts to improve the Marcan narrative which have been undertaken by Matthew, Luke and John. But what if we put aside all these efforts and ask only about the text of Mark? What does it mean? A quick survey of recent commentaries will give us an idea of the usual view. E. Schweizer writes: "probably a historical incident, as it has been reported without any theological motive." 4 Jean Rademakers comment: "The ridiculous character of the gesture is underline by the diminutive used by Mark and John: just the tip of the ear (otarion) was removed." 5 And Hugh Anderson: "no theological implication at all and is almost certainly a historical reminiscence." 6 One assumption of these commentators is that if the motive of the evangelist for recording the incident is theological, then the event is not likely to be historical. This is not an assumption which we share in any automatic fashion. In what follows a theological understanding of the verse will be pursued, without any intention of judging the historical question one way or another. It seems to us that the two principle clues to the meaning are given in the precise nature of the organ excised (the earlobe, not the ear) and in the characterization of the assaulted person as the servant of the high priest. Mark speaks of an earlobe {otarion), not of an ear (ous). He is referring to a precise, small organ that could not easily be cut off by a wild swing of a

DORMEYER, Die Passion Jesu, 140, is strengthened if his analysis of vocabulary into t = tradition and r = redaction is valid since most of the words just cited come from "t" passages. See his p. 26. 3

D. DORMEYER, Die Passion Jesu, 141.

4

Ε. SCHWEIZER, The Good News According loco.

5

La bonne nouvelle de Jesus selon saint Marc, 2 (Brussels: Institut d'etudes theologiques, 1974), 373.

6

The Gospel of Mark (New Century Bible; Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1976) in loco.

to Mark (Richmond: John Knox, 1970), in

222

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S EAR

sword. To cut off an earlobe and only an earlobe, one must hold the lobe with one hand and slice it off with a knife or a sword held ir the other hand. The servant of the high priests was not a lowly domestic, but the segan hacohanim, the prefect of the priests, the chief assistant, or deputy, of the high priest. In Luke he is the one designated the strategos tou hierou or captain of the temple (Luke 22:4,52; Acts 4:1; 5:24,26). The same usage prevails in Josephus (Bell. Jud. 6.5.3 § 294). Misunderstanding arises because doulos in Greece meant a slave in the literal sense but in the Near East it was also used as a deferential reference to a royal or religious officer (e.g., 1 Sam 19:5,30; 19; 4; 2 Sam 14:19 in HT and LXX). According to the Mishnah, the segan serves at the right hand of the high priest in the temple (m. Yoma 3:9; 4:1; m. Sota 7:7,8).7 Thus it is understandable that Mark saw in him the representative of the high priest and thus a symbol of the Temple administration, the highest official instance of the national religion. Reflection on these two data soon leads to the intimation that the wound was not inflicted accidentally in the confusion of a nocturnal scuffle but was inflicted intentionally. The unnamed bystander seized the earlobe of the leader of the party which had come to arrest Jesus and cut it off. That is the impression left by the Marcan narrative and it intends to make a theological statement about the arrest. It is almost an action parable. Of course that does not mean it did not happen. It could mean just the opposite. But let us rather ask what precise statement it is making and what evidence there is for it. We begin with some of the qualifications for priests in Israel as listed in Leviticus 21:16-23. (16) And the Lord said to Moses (17): "Say to Aaron, None of your descendants throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. (18) For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, (19) or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, (20) or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles; (21) no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. (22) He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things, (23) but he shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the Lord who sanctify them."

7

Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 15.973-74; E. SCHÜRER-G.VERMES, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus-Christ (Edinburgh: Clark, 1979) 2.277279.

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S E A R

223

We notice at once the relevance of v. 18 to our passage: "No one who ... has a mutilated face ... shall draw near." Just as the sacrificial offering must be unblemished (22:17-25), so the priest who offers it must be without bodily defect. 8 This principle was taken so seriously in Israel that when there were rivalries among candidates for the high priestly office in Israel it sometimes occurred that one candidate would mutilate his rival's face by cutting off his ears, thereby disqualifying him from the priestly office. Before considering some cases of this, we should notice the development of precision of meaning in this passage of Leviticus which occurs in the Septuagint. In verse 18, the Septuagint translates: No man who has a blemish on him shall draw near: a man lame, blind, with his nose disfigured, or his ears cut (ώτότμητος·). This rare word is an attempt to translate the somewhat enigmatic Hebrew sarü'a, literally, "stretched", "extended", or "too long". (The Syriac Peshitta follows the Septuagint here, but the targums do not). Since our Marcan verse can be drawn into a very close connection with the Septuagint version, one might be tempted to draw historical conclusion from such a link. Thus, one might argue that since Mark here seems to depend upon a Greek form of the Old Testament the tradition he reports is not Palestinian in origin but derives from Hellenistic circles. Great caution is here however advisable, since, as we shall see, there is Palestinian evidence for the disqualification of priests by mutilation of their ears, and besides the Septuagint could here be representing a Palestinian exegetical tradition which has simply not otherwise been attested. The best known case of this occurred in the days of Herod the Great's rise to royal power, about 40-35 B.C. At that time Antigonus, the Persian candidate among the priestly rivals, sought to eliminate his uncle Hyrcanus II. The story is told by Josephus {Ant. 14.13.10, § 365f, also in Bellum Jud. 1.9, § 269f). In this way was Antigonus brought back to Judaea by the Parthian king and took over Hyrcanus and Phasael as prisoners. He was, however, very despondent over the escape of the women whom he had planned to give to the enemy, for this was the reward he had promised them together with money. And being fearful that the people might restore Hyrcanus to the throne (lit.: kingdom), he went up to him where he was being guarded by the Parthians, and cut off his ears (apotemnei autou ta ota), thus taking care that the high priesthood should never come to him another time, because he was now mutilated, and the law requires that this office should belong only to those who are sound of body (Loeb translation by Ralph Marcus).

Josephus' version of this is found in Ant. 3. 12.2, § 278-279.

224

T H E HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S E A R

"Even when, four years later, and a year after Antigonus' death, Hyrcanus returned from Parthian captivity, his blemish made it impossible for him to resume his office." 9 The recollection of this gruesome incident may have been still vivid in the popular imagination at the time of Jesus' arrest. Another such case is recorded in the Tosefta to the Mishnah (/. Para 3:8): A story is told concerning a certain Sadducee. He had awaited sunset (for purification) and (then) came to burn the cow (the red heifer). And Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai became cognizant of his intention, and he came and placed his two hands on him, and said to him, "My lord, High Priest. How fitting are you to be high priest. Now go down and immerse one time." He went down and immersed and emerged. After he came up, he (Yohanan) slit his ear (rendering him unfit to serve). He said to him, "Ben Zakkai — when I have time for you (I will take my revenge). He said to him, "When you have time" (i.e., when you are dead). Not three days passed before they put him in his grave. His father came to Yohanan ben Zakkai and said to him, "Ben Zakkai, my son did not have time" (i.e., he is dead).10

Since Yohanan ben Zakkai is counted as a first generation tanna (ca. A.D. 10-80), and the story presupposes the existence of the Sadducees and of the Temple, we may reasonably date this story some time between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple, that is, between about A.D. 40 and 65. It could have been known to the gospel writer but not to those present at the arrest of Jesus. The point of the story is to illustrate, by means of scarcely veiled irony and understatement, the deep enmity, not to say bitterness, between Pharisaic and Sadducean schools of thought on the way the temple services should be conducted, particularly with respect to the ashes of the Red Heifer (Num 19:1-22) and the extreme state of cleanliness necessary in the one who performed the rite to obtain them. 11 Yohanan unquestionably intended to disqualify the Sadducean priest from functioning in the temple service, and is deadly serious about this, as we can see from the tragic outcome of the story. 12 This kind of case must have been sufficiently

9

10

11

12

Ant. 15.2.2, § 17. Cf. D. DAUBE, "Three Notes Having to Do with Johanan ben Zaccai," JTS, ns, 11 (1960):61. The parallel from the Jewish Wars I owe to Bede Shipps, O.P. M.S. ZUCKERMANDEL, Tosephta (Pasewalk, 1877; repr. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1970), 632. Translation partially dependent upon J. NEUSNER, The Tosefta: Tohorot (New York: Ktav, 1977), 177, with alterations guided by DAUBE, "Three Notes", and JASTROW. See Heb 9:13f and J.L. BLAU, "The Red Heifer: a Biblical Purification Rite in Rabbinic Literature," Numen 14 (1967): 70-78. On Sadducees the outstanding monograph is by J. LEMOYNE, Les Sadduceens (Ebib; Paris: Gabalda, 1971). D. DAUBE, "Three Notes," 59f.

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S EAR

225

common for there to exist rabbinic legislation assigning penalties for such insulting, degrading disfigurement such as we find in m. Baba Qamma 8:6: "If he tore (slit) his ear.., he must pay 400 zuz. This is the general rule: all is in accordance with a person's honor. 1,13 There is more on ear-slitting and on disqualifying blemishes in m. Bekorot 5:3 and 7:1-7. The bearing of these passages on the verse from Mark has not hitherto been noticed by commentators on the gospel, so far as I have been able to tell, but was observed by David Daube in an article on Yohanan ben Zakkai in 1960 (see note 9). Although these are the most proximate parallels and need to be brought into the study of the gospel, the practice of mutilation as a form of punishment was also known outside of Palestine and some cases of this sort have already entered the net of scholarship. We may mention them briefly and then add some others. In 1934 Michael Rostovtzeff notices a parallel with Mark 14:47 in Papyrus Tebtunis III, 793, col. xi, 1, dated from 183 B.C. 14 The papyrus contains a police report of a scuffle between Hesiodos, a Thracian cleruch of the fifth hipparchy, and Dorion, a desert guard (eremohylax), late one evening when Hesiodos was returning home from work. Dorion with some associates attacked Hesiodos and started to beat him and to wound him with swords. At this "Hesiodos cut off the right ear of Dorion completely" (δεξιόν ώτα e i s τέλος- έξετε μεν). Rostovtzeff concluded that this act was intended as a gesture of contempt, not as a serious effort to wound him fatally or to kill him. It was a symbolic act which would mark him with disgrace for life. Ernst Lohmeyer 15 and Vincent Taylor 16 take this symbolic understanding up into their commentaries, and Lohmeyer adds some references to the Assyrian and Babylonian penal practice of ear-cutting, but Ernst Haenchen rejects the view that the deed was intentional and symbolic as absurd. 17 Our picture of the extent of the practice of penal mutilation in antiquity may be quickly rounded out by some classical references to Persian practice. 18

13

14

Ulrich H O L Z M E I S T E R had already related this passage to Matt 5 : 3 9 , "vom Schlagen auf die rechte Wange (Mt 5 , 3 9 ) , " Z K T 4 5 ( 1 9 2 1 ) : 3 3 4 - 3 3 6 . "Ous dexion apotemnein," ZNW 3 3 ( 1 9 3 4 ) : 1 9 6 - 9 . Actually Hunt, the editor of the papyrus, had already noticed the connection. Rostovtzeff simply drew it to the attention of biblical scholars.

15

Das Evangelium des Markus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1937, repr.

16

Mark, 560. Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1 9 6 6 ) , 5 0 0 . Rudolf P E S C H , Das Markusevangelium (HThKNT 2 ; Freiburg: Herder, 1 9 7 7 ) 2 . 4 0 0 n. 1 0 , remains cautious: "The cut off ear can be a sign of shame."

1953),

17

18

322.

I owe the following three references to Prof. Shaye nary, New York.

COHEN

of Jewish Theological Semi-

226

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S EAR

The earliest reference is found in Herodotus 3.69.5: "It is known that Cyrus son of Cambyses had in his reign cut off the ears of this Magian, Smerdis, for some grave reason." Later in the story this tact is used to uncover his impersonation. That this fits into a pattern of Oriental justice may be seen from the next passage, from Xenophon's Anabasis 1.9.13: "Yet, on the other hand, none could say that he permitted malefactors and wicked men to laugh at him; on the contrary, he was merciless to the last degree in punishing them, and one might often see along the travelled roads people who had lost feet or hands or eyes; thus in Cyrus1 province it became possible for either Greek or barbarian, provided he were guilty of no wrongdoing, to travel fearlessly wherever he wished, carrying with him whatever it was his interest to have." Xenophon is citing these cases of mutilation as instances of despotic cruelty, in which Persian history abounds, but also perhaps as illustrations of Cyrus' effectiveness as a ruler. The third case, from Tacitus, Annates 12.14.3, describes a Persian punishment for treason. "With all hope lost, Meherdates now listened to the promises of his father's vassal Parraces, and, by an act of perfidy on his part, was thrown into chains and surrendered to the victor; who, upbraiding him as no relative of his, nor a member of the Arsacian house, but an alien and a Roman, struck off his ears and commanded him to live (auribus decisis vivere iubet) — an advertisement of his own mercy and of our dishonor." Here the punishment is seen as both merciful and shaming, a viewpoint which brings us back to Mark 14:47. By now it should be clear that the verse in Mark recounts an event which is far from accidental. The anonymous agent inflicts a symbolic wound intended to shame, not to kill, a type of punishment not unknown in the ancient near east. The symbolic character is all the more obvious if it is in fact the earlobe which is excised. The peculiarly Palestinian, Jewish aspect of the events is connected with the character of the victim, the representative of the high priest. The deed makes a statement, saying in effect: "You, and the one you represent, are gravely unworthy to stand as mediator between God and men. You have proven your unworthiness by coming here to lay violent hands upon the anointed holy one of God. I hereby make visible your unworthiness and disqualify you from further exercising your high office." Once the incident is understood in this light, as a criticism of the religious establishment in Israel, that is, the temple service as it was being conducted by the (predominantly Sadducean and collaborationist) priesthood, then its connection with other temple-critical passages in Mark and in Qumran be-

THE HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S EAR

227

comes readily apparent. Henceforth, the verse should be drawn into the discussion of this much examined theme. 19 We cannot give an exhaustive treatment of this subject here. It must suffice us to point to some of the areas with which Mark 14:47 needs to be related. Mark takes the temple motif seriously starting from Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem (11:11), and moves quickly to the cleansing of the temple (11:15-18), an event which is inserted between the two parts of the story of the withered fig tree, a story which may provide the interpretative framework for the cleansing. 20 This story seems to teach not that Jesus rejected the temple altogether but only the way it was being abused. He did not want to destroy it but to cleanse it. But he also knew, or suspected, that as matters stood, it would be destroyed. In these views he agrees with the critique of the Zadokite sectarians and foreshadows the attitude of the anonymous bystander in our story. Jesus walks and debates in the temple (11:27) and teaches there (12:35) even after the cleansing. His apocalyptic discourse is triggered by the remark of one of his disciples expressing admiration for the temple (13:1,3). Up to this point Mark uses the Greek word hieron for the temple. This is usually taken to refer to the whole temple complex including the court of the gentiles. But after the supper and the arrest, at Jesus' arraignment before Caiphas (14:58), and at the crucifixion (15:29,30,38), the Greek word used is naos, usually understood to refer to the inner sanctuary. At the hearing, Jesus' accusers quote him as saying, "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands." Whatever this enigmatic saying may mean, it must be significant for Mark's narrative since it reoccurs as the taunt of the bystanders at his crucifixion. The crucifixion culminates in the rending of the temple veil and the centurion's confession of Jesus' divine sonship. Together, these two events signify the end of the old

19

On the temple in the New Testament we may refer briefly to three outstanding monographs where abundant literature is cited: Y.M.J. CONGAR, The Mystery of the Temple (Westminster, Md.; Newman, 1962); R.J. MCKELVEY, The New Temple (Oxford: University, 1969); W.D. DA VIES, The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California, 1974). For Old Testament material one may consult Menahem HARAN, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978). Emphasizing more the positive side of temple symbolism is the work by Bertil GÄRTNER, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament (Cambridge: University, 1965). On the temple saying of the trial narrative in Mark (14:58) and related texts see J.R. DONAHUE, Are You the Christ? (SBLDS 10); Missoula: Scholars Press, 1973), 103-138. On the significance of the fall of Jerusalem in the synoptic gospels, see Lloyd GASTON, No Stone on Another (NovT sup 23; Leiden: Brill, 1970). C.H. GIBLIN, The Destruction of Jerusalem according to Luke's Gospel (AnBib 107; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1985).

20

For a survey of interpretations of this important incident see DA VIES, Gospel 349-352.

228

T H E HIGH PRIEST'S SERVANT'S E A R

order, and the opening of salvation to the gentiles. The temple treasury is declared spiritually bankrupt.21 Obviously the slitting of the high priest's servant's ear fits into this accusation of bankruptcy well enough. The Essenes of Qumran similarly rejected the existing priesthood (1Q pHab 12:7-9; CD 4:18; 6:11-14). More light on temple attitudes current at Qumran has recently come from the Temple Scroll published by Yigael Yadin in 1977.22 But this path remains to be explored on another occasion.

21

22

For further anti-temple material in Mark (e.g., 12:1-12; 14:1) see DONAHUE, Are You the Christ? "Mark portrays Jesus in growing opposition to the Jerusalem cult center" from 11:1 on (p. 109). The Temple Scroll (Hebrew). 3 vols and a supplement. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1977); ID., The Temple Scroll (Eng. trans.), 3 vols and a supplement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983); Jacob MLLGROM, "The Temple Scroll," BA 41 (1978) 105-120; ID., "Studies in the Temple Scroll," JBL 97 (1978) 501-523; ID., "Further Studies in the Temple Scroll," JQR 71 (1980) 1-17; A. QIMRON, "New Readings in the Temple Scroll," IEJ 28 (1978) 161-172; B.A. LEVINE, "the Temple Scroll: Aspects of its Historical Provenance and Literary Character," BASOR 232 (1978) 5-23; A.M. WILSON and Lawrence WILLS, "Literary Sources of the Temple Scroll," HTR 75 (1982) 275-288.

16

A Psychology of Faith: Matt 27:54 in the Light of Exod 14:30-31

SUMMARY The fourfold structure of the psychology of coming to faith found in Exod 14:30-31 (see, see, fear, believe) provided a Mosaic/pentateuchal typology or model for the narrative presentation of the coming to faith of the centurion and the guards with him as described in Matt 27:54.

It has already been noticed that there is a certain psychology of the genesis of faith through signs in Exod 4:1-9. There Moses is equipped by God with three signs so that he can confirm the divine origin of his mission to free the Israelites when confronted with doubting Egyptians. Then Moses answered, "But suppose they do not believe me or listen to me, but say, 'The Lord did not appear to you.'" The Lord said to him, "What is that in your hand?" He said, "A staff." And he said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw the staff on the ground, and it became a snake; and Moses drew back from it. Then the Lord said to Moses, "Reach out your hand, and seize it by the tail" — so he reached out his hand and grasped it, and it became a staff in his hand — "so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you." Again, the Lord said to him, "Put your hand inside your cloak." He put his hand into his cloak; and when he took it out, his hand was leprous, as white as snow. Then God said, "Put your hand back into your cloak" — so he put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored like the rest of his body — "If they will not believe you or heed the first sign, they may believe the second sign. If they will not believe even these two signs or heed you, you shall take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground; and the water that you shall take from the Nile will become blood on the dry ground. Exod 4:1-9 NRSV. M.-E. Boismard has claimed that a similar pattern of three signs to accredit Jesus as God's emissary, based precisely on Exod 4:1-9 as a form of Mosaic

230

A PSYCHOLOGY OF FAITH

typology, is at work in John 2:1-11; 4:46-54 and 21:1-14. 1 These three passages each relate a "sign", the changing of water into wine at Cana, the healing of the royal official's son, and the miraculous draught of fishes respectively. In each we note a careful effort at enumeration: "Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs" (2:11); "Now this was the second sign Jesus did..." (4:54; "This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to his disciples after being raised from the dead" (21:14). In its present context, this last verse clearly refers to the two resurrection appearances of Jesus which precede in John 20:19-23,24-29, not to signs in chapters 2 and 4. To arrive at the Mosaic typology one has to suppose that the story of the miraculous haul of fishes was originally a story of the pre-paschal Jesus which occurs early in the public ministry, as it does in Luke 5:1-11, and that, in John, it has been displaced to the end of the gospel for redactional reasons. This supposition is not to everyone's liking. 2 The hypothesis is attractive but cannot be established with certainty. Another intriguing presentation of the psychology of the genesis of faith may be found in Exod 14:30-31. After recounting the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of the pursuing Egyptians, the narrator concludes: Thus the Lord saved Israel that day from the Egyptians; and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Israel saw the great work that the Lord did against the Egyptians. So the people feared the Lord and believed in the Lord and in his servant Moses. Exod 14:30-31 NRSV. Assigned by the critics to the J source, these two verses (anticipated as to faith by Exod 4:31) provide both a religious summary of the events recounted in Exod 14:1-29 (it was God alone who saved Israel from their pursuers) and draws a religious consequence from the events narrated, namely, the collective subjective appropriation of the events through a faith in both God and in his servant Moses. It is striking how both religious faith and community building go together. The faith is the faith of a community, a qahal, which the future would develop both as a landed political entity, a nation, and as an at times landless religious community, a church. The basis

1

2

M.-E. BOISMARD, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Mineapolis: Fortress, 1993), pp. 42-59; also HARTMUT T H Y E N , "AUS der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium", TheolRund 39 (1974) 235; 42(1977) 265-266; W. LANGBRANDTNER, Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe. Der Ketzerstreit in der johanneischen Kirche (Beit BibExTheol. 6; Frankfurt am Main-Bern-Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1977), pp. 71-74; H.P. HEEKERENS, Die Zeichen-Quelle der johanneischen Redaktion (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 13; Stuttgart: KBW, 1984),pp. 78-91. Frans NEIRYNCK, "The Signs Source in the Fourth Gospel: A Critique of the Hypothesis", in: Evangelica II1982-1991. Collected Essays, ed. F. Van Segbroeck (BETL 99; Leuven: University Press-Peeters, 1991), pp. 651-678.

A PSYCHOLOGY OF FAITH

231

of the people's faith is the sight of the dead Egyptians stranded on the beach. This is obviously offensive to modern sensibilities which seek to separate violence and the sacred. But the essential point remains valid: people come to religious faith when they see or sense God's power effective to help them in their trials. (At least this is one common road to faith — seeing a demonstration of God's power.) The crudity of seeing the corpses in v. 30 is refined in v. 31 to seeing "the great work that the Lord did." The weight of the passage is carried by the six verbs. Two refer to God's action: he saves and he does. Four verbs refer to Israel's reaction: twice they saw, then they feared, then they believed. Twice the word yad (hand, power) is used, once to refer to the grip of the Egyptians, the other to the saving intervention of God. No power is attributed to the Israelites. Their power resides in God alone. They are the passive recipients of his mighty deed. Egypt is mentioned three times, Israel is mentioned twice by name, and once as "the people" (ha-'am). The formula for the day of divine deliverance, beyom ha'-hü', so frequent in the prophets, is used once. The psychology of faith contained in the passage can be boiled down to three steps: seeing a saving action of God, fearing God's power, and believing, that is, coming to faith. Does this pattern recur in the gospels? One might have thought it occurs in John 20. There a picture of the development, refinement and maturing of Easter faith has been discerned. 3 But in John the element of fear is missing. Only Matthew among the evangelists has the component of fear in this threefold pattern of Easter faith. This pattern of the genesis of faith emerges in Matthew's passion narrative. There, after Jesus expires, the temple veil is torn, as in Mark 15:39. But then the earth quakes, rocks are split, tombs are opened, and there are resurrection appearances (Matt 27:51b-53). All this is not found in Mark or Luke. At this point we read: "the centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, feared greatly, and they said, "Truly, this was the Son of God!" (Matt 27:54). The sequence of see, fear, believe is present here, just as it is in Exod 14:30-31, except that the verb "believe" is not explicitly mentioned. It is replaced by a confession of faith, "Truly, this was the Son of God." What is the likelihood that this is a conscious echo of the psychology of faith as sketched in Exod 14:30-31? Certainty is not to be expected. That there is a Mosaic typology elsewhere in Matthew has recently been argued

3

Ignace de LA POTTERIE, "La genese de la foi pascale d'apres Jn. 20", NTS 30 (1984) 2649.

232

A PSYCHOLOGY OF FAITH

at book length by Dale C. Allison, Jr. 4 The simplest and most persuasive argument for a conscious use of a Mosaic motif by Matthew in 27:54 is this. The Exodus liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage by God was, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the later Jewish liturgy and religious literature, always regarded as the foundational saving event. It was the sign par excellence of God's power to save his people, continuously commemorated in the liturgy of Passover week. It is therefore only to be expected that Matthew, in recounting the supreme foundational event of Christian faith, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus, would have in mind and consciously evoke the earlier central redemptive event which culminates in Exodus 14-15. This would be so not only in the account of the last supper, which has been called a meal in a Passover context, but also in the narrative of the actual saving events themselves. This is what, in all likelihood, we find in Matt 27:54, an echo of the pattern of coming to faith in the Passover event as presented in Exod 14:30-31.5

4

5

A New Moses: Mosaic Typology in Matthew (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Cf. also A.D.A. MOSES, Matthew's Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy (JSNT Suppl. Series 122; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996). Cf. S.M. OLYAN, "The Israelites Debate Their Options at the Sea of Reeds: LAB 10:3, Its Background", JBL 110.1 (1991) 75-91, commenting on Exod 14:11-14. Neither Donald P. SENIOR, The Passion Narrative according to Matthew (BETL 39; Leuven: University Press, 1975) nor R.E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1994) notice the Exodus influence on the shaping of Matt 27:54.

17

The Perfect Law of Freedom: James 1:25 and the Law

Many readers of the letter of James are struck by three parallel formulae referring to the (Mosaic) Law: the unknown author, whom we will refer to as James, without for the moment addressing the historical issues connected with this name, mentions "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25); "the royal law" (2:8), and "the law of freedom" (2:12). What does the author mean by these expressions? From the words themselves the interpreter could put the accent on either main element, law or freedom, and the result would be different in each case, either Torah-true legalism-nomism, (Jewish Christianity of one degree or another) or complete freedom from the Mosaic law (early Christian libertinism of a Gnostic tendency). Out of context the expressions are ambiguous. More generally, these expressions raise the question of the law (nomos) and its status in the letter of James and, further, the question of the location of the letter in the spectrum or trajectory of early Christianity.1 (I exclude from the outset the fascinating but improbable thesis of Massebieau and Spitta that the letter is not Christian but purely Jewish.)2 We see already that the question of the law in James opens up the entire question of the letter's character and message. Previous studies have examined these questions. We will first give a survey of responses and then give our own. But, first a general remark is in place here. The letter has always been difficult to integrate into a unified view of the canon of the NT and of the canon's theology. This may be part of the reason for its late admission into the canon, and for the relative paucity of patristic and medieval commentaries on it. The problem became acute when Luther refused it a place in his primary canon as he translated the Bible into German. But after Luther's death even interpreters in the broader Lutheran tradition did not entirely ignore James. It still figured in their canon, albeit in a lower place, and in commentary series they had to comment on it. Those commentators who accepted the letter as part of inspired scripture did not always succeed in resisting the temptation to make slight retouches in 1

See R.E. BROWN, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 725-747, for an up-to-date survey; also F. HAHN and P. MÜLLER, "Der Jakobusbrief', Theologische Rundschau 63 (1998) 1-73.

2

L. MASSEBIEAU, "L'Epitre de Jacques est-elle L'oeuvre d'un Chretien?", RHR 32 (1885) 249-283; Friedrich SPUTA, Der Brief des Jakobus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1896); Robert EISENMAN, James the Brother of Jesus (New York: Penguin, 1997).

234

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 A N D THE LAW

order to facilitate a harmonization of James with a basically Pauline soteriology. Their motive was to make the message of the letter more acceptable to their readers. This noble motive was however often attained at the expense of historical truth. Certainly they were objectively correct that James' criticisms expressed in 2:14-26 did not hit the historical Paul as expressed in his letters, esp. Galatians and Romans. For James criticizes a faith without any (ethical) works at all. But Paul had never written that believers are saved by faith alone. The formula "faith alone" is created by James (2:24) and not by Paul. A careful reading of Paul's letters shows that the works of the law which he taught were no longer necessary for salvation were works of the Mosaic ritual law, notably circumcision. Paul never dreamt of abolishing ethics, particularly charity (Gal 5:6; Rom 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13, and passim). Thus James' criticism only strikes at what one might call "vulgar Paulinism" or a popular misperception of Paul, not at Paul himself. To that extent the harmonizers were correct. But they minimized the fact that there is a deeper soteriological difference between James and Paul, on the level of the nature of faith and on the role of the Mosaic law in its entirety. This is where more rigorously historically minded critics, like the early Tübingen school (F.C. Baur and his circle), had an easy time in showing the defects of the harmonizers. This implies the (for some) painful admission that there is real contradiction (at a certain level) about important matters (salvation) within the NT canon. This admission can be made, and even viewed positively, if one does not value abstract logic too highly (life is complex, many-sided, sometimes messy) and if one is interested in finding a place within the canon for the variety of options present in the existing main divisions within Christendom (an ecumenical motive). 3 An interpretation of James today which wants to be both historically honest and pastorally useful must therefore commit itself to a two-step program: (1) the meaning of the text at the time of its composition, namely, a nomistic soteriology proper to a non-Pauline wing of Jewish Christianity (we must not forget that Paul himself was a Jewish Christian) which subsequently died out (perhaps to be reborn as Islam); then (2) the meaning of the text in churches which accept the Pauline revolution, namely, no practice of the Jewish ritual law.

See the celebrated and important debate between Ernst KÄSEMANN and Hans KÜNG: Ε. KÄSEMANN, "The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church", in his Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41; Naperville IL: Allenson, 1964), 95-135; H. KÜNG, '"Early Catholicism" in the New Testament as a Problem in Controversial Theology', in his The Council in Action (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), 159-195; E. KÄSEMANN, ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

235

I After this general remark we can begin our survey. (1) Martin Dibelius, in his influential commentary first published in 1921, thought he could get rid of the problem with several bold strokes: James is written in Rome in the first half of the second century (late!) as a product of Hellenistic Christianity. It is not Jewish Christian and has no interest in the Mosaic Torah as such. The "perfect law of freedom" is a formula borrowed from popular Stoicism and refers to the natural law, the law of reason in our hearts. Thus the problem of the Mosaic law in James vanishes. 4 (2) After a long delay (it took time to digest the results of Dibelius' new approach) and some false starts5, a careful reaction occurred in a series of articles by Ulrich Luck6. He tried, in large measure successfully, to relocate James in a Jewish-biblical context by seeing it as a product of the Christian appropriation of the ОТ wisdom tradition (including Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon). That there is a strongly sapiential element in James is difficult to deny (1:5; esp. 3:13-18). 7 The weakness of the sapiential approach is that it does not solve all problems, particularly not the problem of the law. Luck tries to avoid this problem, and thus never mentions that in Sir 24:23, wisdom is identified with the law, the Torah of the Most High. And this view of Sirach became widely diffused in Judaism. 8 As I hope to show, it is also presupposed by James. (One may note here as an aside that there is currently an alternative view of James which holds that wisdom plays only a peripheral role in the letter. But, as I try to understand the defenders of this view, they are not in direct or deep conflict with Luck and his successors. Luck is concerned to establish a biblical (ОТ) theological background or

4

Martin DIBELIUS, James, rev. by Heinrich Greeven (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996; first German ed. 1921), 116-120, excursus on the perfect law of freedom.

5

Arnold MEYER, Das Rätsel des Jakobusbriefes (BZNW 10; Glessen: Töpelmann, 1930).

6

Ulrich LUCK, "Weisheit und Leiden: Zum Problem Paulus und Jakobus", TLZ 92 (1967) 253-8; "Der Jakobusbrief und die Theologie des Paulus", ThGl 61 (1970) 161-179; "Die Theologie des Jakobusbriefes", ZTK 81 (1984) 1-30.

7

The wisdom approach has been continued and deepened by E. Baasland, "Der Jakobusbrief als neutestamentliche Weisheitsschrift", ST 36 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 119-139; Η. von LIPS, Wei-

sheitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 412-424; R. Hoppe, Der Theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes (Forschung zur Bibel 28; Würzburg: Echter, 1997); M. KÜCHLER, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen: Zum Fortgang weisheitlichen Denkens im Bereich des frühjüdischen Jahweglaubens (OBO 26; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979); P. H. DAVIDS, "The Epistle of James in Modern Discussion", ANRW II/25/5 (1988), 36213654, esp. 3632-4; Walther BINDEMANN, "Weisheit versus Weisheit: Der Jakobusbrief als innerkirchlicher Diskurs", ZNW 86 (1995) 189-217; D.J. VERSEPUT, "Wisdom, 4 Q 185, and the Epistle of James", JBL 117 ( 1 9 9 8 ) 6 9 1 - 7 0 7 . 8

KÜCHLER, Frühjüdische

Weisheitstraditionen,

52-57.

236

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

mental horizon for the work. F.O. Francis, L. G. Perdue, D.J. Verseput, and K.-W. Niebuhr 9 , on the other hand still largely accept the paraenetic nature of the content of James from Dibelius. They are trying to go beyond Dibelius in the determining the literary genre which they decide is that of a covenantal diaspora letter. In other words, Luck is concerned primarily with a theological background, they are concerned primarily with literary form.) (3) The essay of Eduard Lohse on faith and works in James continues the tradition of Dibelius which sees in James a mild, late, ethically oriented Jewish Christian who does not insist on the full observance of the Mosaic law. In the paragraph he devotes to the phrase "law of freedom", 10 Lohse first adds to the collection of largely Hellenistic parallels (but cf. Ps 19:8), the tantalizing possibility of a Qumran parallel (1 Q S 10:6,8,11): hoq herut, statute of freedom, only to have to reject it for the more probable vocalization höq arut, engraved statute. He then opts for the interpretation of this "perfect law of freedom" as the ethical instructions of the letter itself (and the underlying Jesus tradition). (4) Franz Mussner added to the third edition of his commentary on James an appendix on nomos in the letter of James.11 This is carefully and intelligently done. He makes the best possible case for law in James as referring to the radically reduced law of the love command, inaugurated by Jesus, completed by Paul. He argues that this is not a harmonization of James with Paul but is based on the indications of the text itself, for example, its citation of Lev 19:18 in 2:8, and the absence of reference to the cultic-ritual prescription of the Torah. He understands 1:25 in the light of 1:21, "the implanted word" of baptismal instruction, which traditionally includes the Ten Commandments. But by taking 2:14-26 as the central section of the letter, he avoids the implications of 4:11-12. On p. 243, he explains 4:11-12 from the immediate context as referring vor allem, primär (above all, primarily) to the love command. But this vor allem, primär could be a fatal concession to the author we will consider next, Rolf Walker, whom he criticizes for his arrogant, dismissive attitude toward James, or at least toward commentators on James who try to minimize the soteriological distance

9

F.O. FRANCIS, "The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John", ZNW 61 (1970) 110-126; L.G. PERDUE, "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James", ZNW 72 (1981) 241-256; D.J. VERSEPUT, "Wisdom, 4 Q 185, and the Epistle of James", JBL 117 (1998) 691-707; K.-W. NIEBUHR, "Der Jakobusbrief im Licht frühjüdischer Diasporabriefe", NTS 44 (1998) 420-443.

10

Ε. LOHSE, "Glaube und Werke: Zur Theologie des Jakobusbriefes", Z W 4 8 (1957) 1-22, reprinted in his collection Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 285-306.

11

F. MUSSNER, Der Jakobusbrief (Freiburg im Br.: Herder, 1975 (orig. 1963)), 240-250.

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

237

from Paul. Why is this concession fatal? Because Mussner agrees that James stands close to Matthew. But Matthew's position is that the whole Mosaic law must be observed (by Jewish Christians) until the eschaton has come in its fullness (Matt 5:17-20 and 23:23),12 and not only the Decalogue and the two commandment to love God and neighbor. It is true that James does not mention explicitly the ritual law, but Matthew does. Even Matthew does not mention circumcision, whether out of tactical discretion or because the matter had been settled at the conference reflected in Acts 15. Before leaving Mussner, we should mention his argument (242) that the words "perfect" and "of freedom" have a separating function: the perfect law of freedom is to be separated or distinguished from an imperfect law which is not able to lead into freedom, viz. the ОТ Torah. Such a view is truly Pauline but is it Jacobean? (5) The long essay by Rolf Walker is admittedly 13 harsh, one-sided, exaggerated, and above all hostile to James. But on our specific question, I think he is correct. From the outset he affirms that for James the whole law must be observed. This is the plain sense of 2:10-12. When he treats the law specifically (161-3), he says that James lives in the world of the law. Yet, for Walker, James, alongside his nomistic radicalism, also possesses a nomistic optimism: he does not show any scrupulous anxiety before the coming judgment, because he trusts in God's mercy (4:6), in the prayer of faith (5:15), and in the redemptive value of converting sinners (5:20). These function as compensations for failures in full observance. Thus James' nomism is naive and inconsistent, not fully thought through. But all of this means an unbroken existence in the law. James' soteriology is essentially nomistic.14 On Walker, I would comment that the view that James soteriology is essentially nomistic is doubtless correct, but not exclusively so. James presupposes the rite of baptism with its associated kerygmatic instruction,15 but for him this prepares the believer to observe the whole law.

12

Cf. most recently, Daniel MARGUERAT, "Pas un iota ne passera de la Loi... (Mt 5,18). La Loi dans l'evangile de Matthieu", in La Loi dans l'un et l'autre Testament, ed. Camille Focant (LD 168; Paris: Cerf, 1997), 140-174.

13

R. WALKER, "Allein aus Werken: Zur Auslegung von Jakobus 2,14-26", ZTK 61 (1964) 155-192.

14

Cf. the recent article by Friedric AVEMARIE, "Erwählung und Vergeltung: Zur optionalen Struktur rabbinischer Soeriologie", NTS 45 (1999) 108-126 for some nuances of Jewish soteriology, albeit from the view point of a Western binary raionalism that was probably not so crystal clear to these early rabbis as it is to some today.

15

The "birth by the word of truth" in James 1:18 has since the venerable Bede been understood by some as a reference to baptism, but Windisch and Dibelius do not so understand it. A strong modern affirmation of the baptismal reading is presented by Georg BRAUMANN, "Der theologische Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes", TZ 18 (1962) 401-410.

238

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

Moreover, his heavily nomistic soteriology does not differ to any great degree from Matthew's. 16 Before we bring this survey to a close and move on to our own view, we might still mention a few recent views. (6) Corrado Marucci argues from James' familiarity with Sirach 15:11-20, from the rabbinic theology reflected in the literature of a slightly later period and from Irenaeus that the "perfect law of freedom" in James represents the first Christian attempt to express by means of the root eleuther- the Old and New Testament conception of the true albeit relative liberty of the human person in the moral and religious sphere (liberum arbitrium or moral free will).17 One can sympathize with Marucci's main point, without affirming that it exhausts the meaning or intention of Jas 1:25. Much less does his study resolve the question that concerns us, namely, how much of the Torah does James expect his readers to observe? (7) After his already cited thesis-book on James and the sayings of Q, P.J. Hartin has published an article on perfection in James and in the Sermon on the Mount. 18 Commenting on James 1:25 and 2:8, Hartin comments: "This law of love is the all-embracing commandment and hence is called "the perfect law" (487). He then goes on: Both the traditions of James and Matthew require a perfect fulfillment of the law. "For, whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (Jas 2,10). Similarly, in Matt 5,18 Jesus says: "For truly I tell you until heaven and earth pass, not one letter, not one stroke of the letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished". The thought is the same: the whole law is to be carried out in every respect. In fact both traditions present the fulfillment of the law as the path toward perfection. This lies within the orbit of the Jewish wisdom tradition where the themes of wisdom, law and perfection all converge together. For this tradition perfection comes through carrying out the laws inspired by wisdom. The theological horizon of the traditions of wisdom, James and Matthew blend together in a perception of the fulfillment of law as the path to perfection (488). 16

James' relation to Matthew has been well worked out by M.H. SHEPHERD in a classic essay, "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew", JBL 75 (1956) 40-51. Two recent monograph try to argue that James1 relation to the Jesus tradition is through a knowledge of a pre-Matthean sayings collection, rather than directly through a use of Matthew. This is highly probable in the case of James 5:12, which gives an earlier form of Matt 5:33-37, but not necessarily elsewhere. Shepherd has shown that James' literary relation to Matthew is quite close. D.B. DEPPE, The Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James (Chelsea, MI: Bookcrafters, 1989); P. J. HARTIN, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (JSNT Sup 47; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991).

17

C. MARUCCI, "Das Gesetz der Freiheit im Jakobusbrief", ZKT 117 ( 1 9 9 5 ) 317-331.

18

P.J. HARTIN, "Call to Be Perfect through Suffering (James I, 2-4). The Concept of Perfection in the Epistle of James and the Sermon on the Mount", Biblica 77 (1996) 477-492.

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

239

Up to this point Hartin is in full agreement with the position we will defend. It can be summarized in two points: (1) There is a close affinity between Matthew and James. (2) The whole (Mosaic) law is to be carried out in every respect (ethical and ritual). It comes as a disappointment therefore when Hartin concludes: "James developed these traditions by identifying the law as the law of love and James argues that it is in the fulfillment of the law of love, the true law of liberty, that perfection is attained" (489). To be sure, James as well as Matthew (and Jesus) interpret the whole Mosaic law in terms of the guiding principle of the love command. Take the example of the Sabbath observance. Both in Mark 1:23-28; 3:1-6 and in James 2:2-13, mercy, compassion and love determine the Sabbath halacha. (In James the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned. The word used is synagogue (v. 2).) The Sabbath is not abolished. But it is practiced in a way differing somewhat from the practice of the Pharisees. In 1998 Hartin returned to the subject in a paper presented at the 1998 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting. This paper, so far as I can discover, has not yet been published in full, so I will quote from the Abstract.19 "The concept of law in James is understood as the Torah, whose observance continues to remain valid for those who belong to his community ... The Torah must be kept in full (2:10), and this demands a life of integrity ... [James] is writing from a milieu very different from that of Paul. James's context is that of a group or community of believers who continue to hold the Torah as vital for their faith and life." Here Hartin, if his summary is to be trusted, arrives at the position we want to present, perhaps without drawing out the full consequences. II The thesis of this article is that the ten references to law in the epistle of James refer to the Mosaic law as a whole (613 precepts ethical and ritual, by a later reckoning) 20 ; that in this James remains close to Matthew (5:17-20

19

P.J. HARTIN, "The Perfect Law of Liberty (Jas 1:25): Its Literary Background in the Context of the biblical and Jewish Worlds", AAR SBL Abstracts 1998 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1998), 370. One can also mention here Maurice HOGAN, "The Law in the Epistle of James", SNTU A 22 (1997) 79-91. Hogan points out that James never connects erga with nomos (82). Hogan sees (88) that 2:10 involves all the law but refuses to draw the obvious conclusion from this. Wiard POPKES, "James and Scripture: An Exercise in Intertextuality", NTS 45 (1999) 213-229, seems to argue that James could not have referred to the whole Torah because he did not possess a Torah scroll and was dependent upon Paul and upon oral tradition for what little knowledge of Torah he had. Popkes does not explain how James could have used Gen 22:2,9 in his 2:21, even though these verses are not used by Paul.

20

See E.E. URBACH, The Sages, chap. 13, 342-365; based on b. Мак. 23b.

240

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

and 23:23); that James thus represents a form of Torah-true Jewish Christianity in a post-70 Greek-speaking milieu; that James does not mention ritual observances, not because he rejects them (he may allude to Sabbath observance in 2:2), but for reasons of genre (he is writing a work of ethical exhortation, not of halacha, comparable to Pirqe Aboth, and to what would later be known in Judaism as musar, ethical formation and instruction, both of which presuppose ritual observance without discussing it directly); finally, that James' understanding of the law as referring to the entire Mosaic Torah is evident from the plain sense of his words about nomos. This five-part thesis can be reduced to three or four parts. That nomos in James always refers to the Mosaic law in its entirety is evident from the natural force of the words in 2:8-10 and in 4:11-12. Admittedly "the perfect law of freedom" in 1:25 is ambiguous. Taken by itself this law can be understood as the law of nature (in a pagan context) or as some kind of Christian reduction of the law to the love of neighbor (Gal 5:13; Rom 13:8-10). This is what Dibelius thinks in his excursus on the perfect law of freedom might be the case.21 He wants the Stoic notion of natural law to be mediated to Hellenistic Jews and then to James by Philo. But he hesitates to say this directly because he senses that Philo used Stoic terminology to proclaim something entirely different. Philo takes the bold (and to many then and now) preposterous step of identifying the law of nature (nomos physeos) with the complete Mosaic legislation. This has been brilliantly shown by Helmut Koester.22 It is a troubling but true fact, and it is relevant to the correct interpretation of James, because Philo introduced a confusion between reason and revelation here which has been influential in church thinking up to Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae of 1968 and beyond, especially in the church fathers. In James the formula "the perfect law of freedom" is a rhetorical flourish which flirts with Stoic language but remains ambiguous. It only becomes clear in the light of what be says later. If you fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, but fall short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of

21

DIBELIUS, James, pp. 116-120 (see note 4 herein). Dibelius is actually rather confused and hesitant in his conclusions.

22

Helmut KOESTER, "Nomos physeos: The Concept of Natural Law in Greek Thought", in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory ofE.R. Goodenough, ed. Jacob Neusner (Suppl. to Numen 14; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 521-541, esp. 533-534; this essay has been developed by Koester's student R.A. Horsley, "The Law of Nature in Philo and Cicero", Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978) 35-60. That Philo was opposed to the relaxation of the ritual laws is evident from the celebrated passage in his De migr. Abr., 89-90.

THE PERFECT L A W OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 A N D THE L A W

241

it. For he who said, "You shall not commit adultery", also said, "You shall not kill." Even if you do not commit adultery but kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as people who will be judged by the law of freedom (James 2 : 8 - 1 2 ) . In this passage, the word nomos recurs five times. In the framing verses 8 and 12 we find the rhetorical flourishes "royal law" and "law of freedom". The Pentateuch is quoted three times (Lev 19:18; Exod 20:13-14; Deut 5:17-18). The citations are from the Decalogue and the Holiness Code. There is also a direct reference to another precept of the Holiness Code, the prohibition of partiality in (judicial) judgment (Lev 19:15, referred to in v. 8: "But if you show partiality..."). 23 This reference is important for our argument because it shows that James does not limit his use of the law to the love command or to the ethical law in the sense of the Decalogue, but includes other, more detailed, elements of the Mosaic legislation. But it is evident that the strongest basis for our thesis is found in 2:10: "For whoever keeps the whole law (holon ton потоп), but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect of all of it" (panton, all of them, that is, of all of the laws).24 This verse polemically echoes Paul's argument against ritual observance (in casu, circumcision) in Gal 5:3: "I declare to every man who has himself circumcised that he is bound to observe the entire law (holon ton потоп)" But James turns Paul's argument on its head, to argue precisely for the observance of the whole law, including explicitly the ethical and implicitly (so we think) the ritual. He also echoes here the teaching of the Matthean Jesus (Matt 5:19), but in a positive sense; i.e., he accepts it. Dibelius, in his excursus on this verse, invokes several times the concept of James' innocence,25 that is, his naive use of dangerously nomistic language without realizing that someone could read it in a fullblooded nomistic way, as endorsing the observance of the 613 precepts of the Mosaic law. This invocation of James' supposed "innocence" shows Dibelius' discomfort, his embarrassment, with James' plain teaching. Were Dibelius to take James literally and seriously here, his own whole elaborate reconstruction of James' location in early Christianity would collapse. But the thesis of James "innocence" is improbable and unnecessary because it is perfectly possible to class him with Matthew (see below).

23

On the concept of impartiality as a legal principle, see TDNT 6. 779-780 (E. LOHSE), and Jouette BASSLER, Divine Impartiality: Paul and a Theological Axiom (SBLDS 59; Chico CA: Scholars, 1982.

24

So F. VOUGA, Ue'pitre de saint Jacques (CNT 13a; Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1984), 80, n. 23.

25

Dibelius, James 144-146, esp. 146 and note 120.

242

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

Our examination of James' use of nomos must be rounded off by a glance at 4:11-12: "Do not speak evil [slander] of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver (nomothetes) and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?" In the single verse 11, the word nomos recurs four times. Since the emphasis in the passage as a whole is obviously on charitable conduct toward the neighbor and the avoidance of harsh judgments and slander (as in the spirit of Matt 7:1-5), one could overlook the passage's relevance to our topic. But there is a slide in the thought of the author from judging the neighbor to judging the law of God. In the wider context of the letter as a whole, particularly in view of its polemic against a debased or misunderstood Paulinism in chap. 2, however, it becomes possible to see in the insistence on the divine origin of the law a veiled criticism of a Torah-free form of early Christianity. To put it in another, more positive way, these two verses bear witness to the simple Torah piety of the author. For him the Torah as a whole is a gift of God and it would be disrespectful to pick and choose among its precepts, not to mention invalidating 601 of them. The author simply represents a different form of early Christianity from Paul's, closer to today's Seventh Day Adventists than to the main churches which are all in their various ways heirs of Paul, though none exclude Matthew (or even James) from their canon entirely. The matter is not historically mysterious, it is simply pastorally inconvenient and logically embarrassing to those who value consistency and coherence above all. In practice, the plain, natural sense of these passages must simply be overlooked, and it is. But that fact should not lead us to falsify our historical understanding of the letter or to force it into another framework. The main objection to the view adopted here is that the author does not mention the main ritual observances of Torah Judaism, circumcision, Sabbath, kashruth, the Temple sacrifices, the festivals, tsitsit, sha'atnez, and the like. If we are correct, the answer must lie not in the author's excluding these biblical precepts, but in the genre of his work. The author was writing a work of ethical exhortation (in Pauline terms, paraklesis, in pagan terms, paraenesis, in 19th century Jewish terms, musar). Another objection lies in the striking parallels to James found in 1 Peter, Clement, Barnabas, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, well presented by Dibelius and other authors. These early Christian authors do not accept full Torah observance. James' affinity to these authors is undeniable. But since the work of Shepherd (note 16), many have come to see that James' affinities with Matthew are even closer. Vouga's work is exemplary

T H E PERFECT L A W OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 A N D THE L A W

243

here. James' difference from these early Christian authors is clearest in his attitude to the law, precisely where he is closest to Matthew (and even though he has no equivalent to Matt 23:23).

Ill It remains to draw some conclusions. If the thesis of this article is correct, that the law for James meant the full Mosaic legislation, then we must try to find a historical location for its composition which differs both from the older view and the newer view. (1) In the older view the letter is composed by James the brother of the Lord as a Jewish-Christian response to the letter of Paul to the Galatians. On this hypothesis, the letter was written in Jerusalem around A.D. 54.26 (2) In 1921, Martin Dibelius, as we have already noted, abruptly broke with this classic thesis. He proposed to cut the links between the letter and the Jewish Christianity of the churches in Palestine. The letter is then understood as an example of the parenesis of the liberal Judaism of the Diaspora, written, perhaps at Rome, by an unknown Christian, between A.D. 80 and 130. This localization, with a dating between 8090, is held by R.E. Brown in his introduction to the New Testament (note one herein). One can understand this view of the letter as the opposite or the antithesis of the first thesis. (3) Because of its attribution to James and its affinities with our Greek gospel according to Matthew, because of its good Greek and its use of the Septuagint Bible, we think that the letter comes from the circle left behind by James after his martyrdom, that is, from the school of Matthew, to be localized somewhere in southern Syria or northern Palestine (Caesarea Maritima?), and dating between A.D. 80 and 95. Faithful to the heritage left by James, including his fidelity to the Mosaic law, this literary letter gives, besides many wise instructions, an answer to popular Paulinism, that is, to a popular way of hearing and receiving the Pauline gospel. It is not an answer to Paul's thought in its nuances or in its original setting. This view offers a synthesis which tries to respect both the indication in the superscription to the letter of a link with James and also the letter's fidelity to the Jewish law as well as its links with some late first century Christian documents noted by Dibelius. If this is its correct historical position, it was an unstable one. It only lasted in its literal sense until about A.D. 135 when the failure of the Bar Cochba revolt and the expulsion of the Jews from Judea rendered the 26

This view is held today by Luke Timothy JOHNSON, The Letter of James (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1995). An earlier learned variant of this view which makes it prePauline is the commentary by J.B. MAYOR, The Epistle of James (London: MacMillan, 1892; 3rd ed. 1910).

244

THE PERFECT LAW OF FREEDOM: JAMES 1:25 AND THE LAW

situation of the law-observing Jewish Christians almost untenable. From then on these Jewish Christians and their sacred books (Matthew and James) survived by being received into Gentile law-free churches of a Pauline color. The history of these churches ever since has involved a dialectical dance between at least two different soteriologies.

18

John's Use of Matthew: Beyond Tweaking

SUMMARY The question of the gospel of John's relation to the synoptic gospels is a classic one. This article presupposes direct Johannine knowledge of the Synoptics and some inner-canonical polemic. It explores twelve instances of John's knowledge of Matthew's gospel and his reaction to Matthew: from flat contradiction, to restrained criticism, to refinement, acceptance and deepening. The cases concern Emmanuel, the light of the world, Elijah and the Baptist, the transfiguration, the messianic secret, the Sabbath, the role of Peter, turning the other cheek, the use of the Old Testament, Christology, judgment, and discipleship.

Many a reader of the gospels has been struck by the different perspectives represented by Matthew's "You are the light of the world" (Matt 5:14) and John's "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12). A pre-critical reader would understand the difference thus: one day Jesus said one thing, another day he said something else - to make a different point. Why not? A redactioncritically oriented reader would think: the Matthean saying reflects Matthew's ethical, anthropological interest, while the Johannine saying expresses John's Christological concentration. Those who hold to the GardnerSmith view that John knew synoptic-like traditions but did not know the three synoptic gospels directly might hear a distant echo of Matthew in John 8:12.' Those readers however who hold that (1) the main author of the Fourth Gospel knew all three of the Synoptics directly, just as we do, and who further hold to the old Tübingen school (F.C. Baur) view that (2) there Percival GARDNER-SMITH, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge: University Press, 1938); this view is then defended by C.H. DODD, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1963); this view, that John does not know the three synoptic gospels directly, but only synoptic-like traditions, whether oral or written, is held also by R. BULTMANN, R.E. BROWN, and F.J. MOLONEY. One could speak of a consensus in the 1950s and 60s, with notable exceptions like C.K. BARRETT. On GardnerSmith, see the essay by J. VERHEYDEN, "P. Gardner-Smith and 'The Turn of the Tide'", in Adelbert Denaux, ed., John and the Synoptics, (BETL 101; Leuven: Leuven University/Peeters 1992), 423-452.

246

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

is polemic inside the New Testament canon of one book against another, one sacred author against another, such readers, I say, would take a different stance. Such readers would be tempted to see in John 8:12 a direct criticism of Matt 5:14, a deliberate and explicit correction of Matt 5:14. In that case the question could be asked, to what extent does John's gospel undertake, throughout its length and breadth, a running critique of Matthew? That is the question this article attempts to address. (This article cannot be exhaustive because the implications of the question are too many for them all to be tracked down in 30 pages.) If the question has not been asked before and a systematic answer provided, that is because many Johannine scholars do not or have not shared its two presuppositions: (1) direct Johannine knowledge of the Synoptics and/or (2) inner-canonical polemic. Of these two presuppositions, the first, direct Johannine knowledge of the three synoptic gospels, would have met less resistance until the twentieth century. For before 1900 most commentators shared Clement of Alexandria's view that the fourth evangelist, after the other three had had their say, decided to write a "spiritual" gospel, i.e., implicitly, he knew and took into account the earlier gospels. 2 The second presupposition, inner-canonical polemic, meets resistance at all times because it seems, at first glance, to contradict the belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture: would the Holy Spirit allow such unseemly infighting among the sacred authors? The resistance can only be overcome by those who recognize that its argument is an apriori deduction from a dogmatic premise. This premise, when applied with a heavy hand, blinds its holders to some plain facts in the texts themselves: e.g., the conflicts between Galatians and the letter of James, which the early church tried to resolve, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, as described in Acts 15. Once the premise of divine inspiration is understood to include, to allow for, inner-canonical polemic, the way is open for the kind of inquiry we would like to undertake. This presupposition is the contribution of the Tübingen school of F.C. Baur in the early 19th century, which pioneered, by trial and error, a more historical understanding of the New Testament. 3

2

3

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Hypotyposeis (a lost work), cited in EUSEBIUS, The Ecclesiastical History 3.24.7-13, eds. K. Lake, J.E.L. Oulton, and H.J. Lawlor, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1932), 46-49. On the patristic views and the whole issue, see D. MOODY SMITH, John among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); also Helmut MERKEL, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien (WUNT 13); Tübingen: Mohr, 1971. On the Tübingen school, see Stephen NEILL, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1961 (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), 1-103; W.G. KÜMMEL, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 120205; I discuss the theological problem in "Social World and Community Leadership: the Case of Matthew 23.1-12,34," JSNT 39 (1990) 3-21.

JOHN'S U S E OF

MATTHEW

247

As for the first presupposition, John's full knowledge of the Synoptics, what convinced me of the old, "classical" view (but with the Tübingen polemical "update" or "edge") was D. Moody Smith's careful, intentionally neutral, presentation of the problem, 4 plus the weakness of two major works which attempt to prove the opposite view, that John did not know the Synoptics directly but only synoptic-like traditions. 5 Their failure to convince me led me to be open to the seductive powers of Hans Windisch's Überlegenheitstheorie. That is, John not only knew the earlier three, but intended to replace or even eliminate them by producing a vastly superior gospel. 6 This tempting hypothesis of John's feeling of superiority to the other evangelists ought however to be accepted with reservations, for the following reasons. (1) John nowhere rejects by name a Synoptic gospel. (2) John could not have rejected all the contents of the other gospels since he draws upon them; at most he rejected parts. (3) By A.D. 100 it was too late for John to overturn and to displace the other gospels totally. (To be sure, John almost succeeded in some places and periods, as did Matthew in other places and periods. Both Matthew and Luke for long succeeded in having Mark rather forgotten and neglected. Mark was copied, but not much used in the lectionaries or commented on.) Perhaps we should distinguish between John's achievement (he failed to displace the others totally) and his intention to replace them. "Hope springs eternal in the human breast." (4) Although John may have wished to claim more, as a matter of historical fact his gospel was taken into the church's canon of the New Testament alongside the other gospels and had to compete with them. In the course of time John prevailed over the others in his influence on high theology (Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology), and on the theology of the sacraments of baptism and eucharist, but not in the areas of detailed Christian ethics or in the quest for the historical Jesus, 7 or in the construction of an ordered ecclesiology (at least for some groups). Although John can be seen as a deepening reflection on some elements received from Mark and Q, 8 and as having a real affinity with many Lucan 4 5 6

7

8

See note 2 above. See note 1 above. Hans WINDISCH, Johannes und die Synoptiker: Wollte der vierte Evangelist die älteren Evangelien ergänzen oder ersetzen? (Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 12; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1926). This paragraph represents my reflection on the material presented by D.M. SMITH, John among the Gospels, 29-30. R.H. LIGHTFOOT, The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford: University Press, 1950), 1819, 33; also, E.K. LEE, "St Mark and the Fourth Gospel," NTS 3 (1956/57) 50-55, is good on the relation between John and Mark; on how John's Christology is an outgrowth or radical development of Q, see W.R.G. LOADER, "The Central Structure of Johannine Christology," NTS 30 (1984) 188-216, esp. 204-208; on the theological issues involved,

248

JOHN'S U S E O F M A T T H E W

traditions, it seems at first that his relation to Matthew is more tense, more critical.9 It was in fact my initial working assumption that John undertook a consistent critique of Matthean redactional theological positions. This assumption also happens to underlie not a little controversial theology today, which cherishes John's diminishment of Peter, so that the matter of John's use of Matthew, whether positive or negative, remains very much a live issue.10 Although my initial assumption is born out to some extent, the final impression is rather less uniform and one-sided. Sometimes John simply takes a Matthean tradition and improves it in a sympathetic way, so that even Matthew himself would, in all probability, have approved of it. It is then not a question of criticism or of polemic so much as of progress, of growth. But this can only be shown by an examination of specific cases. In the course of this article we will examine twelve cases. 1. Let us begin with Matthew's first two chapters, his gospel of Jesus' origins: He begins with a genealogy of Jesus' roots in the Hebrew Bible and in

see J.D.G. DUNN, "John and the Synoptics as a Theological Question", in Exploring the Gospel of John (D.M. Smith FS), eds. R.A. Culpepper and C.C. Black (Louisville KY: W J K , 1996), 301-313. 9

On John's relation to Luke, see, among other works, Emile OSTY, "Les points de contact entre le recit de la passion dans Saint Luc et dans Saint Jean," in Melanges J. Lebreton, RSR 39 (1951) 146-151; M.-E. BoiSMARD, "Saint Luc et la redaction du quatrieme evangile

(Jn,

iv,

46-54),"

RB

69

j o h a n n e i s c h e P a s s i o n s t r a d i t i o n , " ZNW

Common

(1962)

"Die

lukanisch-

6 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) 1 5 5 - 1 8 6 ; J . A . BAILEY, The

185-211;

Hans

KLEIN,

Traditions

to the Gospels of Luke and John (NovTSup 7; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1963); F.L.

CRIBBS, "St. L u k e a n d t h e J o h a n n i n e T r a d i t i o n , " JBL

9 0 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 4 2 2 - 4 5 0 ; CRIBBS, " A

Study of the Contacts That Exist Between St. Luke and St. John," Society of Biblical Literature: 1973 Seminar Papers (Cambridge MA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 2. 1-93; Cribbs, "The Agreements That Exist Between Luke and John," Society of Biblical Literature: 1979 Seminar Papers (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 1. 215-261; Anton DAUER, Johannes und Lukas: Untersuchungen zu den johannisch-lukanischen Parallelperikopen

Joh 4,46-54/Luk 7;1-10 -

Joh 12,1-8/Lk 7,36-50; 10,38-42 -

2 0 , 1 9 - 2 9 / L k 2 4 , 3 6 - 4 9 ( F B 5 0 ; W ü r z b u r g : E c h t e r , 1 9 8 4 ) ; M . - E . BOISMARD, Comment

Joh Luc

a remanie l'Evangile de Jean (Cah RB 51; Paris: Gabalda, 2001); Manfred LANG, Johannes und die Synoptiker. Eine redaktionsgeschichtlicheAnalyse von Joh 18-20 vor dem markinischen und lukanischen Hintergrund (FRLANT 182; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). 10

See for example P.N. ANDERSON, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6 (WUNT.II; Tubingen: Möhr, 1996), esp. 221-251; James Pain and Nicholas Zernov, eds., A Bulgakov Anthology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976). On the other hand, for W.O. WALKER, "The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and John", NTS 28 (1982) 237-256, John 17 is a respectfull midrash on the Matthean form of the Our Father. This fits to a large extent with my view of the John-Matthew relationship. Cp. Eric FRANKLIN, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (JSNTSS 92; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994). T.L. BRODIE, The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach (NewYork: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), undertakes a thorough study of John's use of Matthew. My article is independent of his study.

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

249

the intertestamental period, and then he tells the story of Jesus' virginal conception. He goes on to narrate the intertwined story of the hostility of king Herod the Great and the adoration by the magi with their three gifts. For John, the question of Jesus' origins is of burning significance throughout his gospel (notice the frequency of the adverb pothen, whence, which recurs thirteen times in his gospel), but for John what counts is not Jesus' human origins (he makes light of these in 1:45-46; 7:41), but his heavenly origins, his coming from (or being sent by) the Father in heaven. John also prefers not to use the theolougomenon of the virginal conception of Jesus which, on our hypothesis, he knew from Matthew and Luke. Instead, in his Prologue (1:1-18), he presents Jesus' origins as the divine Logos who becomes flesh in the person of Jesus.11 Further, John is aware of the hostility of the world and its powers to Jesus and takes them seriously, not to mention demonic opposition (hostile powers: 1:5,10-11; 5:16-18; 7:1,19,25,30; 8:37,40; 11:53; demonic: 12:31; 16:11; 14:30; 8:44) but he is not interested in Herodian vassal kings. The hostility to Jesus in John comes from unbelieving Judeans and their religious leaders, and from skeptical Pilate, representative of the Roman emperor, but also from unbelieving disciples (6:70-71). On a deeper level, Matthew cites Isa 7:14, a prophecy of Emmanuel, and carefully explains that name, with the help of Isa 8:8,10, as meaning 'God is with us.' This phrase represents a variant of the covenant formulary, whose full form runs: "I will be your God and you will be my people" or, abbreviated, "I will be with you and you will be with me." 12 This is the basic contract of loyalty and "marital" fidelity between God and his people, that runs throughout the Bible, even though it may be a relatively late theme and though it is derived from Ancient Near Eastern suzerainty treaties. It is a fundamental expression of God's commitment, protection and presence. Matthew's point is that this divine commitment and will to save his people is present in the person of Jesus (see also Matt 18:20; 28:20). In John one finds an echo of this Christology of divine presence in Jesus in 3:2, where Nicodemus says, among other things, "For no one can do the signs which you do, unless God is with him." Here at the outset, we see that Matthew and John are not at odds on the matter of a high Christology, though they may take different roads to get there, and although John may go further than Mat-

11

B.T. VIVIANO, "The Structure of the Prologue of John (1:1-18): A Note," RB 105 (1998)

12

Rudolf SMEND, Die Bundesformel (ThStud 68; Zurich: TVZ, 1963); Klaus BALTZER, The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971); D.J. MCCARTHY, Old Testament Covenant (Richmond VA: John Knox, 1972); Rolf RENDTORFF, Die "Bundesformel" (SBS 160; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), English translation: The Covenant Formula (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark/New York: Continuum, 2001).

176-184.

250

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

thew. Here they are at one on the point of applying the covenant formula in relation to Jesus as God's emissary (John 3:2a) and presence on earth. Finally, as the magi bow down to the ground and adore the infant Jesus (Matt 2:11), so too does the man born blind in John (9:38). The rule holds here as elsewhere: what is found together as a unit in the Synoptics, is sometimes found scattered in John. 13 Our first case has shown some not inconsiderable differences, but no clear case of polemic, unless one construes the option for the Prologue as a hostile rejection of the virginal conception. But there is no hint of this in the Prologue. The variant reading in John 1:13, which reads a singular instead of a plural, and is found only in non-Greek versions, is an attempt at harmonization of the two viewpoints but this attempt need not have been motivated by the desire to overcome the scandal of an implied criticism. 14 Above all, on the matter of Jesus as God's presence on earth as the expression of God's covenant fidelity, there is complete agreement. 2. In Matt 5:14-16, we read: "You are the light of the world... Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." These words begin with a bold declaration and conclude with an exhortation (an imperative in the third person plural) and a two-part result clause. The words, coming as they do from the Sermon on the Mount, are peculiar to Matthew's gospel. They are addressed to the crowds. (Usually it is said that they are addressed to the disciples. But although Matt 5:1 could be read to mean that Jesus spoke only to the disciples, in 7:28 the crowds are astounded at his teaching, which implies (a) that they heard it, (b) that it was addressed to them.) The declaration, in the indicative, functions as an encouragement and also as a basis on which to found the exhortation. The imagery comes from Deutero-Isaiah: 42:6; 49:6; 51:4. In a healthy society everyone needs a chance to "shine" in one way or another, ideally in a governing assembly. 15 Here in Matthew the purpose of our shining is two-fold. First the shining itself consists of our good works, i.e., ethical works as a missionary strategy, as a witness and a "draw". The result should not be praise rendered to us or our own self-satisfaction but that the observers give glory to God. The text then, while strongly ethical, does not see ethics as an end in itself. Rather, it sees ethical conduct as related to

13

14 15

R.E. BROWN, "Incidents That Are Units in the Synoptic Gospels but Dispersed in St. John," CBQ 23 (1961) 143-160; reprinted in Brown, New Testament Essays (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1965), chap. II, 192-213. Jean GALOT, "Etre ηέde Dieu": Jean 1,13 (An Bib 37; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1969). Hannah ARENDT, On Revolution (New York: Viking, 1963); ARENDT, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), esp. 175-181.

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

251

doxology, as having a religious, theo-logical finality, viz., praise of God. So Matthew's text cannot be dismissed as purely anthropological or Pelagian. When we turn to John 8:12, we notice a different accent: "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." The obvious point is that this formulation manifests John's concentration on Christology. Ethics separated from faith in Christ will not do. That this is intended as at least in part a corrective of Matthew is suggested by John 15:8, which shows a further awareness of Matt 5:14-16. (We will return to it.) That is, the echo of Matthew is not purely an accident, a coincidence. John is making a point in regard to Matthew. For him only through Jesus are men saved. Matthew may occasionally say the same (11:27), but he is so interested in presenting a detailed ethic that he often fails to insist upon it. Once however this point is made, John can rejoin Matthew to a remarkable degree. First, he borrows a synoptic word for discipleship, "following," instead of his usual "believe in" or "come to" Jesus. This believing disciple, the verse goes on to say, will not walk, that is, live, conduct himself, in darkness, that is, in the realm of death, but he will possess (eschatologically?, the two verbs are future, but for John are probably realized already now, in this life) the light of life. That is, he will possess the source of full life, in this world and in the next (cf. Ps 56:13; Job 33:30), "the way out of human existential need". 16 The accent is no longer on good deeds, but on the one good deed of following, that is, believing. But the ethical note is recovered and the glorification of God of which Matthew speaks is also found in a neglected verse which could be said to complete John 8:12 and increase his rapprochement with Matthew. John 15:8 reads: "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples." Here Matt 5:14 is taken over, with John's Christological correction discreetly but really present in the "my" disciples. Fruit-bearing would especially refer to love of the members of the community as a form of witness (John 13:35). Karpos, fruit, is a favorite word for Matthew (19x; Mark 5x; Luke 12x; John lOx), in the sense of good deeds. So, in 8:12, John shows his sense of superiority to Matthew, his Christological correction, and yet, in 15:8, he is able to take over, in his own way, Matthew's deep ethical concern. 3. In Matt 11:14, speaking of John the Baptist, Jesus says: "If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come," an allusion to Mai 3:23 (cf. Sir

16

Rudolf SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel according to St John (New York: Seabury, 1980), 2: 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 .

252

JOHN'S U S E OF

MATTHEW

48:10), which promises a return of Elijah in the end times. 17 Later, in 17:1013 the same identification between Elijah and the Baptist is made in fuller fashion: "Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased... Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist." (In this added verse, Matthew is making explicit what is already implicit in Mark 9:11-13.) On the other hand, in John 1:21,25, the Baptist denies that he is Elijah, and this is repeated by the emissaries of the Pharisees. A strange business indeed! That is the problem. What to make of it? First, we need to notice that Luke, before John, does not follow Mark and Matthew on this point. He does not take over Mark 9:10-13, and, in 1:17, the angel says to Zechariah that his son will act "with the spirit and power of Elijah," but, implicitly, will not be identical to him. Here, as in many other cases, John stands closer to Luke than to the other two evangelists. 18 Next, we need to realize that in Malachi and Sirach, Elijah is not the precursor of the Messiah; he is the precursor of God as God comes in judgment. This biblical promise was probably still lively in the Baptist community at the time that the fourth evangelist was writing. On this view Elijah redivivus either functions as a quasi-Messiah (in Sir 48:1 Od his duty is "to restore the tribes of Jacob," a messianic function if ever there was one), or else there is simply no place for a messianic figure at all. The evangelist John, who probably knew Baptist circles well, reacts to their strong belief in Elijah's role by ruling out any connection between the Baptist and Elijah. 19 When thirdly we return to Matthew and Mark, we see that they have taken a different approach. They have inherited or invented the idea that Elijah is the precursor of the Messiah (not of God) and they go on to downgrade the Baptist as Elijah to be the precursor of Jesus. John then decides not to follow them in this line because (a) such a view of Elijah is not clearly scriptural, (b) this line would not have been of any use to him in his ongoing polemic with the disciples of the Baptist (in Asia Minor?, cf. Acts 19:1-7), since they did not hold this view of Elijah's role. Although John's manner of treating Matthew and Mark here may seem to us a little

17

18

19

On Elijah's role in eschatological hopes, see B.T. VIVIANO, "The Least in the Kingdom: Matthew 11:11, Its Parallel in Luke 7:28 (Q), and Daniel 4:14," CBQ 62 (2000) 41-54, included in this volume. Rudolf SCHNACKENBURG, The Gospel according to John (New York: Seabury, 1968), 1: 288-290; Georg RICHTER, "Bist Du Elias? Joh 1:21," BZ 6 (1962) 79-92, 238-256; 7 (1963) 63-80; J.A.T. ROBINSON, "Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection," NTS 4 (1957-58) 263-281, repr. in Robinson, Twelve NT Studies (SBT 34; London: SCM, 1962), 28-52. Jürgen BECKER, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (3rd ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn/Würzburg: Echter, 1991; 1st ed. 1979), 1.113-114.

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

253

abrupt and rough (a flat contradiction), he did have serious grounds for taking a different line. As a note of clarification we may add that the comparison we are making is only on the level of the Matthean and Johannine redaction. On the level of the historical John the Baptist and the historical Jesus, strictly speaking there need be no contradiction, because the Baptist could really have thought that he was not Elijah (should the question have arisen during his lifetime), and Jesus could really have said that the Baptist was Elijah, perhaps evoking a higher point of view unknown to the Baptist, or having concluded this after the Baptist's martyrdom. All that is not our concern. We are presupposing that both Gospel statements represent the redactional viewpoints of Matthew and John respectively, and that John the evangelist rejects and contradicts Matthew's view. While on John's treatment of the Baptist, we may note C.H. Dodd's treatment of another, related problem. 20 According to Matt 11:11 par Luke 7:28 (Q), "John the Baptist, though a prophet and more than a prophet, though as great a man as any born of women, is yet not 'in the Kingdom of God'." This means that "Either he had never confessed Christ, or having once confessed he fell away from his faith". (Dodd speculates that he fell into a depression during his imprisonment!) This is hinted at by Matt 11:6 par Luke 7:23. Dodd then reads John 1:20 with the bracketed word included: "He confessed [Christ] and did not deny him." Dodd then concludes, "In other words, the evangelist is claiming the Baptist as the first Christian 'confessor', in contrast to the view represented in the Synoptic Gospels that he was not 'in the Kingdom of God'. It is the Johannine view that has prevailed, and affected the liturgy and the calendar of the church." Not a small claim for the evangelist. (In the article referred to in note 17, I have tried to explain Matt 11:11, not by positing an apostasy or a depression on the Baptist's part, but rather by seeing the verse as a creation of the earliest post-paschal Christian community. The anonymous author tried to understand the places of both the Baptist and Jesus in the apocalyptic periodization of salvation history with the help of Dan 4:14(17): "The Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals; he gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of human beings." The Q author applies this to Jesus: "the least in the kingdom of heaven [this is Jesus described in Danielic terms] is greater than he." Thus the point of Matt 11:11 par is not to say that the Baptist is an apostate, but rather to understand the higher place of Jesus in the divine plan. The verse is Christological, not polemical, in intent.) Although Dodd's reconstruction rests on two hypotheses, it does help to explain the positive reception of the

20

DODD, Historical

Tradition,

295-299.

254

JOHN'S U S E OF MATTHEW

Baptist in church history. On the other hand, these hypotheses are not strictly necessary to explain the Baptist's reception as a saint. First, he could be received as a saint of the Old Testament, like Abraham or David. Second, his great role as the patron of monks, so evident in the iconography of the Eastern churches, is based more on his ascetic diet and dress (Matt 3:4) than on his exact position in salvation history. 21 4. Before proceeding to our next unit, it might be useful to note two possible broader links of John with the Synoptic tradition. The first concerns the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-9; Luke 9:28-36). There is no separate, distinct account of the Transfiguration in John's gospel. It has been cleverly suggested that this is so because in John Jesus is transfigured from beginning to end; that is, his divinity is transparent from the Prologue to the Resurrection (see 20:28). There is much to be said for this view, no doubt, even if one does not push it to the docetic extremes proposed by Käsemann. 2 2 The point to be made here is a different one. It is in analogy with the agony in the garden. Though this episode is not reproduced as such in John, John has nevertheless taken over piecemeal enough of its elements for us to be reasonably sure that he knew the tradition. He simply decided to use it in his own way. This has long been recognized. 23 Now it can be suggested that his chapters seven and eight contain elements of contact with the synoptic account of the Transfiguration. First, there is the link with the feast of Sukkot, implicit in the synoptic mention of the three tents, explicit in John 7:2. Next, there is the ascent of the [Temple] mount, 7:14. Then, there is the mention of glory, 7:18. The great invitation in 7:37-39 could be understood to encourage a participation in the grace of the Transfiguration in the line of Rom 12:2 and 2 Cor 3:18. The great declaration in John 8:12, "I am the light of the world," is, in itself, a statement of the Transfiguration. This would have been clearer if the evangelist had written flatly, Christ is the light of the world. But he was writing a gospel, not a textbook. Yet in this famous verse he has stated his interpretation of the meaning of the Transfiguration, and, as we have already seen, of its consequences for those who follow Jesus. This is the main connection, if connection there be, between John 7 and 8, and Matt 17:1-9 and parallels, the synoptic narration of the 21

22

23

Jean DANIELOU, Holy Pagans in the Old Testament (London: Longmans/Baltimore: Helicon, 1956; idem, Jean-Baptiste temoin de l'Agneau (Paris: Seuil, 1964); Sebastian BROCK, "The Baptist's Diet in Syriac Sources", Orientalia Christiana Periodica 54 (1970) 113-124. Ernst KÄSEMANN, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968). See the essay by R.E. BROWN referred to in note 13 herein; also C.H. DODD, Historical

Tradition, 65-81.

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

255

Transfiguration. The mention of Moses in John 7:19-23, and the absence of any mention of Elijah do not matter in comparison. Perhaps one can see a hint of Elijah in the discussion of whether or not a prophet can arise from Galilee in 7:40-52. The view that no prophet is to arrive in Galilee (v. 52) seems to imply a forgetting, an amnesia, of Elijah and Elisha on the part of Jesus' opponents, since they were Galilean prophets. (Elijah was from Tishbe in Gilead [modern Jordan] but worked in Galilee.) 5. Another general synoptic phenomenon that seems at first to find no echo in John is the extremely puzzling "messianic secret." (I have never read an explanation of it that makes much sense.) It is well known that this theme is heavily accentuated by Mark, less so by Matthew and Luke. But C.K. Barrett, in an important essay on subordinationist Christology, thinks he has found the Johannine equivalent. 24 Barrett begins with the view that the theme of the messianic secret in Mark is a theological one. He then asserts that this theme has a historical basis in the fact that although both Jesus and his followers thought that he was more than a mere man, nevertheless he allowed himself to be "addressed as Rabbi, either in transliteration (Mark 9:5; [10:51]; 11:21; 14:45) or in translation (4:38; [5:35]; 9:17,38; 10:17,20,35; 12:14,19,32; 13:1; [14:14])." So Jesus allowed himself to be addressed by a term, "teacher", that concealed rather than disclosed the true meaning and character of his mission. It was not false, for he did teach. But the fact included an element of secrecy, of concealment about his work. We see then a "Messiahship veiled behind a cover of artificial Non-Messiahship, or at least of speciously denied Messiahship." "We see ... an undefined authority veiled behind an aversion to the use of all titles." Barrett finds an equivalent of this paradoxical combination of revelation and concealment, of majesty and humility, also present in John. He discerns two series of texts in John. One is highly Christological: The word became flesh, I am the bread of life, I am the light of the world, before Abraham was, I am, or simply "I am," the Father and I are one, and other similar texts. The other series emphasizes Jesus' role as secondary, as mediating the Father. Thus Jesus appears as one who is sent (by the Father). 25 Then he is dependent; he does not speak or act of himself. 26 This series culminates in 14:28 where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." Barrett understands these two series as not 24

25

26

C.K. BARRETT, Essays on John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 19-36 = '"The Father is greater than I" John 14:28: Subordinationist Christology in the New Testament,' in Neues Testament und Kirche, Festschrift für Rudolf Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974). John 4:34; 5:23,24,30,37; 6:38,39,44; 7:16,18,28,33; 8:16,18,26,29; 9:4; 12:44, 45,49; 13:20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5. 5:30; 7:17,28; 8:28,42; 12:49; 14:10.

256

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

mutually contradictory but as harmoniously affirming a Christology, a teaching that Jesus Christ is a divine being, as well as a theology, a teaching of the absolute fatherhood of God, with the former at the service of the second. 27 The point here is that the second, subordinationist series functions somewhat in the same way as the messianic secret does in the Synoptics. It helps to protect the mystery while at the same time helping to prevent its distortion through exaggeration. 6. Our next case makes a small point in a larger whole. It has to do with Jesus' healings on the Sabbath. This subject, well worked over but not, we think, yet exhausted, is important for a number of reasons. Juridically, Jesus' healings on the Sabbath are important in seeing Jesus' role in the gradual process of the Hellenization or humanization of Jewish law, particularly in the reduction of the frequency of the imposition of the death penalty. 28 Historically, it may have contributed to Jesus' execution as a false teacher (Mark 3:6). Christologically, the key verses (Mark 2:27-28) may tell us something about how Jesus understood himself, his mission, his authority. But our concern now is more modest. It is simply to note one or two aspects of John's contribution to the development of the gospel tradition on Jesus' Sabbath healings. The tradition begins with two pericopes in Mark: 2:23-28; 3:1-6. There Jesus furnishes three arguments for his healing on the Sabbath: the precedent of David and his men (1 Sam 21:1-7); a reference to 2 Масс 5:19; 29 and a general argument that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Mark 3:4). Matthew repeats these two pericopes (Matt 12:1-8.9-14) and, within them, adds more halachic arguments to support Jesus' position (12:57): the precedent of the priests who offer sacrifice on the Sabbath (Num 28:9-10); a reference to the prophetic principle that mercy takes precedence even over sacrifice (Hos 6:6), even though sacrifice was at the heart of the Israelite system of worship; and a reference to the debated issue of whether one could lift out a sheep which had fallen into a pit (Matt 12:11). Luke increases the number of those pericopes to four: Luke 6:1-5.6-11 (from Mark); 13:10-17; 14:1-6. Now John enormously increases the theological, i.e., Christological, significance of the material in his Sabbath healing pericopes: 5:1-47; 9:1-41. But he also contributes to the juridical-theological 27

28

C.K. BARRETT, Essays on John, 1-18, first appeared in La Notion Biblique de Dieu, ed. J. Coppens (Gembloux: Duculot, 1976). B.T. VIVIANO, "The Historical Jesus and the Biblical and Pharisaic Sabbath (Mark 2:2328; 3:1-6 parr; Luke 13:10-17; 14:1-6)," included in this volume; Sven-Olav BACK, Jesus of Nazareth and the Sabbath Commandment (Äbo/Turku, Finland: Abo Akademi Press, 1995).

29

Frans NEIRYNCK, "Jesus and the Sabbath: Some Observations on Mk 11,27," in Jesus aux origines de la christologie, ed. Jacques Dupont (Gembloux: Duculot, 1975), 227-270.

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

257

development (law and theology are not tightly separated in classical Jewish sources) of the arguments specifically justifying healing on the Sabbath. In John 7:22-23, he adds the case of allowing circumcision on the Sabbath as an analogue to the arguments listed by Matthew. In 5:17 he goes deeper: "My Father is still working, and I also am working." To the modern reader this may say little. But to someone soaked in Jewish thinking about the Sabbath it says a great deal. On the one hand, Gen 1:1-2:3 closely connects Sabbath observance with the creation of the world. God himself "rested from all the work that he had done in creation" (Gen 2:3). This connection explains the extreme gravity of Sabbath observance. Wittingly to violate the Sabbath was thus thought tantamount to denying the existence and creative power of God. 30 On the other hand, it had not escaped thoughtful Jewish minds, especially minds effected by Greek natural philosophy, that God needs to sustain his creation in being at every instant, or else it would cease to be. God cannot rest from that work of sustaining his world in being. By invoking the fact that the Father is still working (non-stop!), Jesus not only justifies his Sabbath healing activity, but also turns the tables on the argument that to violate the Sabbath is to deny the Creator. In this way, John not only strengthens the synoptic case, but digs down to the roots of the problem. John is not called 'the theologian1 for nothing. 31 7. We come now to the Petrine and anti-Petrine material in Matthew and John. This material is abundant and provides material for a monograph, not part of an article. We can summarize the matter in this way. Matthew inherits from Mark (8:27-30) Peter's important confession of faith and develops it in a famous ecclesiological set of promises (Matt 16:13-20), 32 which makes Peter into a kind of new Aaron, a spokesman for Moses (Exod 4:10-17), and into a judge of final instance when disputes arise in the church. Matthew also retains some anti-Petrine material from Mark (Matt 16:22-23; 26:6930

31

32

Mathatias TSEVAT, "The Basic Meaning of the Biblical Sabbath," ZAW 84 (1972) 447459. SCHNACKENBURG, John, in loco, stresses not so much God's sustaining in being of his creation as his continual moral activity of judging, i.e., rewarding and punishing. In the Letter of Aristeas, no. 210, both ideas are present (Charlesworth, OTP 2.26): "God is continually at work in everything and is omniscient, ... man cannot hide from him an unjust deed or an evil action." Cf. also PHILO, Leg. All. 1.5. For J. BECKER, EV Jn, in loco, the sense is exclusively Christological: because God judges, Jesus judges. Concern for the Sabbath has been left in the dust, on this view. Becker's view seems one-sided to the present writer, who still holds that John had an ontological view of God as lord of his creation, shepherd of created being. B.T. VIVIANO, "Peter as Jesus' Mouth: Matthew 16.13-20 in the Light of Exodus 4.10-17 and Other Models," in The Interpretation of Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition, ed. C.A. Evans (JSP 33; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000), 312-341; included in this volume.

258

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

75), as well as material peculiar to his gospel which shows Peter's impulsive weaknesses, but also shows him in a favorable light (14:28-33). Now for many centuries those in east and west unsympathetic to a Petrine office or ministry in the church have looked to John's gospel for material which diminishes and disperses Peter's synoptic role as spokesman for the apostles. (I must pass over Gal 2:11-14, and Luke 22:31-32.) In the Synoptics Simon Peter and his brother Andrew are the first disciples called by Jesus. In John it is Andrew and an anonymous other who are called first, and then Andrew brings Peter to Jesus (John 1:35-42). This Johannine arrangement has inspired the Greek liturgy to attribute to Andrew the epitheton constans of the first-called. This then led to the legend that Andrew founded the see at Constantinople. 33 When we look at the rest of John's gospel for information on Peter, we can say that on the surface there is much that is favorable to Peter in John and nothing more unfavorable than is found in the Synoptics. (John too retains Peter's threefold denial, but briefly. In general, Luke and John agree to minimize the defects of the disciples.) And in the epilogue in chapter 21:1517 Peter is both given a chance to exonerate himself after his denial, and is given an important pastoral charge. 34 If however we look beneath the surface, we can detect some possible further criticism of Peter. The question is: how far should we go? Should we conclude that the "real" evangelist demonized Peter, regarded him as the real Judas, the real traitor? Or should we be content with something less drastic, move sober, closer to the texts as we actually have them? Let us take a look. In John 6:60-71 Simon Peter is the spokesman of the twelve after many disciples leave Jesus. He makes the beautiful statement of fidelity: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God." This does not sound antiPetrine. On the contrary, it seems the Johannine equivalent of Peter's confession in Mark 8:29 and parallels, a bit developed but not hostile to Peter. Moreover, later on, John allows Martha to make an equally fine confession of faith: "I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world" (11:27). This confession may show John's sensitivity to women disciples. It may relativize the uniqueness of Peter's confession. It may even be a gentle tease of Luke's praise of Mary in Luke 10:38-42. It

33

34

Franz DVORNIK, The Idea of Apostolicity and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), 138-299. On how this material came to be in the epilogue, see R.E. BROWN, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979). For a harsh alternative view, see A.J. DROGE, "The Status of Peter in the Fourth Gospel: John 18:10-11," JBL 109 (1990) 307311; A.H. Maynard, "The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel," NTS 30 (1984) 531-549.

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

259

still does not strike the reader as anti-Petrine. But in his book The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, P.N. Anderson argues that Peter's confession in John "reaffirms Jesus' sole authority. ... Peter is portrayed as figuratively returning 'the keys of the kingdom' to the Johannine Jesus."35 Peter thereby, in v. 68, on this view, himself rejects all claim to a leadership role or authority, and thus rejects Matt 16:17-19. Anderson goes on to oppose what he calls a "Christocracy" to an "institutional model". He does not actually speak here of church or church government, nor of Petrocracy, nor of a hierarchy but these are implied. (He does speak of church and hierarchy later.) He also speaks of a "pneumatically-mediated, Christocratic model" (p. 227). Moreover, Anderson distinguishes in Peter's confession between v. 68, which is praiseworthy, and v. 69, which is reprehensible, because the title there attributed, "Holy One of God", is Davidic, and implies the expectation that Jesus will set up a kingdom of power, with victory and without suffering, inspired by "Holy War" aspirations (p. 230). It also implies a place for human initiative. All this means that Peter "fails the test" (p. 230). It is therefore not surprising that Anderson prefers to translate v. 70 thus: "I have not chosen you, the twelve; and one of you is a devil." (This is a possible translation of the Greek.) The result is that Jesus rejects all twelve and treats Peter as a devil! This is radically anti-Petrine, to say the least. For Anderson, v. 71 is added as a gloss by the compiler or final editor to transform the harshly anti-Petrine, anti-Twelve v. 70 into a remark about Judas Iscariot only: "He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him." Anderson concludes as follows: The primary concern for the evangelist in the writing of the Gospel is not to set forth an orthodox dogma, nor is it to record in literary form the 'historical' account of what Jesus said and did. Rather, it is an ecclesial manifesto which describes the effectual means by which the risen Lord continues to be the shepherd of his flock and the leader of his people, across the boundaries of time and space. It is a matter of Christocracy, and this is what the compiler failed to see here ..., as evidenced by his 'clarification' of v. 70 in vs. 71. 36

Thus for Anderson the accent falls on ecclesiology. John 6 is an "ecclesial manifesto" (later, "a manifesto of radical Christocracy," p. 251). What should we make of this construction? We must sort out its many claims, (a) The manner of reading v. 68b seems unfounded: "You [alone] have words of eternal life." John's frequent use of the ОТ and the later promise of the guidance of the Paraclete (esp. John 16:12-13) implies that the 35

P.N. ANDERSON, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (cf. n. 10), 226. Emphasis in the original.

36

ANDERSON, Christology,

232.

260

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

evangelist accepted that there are words of eternal life elsewhere, but of course, as for all early Christian authors, related to Jesus. The idea that in this verse Peter in effect returns the keys of post-paschal church authority to Jesus seems to us an arbitrary fantasy read into or imposed on the text, (b) That v. 69 contains a political-military title which Jesus rejects is also hard to accept, since elsewhere in the gospel innocent people call Jesus "Christ" and he does not reject this much more explicitly royal, Davidic, title (1:17,20,25,40; 3:28; 4:25,29; 7:26,27,31,41; 9:22, 11:27; 17:3; 20:31). The harsh split Anderson makes between vv. 68 and 69 is abrupt. There is no literary hint that one verse is good, the other bad. (c) When we come to v. 70, however, we must proceed more carefully. The idea that Peter is the devil of v. 70b cannot be rejected out of hand, because it could be based on Mark 8:33 par Matt 16:23, where Jesus refers to Peter as Satan. 37 (This argument based on the Synoptics cannot be directly employed by Anderson himself because he holds to the thesis that John did not know the synoptic gospels directly. This makes his discussion more tangled than would otherwise be necessary. We will return to this point.) On the other hand, this synoptic reference does not in itself guarantee that here in John the devil is Peter. Anderson's argument is rendered less credible by his trying to prove too much. For he also holds that Jesus did not choose the twelve, any of them, not even the beloved disciple. This contradicts John 15:16,19, "You did not choose me but I chose you ... I have chosen you out of the world" (cf. 13:18, "I know whom I have chosen"). These texts help us to understand why translators, while perfectly aware that the Greek of v. 70 could be translated in the indicative, have usually (always?) preferred the interrogative, (d) This brings us to v. 71 which explains the devil of v. 70 as referring to Judas. That this verse could be a late gloss which misunderstood v. 70 or understood it perfectly well and deliberately changed its reference, again cannot be excluded a priori. Glosses happen. The question should rather be: is that the most probable explanation? On the basis of the strongly anti-Judas Iscariot material throughout the gospel, notably 13:21-30 where Satan enters Judas (v. 27), we are inclined to answer in the negative. So v. 71 stems from the evangelist who correctly interpreted his own v. 70. Anderson confuses Peter's denials (real and shameful enough) with Judas' betrayal or "handing over" of Jesus. The denials are a result of weakness and cowardice, the betrayal is an active, grave evil which in this case does serious harm to another. Anderson goes on to contrast Matthew's institutional model of church government, based on power, with John's family model, based on love, a model 37

Pietr Октава has defended a dissertation on this pericope at the university of Fribourg under my direction.

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

261

which is pneumatic and egalitarian. His sympathies are clear. As Peter is given the keys, the beloved disciple is given the mother of Jesus as his trust (p. 238), part of the family model. Anderson does grant that his family model was unstable and had already been abandoned by the author of the Johannine epistles. He also grants that the evangelist is not engaged in direct polemic but rather in an intramural, dialectical, subtle effort at correction of the Matthean Petrine material. When he comes to John 21:15-17, Anderson grudgingly concedes that it portrays Peter "as the disciple of primacy" (p. 238). But he prefers to emphasize that these verses also chide Peter "for a lack of ... sacrificial love," a view not false in itself. But he refuses to take the passage as a late submission to Petrine authority by the surviving remainder of the Johannine community, after it had been rent by one or several schisms. 38 Rather he takes chap. 21 as part of the total normative gospel, not an appendix which abandons the anti-Petrinism of chapters 1-20. This compels him to forced exegesis which underinterprets chap. 21. But this is as nothing in comparison with his presentation of a detailed critique by John of Matt 16:17-19, in his chap. 10. Such a detailed critique could only have been undertaken on the basis of a direct knowledge of Matthew. His chapter 10 completely undermines Anderson's view that John did not directly know or use the Synoptic gospels. Having sifted through Anderson's arguments for extreme anti-Petrinism in John and having found them thought-provoking but unconvincing, we may now return to our own study of anti-Petrine material in John. In John 10:11-13, part of the Good Shepherd discourse, Jesus speaks of the hired hand who flees the wolf and leaves the sheep. No name of the hireling is supplied and so the verses could be and are applied to all unfaithful pastors. Should we see a particular allusion to Peter's denials (18:15-18, 25-27; 13:38) here? A number of suggestions for the concrete identification of the hireling have been made in the history of interpretation: the Jewish opponents of Jesus (John 5:44; 12:43), the Pharisees (7:49; 9:22,34; 12:42); political leaders (11:48); even Caiphas; Judas (12:6); the church fathers often made a pastoral application to bad and faithless pastors. None, so far as I can see, made a specific reference to Peter. The tendency of modern commentators is not to allegorize the details (e.g., the wolf as the devil), but to see the hireling as a foil for the good shepherd, Jesus. 39 The last potentially anti-Petrine passage that we will examine is John 20:110. Alerted by Mary Magdalene, Peter and the beloved disciple (BD) run to the [empty] tomb together. The BD outruns Peter and looks in first, but does not go in (out of courtesy, he waits for the older man, who arrives huffing 38

R.E. BROWN,

39

SCHNACKENBURG a n d BECKER, i n l o c o .

Community.

262

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

and puffing?). Peter enters and observes. Then the BD enters, "and he saw and believed" (v. 8). This is not said of Peter. Should we infer that for the evangelist Peter did not believe in the risen Christ? After this, Peter is not mentioned by name in the chapter. Narratively, the reader assumes that he figures among the disciples who receive a visit from the risen Jesus and who are commissioned, given the Holy Spirit, and empowered to forgive and to retain sins, and who later tell Thomas about all of this. There is nothing hostile to Peter in this, unless it be that he is not singled out as he is in Matthew (cp. Matt 18:18 with Matt 16:17-19). But that is not the same as saying he does not believe in the risen Christ. Although some commentators see no anti-Petrine implications in v. 8, others see an allusion to a certain rivalry between Peter and the BD, that is, between the later communities that trace their origins to them. 40 To be sure, Peter too is a true Easter witness (20:19-25). But the BD is superior to Peter not only in arriving first at the tomb but also in believing first, since Peter remains at that moment at the level of v. 9: "As yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." (To be sure, the plural in this verse presents an obstacle to this reading.) The Johannine community feels sure that, in the BD, it possesses its own guarantor who stands especially close to Jesus. There is no blame leveled at Peter, but the BD is set in a more favorable light, and Peter's traditional authority or precedence is a bit diminished. This is so, even though v. 8 plays no further role in the Easter story. 41 Bulgakov's view that here Peter is shown to be gravely and permanently defective in faith is however not adequately supported by the text of chap. 20 as a whole. 42 Having now surveyed several chapters of the gospel (1, 6, 10 and 20) for anti-Petrine, and thus potentially anti-Matthean, material, it is time to draw the threads together. We have found a real diminishment of Peter's primary role in chapters 1 and 20, a diminishment but not a total denial of it. There is no demonization of Peter. It is not probable that 6:60-71 or 10:11-13 contain anti-Petrine polemic. We accept Brown's hypothesis that 21:15-17 represents a gentle submission by the faithful remnant of the Johannine community to apostolic authority, at a late stage of the tradition (early second century). 8. In his going beyond the law of talion, the Matthean Jesus teaches: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also" (Matt 5:39b; Luke 6:29 Q). In John 18:22-23, in the passion narrative, we read: '... one of the 40

For SCHNACKENBURG there is no rivalry here. For Becker, 722-723, there is some.

41

BECKER, 7 2 2 - 7 2 3 .

42

Pain and Zernov, Bulgakov Anthology (see note 10 herein).

JOHN'S U S E OF MATTHEW

263

police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, "Is that how you answer the high priest?" Jesus answered, "If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?'" This firm answer can hardly be described as turning the other cheek. If John does not know the gospel according to Matthew at all or at least not the teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, no tension arises. But, on the hypothesis that he did know this, a tension can be noticed. The tension has been noticed at least since Augustine. 43 (A bit later John does pick up the silence motif briefly (19:9), but then Jesus enters into dialogue with Pilate (19:10-11).) For John Jesus remains here the revealer who bears witness to himself, and sets his opponents in the wrong. Jesus speaks out of the awareness that he is sent into the world to bear witness to the truth (18:37). Thus John's theological intentions here are primary. 44 Yet a subsidiary intention to correct Matthew's teaching as impractical or undignified cannot be excluded. 9. It has been noticed that both Matthew and John have ten formal Old Testament quotations. 45 Whether this is a pure coincidence or an intentional effort by John to match and best his junior colleague and rival is not certain. For G.N. Stanton, ... the differences are more striking than the similarities. The introductory formulae in John are much more varied. Whereas only one of Matthew's formula quotations is found in his passion narratives (27.9, the burial of Judas), the first does not occur in John until 12.38. Only half the Johannine quotations are comments of the evangelist. Rothfuchs (1969 p. 176) has correctly noted that whereas the Johannine citations set the 'world's' hostile reaction to Jesus and his work in the light of prophecy, the Matthean quotations portray the person Jesus and the nature of his sending.

On this view, the fact that each evangelist has ten fulfillment quotations is a simple coincidence. Yet Matthew and John have one of these ten in common. Both of them share Zech 9:9 at the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Matt 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15). In his redaction John makes several improvements over Matthew: Jesus himself finds the donkey, and rides on it, not on both the foal and the colt, as Matthew could lead one to think. The 43 44 45

AUGUSTINE, In Joannem, tract. 113.4 (CC 639). SCHNACKENBURG, John (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 3, in loco, on John 18:23. G.N. STANTON, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1992), 363; Wolfgang ROTHFUCHS, Die Erßllungszitate des MatthäusEvangeliums (ВWANT 88; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969), 176. One could add DODD'S treatment in his Historical Tradition, 41n, 47, 58n, 155; M.J.J. MENKEN, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen, NL: Kok-Pharos, 1996).

264

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

suspicion that John knew Matthew here remains. But the use of the Old Testament by Matthew and John is a larger issue than we can treat in an article. 10. For many decades one spoke of Matt 11:27 par Luke 10:22 as a bolt from the Johannine blue or as a Johannine meteorite that had fallen into the synoptic pond. This view reversed the chronological order. Matt 11:25-30 is a cross-roads of biblical traditions. The marginal references in NestleAland's 27th edition of the Greek New Testament to the Old Testament at this point by no means exhaust the matter. Since at least the beginning of the 20th century, these verses, and esp. v. 27, have played an ever more important role in the study of the development of New Testament Christology. 46 Harnack saw in them the start of the road to Nicea. 47 All this is more than well known, though the authenticity of v. 27 is still regularly challenged. 48 Less commonly realized is the background of part of this verse in Dan 7: Π Ι 4, perhaps the most important two verses of the Old Testament for understanding the mind of both the historical Jesus and the synoptic gospel tradition. (Nestle-Aland 27 gives no reference to Dan 7:14 here, but it does give one to Matt 28:18, an important internal parallel, and there one finds the reference to Daniel.) And behind Dan 7:13-14 there lies, one has gradually come to realize, since the discovery of the royal library at Ugarit (Ras Shamra, Syria) in the late twenties and their decipherment since the early thirties of the last century, a basic Canaanite myth. The scene takes place in heaven, not on earth, both in Daniel and in Ugarit. The vigorous storm god Baal, the model for Daniel's "one like a son of man," has just triumphed over the evil God Mot (death) or Yamm (sea). He is presented to the aged and ineffectual (deus otiosus) high god El (in Daniel, the Ancient of Days). Royal power and authority is then transferred to him. It is a heavenly scene of royal succession to the throne. (For a Christian version see 1 Cor 15:2428, where the mythology is cleaned up and the crown rights of God the Father are maintained intact.) In Matt 11:27 and in 28:18 Jesus claims to have had the divine kingdom transferred to him. This is the Christological signifi46

47

48

See the works by O. CULLMANN, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1959); R.H. FULLER, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1965); J.D.G. DUNN, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); R.H. FULLER and Pheme Perkins, Who Is This Christ? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); Walter KASPER, Jesus the Christ (NewYork: Paulist, 1976), esp. 104-111. Adolf HARNACK, The Sayings of Jesus (London: Williams and Norgate, 1908), 272-310, esp. 300; I have attempted analyses in Study as Worship (SJLA 26; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 183-192 and in my commentary on Matthew, NJBC, in loco; cf. also B.T. VIVIANO, "The Historical Jesus in the Doubly Attested Sayings," RB 103 (1996) 367-410, esp. 402-405. Paul HOFFMANN, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh n.f. 8; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 102-142, esp. 118. He is followed by others, while others disagree. For further references, see RB 103 (1996) 403, n. 58.

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

265

cance of these verses, and the sense of Jesus' unique filial consciousness. Awareness of the Danielic and Canaanite background helps to understand the strong theological implications of all of this. If now we return to the start of the preceding paragraph, we see that so far from being a bolt from the Johannine sky, Matt 11:27 is a/the germ from which all later Christology, including and especially the Johannine, develops. The editions list John 10:14-15 and 17:25 as especially close parallels to Matt 11:27. But that only scratches the surface. W.R.G. Loader sees the "central structure" of Johannine Christology in 3:31-36. 49 He summarizes this structure in five points: (1) the reference to Jesus and God as Son and Father; (2) the Son comes from and returns to the Father; (3) the Father has sent the Son; (4) the Father has given all things into the Son's hands; (5) the Son says and does what the Father has told him; he makes the Father known. Loader then finds these five elements in eighteen other chapters of the fourth gospel. (Loader's effort to relate the central structure to what he calls a Son of Man cluster is less persuasive, but that is not to our purpose.) The five points clarify and unfold what is present in Matt 11:27. Thus we can conclude that the core of Johannine Christology grows out of this verse present in Q, Matthew and Luke. There is obviously no criticism by John of Matthew here. If there were one, it might be stated thus: why did you not develop the implications of your filial Christology yourself? Matthew's answer might run: a Christology cut off from its apocalyptic roots, which include a lively hope for the future full establishment of God's kingdom on earth, a kingdom whose ethical content includes (social) justice, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Matt 6:33; Rom 14:17) — such a Christology runs the risk of becoming an end in itself, something esoteric or at least private and individual (John 14:23), ethically and socio-politically impoverished. Within the New Testament canon and the liturgical lectionary the dialectical debate can continue across the centuries. In this case, it is clear that John takes from Matthew (Q) and develops the tradition. 11. One of Matthew's greatest and most influential passages is the great scene of the last judgment, 25:31-46. A striking element of this scene is that it is the Son of Man who does the judging (v. 31), and not God the Father as is the case in many parallel texts. Here Jesus is portrayed not only as meek and mild, the friend of sinners (he is that too as identified with the needy), but as perfectly just, in a system of binary oppositions. One could read Matt 7:21-23 as giving Jesus the subsidiary role of counsel for the defense in the 49

W.R.G. LOADER, "The Central Structure of Johannine Christology," NTS 30 (1984) 188216, esp. 191-192 and 196; the same author's The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2nd ed. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992; orig. 1989).

266

JOHN'S U S E OF

MATTHEW

court of his heavenly father. 50 If so, Jesus no longer enjoys that role in 25:31-46. He has become the judge himself. (This severe role of Christ is expressed in the apsidal mosaics at Daphne near Athens and at Cefalu. It caused frightened consciences to turn from Christ to Mary as advocate.) John was probably not happy about this bold Matthean development. And so he writes: "God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:17-18). Thus the judgment occurs without anyone being responsible except the one condemned. But another shuffle occurs in 5:22 which brings us back to Matthew: "The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son." What should we make of this? These are not the only Johannine statements on judgment. To discuss them all would take us too far afield. Let us content ourselves with two remarks. (1) As can be seen in John 3:16, the predominant accent in John is on salvation, on God's will to save as many as possible. Yet the tragic note, that some prefer the darkness to the light, is not excluded (e.g., 1:10-11; 14:17). (2) John, with his interest in high Christology based on the Danielic Son of Man, could not let himself be outdone by Matthew in this matter. So the Son has power to judge (5:17). But he uses it mainly to give life (5:16). The two verses (5:16 and 17) should not be separated or played off against one another. 12. Our last case has been reserved for this position because it illustrates so well the positive side of the Matthew-John relationship. It is a sort of happy ending that goes beyond Johannine Matthew-tweaking. We begin with a short Q-saying: "A disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully qualified will be like his teacher" (Luke 6:40). This verse, fine as it is, was quickly felt to be inadequately formulated, since it implies an eventual equality between disciple and teacher. This might do for the rabbis, and also for the Gnostics, but it would plainly not do for Christians who accepted the permanent lordship of Jesus Christ. As for the Gnostics, in the Gospel of Thomas 13, Jesus says to Thomas, "I am not your master, because you drank and became drunken from the bubbling spring which I have measured out." The sense of this is that, in the Gnostic soteriology, once the Revealer has

50

H.D.

Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1 9 8 5 ) , chap. 7 , J.J. COLLINS, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1 9 9 3 ) , 2 7 4 - 3 2 4 , esp. 2 8 6 - 2 9 4 , on the Canaanite-Ugaritic background, and the excursus, 3 0 4 - 3 1 0 . On Matt 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 , a recent essay is by Ulrich Luz, "The Final Judgment (Matt 2 5 : 3 1 - 4 6 ) : An Exercise in "History of Influence" Exegesis", in Treasures New and Old, ed. D.R. Bauer and M.A. Powell (Atlanta: Scholars, 1 9 9 6 ) , 2 7 1 - 3 1 0 . BETZ,

125-157;

JOHN'S USE OF MATTHEW

267

ignited the divine spark in the believer's heart, the believer becomes himself divine and has no further need of the Revealer. This renders superfluous the permanent lordship of Jesus Christ. Matthew therefore quickly corrected the dangerous formulation: "A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above his master (kyrios, lord). It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the slave like his master (kyrios, lord)" (Matt 10:24-25a). By his two additions and the suppression of Luke 6:40b, Matthew has made the teaching fit with the Christian conviction of the permanent lordship of Christ. 51 (Matthew later reinforces this teaching with his peculiar view that Christians have only one teacher, the Christ (Matt 23:8-10). 52 This does not however prevent the presence in the Matthean community of prophets, sages, and scribes who serve as its educated leaders (Matt 23:34; 13:52; 10:40-41).) Now we come to John. He takes up this matter twice. In 13:13 and 16 he first picks up the Matthean addition: "You call me Teacher and Lord — and you are right for that is what I am ... a servant is not greater than his master (kyriou), nor is a messenger (apostolos) greater than the one who sent him." He has dropped any mention of the disciple — the start of the chain of this tradition in Luke (Q?), retained the Christological accent, as one would expect him to do, and, surprisingly, introduced the word apostle, its only appearance in his gospel. (Translators and commentators try to minimize its significance in John. I am not so sure that this is right, but it is not our present concern.) Later John goes further than his predecessors. "You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything (!?) that I have heard from my Father" (John 15:14-15). First, we note with regret that these verses could be twisted back into a Gnostic sense if one were so minded, and if one ignored the context. The following verses make clear that Jesus is still lord. But, next, and far more important, by dropping the slave language, inherited from Matthew, and replacing it with friend language, John has made an important contribution to Christian ecclesiology. Too much slave language could have negative side effects: it could keep believers in a state of immaturity, and it lends itself to abuse by leaders of cults and sects. By moving to the language of friendship, John has helped to develop a more adult form of Christianity, without in any way abandoning the lordship of Christ. This is even more important for Christians who live in democratic, semi-egalitarian societies than it was for the evangelist and his readers. With regard to our theme, we can see that here John neither polemicizes against Matthew nor teases him. He rather thoughtfully takes up 51 52

VlVIANO, Study as Worship, 1 6 7 - 1 7 1 . Viviano, "Social World and Community Leadership," (see note 3 herein).

268

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

the Matthean tradition and develops and improves it further, in such a way that, so I would like to think, Matthew would have heartily approved. This is the most positive way that John used Matthew.

Conclusion The intention of these wide-ranging observations has been to explore (they are no more than explorations, probes) John's hypothetical but probable use of Matthew. We have seen the full gamut, from flat contradiction (Elijah and John the Baptist), to restrained criticism and diminishment (the primacy of Peter), to subtle nuance and refinement (the light of the world), up to and including acceptance and development (disciples as slaves and friends). There is conflict and polemic within the canon of the New Testament, as F.C. Baur taught. But it is mostly like the conflicts in a good marriage. The partners know how far to go and when to stop. 53 A marriage is not only conflict, and neither is the canon. There is also some harmony and mutual support. This is a study in what is nowadays, thanks to Julia Kristeva, called intertextuality. 54 That is, one looks for John's relation to his predecessors, the Synoptics, and the Hebrew Scriptures. One can also read this study as an illustration of the early reception history of Matthew: how did a community with its own independent traditions, reflections, ecclesiology, eschatology, its own preferences, react to Matthew, from their viewpoint a dangerously popular gospel? 55 We have seen that their reaction was one of critical discrimination and sifting, but not of total rejection. For this, by the time of chapter 21, it was too late. This study can also be seen as a contribution to early Christian canonical criticism. Though this point has not yet been explicitly developed, hints have been provided that Matthew is the gospel for hearty extroverts, not above stepping on a few toes, whereas John is the gospel for sensitive introverts, in that sense too a contemplative gospel. The ultimate choice in church structure, it has been suggested, 56 in the quest for post-apostolic authority and decision making, was and remains between pneumatical, unstructured John 53

54

55

56

Emst KÄSEMANN, "The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church," in his Essays on New Testament Themes (SBT 41; London: SCM, 1964), 95-107; Hans KÜNG, The Council in Action (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963), 159-195. See C.M. TUCKETT, ed. The Scriptures in the Gospels (Leuven: University Press/Peeters, 1997), 4, where TUCKETT traces the term to Julia KRISTEVA, Semiotike (Paris, 1969); La revolution du langagepoetique (Paris, 1974); Roland Barthes, S/Z. Essais (Paris, 1970). Etienne MASSAUX, L'influence de VEvangile de saint Matthieu sur la litterature chre'tienne avant saint Irenee (Louvain: University Press, 1950); English translation: The Influence of the Gospel of Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, ed. A.J. Bellinzoni (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1993). R.E. BROWN, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist, 1984).

JOHN'S U S E OF M A T T H E W

269

and legally organized Matthew, whose firm structure is tempered by appeals to the leaders to be humble (Matt 18 and 23), a form of self-policing, the best kind of policing when it works. John 21:15-17 represents an admission that the Johannine way does not provide enough safeguards and definition to prevent major schisms, and an ultimate submission to the Matthean model. This submission, or capitulation, with due precautions (the stress on love in 21:15-17), means that the gospel of John is usually read in the churches in a Matthean ecclesial frame and in a Lucan liturgical frame (the main liturgical calendar is heavily determined by Luke). 57 John continues to provide powerful guidance for theo-logy, Christology, pneumatology, for sacraments and spirituality (14:23), but is normally felt to be ethically poorer. At first the gospels may seem impractical and unreal, but with time one sees that, when sanely understood and read canonically, so that they mutually qualify one another, their wisdom and respective truth shine forth. As a corrective to romantic idealist interpretations of the gospels, which are impossible to live in the long run, it is also important to read the gospels in the context of Old Testament and rabbinic Judaism, with their Mediterranean earthiness, ethical sobriety, their interest in the rule of law, their love of life, the whole infused by a kind of biblical Stoicism, minus the pantheism. However that may be, we hope to have given the reader a sample of the many-sided dynamics of John's use of Matthew.

57

Klaus SCHOLTISSEK, "Kinder Gottes und Freunde Jesu: Beobachtungen zur johanneischen Ekklesiologie", in Ekklesiologie des Neuen Testaments (FS Karl Kertelge), eds. Rainer Kampling u. Thomas Söding (Freiburg i.Br.: Herder 1996), 184-211, corrects Brown a bit. He argues that John ch. 21 is not simply a capitulation of the Johannine Christians to the overwhelming hierarchy of offices of the Great Church (the Johannine "we" betrays an "official" self understanding), but a reminder that official preaching must be bound to personal familiarity and love of the unique exegete of God (1:18; 13:23), Jesus Christ (p. 211).

19

Matthew's Place in the New Testament Canon and in the Lectionary of the Church Year

Ever since the early Christian churches decided to use four different versions of the Jesus story in their public worship and theology, this surprising decision has been the subject of debate, discussion, reflection and criticism. There is only one source of Islam, that of the Koran. Other early versions of the Koran were destroyed. The pagan critic Celsus, in his attack on Christianity 1 , noticed the discrepancies between one gospel and another, and used them as an argument against Christian credibility. The church decision in favor of the four gospel canon or list was arrived at gradually and at first informally. First the four had to be written and to be in general circulation. The writing was accomplished by about A.D. 110, the circulation by about A.D. 150. Then rival gospels, later called apocryphal, had to be eliminated. Then the experiment of a fusion or harmony of the four, e.g., in Tatian's Diatessaron, had to be tried and after some time rejected. The decision in favor of the four was arrived at in practice by A.D. 200, 2 then more formally, 3 then, as part of a complete Bible book listing, by the Council of Trent (1546), for the Roman Catholic Church. 4 Other church bodies have had more informal but real decisions about the biblical canon, but all have retained the four gospels. Positive reflection on the four gospel canon may be said to begin with Saint Irenaeus of Lyon (ca. 130-ca. 200), a martyr bishop, in his sprawling work, Adversus Haereses.5 He regards it as a positive blessing, comparable to the 1

2

3

4 5

Celsus' attack is preserved in part in ORIGEN'S Contra Celsum, translated by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: University Press, 1953; corrected ed. 1965). On this, see Hans VON CAMPENHAUSEN, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972; orig. 1968) St Athanasius1 Paschal Letter of A.D. 367 (letter 39, PG 26: 1435-1438, Enchiridion Biblicum, 3rd ed. (Rome: Arnodo, 1956), no. 15) gives a list of the twenty-seven books that we find in our New Testaments, but with the catholic epistles before Paul and the Apocalypse. Trent, decree on canonical scriptures, 8 April 1546, Enchiridion Biblicum, no. 59. IRENAEUS; Adversus Haereses, translated by John Keble, repr. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I (Peabody MA: Henrickson, 1999), esp. book 3, chap. 11, paragr. 8. Further reflections on the plurality of the gospels as a theological problem in antiquity may be found in Oscar CULLMANN, The Early Church (London: SCM, 1956); Lucien CERFAUX, The Four Gospels (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966); Martin HENGEL, The Four Gospels and the One

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

271

four seasons and to four apocalyptic figures, that God chose to reveal himself in this way. The four gospels are seen as complementary, even in their (minor) contradictions and theological tensions. It is relatively easy to view things in this way so long as one does not go too far into detail or so long as one has an easy-going spirit. The early heretic Marcion found three of the four gospels theologically unacceptable and thought that one had to choose one only; he opted for Luke, but even Luke had to be "cleaned up". The pagan philosopher Porphyry (ca. 232-303) attacked Christianity more systematically and effectively than had Celsus. In answer to Porphyry's challenge, Saint Augustine tried to harmonize the four in detail in his work De consensu evangelistarum. This is not Augustine's most successful or convincing work. It leads him to obfuscation and forcing of the evidence. But at least he faced the problem as a whole. Here are two examples of apparent contradiction and easy harmonization. Matthew places Jesus' great sermon on a mount, Luke on a plain. One could imagine a mountain which had a small level place (a plain) on it. In Mark and Matthew and Luke, Jesus is crucified alone, flanked by two thieves, abandoned by his disciples, the holy women stand at a distance. In John he speaks to his mother and the beloved disciple from the cross. One could imagine that the Synoptics describe the first hour on the cross, John the third. Today these differences tend to be explained as deliberate choices by the inspired redactors. 6 In practice the solutions were simpler. Once Matthew, Luke and John were in circulation, Mark was largely forgotten. Rarely read in church, he was almost never commented on, except in cases where an author or a group decided to comment on all four gospels. 7 This practice began rather late: Bede the Venerable, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, the Catena Graeca, the Glossa Ordinar ia, the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas, the Postilla of Nicolas of Lyra. Since Matthew took over all of Mark's pericopes (even Mark 4:26-29 is, I believe, radically rewritten in Matt 13:24-30,36-43), but not every verse. Luke and John took over much but not all of Mark. Together the three later evangelists can be viewed, along with the Longer Ending (Mark 16:9-20), as the earliest commentaries on Mark. Mark was only copied out of respect for

6

7

Gospel of Jesus Christ (Harrisburg PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), esp. 34-38; G.N. STANTON, "The Fourfold Gospel", NTS 43 (1997) 317-346; David TROBISCH, The First Edition of the New Testament (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000). For the example from the Passion Narrative, see the manner of handling it by R.E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1996). See Т.С. ODEN and C.A. HALL, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. II, Mark (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1998); Michael CAHILL, "The Identification of the First Marcan Commentary", RB 101 (1994) 258-268; idem, edidit Expositio Evangelii secundum Marcum (CC SL 89; Turnhout: Brepols, 1997); S.P. KEALY, Mark's Gospel: A History of its Interpretation (New York: Paulist, 1982).

272

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

things that are old. Even on this point, Augustine sowed confusion by deciding that Mark was late, only an abridger and foot-follower of Matthew (abbreviator et pedisequus Matthaei). This view lowered Mark's value even further. This low view was further supported by the widespread, pre-critical conviction that because the evangelists Matthew and John were also apostles, their works had the additional historical value of being eye-witness accounts. (We were taught at Harvard that explicit claims to be an eyewitness were signs of lateness in an ancient work. Even if this counterintuitive, provocatively academic, view is not absolutely valid, it retains a useful shock value.) Actually none of the four gospels claims to be the work of an eyewitness, although John 21:24 could be read to make that claim indirectly (cf. Luke 1:1-4). So Mark was largely forgotten (until the mid-nineteenth century). Luke was mined for his Christmas stories, poems and Marian contributions (Luke 1 and 2), and for his beloved parables, especially the Good Samaritan (10:25-37), the Prodigal Son (15:11-32), and the Publican and the Pharisee (18:9-14). The church mainly used Matthew and John. That already simplified the problem of the four by reducing them in practice to two. How was their labor divided? Matthew was used to provide the basic narrative framework (John could be inserted into this in the form of supplements to Matthew). Matthew also served, through his five great discourses, especially the Sermon on the Mount, as the main source of Christian detailed ethics and life style. He was soon the most frequently quoted of the evangelists. 8 Because he was so frequently read to the people in the liturgy, he could be said to have provided the "ordinary temper" of Christianity. On the other hand, John was used for high theology in the great Trinitarian, Christological and pneumatological controversies of the patristic era,9 but also in the pastoral instruction of the people in preparation for the sacraments. 10 John could also help nourish mystical or spiritual life and devotion (John 14:23) as they developed. So the church's life and thought oscillated between Matthew and John. Although full-scale commentaries or homiletic series were relatively rare occurrences, they still give us some idea of where the church stood in regard to the four gospels. Her early genius Origen commented on Matthew and John, and we also have some homilies from him on Luke. Again, Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew Etienne MASSAUX, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, vols I-III (Macon GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 1990); W.D. KÖHLER, Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus (WUNT 11.24; Tübingen:

Mohr, 1987). 9

10

Т.Е. POLLARD, Johannine Christology and the Early Church (SNTS MS 13; Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1970). E.C. HOSKYNS, The Fourth Gospel (London: Faber, 1940), 363-365.

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

273

and John are preserved. Augustine concentrated on John (at length!), a fateful choice, as we will see. Jerome had already done Matthew for the West (hastily; it took him two weeks, because he used Origen as his basis; but it had a lasting effect). Ambrose did Luke for the West, as Cyril of Alexandria did Luke for the East. In the Middle Ages, Thomas commented on both Matthew and John (besides the Catena Aurea on all four), but his John is a more carefully worked out achievement. Bonaventure covered Luke. Albert the Great exceptionally and outstandingly commented on all four. Before we get to the Renaissance and Reformation we need to say a word about the use of Paul. Before the end of the first century the letters of Paul were circulating in a collection which eventually reached fourteen letters, the corpus paulinum, including Hebrews, even though its Pauline authorship was at first (and rightly) doubted at Rome. This meant that what from the viewpoint of modern critical scholarship was only half written by the historical Paul was accepted as a unified whole. To be sure, all were from the Pauline "school", but the changes in viewpoint over time within the collection could be considerable, especially on the matter of church office and structure. It is important not to exaggerate. Paul worked harder than most to establish churches, 11 and he was thus not "anti-church". He never dreamed of a church without leaders (cf. 1 Thess 5:12, his earliest letter), but he preferred to think in terms of spiritual gifts or charisms (cf. 1 Cor 12:28). He did not know the tidy threefold ministry of later decades (deacon, presbyter/priest, bishop), hints of which are found in the Pastorals, and are made much of in 1 Clement and Ignatius of Antioch. His most frequent formula is that his converts are "in Christ" or "with Christ". This is then developed by him into the formula of the church as the body of Christ. All of this means that Paul had a strong doctrine of Christian community. His was not an individualistic teaching. 12 But he does not develop the cosmic ecclesiology found in Ephesians. As for the law, in Galatians and Romans Paul appears as a libertine, whereas in 1 and 2 Corinthians he appears as a severe pastor, a legalist. 13 All four letters are authentic proto-Paul. The differences can be explained by the different pastoral problems Paul is addressing. In Galatians and Romans he is defending his missionary strategy for Gentiles, which was to reduce the legal obligations to twelve: the ten commandments plus the two to love God and neigh11

12

I Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 11:5,23; J.T. BURTCHAELL, From Synagogue to Church (Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1992). Jerome MURPHY-O'CONNOR, Paul: A Critical Life (Oxford: Univ. Press, 1996); idem, "Eucharist and Community in First Corinthians", Worship 50 (1976) 370-385; 51 (1977) 56-69.

13

J.W. DRANE, Paul Libertine or Legalist? A Study in the Major Pauline Epistles (London: SPCK, 1975).

274

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

bor (Rom 13:8-10). 601 of the 613 Torah commandments (as counted by the later Talmudists) do not apply to the Gentiles. This strategy earned him the title apostle of freedom, and represented a real change, and an opposition to those Jewish-Christians who remained faithful to all of Torah in principle (Matt 5:17-20). Yet Paul was not a teacher of immorality. His moral exhortations refute that quickly enough. And his conviction that believers will be judged by their works (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10; 2:6-11) seems like a terse statement of what Matthew will develop narratively in 25:31-46. Still, Paul preferred a morality of virtues and spiritual gifts and perhaps even of mystical exaltation to one of laws, commandments, and legal obligations. His disciples tried to organize his somewhat inconsistent thought into concentric circles. (One can read 1 Tim 1:8-11 in this way.) But he did retain the ethical commandments, and, in the case of love, to an eminent degree. 14 Paul too was a Jewish Christians but of a special sort. His letters, except for the Pastorals, were written to be read to churches. The fact that they were preserved and collected and circulated means that they were judged to be useful. They continued to be read during the liturgy, eventually finding a fixed place in the lectionaries, just before the gospel reading. But what purposes did Paul serve? Besides the moral exhortations (e.g., 1 Cor 13) and the lofty vision of the church, Paul served the church by his interpretation of the sacraments (e.g., Rom 6; 1 Cor 11), by his teaching of the kerygma and eschatology (e.g., 1 Cor 15), by his use of allegory in the service of freedom (Gal 4), by his example of missionary zeal, by his sober approach to the Holy Spirit (Rom 8), by his rich and varied doctrine of sin. But precisely here, in his moral anthropology, he gave a handle to gnostics who denied human free will and hence human moral responsibility. These heretics thereby made Paul a patron of immorality. This problem was the main focus of early patristic exegesis (later snubbed as "naive semi-Pelagianism" by some), e.g., Origen. 15 It was left for St Augustine to rediscover Paul's liberating message of salvation by the grace of Christ for the North African Christians of his day, against the Pelagians. This work of Augustine marks Western theology till today. 16 But it did not always reach the people. Even when it did, they did not always grasp it. Experience has shown that it is not easy to make proto-Paul alone an allsufficient basis for the church. That is why Harnack said: "Paulinism has proved to be a ferment in the history of dogma, a basis it has never been." 17 14

15

16 17

On the matter of Pauline inconsistency, see the article by Peter Richardson, "Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 and Galatians 2:11-14", NTS 26 (1980) 347-362. Maurice WILES, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St Paul's Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge: University Press, 1967). Henri RONDET, The Grace of Christ (New York: Newman, 1969). Adolf VON HARNACK, History of Dogma, vol. I (New York: Dover, 1961; orig. German 1885; 3rd German ed. 1894), 136.

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

275

For our present purposes, it is enough to have shown that Paul has always played a major role in the canon and lectionary, although different accents have been given to his many-sided message, over the course of Christian history. Alongside the gospels, he is the major factor within the canon. We now turn to our chronological review of the reception of the four gospels. Erasmus commented rapidly on all four in his Paraphrases, emphasizing what he called the "philosophy of Christ", the ethical teaching which made for peace. Luther significantly wrote no commentary on a gospel (he dismissed Matthew as for unspiritual beginners in his Tabletalk), but he did preach on them and preferred John. Luther concentrates on Paul, especially Galatians, and on the Old Testament. Calvin commented on a Gospel Harmony for the Synoptics, and on John separately. These choices reveal Calvin's more sober, objective approach to the Bible, and his interest in spirituality. In this latter sense he was followed by the French Catholic school of spirituality, whose founder, Pierre Cardinal Berulle, taught his disciples (and they were many) to concentrate on Mary (this means Luke 1 and 2, Acts 1:14), on John, and on St Augustine (who himself only commented on John among the gospels). At this point the problem begins to emerge clearly. If you have John, do you really need the others? Does he not suffice alone? Are not the others too Jewish, too legal, too primitive in their apocalyptic eschatology? Is not John the right gospel for modern, emancipated Gentile Christians, with a philosophical culture of a Hellenistic, Platonic or even neoPlatonic tint? Did not John write after all to supplant, not to supplement, the others? 18 With German idealism this one-sided Johannism now becomes increasingly the tendency. Schleiermacher builds his Life of Jesus on John. Hegel's philosophy is heavily influenced by John's doctrines of the incarnation of the Logos into history (John 1:14) and of the Spirit present in and guiding history (John 16:12-13). 19 With Ferdinand Christian Baur's (Hegelian?) reconstruction of early Christian history a dialectical model of understanding the canon and its internal conflicts and tensions comes to full flower. The thesis is Jewish-Christianity, law observant but breaking with Pharisaic halacha. This position is represented within the canon by Matthew and James as well as to some extent by Second Peter, and, outside the canon, by the PseudoClementine literature (very important for Baur). The antithesis is Pauline

18

19

On this see Hans WINDISCH, "Die Absolutheit des Johannesevangeliums", ZST 5 (1927) 3-54; idem, Johannes und die Synoptiker (UNT 12; Leipzig: Hinrich, 1926); D.M. SMITH, John among the Synoptics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). B.T. VIVIANO, "The Spirit in John's Gospel: A Hegelian Perspective", in his TrinityKingdom-Church (NTOA 48; Freiburg Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 2001), 114-134, orig. publ. in FZPT 43 (1996) 369-387.

276

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

Gentile Christianity, freed from the ceremonial laws of the Torah which served as ethnic markers to preserve Jewish identity. The initial synthesis of these two opposed views was provided by Luke-Acts, which made Paul a hero, yet denied him the title apostle (with two exceptions 14:4,14), and portrayed him as law-observant (Acts 21:17-26; 16:1-3). Acts tries to regulate the law observance of the Gentile converts through the six Noachide commandments as summarized in the synod of Jerusalem (Acts 15:28-29).20 The Lucan synthesis blurs the sharp contours of the revolution. So, for Baur, John's gospel represents a higher, bolder, more perfect synthesis. In his work all the perduring streams of the New Testament message come together in classic formal expression, while everything time-bound and antiquated ("Jewish") is quietly left behind. 21 This Johannine supremacy was undermined by authors who called into question its historical veracity. 22 The crisis became acute, when the historical value of the other leading gospel was attacked by the young radical genius David Friedrich Strauss, in his Life of Jesus (1835-6). 23 Strauss detected "myths" (that is, symbolic narratives) in both John and Matthew. In the frantic efforts to find sure historical footing in the quest for the historical Jesus, authors began to rediscover Mark's theological "primitivity" as a historical advantage. By 1860 Mark had become the historical gospel of choice, and a flood of commentaries on his text ensued which has not ceased to this day. But Mark was thin in teaching material. Scholars began to notice a body of around 200 verses of sayings material scattered in Matthew and Luke, material that showed good signs of going back to the Baptist and to Jesus himself. The scholars then formulated the celebrated hypothesis of a sayings-source, the Logien-Quelle in German, or "Q" for short. Harnack brought Q to the fore as even earlier than Mark and as a link between Jesus (Matt 11:25-27; Luke 10:21-22) and John and Nicaea. 24 With the isolation of these two early sources (the "two source" hypothesis), the quest for the historical Jesus was put on a solid footing. Scholars could still quarrel over whether to prefer Mark (with his concentration on the suffering and death of Jesus, more congenial to classical, kerygma-oriented Lutherans) or Q, more congenial to ethics-oriented Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants like Harnack who summarized the gospel into what became the acronym BOMFOG (the broth20

21

See Markus BOCKMUEHL, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches (Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 2000). See W.G. KÜMMEL, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 126-143.

22

23 24

This begins with K.G. BRETSCHNEIDER'S Probabilia (1820); see W.G. KÜMMEL, The New Testament: A History, esp. 85-86. D.F. STRAUSS, The Life of Jesus (repr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972). Adolf VON HARNACK, The Sayings of Jesus (London: Williams & Norgate, 1908), 300.

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

277

erhood of man under the fatherhood of God). So matters stood until after the Second World War. In the mid-fifties a new phase in gospel studies began, called redaction criticism. At that time, works appeared by Marxsen on Mark, Trilling on Matthew, and Conzelmann on Luke. 25 They were soon followed by a flood of others.26 The goal of these detailed studies was, by a careful study of the sometimes slight, sometimes major, differences between the evangelists as visible in the gospel synopses, to see the evangelists as theologians in their own right, and not merely as compilers of sources. Each evangelist was seen to have his own set of interests, his favorite themes, his characteristic vocabulary and formularies, his poles of excellence, as well as his blind spots and weaknesses. Above all, the method was designed to teach the reader to respect the unique particular viewpoint of each evangelist, in detail. Lists of characteristic traits could be drawn up using this method. Redactional Traits of the Synoptic Gospels I. Mark 1. Written for a mixed audience, composed of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. 2. Vivid details in narrative. 3. No long discourses: emphasis on narration. 4. Messianic secret stressed (Wrede); "a book of secret epiphanies". (Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, pp. 230, 297). 5. Awkward sentences, inelegant Greek. 6. Reflects Palestinian background rather accurately but unselfconsciously. 7. Theologically rough, e.g., Jesus gets emotional, people say insulting things to him, the disciples often appear slow-witted. 8. The passion narrative occupies a disproportionate amount of space, but is the Marcan masterpiece. 9. Disciples do not understand. 25

26

Willi MARXSEN, Mark the Evangelist (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969; orig. 1956); Wolfgang TRILLING, Das Wahre Israel (SANT 10; Munich: Kösel, 1964; orig. 1959); Hans CONZELMANN, The Theology of St. Luke (New York: Harper; 1960; orig. 1953). On Matt alone, e.g., Krister STENDAHL, The School of St Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968; orig. 1954); G. BORNKAMM et al., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963; orig. 1960); W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: University Press, 1964); Georg STRECKER, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 197); Rolf WALKER, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1967); J.P. MEIER, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976); Reinhart HUMMEL, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (Munich: Kaiser, 1963); Hubert FRANKEMOLLE, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974); D.P. SENIOR, The Passion Narrative according to Matthew (Leuven: Peeters, 1975); B.T. VIVIANO, Study as Worship (Leiden: Brill, 1978); Daniel MARGUERAT, Le Jugement dans Vevangile de Matthieu (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981).

278

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE N E W TESTAMENT

II. Matthew

III. Luke

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Jewish-Christian Church order Didactic, catechetic Jesus Scripture-fulfillment, prophets

1. 2. 3. 4 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Teaching of Jesus Legal-ethical, justice interests Interested in rabbinic issues Calls God "our heavenly father" often Anti-Pharisaic Glosses Interest in angels Strives for fullness Kingdom of God: justice Understanding is a decisive characteristic of the disciples

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19.

Gentile Christian Salvation history Dramatic story-teller Holy Spirit Historicizing (cf. 2:1; 3:1; Acts 1:314; 2:1-13 Deeds (esp. healings) of Jesus Humane, even sentimental Interested in women Calls Jesus Lord Criticism of riches ("the poor") Reproduces Q faithfully Jerusalem Prayer The central theme is salvation Hospitality, festivity (e.g., ch. 14) Christian life is conceived as a way, a journey, a pilgrimage (cf. 9:5119:28; Acts 9-28) 2 7 An artist, beauty Mercy (the Good Thief, the Prodigal Son) Joy

Redactional Characteristics of John 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 27

Preexistence of Son as Logos (1:1-5) Jesus as only begotten God / Son (1:18) Christological concentration (e.g., 17:3) Spirit as Spirit of Jesus, as guide through history (16:12-13) Miracles as signs, semeia = O.T. theology of miracles Moral values reduced to: faith and love (hoping only 5:45, weak) Accent on present, realized eschatology, de-emphasis of future eschatology, but not denial of it (4:23; 5:25) Rather egalitarian community structure, but knows the Twelve (6:13,67,70) apostle (13:16) and Peter's ministry (21:15-17) The Beloved Disciple as the model disciple Love as love of brethren, not of enemies Religious value of poverty is absent Emphasis on Jerusalem ministry, in contrast to Galilean emphasis of Matthew and Mark Points 11 and 12 point to an urbane, upper class Christianity Sensitivity to religiously sincere, searching pagans (7:35; 12:20) Missionary orientation, trying to convert unbelief to belief (20:30-31)

Cf. J.H. ROPES, The Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1934), for an alternative statement of these lists.

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

16. 17. 18. 19.

279

20.

Jesus' ministry is often related to Jewish liturgical feasts and heroes of the past Sacramental accent on necessity of baptism and Eucharistie communion (3:7; 6:53) An accent on the union of the individual believer with the triune God (14:23) Development of minor characters, e.g., John the Baptist, Thomas, Philip, Magdalene, Judas Terrible simplifier: reduces to the essential, to one = easy links with philosophy.

21.

Powerful use of Mosaic typology to present Jesus as the prophet like Moses of Deut

22.

18:18. 2 8 Martyria, witnessing, becomes the primary mode of revelation, and takes place through the O.T. (5:39), through John the Baptist (1:7,15,32,34; 3:26; 5:33), through Jesus (e.g., 5:31-47), and through the Holy Spirit (15:26-27).

The accent was placed on the differences, not on the harmonies, of the gospels, in the redaction-critical method. Such a method could have remained merely an academic fad, a way for a generation or two of doctoral students to earn their diploma. But it did not turn out that way. Due to the liturgical reforms inaugurated by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), a new Sunday lectionary was published in 1969/1970. It provided extensive extracts from all three Synoptic Gospels in a three-year cycle of readings: Year A, Matthew; Year B, Mark; Year C, Luke. It was an unexpected triumph of the redaction-critical perspective within the RomanCatholic Church. Scholars can usually only dream of such an impact. And the impact was not limited to one church alone. In the first flush of post-conciliar ecumenical euphoria, the major Protestant denominations in America (and soon elsewhere) adopted similar three-year lectionary cycles, which tried to stick closely to the Roman Catholic choices, particularly in the matter of gospel readings (our principal concern in this essay). Enterprising Christian publishers promoted books on Matthew during year A, the year of Matthew, and so on for the other years. Teams of biblical scholars prepared homiletic commentaries on the lectionary readings. Teams of seminary professors were flown in to remote rural areas to help to prepare the local clergy of different denominations together to use the lectionary for a particular liturgical season like Advent-Christmas or Lent-Easter. Meanwhile, what of John in the new lectionary? The designers of the threeyear Sunday lectionary cycle had considered a four-year cycle which would have included a year (D) for John. But they decided on another solution. John would be used especially at certain highpoints of the liturgical year, like Christmas and Easter. But also, because Mark is so short, John would be used to fill a gap (July-August, six weeks) in Year B. To do this, John 6 was drawn upon. It includes the Bread of Life discourse. John 6 is the longest chapter in 28

M.-E. BoiSMARD, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (Leuven: Peeter, 1993).

280

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W T E S T A M E N T

John; it contains his gospel in a nutshell; it has had an enormous influence, particularly on attitudes toward the Eucharist. So the choice was not a bad one, even though in practice it poses difficulties for the clergy to preach on one chapter six weeks in a row. One church resisted the stampede toward a three-year cycle. That was the Church of England. Note that I did not say, the Anglican Communion. The Alternative Service Book of 1980 only applied to the Anglican Church in England (and some overseas dependent dioceses). It took the radical step of favoring John more than the other three. In the patristic-medieval lectionary that had been common (before the council) to Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans (more or less), there were 53 Sunday gospel readings. They were distributed thus: Matthew 19 or 20 (36%) Luke 16 (31%) John 15 (29%) Mark 2 (4%) In the 1980 Alternative Service Book of the Church of England there was a two-year cycle (not three year like the 1970 R.C. lectionary) with the following distribution: John 42 (38%) Luke 30 (27%) Matthew 27 (24%) Mark 12 (11%) Here Luke and Mark retain their positions in second and fourth place respectively, while John takes over at the top of the table and Matthew falls to third.29 One can speculate that it was a band of Anglican Modernists, members of what was once called The Modern Churchmen's Union, who led the campaign to favor John, perhaps because of his perceived doctrinal and ethical vagueness or wooliness. However that may be, this experiment did not last. The regular clergy found so much John hard to handle. In 1996, the General Synod of the Church of England decided to adopt the Revised Common Lectionary for use on Sundays and principal feasts and festivals. So they have joined the club of the three-year cycle with the Synoptic three as the groundwork and John as the gospel for high points. 30 But this solution still requires further reflection, to be clear about some of the problems it raises and its further implications positive and negative. Before we proceed with this particularly in regard to Matthew, we would do well to 29 30

John FENTON, More about Mark (London: SPCK, 2001), 46, 79-88. FENTON, More about Mark, 79-88, also for postmodern hostility to Matthew. Fenton and Frank KERMODE, The Genesis of Secrecy (Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1979) are enthusiastic for Mark as the friend of postmodernists. .

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

281

recall an earlier discussion of the New Testament as a theological problem. I refer to the Käsemann-Küng debate of the late fifties. Ernst Käsemann, professor of New Testament in the Protestant faculty at Tübingen, published a provocative essay to counter the ecumenical euphoria of the time. This euphoric view held that if Christians could all humbly return to the Bible, they could find the unity they sought. Against this, Käsemann claimed (a) that all the major divisions of Christendom are based on parts of the Scriptures so that a return to the Bible would solve nothing; (b) to maintain a firm Evangelical Lutheran position that the center of the NT message is the justification of the impious (who remains impious), one must find a canon within the canon, what Luther called was Christi treibet (what promotes Christ). All the rest of the canon should be rejected. 31 One can catch a glimpse of this approach in German Luther Bibeln to this day. Four books of the New Testament are set apart at the back as theologically unworthy; Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation are found at the end. At least this has the virtue of clarity. Against Käsemann, Hans Küng, then professor of fundamental theology at the Catholic Faculty of theology at the same University of Tübingen, wrote a brilliant essay in reply. 32 In brief, his thesis was that the NT canon contained a real variety and diversity of voices and approaches to the Christian faith. The canon was the product of the early church's experience over several centuries. It is an early triumph of ecumenical generosity, openness, broadmindedness, tolerance (within limits), and good sense. Instead of lamenting its tensions, we should rejoice in them. They are a blessing from God. The limits of tolerance of diversity within the canon of the NT should provide the limits of tolerance of diversity within the church today, or at least they should provide a helpful analogy for us today. However attractive this solution may be, it does not solve all problems. The Käsemann-Küng-debate led to many other essays and dissertations. 33 Most particularly though, it does not settle the question as to where the accent should fall in our use of NT. Where is the center of the message? For even if we do not accept Käsemann's view of the canon within the canon, we must come to recognize that every church has one, whether consciously or unconsciously. For example, the Roman Catholic church tends to venerate the four gospels as more normative and important than the epistles or the Old Testament. In the past this was expressed nonverbally, by gestures and ceremonies: one stands for the gospel reading

31 32 33

Ernst KÄSEMANN, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM, 1964), 95-107. Hans KÜNG, The Council in Action (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963), 159-195. For example, the essays collected in Ernst KÄSEMANN, ed. Das Neue Testament als Kanon (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1970); also, P.V. DIAS, Vielfalt der Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1967); Nicolas APPEL, "The New Testament Canon, TS 32 (1971) 627-646.

282

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

whereas one sits for the others; the reading of the gospel is sometimes accompanied by lighted candles and incense, is reserved to a deacon or priest; at the end of the reading the gospel book is kissed; the gospel reading comes at the end of the series, as a climax. At Vatican II, this nonverbal approach became verbal: "Among all the Scriptures, even those of the New Testament, the Gospels have a special pre-eminence, and rightly so, for they are the principal witness of the life and teaching of the incarnate Word, our Savior." 3 4 In practice, many ministers of other denominations usually preach on the gospel reading, because its narrative form makes it more accessible, even if the concluding message of the sermon is derived from Galatians 2 and 3. If we look at some representative twentieth century Theologies of the New Testament, we can get an idea of how scholars have tried to organize the diversity within the canon. For Bultmann, the heart of the matter is Paul and John. 35 The rest, especially the Synoptic Gospels, are of little importance. Bultmann's most faithful disciple, Hans Conzelmann, in his attempt to carry on the work of the master, gave the lion's share to Paul, but added short treatments of the theology of each of the three Synoptic evangelists. 36 Werner Georg Kümmel achieves greater balance (in principle) by arranging his material into three major sections, corresponding to the three "major witnesses": Jesus (= first three gospels), Paul, and John. 37 Under somewhat different titles, this is the same arrangement that we find in the Theologie du Nouveau Testament by two Catholic authors, Antonin Lemonnyer and Lucien Cerfaux. 38 This brings us to the most recent serious attempt to wrestle with the problem of the New Testament canon and of Matthew's place in it, Martin Hengel's fascinating The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels,39 The subtitle could give one the impression that this book is about the gospels only. But that would be a false impression. The real intention of the author is found in the title, once one knows how to unpack it. The "one gospel" refers to the summary of the early Christian preaching or kerygma such as it is found in 1 Cor 15:1-11 or the early sermons in Acts or in the later creeds of the church e.g., the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene. But this summary of salvation through faith in the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was in34 35 36

37

38 39

Documents of Vatican II, Dei Verbum, no. 18. Rudolf BULTMANN, Theology of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1951). Hans CONZELMANN, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1969). W.G. KÜMMEL, The Theology of the New Testament According to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus, Paul, John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973). (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1963). (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, Press International 2000.)

M A T T H E W S P L A C E IN THE N E W

TESTAMENT

283

terpreted by Paul (especially in Galatians and Romans) to mean salvation through faith, without the (ritual) works of the Law. Luther radicalized this approach by saying that one is saved by faith alone (something Paul himself never said, even though it still stands in the German Luther Bible, at Rom 3:28). All this must be understood to lie behind the "one gospel" of Hengel's title. Hengel, a Bavarian Lutheran, does not hit us over the head with all this. Rather, he presupposes the priority and primacy of Paul, and indeed that side of Paul. Hengel is still under the spell of the three Lutheran sola's (sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia), although in more measured tones than the Bultmannians he makes a point of often criticizing. His point is a different one. (This is not the place to summarize the book as a whole or to review it. As usual, Hengel is learned and thought-provoking. His book has contributed substantially to forcing me to do my own thinking about the matter.) Hengel has several relevant theses. The first is that "the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, apostolic letters... and the Apocalypse in Irenaeus and then in the book cupboards of important communities emanated from Rome during this period and gradually established itself as the predominant order, perhaps with the support of the communities of Western Asia Minor." 40 This means first that Hengel recognizes that kerygma alone was not enough to sustain the early Christian communities. They needed narratives as well (the four gospels and Acts). This is the point of the title of Hengel's fifth chapter: "The Gospel as Kerygma and Narrative". Though simple, this is an important concession for a Lutheran author. It implies that Paul is a useful ferment, but insufficient basis for the life of the church (the point already made by Harnack quoted above). One-sided theology (we may think anachronistically of the particula exclusiva (the three sola's)) is more "fruitful" but in the long run inadequate. 41 The church needs the multiplicity of the canon. Moreover, Hengel claims to be pleased with the four gospel canon as it is: "The church really could not have made a better choice". 42 (He returns however to the "by faith alone" formula in his conclusion.) 43 Hengel thinks the canon order of our New Testament emanated from Rome, with support from Asia Minor. This view, which may well be true but is impossible to prove, is both a historical hypothesis, and, I suspect, a theological statement. Rome here stands both for the ancient city church and for the modern Roman Catholic church. (He describes the ancient city church as "broad-minded", 44 that is, sufficiently confused to allow a canon which contained contradic-

40 41 42 43 44

HENGEL, Four HENGEL, Four HENGEL, Four HENGEL, Four HENGEL, Four

Gospels, Gospels, Gospels, Gospels, Gospels,

139. 138, 167. 140. 165. 138.

284

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

tions.) Asia Minor here stands both for a lively region of early Christianity but also for creative North German Protestantism (Prussia and Saxony and parts of Franconia). Such geographical gamesmanship stands in the tradition of Wellhausen who identified the northern kingdom of Israel with Prussia and the southern kingdom of Juda with Austria-Rome. Such codes do no harm so long as one understands the game. Hengel's views on the relationships between the gospels are sound and standard except on two points where I suspect he will not find many followers. His first peculiar view is that Luke, while depending upon Mark, comes ten years earlier than Matthew. Matthew depends upon Luke. 45 Hengel's second peculiar view is that, while he accepts that there was a collection of Jesus' sayings in circulation (the Logien-Quelle or Q source) on which both Luke and Matthew drew, he does not think that such a source can be "reconstructed". He is rightly diffident about his first deviation, asking only that it be given some consideration. His second point here calls for more nuance. First, it is not unconnected with the first point. For if Matthew can draw upon Luke, the probability of a pre-Lucan sayings source is undermined. Since Luke contains the Q material, Matthew could have simply copied it from Luke. If this is so, one of our best chances of reaching back to historical Jesus material is lost. 46 Hengel does not want to go so far. He is protesting against the overly precise reconstruction or "high definition" of Q as represented by the International Q Project. 47 Here Hengel is not alone. The test question is to ask whether Q is a "gospel" (complete in itself, with its own non-kerygmatic theology and its own community) or whether it is simply an early unofficial collection of Jesus and Baptist materials that was never understood as complete in itself but always presupposed an oral narrative accompaniment which almost certainly included the paschal kerygma. Hengel understandably protests against the first of these approaches (Q as a complete "gospel"), but his hostility leads him, I fear, to fail to see that an abuse does not take away a reasonable use, and that the historical value of Q for life-of-Jesus research should not be lightly undermined. What is most fascinating in Hengel's recent work is his attitude toward Matthew. He knows that James and Matthew do not fit into his view,48 though he

45

46

47

48

HENGEL, Four Gospels, 186-207 B.T. VIVIANO, "The Historical Jesus in the Doubly Attested Sayings: An Experiment", in his Trinity-Kingdom-Church (see note 19), 21-63; orig. publ. in RB 103 (1996) 367-410. See J.M. ROBINSON, Paul HOFFMANN, J.S. KLOPPENBORG, eds., The Critical Edition ofQ (Leuven: Peeters, 2000); J.S. KLOPPENBORG Verbin, Excavating Q (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 398-408, explains why some call Q a Gospel, however doubtful the arguments are. HENGEL, Four Gospels, 165.

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN THE N E W

TESTAMENT

285

does not like to admit this for Matthew and struggles against it, in vain. 49 As the great menace to Lutheran soteriology, Matthew draws Hengel as a candle draws a moth. Hengel refuses a frontal attack on Matthew. Rather, he keeps expressing his astonishment at Matthew's "success". 50 One has the distinct impression that Hengel is jealous of Matthew's wide reception in early Christianity, even in churches of Pauline foundation. Hengel is correct to point out the South Syrian-North Palestinian provenance of this Greek gospel, and further the obscurity of the anonymous evangelist. He rightly sees the Christian scribe of Matt 13:52 as referring to this evangelist (among other Christian scribes), but that link does not answer all our questions. On the other hand, obscure origins do not in themselves render this gospel illegitimate or valueless. 51 The same holds true for the gospel according to John. At the end of the day Hengel sees the canon this way: "The theology of the New Testament writings rest primarily on 'three pillars', two late and one early: first of all on Paul, whose letters were written around 50 and 60, and at the end, between 90 and 100, on Matthew and John. Between them as mediators stand the great "narrators" Mark and Luke." 52 By arranging his three pillars in this way, the priority and primacy of Paul ("first of all") is assured. The rest is story and commentary. The Lutheran fortress is safe and secure. If however one starts with the historical Jesus, whose teaching is preserved by Q which is then incorporated into Matthew and Luke, then Paul is not first, but secondary to Jesus and his ethical teaching and his rather more Jewish soteriology. Hengel's flank is turned, his fortress under siege. This argument with Hengel has set the stage for our own views of the matter. Much has already been said at the beginning of this paper about how the four gospels continue to function in the life of the Christian church. Mark is treasured for his historical priority and for his vivid narrative. He lacks some theological refinements yet is more and more respected as a theologian in his own right and with his own powerful insights. More generally, he is created with creating a new literary genre, the gospel. To be sure, this genre is not without precedents in the Old Testament, e.g., the Elijah-Elisha cycle, or the book of Jeremiah; these could be considered as prophetic biographies. Other precedents would be Hellenistic short biographies which treat their subjects sympathetically and without much psychological development. One thinks of

49

HENGEL, Four Gospels, 165, 303, n. 658; also C. LANDMESSER, Jüngerberufimg und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der matthäischen Soteriologie im Anschluss an Mt 9,9-13 (WUNT 133; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); my review of Landmesser is in TS 63 (2002) 385-386.

50

HENGEL, Four

51

B.T. VIVIANO, "Where Was the Gospel According to Matthew Written?", CBQ 41 (1979)

52

HENGEL, Four Gospels, 165

Gospels,

5 3 3 - 5 4 6 ; idem, NJBC,

6 8 - 7 8 , 9 8 - 9 9 , 130, 133, 165, 177.

630-634.

286

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

Plutarch's Lives (from a slightly later period). These precedents do not diminish Mark's originality as a "giver of form", that creative achievement so highly prized among architects and poets (e.g., T.S.Eliot). In this respect, we may also invoke a musical analogy. In the history of music, Claudio Monteverdi has an honored place because he created a new musical form, the opera. This is so even though he is not a household name and despite the impression he gives to many modern listeners that his music is rather simple and undeveloped. Our ears have been spoiled perhaps by more elaborate composers like Bach. Nonetheless, Monteverdi's place of honor is secure. Luke is traditionally held to be the artist among the evangelists. He writes the best Greek, has the fullest portrait of the mother of Jesus, and is sensitive to other women as well. He is loved for his great parables. He softens the harshness of Mark's passion narrative, and this is not only an act of cowardly sentimentality. Luke's benevolence ("the good thief") corresponds to historical reality in this sense, that reactions to Jesus were both negative and positive. Some people did have sympathy for his sufferings and did come to believe in and follow him. Between the worst case and the best scenarios there exists also the high probability scenario. 53 Luke's gospel's penultimate episode, the recognition (anagnoresis) of the risen Christ by two disciples on the road to Emmaus is in many ways the evangelist's masterpiece. Here we see fully displayed his sense of beauty and drama, liturgy (word and sacrament), his interest in a Christological rereading of the Septuagint, his combination of an appeal to mind and heart alike. One could see it as the perfect gospel for modern people. Luke is understandably then the ideal basis for theologies which emphasize the beauty of the Christian message, e.g., F.D. Schleiermacher's (even though he stressed John) and Hans Urs von Balthasars. He could be compared to the composer Mozart. We come now to Matthew and John, which I am inclined to call our two "mature" gospels, musically comparable to Bach and Beethoven respectively. Catholic Christianity cannot live without both of them. Luther in his Table Talk felt that Matthew was only for beginners. Hengel shares the same inclination but puts it differently: "John ... composed a Gospel which ... in its ... 'by faith alone' and the radical view of the attainment of salvation solely from grace and the doctrine of predestination based on it, was closely associated with Paul. ... John and ... Matthew, who is not insignificantly different in his theology (!), are the dominant theological thinkers of early Christianity at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second". This does not quite do justice to the Johannine insistence on the need for sacrificial love within the community or to his accent on the unity of the church (his chap. 17 is

53

R.E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah (see note 6).

MATTHEW'S PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

287

only the tip of the iceberg in this respect), 54 but it shows a significant modern option. We can agree that Matthew and John are the "dominant" forces among the evangelists, then and now. The final question is: what should be the ideal relationship between Matthew and John in the life of the church? Should they reign (under Christ) as a dual monarchy, in a dynamic tension? Does the church become thereby at times a two-headed monster, or worse still, rent by schism and division? The historical record shows that this does happen, against the intentions of the evangelists who did all they could to provide concrete means to unity. Here one must at least lay one's cards on the table. To begin with, the church today in the lectionary reads the two pillar gospels on Sundays roughly so: Matthew in ordinary time, John during the high liturgical seasons, the Christmas and Easter cycles. There is a certain division of labor. From Matthew the church takes primarily her ordinary temper: detailed ethics, discipleship, a clear apocalyptic eschatology (the kingdom of God on earth as in heaven as the eschatological, divinely realized fulfillment of the search for social justice and peace), and both a conciliar (synodical, collegial) and a Petrine model of ministry, leadership and decision-making. (Even within Matthew there are dynamic tensions.) From John the church takes much of her high theology (Trinitology, Christology, Pneumatology), a developed reflection on the necessity and grandeur of the main sacraments, her spirituality of divine indwelling (4:14; 14:23), as well as some elements of ecclesiology: an informal family model for smaller groups, the organic unity of the community with Christ (the vine and the branches, chap. 15), a strong emphasis on the unity of the church (chap. 17, prepared for by 10:30; 10:16; 11:52; and followed by 19:23-24, the seamless tunic of Christ, and the untorn net of 21:11), and even, in the epilogue, a soft version of the Petrine ministry (21:15-17). To arrive at a non-Petrine ecclesiology one must discount the epilogue as inauthentic. Since this is often done, we would be obliged to conclude that John, chaps. 1-20, is ecclesially deficient from a Catholic point of view. For example, in his work on post-apostolic authority in the church, 55 R.E. Brown, great Johannine scholar though he be, when he comes to the final choice between Matthew and John, he blinks and chooses Matthew. His ecumenical experience led him to think that John alone would not provide a sufficiently solid basis for church order. He is doubtless correct in this view, if one is forced to choose between the two pillar gospels.

54

55

B.T. VIVIANO, "Unity and Symphonic Diversity in the Church: the Dialectic between John 17:20-23 (Matthew 16:17-19) and Matthew 18:18-20", included in this volume. Other Johannine texts which show an interest in the unity of believers are: John 10:16,30; 11:52; 15:1-17; 19:23-24; 21:11; 1 John l:3bis, 6,7. R.E. B R O W N , The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (New York: Paulist, 1984).

288

M A T T H E W ' S P L A C E IN T H E N E W

TESTAMENT

Another problem with John for those who seek detailed moral guidance is what one could call his ethical poverty. Unlike the synoptic evangelists, he does not speak of the love of neighbor (plesion). John has the reputation of being "the apostle of love". Yet 'it is striking that the extent of the love commandment indicated in the Johannine formulations is so narrow: love for the "brethren" (hoi adelphoi), love for "one another", sacrificing one's life for "the brethren'". 56 Despite appearances, love in John is limited to the community. There is no mention of the love of enemies, a grave omission. There is no question of an instruction like the Sermon on the Mount. Love (of the community) is all you need for John. This ethical vagueness has its tactical advantages. The believer's hands are not tied for the future, for example, by an opposition to divorce. Yet many believers find that love alone is not a sufficient guide or a safe one. They need Matthew. But even if one retains them both in the canon, there remains the danger that Matthew and the other synoptic gospels will be read in the overwhelming light of John. Like ancient icons they will be covered with a thick layer of Johannine varnish. I would like to make a plea for an unvarnished reception of Matthew in the church. Let Matthew and the other evangelists speak with their own voice, without Johannine censorship. To some extent, this cannot be done except as a historical exercise. For example, if we took Matt 5:17-20 literally, we would have to observe all 613 Mosaic precepts and that is not a realistic option. To that extent, the Pauline-Johannine revolution is indispensable. Yet to denounce forcefully the great crimes of humanity, e.g., genocides, we need the strong, detailed, eschatologically enforced ethics contained in Matthew. And that is not to mention his help in avoiding anarchic or sectarian ecclesiologies. Please then, no varnish. Or just a touch. This issue of which book or books should dominate or prevail within our personal or community reception of the New Testament canon can also be discussed in terms of a "master narrative." Many literary critics deny that there can or should be a "master narrative", in the sense of a "totalizing metanarrative" (Jean-Francois Lyotard). The language itself reeks of privilege and oppression of the weak. Yet in practice such a mental domination is almost inevitable. Individually we are free to follow our tastes, temperaments or needs in our canonical emphases. If we belong to an interpretative community which itself makes use of a canonically rather inclusive lectionary, the problem is in some measure already solved. What remains is the considerable challenge of listening carefully to each voice in the lectionary, to catch its distinctive accent, and to try to find meaning in the pericope for ourselves today. 56

Birger GERHARDSSON, The Ethos of the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 93-116, esp. 101-102.

MATTHEWS PLACE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

289

As individuals we may look to Matthew if we need clear ethical guidance, orderly yet supple lines of church structure, hope for the future of this earth; to John for an invitation to participation in the life of Christ through symbol, sacrament and loving communion; to Paul for a sense of personal freedom and vibrant community in the body of Christ, with each individual's charism called forth and cherished; to Luke-Acts for a sense of beauty in narrative, for sensitivity to women and to the needy, for models of world-wide mission; to Revelation for courage and support in time of trial, for a vision of the goal where there will be no more tears. Thus the canon of the New Testament may be viewed with the help of many metaphors that all express a positive variety in unity. It is a quiver with arrow tips for different targets; a toolkit; a medicine chest; a box of Swiss chocolates; a flower garden. But some of the flowers have nettles and thorns. The art of the wise use of the manifold riches of the biblical canon consists in applying the most appropriate text to the particular situation.

Index of passages I. Old Testament Genesis

1 1-3

1-11 1:26 1:28 1:28-31 2:4 4-50 5:1 18:19 22:1-19 Exodus 3:1-4:17 3:14 4:10-17 4:31 7:14-24 13:21-22 14-15 14:19-20,24 14:30-31 16 16:10 19:6 19:9 20:8-11 20:13-14 23:20-23 24:15 24:17 31:12-17 32 33:7-11 33:11 34:21

124 31,257 43 114 75,114 114 42 31 43 85,87 136,137

147 100, 170 146-170 230 147 48 232 48 229-232 62 48 158 48 102 241 48,81 48 48 109,113, 115, 121,123 150 48 87 105,111

35:2 35:3 35:4-39:32 37:3 40:34-38

115,121,123 105 106 193 47,48

Leviticus 9:4,22-24 14:33-57 17:8-15 19:15 19:18 21:16-23 22:17-25 24:5-9

153 125 175 241 122,143, 241 222f 223 117

Numbers 6:1-24 9:15-23 10:1-10 12:1-9 12:3 12:3,6-8 12:6-8 12:9-16 13:16 13:33 15:30-31 15:32-36

19:1-22 19:18 20:22-29 21:14 23:22 24:8 24:17 24:18 27:12-23 28:9-10 33

177 45-50 76 101 91 95-101 87,100 147,150 149 100 103 102,103, 109, 115,121,123, 124, 126 224 236 149f 76 169 169 45,46 75 149 106, 117,256 142

292 33:38-39 Deuteronomy 1-3 4:34 5:4 5:12-15 5:17-18 5:6-22 6:5 13:13-19 17:2-7 18:15-18 19:15 20:1-20 21:18-21 23:26 29:14-15 29:29 31:1-8 31:9-13 33:5 34 34:6 34:10-12

INDEX

149

150 87 87 102 241 99 122 125 103 87 214 76,104 103,125 111 196 100 149 134 207 8 88 85,87,88,98

Joshua 1:5 3:7 4:14 6:27 10:12

149 149 149 149 87

Ruth 2:12

136

1 Sam 2:5-8 15:22 19:4,5,30 21:2-10

91 117 222 112,256

2 Sam 7:20 12:1-25 14:19

87 175 222

1 Kings 8:10-11 8:12 13:4-6 21

48 137 114 180

1 Chr 1-9

30

Ezra 4:1-3

208

Neh 8 9:12,19

134 48

1 Масс 2:29-38 2:41

104 104

2 Масс 15:1-5 15:19

104 256

Job 3:19 5:11 12:14 33:30 38:10

88 91 162 251 162

Psalms 1:1 2:12 8:5-9 9:14 12:6

65 65 114 162 169

INDEX 17:8 19:8 22:9 32:1-2 34:15 36:7 40:7 41:1 51:19 55:6 56:13 57:1 65:4

80

136 236 50 65 142 136 117 65 117 136 251 136 65 207 197 65

82:6 84:5 90:4 91:4 94:12 106:3 110:1 112:1 113:7-8 133 137 143:11

136 65 65 98 65 91 207 207 74

Proverbs 3:13-24 8:32 15:8

67 65 117

Qohelet 4:8 4:12

117 169

Song of Songs 2:9

67

81

Wisdom of Solomon 2:13,18-20 50 10:17 49

293 16:13 18:1,14-15 18:3 19:18 Sirach Prol 14:20-27 15:11-20 24:22 24:23 25:7-9 44:23-45:1-15 48:4 48:10

162 50 49f 215

9 8 , 1 1 7 , 169 64,67 238

66 235 65 87 87 252

Isaiah 1:12 1:13 4:5-6 6:7-8 7:14 8:8,10 11:12-13 22:15-25 27:6 28:14-22 32:20 38:8 38:10 42:6 51:4 55:10-11 56:1-2 58:13-14

150, 1 6 2 , 2 1 3 208 162 65 87 162 250 250 124 65 104,122

Jeremiah 1:5 1:9 3:18 18:18 22:24-30

87 150 208 98,117,169 31

201 106 49 150 249 249

208

294 23:3 23:5-6 31:1 31:34

INDEX 201 208 208 91

Lam

2

2:12 3:5-8 7:7-13

201,208 124 208

Nahum

208

Ezekiel

11:16 17:24 31 34:16 34:23 37:24 38-39 40-48 46:4

Micah

3:10

74

Zechariah

134 91 89 201 200, 208 200, 208 76 70 106,117

4-5 9:9 10:3-12 11:7-17 12:8

61 263 208 208 85,91

Malachi

3:1 3:23-24

81 81,251

Daniel

2 3:26 4:14 7 7:13-14 10-12 10:13,20 12:1

81 64 81-94, 253 81 79, 264 76 78 78

Hosea

2:2 3:5 6:6 11:1

208 208 117,122,256 169

Amos

3:2 9:11-15

87 208

Obadiah

21

75,208

II. New Testament Matthew

1-2 1:1-17 1:6-7 1:17 1:23 2:1-12 2:9 2:13,15,19 2:16-18 2:20 3:7-12 4:5 4:17 4:24 5-7 5:3-12 5:14-6 5:14

24-44 81 157 24 5 46,250 45-50 23 25 151 86 160 53 23 5,51-63 64-68,74 250 245

295

INDEX 5:17-20 5:19 5:20 5:23-24 5:28 5:33-37 5:48 6:29 6:33 7:11 7:13-14 7:24-25 7:26 7:28 9:4 9:9-13 9:13 9:20 10 10:5 10:8 10:18 10:19-20 10:37 10:38-39 10:40-42 11:6 11:8 11:11 11:14 11:20-24 11:25-30 11:27 12:1-14 12:26 12:28 12:34 12:41-42 13 13:11 13:15

4,67, 237,240, 274,288 7, 154 14 160 62, 67 67 143 157 74 67 67 170 11 250 67 5 117 14 5 14 154 156f 151 186 212 8 253 157f 81-94, 253 251 97 95-101,251 122,264 102-133 74f 53 67 117,157 5 100 67

13:52 14:1-9 14:30-31 15:1-20 15:2 15:18-19 15:22 15:24 16:13-20 16:17 16:17-20 16:21-23 16:24-28 17:1-8 17:5 17:10-13 17:25 18 18:1 18:1,18 18:6-14 18:15-20 18:18 18:20 18:23 19:1 19:10-12 19:16-30 19:28 20:25-28 21:12-17 21:23 21:25-28 22:1-14 22:12-17 22:15-22 22:27 22:34-40 22:43 23-25

267,285 157 150,173 35 14 67 11 14 146-170,173f, 186, 193-219 7 8, 14 174 212 153,254 137 252 156f, 212 5 82 8 212 161,180,193-219 158,169 5 156f 212 35 143,150 74 82 160 14 82 156 160 156 157 5 98 5

296 23:8-10 23:23 23:31 23:34 23:37 25:1-30 25:31-46 25:35-36 26:56,69-75 27:24-25 27:51-53 27:51,60 27:54 28:18-20 28:19 28:20

INDEX

267 4,140,243 74 8, 169 136 67 7,265,274 8 150, 174 10 10 170,231 229-232 4,29, 151,264 10 5, 8, 214, 249

Mark

1:1-15 1:16-45 2:23-28 3:1-6 3:21 4:11 4:26-29 6:3 7:1-23 8:27-30 8:32-33 8:38 9:7 9:11-13 9:33-37 9:34 10:35-45 10:42-45 11:11-13:3 12:13 12:26 12:28-34 12:36

108 108 102-133,239, 256 102-133, 151, 239,256 151 100 271 28 35 146-170 174,188 79 137 252 89 88 89 82 227 116 97 5 98

14:47 14:50,66-72 15:38 15:39 16:9-20

160, 220.228 174, 188 140, 160, 22' 231 271

Luke

1-2 1:15 1:17 1:52 3:23-38 5:1-11 5:36 6:1-11 6:20-49 6:20-26 6:27-38 6:32-34 6:35 7:28 8:10 9:18-21 9:23 9:34-35 9:46 10:13-15 10:17-20 10:21-22 10:25-28 10:38-42 11:3 11:18 11:31-32 12:56 13:10-17 13:28 13:34 14:5 14:1-6 15:11-32 15:25

27,272,275 82 252 91 24, 30 230 215 118-120 59-63 64-68 57 54 55 81-94 100 146-170 59, 143 137 82 97 97 95-101, 122 272 258 59 74 117 183 118-120 85 136 110,117 118-120 272 215

297

INDEX 16:2 18:9-14 18:29 19:1-10 20:37 22:4, 52 22:24, 26 22:28-30 22:31-32 22:36-38

32 272 35 21 97 222 82 74 206 55

John 1:1-18 1:9 1:12-13 1:14 1:21,25 1:35-42 1:45-46 2:11 3:2 3:8 3:16 3:31-36 3:35 4:14 4:23 4:54 5:1-47 5:25 6:13 6:14 6:51-58 6:67-71 6:70-71 7:14-24 7:35 7:41 8:12 8:37,40 8:41 8:44

249 200 197, 250 275 252 258 249 147,230 249f 210 197 265 197 287 198 147,230 120,249 198 201 87 197 204, 258ff 249 120, 1 8 3 , 2 4 9 201 249 245 249 28 195,249

9:1-41 10:14-15 10:16 10:30 10:34 11:25-26 11:27 11:42 11:52 11:53 13:13 13:16 14:23

21:24

120,250 265 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 287 199,287 197 198 258 196 201,287 249 205 204 1 4 3 , 1 9 7 , 269, 272,287 255 249 202,205,214, 251,287 211,267 249 201,214,275 177, 1 9 3 - 2 1 9 , 2 8 7 265 249 262f 202,287 261 230 167 230 204 254 42,197,205 202,287 147,230 174, 1 8 6 , 2 0 4 , 206, 2 5 8 , 2 6 1 , 269,287 272

Acts 1:9

137

14:28 14:30 15:1-17 15:15 16:11 16:12-13 17:11,20-23 17:25 18:20 18:22-23 19:23-24 20:1-10 20:19-23 20:22 20:24-29 20:24 20:28 20:30-31 21:11 21:14 21:15-17

298

1:14 2 2:46 3:1-4:5 4:1 5:19-26 5:15 6-7 6:11 6:13 9:20 10:1-49 11:1-18 11:19-26 13:13-52 14:1 14:4,14 15 15:11 15:21 15:28 15:39 16:3 16:4 16:13-15,40 17:1,10,17 18:4,7,19,26 19,1-7 20:28 21:15-26 23:8 24:12 26:11 Romans 1:3 2:6-11 3:28 8 8:32 11:5 11:25

INDEX

275 181 160 160 222 160, 222 215 124 124 124 134 175,179f 175, 179f 11 175 134 276 5 8 , 1 7 5 , 237, 246 179 97,134 214,276 186 177 205 142 134 134,177 252 157 160,177 7 134 134

31 274 283 274 138 7 7, 100

12 12:2 12:14-21 13:8-10 14:5-6 14:10 14:17

215 254 54 234,240, 273 107, 121 281 53,55,74,76,79, 265

1 Cor 1:10-13 1:26-30 2:24,30 3:1-2 3:5 3:9-11 3:10-15 5:9-13 6:1-6 7:5 9:13 9:17 9:19-23 10:4 10:31 12:12-13 12:28 13 15:3-5 15:9 15:20-28 15:23

177 91 66 143 186 144,213 58, 166 210 210 215 113 32 177,180, 188 167f 180 215 273 234,274 210,283 154 69,274 156

2 Cor 3:18 5:10 5:16 6:15 8:15-16

254 274 28 215 62

Galatians 1:11

183

299

INDEX

1:12 1:14 1:15-16 1:18 1:20 2:5 2:7,9 2:8

2:9 2:11-14 2:15-17 2:15-21 2-3 3:1-5 3:28 4 4:8-11 5:3 5:6 5:13 Ephesians 1:9 1:10 2:14-18 2:20 3:2 3:3,4,9 3:9 4:4-6 4:13 5:21-33

7, 192

188 154 180 183 179,182 186,201 11,175,180 155 4, 154, 171-192 188 191 282 173,191 215 274 107, 121 241 8,234 240

100 32 177,215 162, 166,213 32 100 32 215 143 216

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 156 5:12 273 1 Tim 1:3-7 1:8-11 3:2-7 4:1-5

24-44 34,274 157 34

2 Tim 2:16-18 2:23 3:2-9,13 4:4

35 31 35 30,35,36

Titus 7-9 10-14 14 9

157 34, 35 30,31,32,36 31

Hebrew 3:1-6 3:5-6 4:15 6:1 6:13-14 7:3,14 11:23-29 12:1-2

151 87 151 143 138 31 87 143

James Philippians 3:13-17

143

2:24 3:1-12

233-244 191 67,124

Colossians 1:25 1:28 2:16-17 3:14 4:12

32 143 107,121 216 143

1 Peter 2:25

157

2 Peter 155

300

index

1:4 1:16

197 30

1 John 1:3,6,7 2:5 2:18 3:7 4:12,17,18

203,209 198 29 203 198

2 John 1 10

203 195,204,211

3 John 204 Revelation 3:7 6:1-8 11:15 20:1-7

162 138 91 69

III. Early Christian Writings Gospel of Thomas 12 8,153 13 266 46 82,85 Gospel of Peter 29 Didache 54, 113,201 Barnabas 15

81

1 Clem 5:4

155

32 44

143 143

Ign Magnesians 2 143 6 143 Philadelphians 4 143 7 143

INDEX

Index of names Aichinger, Η. 110, 127 Albertz, Μ. 16 Albrektsson, В. 13 Allison, D. С. 5, 45, 46, 47, 56, 60, 85, 95, 96, 127, 146, 150, 151, 155,163,168,169, 173,212, 232 Althaus, P. 173 Anderson, Η. 221 Anderson, P. N. 204, 248, 259 Andreasen, N.-E. 127 Appel, N. 281 Arendt, Η. 218, 250 Artus, О. 97 Ascough, R. S. 213 Ashton, J. 205 Aubert, R. 144 Austin, J. L. 124, 127 Aune, D. E. 6, 213 Auvray, P. 208 Avemarie, F. 237 Baasland, E. 235 Bacchiocchi, S. 107, 121, 127 Bachmann, Μ. 138 Back, S.-O. 127, 256 Bacon, B. W. 29,43 Baentsch, B. 47, 96 Bailey, J. A. 248 Bainton, R. 173 Baleh, D. L. 6 Balthasar, Η. U. v. 145 Baltzer, K. 26, 160, 249 Bammel, Ε. 119, 127 Bardy, G. 32 Barrett, С. K. 33, 175, 196, 204, 205,245,255,256 Barrett, J. E. 34 Barth, G. 127 Barth, К. 191 Barthes, R. 37, 268 Bartsch, Η. W. 40 Bassler, J. 241

301

Bauckham, R. J. 127, 154,172 Bauer, D. R. 6 Bauer, H. 90 Baumgarten, J. M. 157, 158 Baur, F. C. 245, 246 Bea, A. 38 Beare, F. W. 127 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 195, 208 Becker, J. 195, 196, 252, 257, 261, 262 Bedouelle, G. T. 184 Beierwaltes, W. 205 Beilner, W. 127 Bengel, J. A. 33, 197 Bennet, W. J. 127 Benoit, P. 100, 109, 111, 127 Bentzen, A. 91 Berlin, I. 37 Bernard, J. H. 196 Betz, H. D. 51, 56, 63, 122, 128, 171,266 Betz, O. 56 Bietenhard, H. 16, 165 Bindemann, W. 235 Black, M. 12 Blackburn, B. L. 128 Blau, J. L. 224 Bockmuehl, M. 172, 276 Boismard, M.-E. 3, 46, 96, 109, 128, 146,229,230,248,279 Boll, F. 45 Booth, W. C. 27 Bornhäuser, К. 103, 128 Bornkamm, G. 205, 277 Braaton, С. Ε. 173 Braulik, G. 87 Braumann, G. 237 Braun, Η. 72, 128 Braun, W. 128 Bretschneider, K. G. 276 Brock, S. 254 Brodie, T. L. 39, 248 Brooten, B. J. 142

302 Brown, R. E. 9, 22, 24, 39, 42, 45, 128, 146, 157, 160, 172, 173, 174, 194, 202, 206, 232, 233, 245, 250, 254,258, 261, 268, 271, 286, 287 Brox, N. 29, 32, 33 Bruns, J. E. 46 Buber, M. 149, 194 Buchanan, G. W. 172 Budd, P. J. 48, 96 Bulfinch, T. 37 Bulgakov, S. 262 Bull, R.J. 16 Bultmann, R. 40, 63, 109, 128, 196, 197, 200, 201, 204, 205, 209, 220, 245,282 Burkitt, F. C. 110, 128 Burtchaell, J. T. 273 Cahill, M. 271 Campbell, J. 26 Campenhausen, Η. v. 32, 97, 154, 270 Cappuyns, W. M. 145 Caragounis, С. C. 128, 146, 150 Carlston, С. Ε. 56 Carmignac, J. 71, 80 Casey, P. M. 126, 128 Cassirer, E. 39 Cassuto, U. 147 Cazelles, H. 37, 165 Cerfaux, L. 270, 282 Chadwick, Η. 154, 177 Charlesworth, J. Η. 81, 107 Childs, В. S. 97, 208 Chitty, D. J. 165 Christ, F. 95 Claudel, G. 146 Clifford, R. J. 147 Coats, G. W. 88, 97 Cohen, S. 225 Cohick, L. H. 135 Cohn-Scherbock, D. M. 128 Collins, J. J. 71,79,91,266 Congar, Y. 74, 190,211,227

INDEX Conzelmann, H. 33,277, 282 Corley, К. E. 96 Couffignal, R. 26 Countryman, L. W. 205 Creuzer, G. F. 37 Cribbs, F. L. 248 Crossan, J. D. 83, 126, 128 Cullmann, O. 44, 84, 146, 264, 270 Culpepper, О. 30, 31,203 Daly, G. 210 Daniel, С. 116, 128 Danielou, J. 149, 172, 254 Daube, D. 103, 128, 174,224 Dauer, A. 248 Dautzenberg, G. 128 Davids, P. H. 235 Davies, P. R. 71, 80 Davies, W. D. 5, 12, 13, 45, 85, 95, 96, 97, 146, 149, 155, 158, 163, 168, 173,212,227, 277 Delebecque, E. 128 Delobel, J. 119 Deppe, D. B. 238 Derrett, J. D. M. 129 Dewey, J. 129 Dias, P. V. 281 Dibelius, F. 84 Dibelius, M. 33,240, 241 Dillmann, A. 96 Dillmann, R. 129 Dodd, С. H. 161, 201, 210, 245, 253,254,263 Doeve, J. W. 129 Donahue, J. 220, 227, 228 Donfried, К. P. 41, 146, 190 Dormeyer, D. 220 Dornier, P. 33 Dräne, J. W. 190, 273 Dressler, Η. Η. P. 129 Dreyfus, F. P. 165, 181 Driver, S. R. 87 Droge, A. J. 204, 258 Duling, D. C. 157

INDEX Dumais, Μ. 51 Dunn, J. D. G. 108, 129, 171, 191, 248,264 Dupont, J. 162, 256 Dupont-Sommer, A. 48, 76, 80, 157 Duprez, A. 129 Dvornik, F. 258 Ebeling, G. 173 Ego, B. 135,214 Eichhorn, J. G. 38 Eichrodt, W. 38 Eisenman, R. 233 Eissfeldt, O. 38 Eliade, M. 37 Eliot, G. 26 Ellis, P. E. 158 Emerton, J. A. 181 Eshel, E. 135 Evans, C. A. 174,213,257 Fenton, J. 280 Ferreira, J. 207 Feuillet, A. 129 Fey, Η. E. 210 Fichtner, J. 49 Ficker, J. 184 Fieger, M. 83, 155 Fischel, H. A. 12 Fitzmyer, J. A. 12, 24, 42, 120, 136,149, 174, 175 Fleischer, E. 107, 129 Flusser, D. 123, 129,214 Foerster, G. 15, 165 Fornberg, T. 169 Foster, P. 6 Fox, R. L. 27 Francis, F. O. 236 Frankemölle, Η. 4, 15, 51, 277 Franklin, Ε. 248 Freedman, D. H. 97 Fritseh, С. T. 16, 18 Fritz, V. 97

303

Fuller, R. C. 38 Fuller, R. H. 264 Galot, J. 250 Gardner-Smith, P. 245 Garrigou-Lagrange, R. 145 Gärtner, В. 227 Gaston, L. 227 Geddes, A. 38 Geiselmann, J. R. 189 Geoltrain, P. 129 Gerhardsson, B. 62, 122, 129 Giavini, G. 52 Giblin, С. H. 227 Gils, F. 129 Girard, R. 192 Glasson, T. F. 96 Gnilka, J. 6, 85, 95, 113, 116, 129, 146, 173,212 Goodenough, E. R. 140, 239 Goodrick, A. T. S. 49 Görres, J. 37 Goulder, M. D. 15,25 Gourgues, M. 129 Grappe, Ch. 146 Grassi, J. 118, 129 Graves, R. 37 Gray, G. B. 96 Griffiths, J. G. 135 Grundmann, W. 52 Guelich, R. A. 58 Guibert, V. de 145 Guilbert, P. 71, 80 Guitton, J. 38 Gundry, R. 170 Gunkel, H. 38, 191 Guthrie, D. 16 Gutmann, J. 106, 129, 135 Guttmann, A. 160 Haacker, K. 88 Haag, Ε. 91 Hachlili, R. 106, 135 Haenchen, E. 112, 129, 175,225

304 Haendler, Gert 164 Hagner, D. 6, 62, 155, 168 Hahn, F.233 Hall, С. Α. 271 Hamerton-Kelly, R. 12, 192 Hamilton, E. 37 Haran, M. 227 Hare, D. 14 Harnack, A. 95, 264, 274, 276 Harner, P. B. 152 Harris, H. 187 Hartin, P. J. 238, 239 Hasel, G. F. 106 Havener, I. 83 Hay, L. S. 130 Haydn, H. 37 Heekerens, Η. P. 230 Hegel, G. F. W. 37 Heidegger, M. 218 Heiler, F. 210 Heimsoeth, H. 219 Heise, J. 205 Hengel, M. 12, 25, 45, 97, 125, 130, 154, 192,270, 282-285 Henninger, J. 37 Herder, J. G. 37 Hermann, A. 26 Hermann, S. 26 Herranz, Μ. M. 130 Hertzberg, A. 103, 130 Hiers, R. H. 162,214 Hinz, C. 103, 130 Hodgson, Р. С. 26 Hoffmann, P. 84, 95, 163, 264, 284 Hogan, M. 239 Holl, К. 154, 173, 184 Holladay, W. L. 148 Holzinger, Η. 96 Holzmeister, U. 224 Hooker, Μ. D. 126, 130 Hopfe, L. N. 16 Hoppe, L. J. 135 Hoppe, R. 235 Horbury, W. 6, 172

INDEX Horsley, R. A. 26, 239 Hort, F. J. A. 33 Horton, R. F. 33 Hoskyns, E. 202, 272 Houtman, C. 147 Hruby, К. 135 Hübner, Η. 109, 110, 130 Hübner, Т. 188 Hultgren, A. J. I l l , 130 Hummel, R. 277 Humphrey, J. H. 16 Humphreys, A. E. 33 Hurtado, L. W. 47 Hüttenmeister, F. G. 135 Jacob, B. 147 Jenson, R. W. 173 Jeremias, J. 162, 214 Johns, L. L. 107 Johnson, L. T. 243 Johnson, R. A. 40 Jongeling, B. 80 Joüon, P.130 Jonas, H. 37 Jungel, E. 173 Junker, H. 87 Kahl, W. 130 Kaiser, O. 208 Kaiser, W. 119 Kallner-Amiram, D. H. 20 Kampling, R. 174, 206 Kaplan, G. A. 100 Karavidopoulos, J. 163 Karris, R. J. 35 Käsemann, Ε. 144, 191, 205, 234, 254, 268,281 Kasher, Μ. Μ. 147 Kasper, W. 264 Kealy, S. P.271 Kee, H. C. 106, 130, 135 Keel, О. 139 Kegley, С. W. 40 Keith, P. 5

INDEX Kellermann, D. 48 Kelly, J. N. D. 33, 205 Kermode, F. 280 Kertelge, K. 130, 174 Kesich, V. 163 Kierkegaard, S. 52 Kiilunen, J. 130 Kilpatrick, G. К. 11 Kimelman, R. 6 Kingsbury, J. D. 14, 157 Kirk, G. S.218 Klein, H. 248 Klijn, A. F. J. 172 Kloppenborg, J. S. 83, 95, 110, 130,284 Klumbies, P.-G. 130 Knohl, I. 107, 131 Knox, R. A. 219 Koester, C. 172 Koester, H. 40, 239 Köhller, W.-D. 8, 272 Köpf, U. 187 Kraabel, Α. T. 135 Kraus, H. J. 207 Kristeva, J. 268 Kselman, J. S. 96, 207 Küchler, M. 96, 235 Küng, H. 190,234,268,281 Kümmel, W. G. 9, 16, 187, 246, 276,282 Kuhn, H.-W. 131 Kuhn, K. G. 73 Lagrange, M.-J. 197, 200 Lampe, G. W. H. 145, 205 Lampe, P. 120, 149 Lanczkowski, G. 210 Landmesser, C. 285 Lang,M. 248 Langbrandtner, W. 230 Lange, N. R. M. de 16, 18, 165 Lapide, P. 58 La Potterie, I. de 231 Larcher, C. 50

305

Laurentin, R. 26 Lawrence, L. J. 6 Leander, P. 90 Lease, G. 16 Le Boulluec, A. 152 Le Deaut, R. 136 Lee, Ε. K. 247 Legasse, S. 171 Leitch, J. W. 131 Lemonnyer, A. 282 Le Moyne, J. 224 Leon-Dufour, X. 190 Leuba, J.-L. 205 Levenson, J. D. 136 Levine, В. A. 47, 228 Levine, E. 117, 131 Levine, L. I. 16, 17, 106, 131, 165 Levinson, H. S. 97 Levison, J. R. 96 Lewis, J. P. 97 L'Heureux, C. 48 Lieberman, S. 105, 131, 139 Lietzmann, Η. 18 Lifshitz, B. 141 Lightfoot, R. H. 63, 202, 247 Lindemann, A. 131 Link, H.-G.210 Linnemann, E. 220 Lips, Η. v. 235 Loader, W. R. 247,265 Lock, W. 33 Locke, J. 100 Lohmeyer, E. 108, 114, 120, 131, 225 Lohse, B. 173 Lohse, E. 80, 109, 131,236, 241 Lönning, I. 188 Louth, A. 145 Luck, U. 235 Luibheid, С. 145 Luz, U. 6, 26, 83, 95, 146, 163, 168, 174,212,266 Luzarraga, J. 48

306 Mack, В. L. 126, 131 Mac Neice, L. 217 Malatesta, E. 205 Malinowski, B. 41 Manning, E. 48 Manson, T. W. 131, 151 Mareus, J. 47, 96, 146 Margalioth, M. 139 Marguerat, D. 123,237, 277 Marie, R. 37 Martyn, J. L. 171 Marucci, C. 238 Marxsen, W. 277 Massaux, E. 8, 268, 272 Massebieau, L. 233 Maynard, A. H. 258 Mayor, J. B. 243 Mayordomo-Marin, M. 8 McCarthy, D. J. 249 McKelvey, R. J. 227 McKenzie, J. L. 39 McSorley, H. J. 173 Meier, J. P. 15, 22, 85, 123, 131, 277 Menken, M. J. J. 263 Merkel, Η. 25,45 Metzger, Β. Μ. 29, 82 Metzner, R. 8 Meyendorff, J. 163 Meyer, A. 235 Meyer, M. W. 83 Meyers, Ε. M. 106, 135 Michaeli, F. 147 Michaelis, J. D. 16 Michel, O. 88 Milgrom, J. 48, 49, 228 Milik, J. T. 73 Mimouni, S. C. 172 Minnerath, R. 146 Moehler, J. A. 197 Moessner, D. P. 46, 96, 146 Moloney, F. J. 245 Momigliano, A. 60 Montgomery, J. Α. 91

INDEX Moore, G. F. 70, 98 Morgan, C. Sh. 131 Morgan, Μ. A. 139 Moses, A. D. A. 232 Moule, C. F. D. 50 Müller, P. 233 Munoz Iglesias, S. 26 Murmelstein, В. 131 Murphy, F. J. 123 Murphy, R. E. 42, 174 Murphy-O' Connor, J. 24, 71, 81, 171,273 Murray, Η. A. 37 Mussner, F. 236 Neill, S. C. 187,210, 246 Neirynck, F. 113, 131,230, 256 Nepper-Christensen, P. 86 Neudecker, R. 54 Neufeld, К. H. 187,210 Neusner, J. 13,99, 224,239 Newsome, D. 219 Neyrey, J. H. 6 Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 162 Niebuhr, K.-W. 236 Nietzsche, F. 54 Nodet, E. 155 North, R. 192 Noth, M. 147 О'Day, G. R. 197 Oden, Т. C. 271 Oktaba, P. 174, 260 Olyan, S. M. 232 O'Meara, T. F. 40 Oster, R. E. 106, 131, 135 Osty, E. 248 O'Toole, R. F. 151 Overbeck, F. 63, 178 Overman, V. Α. 6 Paine, Т. 95 Pannenberg, W. 37,41 Parker, К. M. 108, 131

INDEX Parrott, R. 131 Pascher, J. 144 Patterson, S. J. 83 Pauck, W. 184 Paulus, Η. E. G. 26 Pelikan, J. 185, 186 Perdue, L. G. 236 Perkins, Ph. 146, 196, 201, 264 Pesch, Ο. Η. 173 Pesch, R. 25,113, 126, 132,225 Peterson, Ε. 157 Philonenko, Μ. 92 Рокоту, P. 214 Pollard, Т. Ε. 199, 272 Popkes, W. 239 Popper, К. R. 217 Pouilly, J. 71 Poulat, E. 210 Povell, M. A. 6 Prior, M. 35 Puech, E. 64 Qimron, A. 228 Quesnell, Q. 41, 60 Quinn, J. D. 29 Rad, G. v. 87 Rademakers, J. 221 Rahner, K. 142 Rank, O. 26 Rapp, U. 96 Ratzinger, J. 189 Raven, U. E. 218 Regul, J. 18 Reinl, P. 96 Rendtorff, R. 97, 249 Rengstorf, К. H. 97 Reumann, J. 146 Reventlow, H. 100 Ricciotti, G. 189 Richardson, H. W. 103, 132 Richardson, P. 177, 274 Richter, G. 252 Ricoeur, P. 37

307

Riegel, S. K. 172 Riesenfeld, Η. 132 Riley, J. A. 16 Ritt, Η. 206 Robbins, V. К. 132 Robert, A. 38 Robinson, J. A. T. 252 Robinson, J. M. 95, 284 Rogers, A. D. 132 Rogerson, J. W. 38 Rogues, R. 145 Roloff, J. 109, 132 Rondet, H. 274 Ropes, J. H. 278 Rordorf, W. 107, 121, 132 Rostovtzeff, M. 225 Rothfuchs, W. 263 Roure, D. 132 Rouse, R. 210 Rowland, С. C. 84 Rowley, Η. H. 12 Rupert of Deutz 53 Russell, D.S. 70, 81 Russell, E. A. 112, 132 Sabourin, L. 46,48 Saldarini, A. J. 6,1, 13 Sand, A. 14 Sanders, E. P. 6, 12, 123, 132, 160 Sanders, J. A. 97 Sandmel, S. 34 Sandevoir, P. 152 Sariola, H. 132 Sarna, N. M. 147 Sauer, J. 132 Schaberg, J. 27, 28 Schäfer, К. Т. 155 Schäfer, P. 88 Schatz, К. 168 Scheler, Μ. 54 Schelling, F. W. J. 37 Schenke, L. 132 Schenker, A. 158 Schiffman, L. H. 105, 132

308 Schillebeeckx, Ε. 157 Schlatter, A. 16 Schlegel, F. and A. W. 37 Schlosser, J. 85 Schnackenburg, R. 6, 195, 201, 209, 251,252, 257, 261, 262, 263 Schneider, G. 175 Schnelle, U. 196,204 Schoeps, H. J. 54, 172 Schofield, M. 218 Scholtissek, K. 174,205, 206, 269 Schönborn, Chr. v. 165 Schräge, W. 135 Schreiner, S. 135 Schubert, H. v. 184 Schulz, S. 85, 86 Schunck, K. D. 97 Schürer, Ε. 13, 15,97, 160,222 Schwager, R. 192 Schwank, В. 209 Schweizer, Ε. 14,221 Scott, R. Η. 132 Scroggs, R. 12 Segal, B.-Z. 99 Segalla, G. 46 Senior, D. 232, 277 Sheldon-Williams, I. P. 145 Shepherd, Μ. Η. 238 Siegert, F. 135 Sievers, J. 214 Silberman, N. A. 45 Sim, D. C. 6 Simon, M. 172 Simonetti, M. 181 Smith, D. M. 246, 247, 248 Smith, M. 70, 132 Smith, R. H. 172 Smith, Т. V. 146 Smend, R. 249 Soares-Prabhu, G. M. 24 Söding, T. 174, 206 Solignac, A. 145 Soloveitchik, J. B. 125, 133 Sonne, I. 106

INDEX Spicq, C. 58 Spiegel, S. 136 Spinoza, B. 100 Spitta, F. 233 Sprecher, M.-T. 206 Stahli, H.-P. 138 Staley, J. L. 201 Stanton, G. N. 3, 56, 263, 271 Stegemann, E. W. 133 Steiner, A. 158 Steinhauser, M. 83 Stemberger, G. 107, 133 Stendahl, K. 11, 12, 277 Stoll, B. 53 Strange, J. F. 135 Strauss, D. F. 26, 276 Strecker, G. 14, 172, 277 Streeter, В. H. 9 Strobel, A. 29 Suchla, B. R. 145 Suggs, Μ. J. 95 Suhl, Α. 133 Sukenik, Ε. L. 135 Sweet, J. P. M. 50 Swetnam, J. 198 Synave, P. 100 Talbert, С. H. 29 Talmon, S. 107, 133 Taylor, J. J. 7, 155, 171, 175,201 Taylor, V. 220, 225 Theissen, G. 5, 133 Theobald, M. 216 Thibaut, R. 133 Thiering, В. E. 157 Tholuck, F. A. G. 51 Thompson, J. W. 144 Thompson, W. G. 213 Thüsing, W. 206 Thyen, H. 230 Tillich, P. 100 Tilliette, X. 54 Tisserant, E. 38 Torrey, С. C. 110

INDEX Tournay, R. J. 97,208 Trebilco, P. R. 135 Tricot, Α. 38 Trilling, W. 14, 277 Troader, Η. 133 Trobisch, D. 271 Trossen, С. 133 Tsevat, Μ. 103, 133,257 Tuckett, С. Μ. 268

Wildberger, H. 208 Wiles, Μ. 274 Williams, R. 181 Wills, L. 228 Wilson, Α. M. 228 Wilson, S. G. 29 Windisch, H. 247, 275 Wohlenberg, G. 33 Yadin, Y. 228

Uehlinger, Ch. 96, 139 Urbach, Ε. Ε. 70,88, 139,239 Urguhart, В. 56 Van der Ploeg, J. 80 Verheyden, J. 202, 245 Vermes, G. 13, 27, 80, 99, 123, 133 Verseput, D. C. 235 Vico, G. B. 37 Vidier, A. R.210 Viviano, В. T. 4, 7, 8, 22, 29, 42, 46, 64, 95, 99, 107, 110, 122, 133, 135, 148, 160, 162, 169, 174, 191, 192, 204,213, 214, 249, 256, 257, 264,267,275,277,284-287 Voste, J. M. 38 Vouga, F. 171,241,242 Walker, R. 14, 237, 277 Walker, W. O. 248 Watson, P. 173 Wegenast, К. 133 Weiss, В. 33 Weiss, Η. 133 Weiss, J. 191 Weiss, О. 210 Weisser, D. W. 40 Wellhausen, J. 85 Wenger, E. L. 199 Wenham, J. W. 112, 133 Westeott, B. F. 196, 198 Westermann, Cl. 124, 133 Wikenhauser, A. 82

Zahn,M. 219 Zuckermandel, M. S. 224

NOVUM TESTAMENTUM ET ORBIS ANTIQUUS STUDIEN ZUR UMWELT DES NEUEN TESTAMENTS (NTOA) Neuere Bände Bd. 60

ILZE KEZBERE, Umstrittener Monotheismus. Wahre und falsche Apotheose im lukanischen Doppelwerk. 232 Seiten. 2006.

Bd. 59

MAX KÜCHLER / KARL MATTHIAS SCHMIDT (Hg.), Texte - Fakten - Artefakte. Beiträge zur Bedeutung der Archäologie für die neutestamentliche Forschung. XII + 236 Seiten. 2006.

Bd. 58

UTE E. EISEN, Die Poetik der Apostelgeschichte. Eine narratologische Studie. 296 Seiten. 2006.

Bd. 57

DIETER SÄNGER / MATTHIAS KONRADT (Hg.), Das Gesetz im frühen Judentum und im Neuen Testament. Festschrift für Christoph Burchard zum 75. Geburtstag. 344 Seiten. 2006.

Bd. 56

CHRISTOPH RIEDO-EMMENEGGER, Prophetisch-messianische Provokateure der Pax Romana. Jesus von Nazaret und andere Störenfriede im Konflikt mit dem Römischen Reich. XXII + 386 Seiten. 2005.

Bd. 55

SIEGFRIED OSTERMANN, Die Münzen der Hasmonäer. Ein kritischer Bericht zur Systematik und Chronologie. X + 94 Seiten. 2005.

Bd. 54

HANNA ROOSE, Eschatologische Mitherrschaft. Entwicklungslinien urchristlichen Erwartung. 376 Seiten. 2004.

Bd. 53

ELLEN BRADSHAW AITKEN, Jesus' Death in Early Christian Memory. The Poetics of the Passion. 204 pages. 2004.

Bd. 52

ANNETTE MERZ, Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus. Intertextuelle Studien zur Intention und Rezeption der Pastoralbriefe. XII + 468 Seiten. 2004.

Bd. 51

URSULA HACKL / HANNA JENNI / CHRISTOPH SCHNEIDER, Quellen zur Geschichte der Nabatäer. Textsammlung mit Übersetzung und Kommentar. XVI + 732 Seiten. 2003.

einer

Weitere lieferbare Bände der Reihe NTOA Bd. 50

PIERRE-YVES BRANDT, L'identite de Jesus et l'identite de son disciple. Le recit de la transfiguration comme clef de lecture de l'Evangile de Marc. XVIII + 378 pages. 2002.

Bd. 49

MATTHIAS WALTER, Gemeinde als Leib Christi. Untersuchungen zum Corpus Paulinum und zu den «Apostolischen Vätern». VI + 358 Seiten. 2001.

Bd. 48

BENEDICT T. VIVIANO OP, Trinity - Kingdom - Church. Essays in Biblical Theology. Χ + 294 Seiten. 2001.

Bd. 47

MICHAEL FIEGER / KONRAD SCHMID / PETER SCHWAGMEIER (Hrsg.), Qumran - Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer. Vorträge des St. Galler Qumran-Symposiums vom 2./3. Juli 1999. VIII + 240 Seiten. 2001.

Bd. 46

DIETER KREMENDAHL, Die Botschaft der From. Zum Verhältnis von antiker Epistolographie und Rhetorik im Galaterbrief. XII + 332 Seiten. 2000.

Bd. 45

STEFAN ENSTE, Kein Markustext in Qumran. Eine Untersuchung der These: Qumran-Fragment 7Q5=Mk 6, 52-53. VIII + 178 Seiten. 2000.

Bd. 44

ANNE DAWSON, Freedom as Liberating Power. A socio-political reading of the έξουσία texts in the Gospel of Mark. XIV + 258 Seiten. 2000.

Bd. 43

PETER EGGER, Verdienste vor Gott? Der Begriff z»khut im rabbinischen Genesiskommentar Bereshit Rabba. VII + 440 Seiten. 2000.

Bd. 42

RALPH HOCHSCHILD, Sozialgeschichtliche Exegese. Entwicklung, Geschichte und Methodik einer neutestamentlichen Forschungsrichtung. VIII + 308 Seiten. 1999.

Bd. 41/3 MICHAEL LATTKE, Oden Salomos. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Teil 3. Oden 29-42. XXXVIII + 426 Seiten. 2005. Bd. 41/2 MICHAEL LATTKE, Oden Salomos. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Teil 2. Oden 15-28. XII + 340 Seiten. 2001. Bd. 41/1 MICHAEL LATTKE, Oden Salomos. Text, Übersetzung, Kommentar. Teil 1. Oden 1 und 3-14. XII + 312 Seiten. 1999. Bd. 40

MICHAEL BACHMANN, Antijudaismus im Galaterbrief? Beiträge zur Exegese eines polemischen Schreibens u n d zur Theologie des Apostels Paulus. X + 238 Seiten. 1999.

Bd. 39

GUDRUN GUTTENBERGER ORTWEIN, Status und Statusverzicht, im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. VIII + 372 Seiten. 1999.

Bd. 38

SABINE BIEBERSTEIN, Verschwiegene Jüngerinnen - vergessene Zeuginnen. Gebrochene Konzepte im Lukasevangelium. XII + 324 Seiten. 1998.

Bd. 3 7

TAESEONG ROH, Die familia dei in den synoptischen Evangelien. Eine redaktions- und sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu einem urchristlichen Bildfeld. XIV + 322 Seiten. 2001.

Bd. 36

LEO MILDENBERG, Vestigia Leonis. Studien zur antiken Numismatik Israels, Palästinas und der östlichen Mittelmeerwelt. XXII + 266 Seiten, Tafelteil 144 Seiten. 1998.

Bd. 35

CAROLINE ARNOULD, Les arcs romains de Jerusalem. 368 pages, 36 Fig., 23 Planches. 1997.

Bd. 34

GERD THEISSEN / DAGMAR WINTER, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung. Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium. XII + 356 Seiten. 1997.

Bd. 33

HUBERT MEISINGER, Liebesgebot und Altruismusforschung. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft. XII + 328 Seiten. 1996.

Bd. 32

FERDINAND ROHRHIRSCH, Wissenschaftstheorie und Qumran. Die Geltungsbegründungen von Aussagen in der Biblischen Archäologie am Beispiel von Chirbet Qumran und En Feschcha. XII + 416 Seiten. 1996.

ACADEMIC PRESS FRIBOURG VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN

NOVUM TESTAMENTUM ET ORBIS ANTIQUUS SERIES ARCHAEOLOGICA (NTOA SA)

Bd. 1

JEAN-BAPTISTE HUMBERT / ALAIN CHAMBON, Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran et de Αϊη Feshkha I. Album de photographies - Repertoire du fonds photographique - Synthese des notes de chantier de P. Roland de Vaux OP. XVI + 418 pages. 1994.

Bd. 1A

ROLAND DE VAUX, Die Ausgrabungen von Qumran und En Feschcha. Die Grabungstagebücher. Deutsche Übersetzung und Informationsaufarbeitung durch Ferdinand Rohrhirsch und Bettina Hofmeir. XII + 236 Seiten. 1996.

Bd. 1B

JEAN-BAPTISTE HUMBERT / ALAIN CHAMBON, The Excavations of Khirbet Qumran and Ain Feshkha. Synthesis of Roland de Vaux's Field Notes. English Edition. Edited and revised by Stephen J. Pfann. 118 pages. 2003.

Bd. 2

VALENTINA GRIGOROVA, Catalogue of the Ancient Greek and Roman Coins of the Josef Vital Kopp Collection University of Fribourg Switzerland. XXIV + 136 pages. 2001.

Bd. 3

JEAN-BAPTISTE HUMBERT / JAN GUNNEWEG, Khirbet Qumran et Ά ϊ η Feshkha II. Etudes d'anthropologie, de physique et de chimie. XXVI + 486 pages. 2004.

ACADEMIC PRESS FRIBOURG VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT GÖTTINGEN