Studia Evangelica Vol. VII: Papers presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973 [Reprint 2021 ed.] 9783112541500, 9783112541494

Citation preview

STUDIA EVANGELICA VOL. VII Papers presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973 EDITED BY

ELIZABETH A. LIVINGSTONE With a Cumulative Index of Contributors to Studia Evangelica, Vols. I-VII

A K A D E M I E - V E R LAG

1982

BERLIN

Aus der Reihe ,Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte" sind z. Z. folgende Bände lieferbar: Origenes Werke XII. Die M a t t h ä u s e r k l ä r u n g Herausg. u n t e r Mitwirkung von E r n s t Benz v o n Erich Klostermanh - I I I . Teil: F r a g m e n t e und Indices. 1. H ä l f t e [Bd. 41,1] 1941. I X , 269 S. - g r . 8 ° - Brosch. 22,60 M Bestell-Nr. 750 671 1

Epiphanius IL P a n a r i o n haer. 54—64. H e r a u s g . von K a r l Holl. 2., bearbeitete Auflage herausg. v o n Jürgen Dummer. 1980. 544 S. - gr. 8° Lederin 1 1 0 , - M Bestell-Nr. 753 266 1 (2031/23)

Kopttsch-gnostische Schriften I. - 2. H ä l f t e Gesamtregister von Ludwig F r ü c h t e l . 2., durchgesehene Auflage besorgt v o n Ursula T r e u [Bd. 41,2] 1968. V I I . 409 S. - gr. 8° - Lederin 6 2 , - M Bestell-Nr. 751 457 8 (2031/2)

Clemens Alexandrinus IT. Register. — 1. Teil. Herausg. von O t t o Stählin. 2., ü b e r a r b . Auflage herausg. von U r s u l a Treu 1980. X X X V , 196 S. - gr. 8° Lederin 48,— M Bestell-Nr. 753 459 5 (2031/24) A u s Altbeständen v o m J . C. Hinrichs-Verlag/Leipzig sind noch lieferbar: I I . Teil. - 1936 - 2 7 , - M Bestell-Nr. 750 6690 I I I . Teil - 1936 - 3 0 , - M Bestell-Nr. 750 742 3

Die Pistis Sophia. Die beiden B ü c h e r des J e ü . — U n b e k a n n t e s altgnostisches W e r k . Herausg. von Carl Schmidt. 4., u m d a s Vorwort erweiterte Auflage herausg. v o n H a n s - M a r t i n Schenke. 1981. X X X V I I I , 424 S. - 8° Lederin 48,— M Bestell-Nr. 753 524 8 (2031/6)

Philostorgius. Kirchengeschicht« Mit d e m Leben des Lucian von Antiochien u n d d e n F r a g m e n t e n eines arianischen Historiographen. H e r a u s g . v o n J o s e p h Bidez. 3., bearbeitete Auflage herausg. v o n Friedhelm Winkelmann. 1981. C L X X , 392 S. - gr. 8° Lederin 75,— M Bestell-Nr. 753 632 0 (2031/18)

Folgende bearbeitete Nachauflagen befinden sich in Vorbereitung: Epiphanias HI. P a n a r i o n haer. 65—80. De fide. H e r a u s g . v o n K a r l Holl. 2., bearbeitete Auflage herausg. v o n J ü r g e n D u m m e r . 1982. E t w a 550 S. - gr. 8° Lederin e t w a 111,— M Bestell-Nr. 753 682 2 (2031/26)

- I I . Teil: Die B ü c h e r X I bis X V . Register. 2., bea r b e i t e t e Auflage herausg. v o n tädouard des Places. 1983. E t w a 600 S. - gr. 8° Lederin e t w a 117,— M

Origenes Werke III. Eusebius Werke VIII. Die P r a e p a r a t i o Evangelica. H e r a u s g . v o n K a r l Mras - I . Teil: Einleitung. Die Bücher I bis X . 2., bearbeitet e Auflage herausg. von E d o u a r d des Places. 1982. L X , 623 S . - g r . 8° - Lederin 1 3 0 , - M Bestell-Nr. 754 082 1 (2031/4/1)

Jeremiahomilien. Klageliederkommentar. E r k l ä r u n g der Samuel- u n d Königsbücher. H e r a u s g . v o n E r i c h K l o s t e r m a n n . 2., bea r b e i t e t e Auflage herausg. v o n P i e r r e Nautin. 1983.

TEXTE UND

UNTERSUCHUNGEN

ZUR GESCHICHTE DER ALTCHRISTLICHEN LITERATUR

Begründet von

O. VON GEBHARDT UND A. VON HARNACK

BAND 126

STUDIA EVANGELICA VOL. VII Papers presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973

Edited by

ELIZABETH A. LIVINGSTONE With a Cumulative Index of Contributors to Studia Evangelica, Vols. I - V I I

A K A D E M I E - V E R LAG • B E R L I N 1982

Herausgegeben von Veselin Besevliev, Ugo Bianchi, Alexander Böhlig, Hans Frhr. v. Campenhausen, Henry Chadwick, Ion Coman, Eligius Dekkers, Gerhard Delling, Jacques Fontaine, Janos Harmatta, Herbert Hunger, Johannes Irmscher (Verantwortlicher Herausgeber), Robert A. Kraft, Claude Mondesert, Marian Plezia, Harald Riesenfeld, Hans-Martin Schenke, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Kurt Treu (Geschäftsführender Herausgeber), Ladislav Vidman

Mit Unterstützung des Zentralinstituts für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR

Gutachter dieses Bandes: Harald Riesenfeld und Hans-Martin Schenke Redaktor dieses Bandes: Ursula Treu

Erschienen im Akademie-Verlag, DDR - 1080 Berlin, Leipziger Str. 3—4 © Akademie-Verlag Berlin 1982 Lizenznummer: 202 • 100/215/82 Herstellung: IV/2/14 V E B Druckerei »Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz«, 4450 Gräfenhainichen • 5412 Bestellnummer: 753 631 2 (2030/71) • LSV 6000 Printed in GDR DDR 110,- M

Foreword

Studia Evangelica VII contains the majority of the papers presented at the Fifth International Congress on New Testament Studies which met in Oxford from 3 to 8 September 1973. The Congress assembled under the direction of the Revd. Dr. H. F. D. Sparks, then Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the University of Oxford. To him I am indebted for guidance not only in the arrangement of the Congress but also in the preparation of this volume of proceedings. It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude also to those scholars who addressed the Congress, and especially to those who have allowed their papers to be included here, despite the long and frustrating delay in publication ; and to Dr. Kurt Treu and his assistants at the Berlin Academy for their skill and patience in face of many difficulties. 15 St. Giles, Oxford. 26 June 1981

E . A . LIVINGSTONE

Table of Contents

Limpsfield The Logos Outside St John

1

G. W. A N D E R S O N , Edinburgh The Christian Use of the Psalms

5

N . S. F . ALLDRIT,

P. C. A T K I N S O N , West Loughton The Montanist Interpretation of Joel 2: 28, 29 (LXX. 3: 1, 2)

11

T. B A I L E Y , Victoria B . C. Saint Mark viii : 27 again

17

W. B A R T S C H , Frankfurt Der Christushymnus Phil. 2, 6—11 und der historische Jesus

21

F. W. B E A R E , Toronto Jesus as Teacher and Thaumaturge: the Matthaean Portrait

31

H.

E . BEST, Glasgow-

The Markan Redaction of the Transfiguration

41

Hull The Place of the New Testament in Christian Morals

55

Sherborne New Questions on Old Subjects

67

Maredsous — Louvain Le personnage de Baruch et l'histoire du livre de Jérémie

73

J . ELFRIDE BICKERSTETH,

H . A . BLAIR,

P . - M . BOGAERT,

W . J . P . BOYD, F a l m o u t h

Is a Basis of Fact Discernible in the Miracle Story of the Healing of the Blind Man at Bethsaida (Mk viii. 22-26) ?

83

East Bergholt St Mark's Gospel as Damnation History

87

R. B U T T E R W O R T H S. J., London The Composition of Mark 1 - 1 2

91

G. B. C A I R D , Oxford Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint

95

T. A . BURKILL,

VIII

Contente

R. J . CAMPBELL, Lamorlaye, France Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel in John 2 : 13—22

101

W. S. CAMPBELL, Birmingham The Place of Romans ix—xi within the Structure and Thought of the Letter

121

J . H. CHURCHILL, Carlisle The Pastoral Epistles: A Problem for Preachers and Others

133

J . G.

CRADDOCK,

Southwell

A Possible Connection between the Letter of James and the Events of John 7 and 8

. . . .

141

J . C R E H A N S. J., London New Light on 2 Peter from the Bodmer Papyrus

145

G . I . D A V I E S , Cambridge A Fragment of an Early Recension of the Greek Exodus

151

B. D E H A N D S C H U T T E R , Louvain The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics: the Status Quaestionis

157

Louvain L'intégration des Douze à l'évangile de Marc

161

J . D U N C A N M. D E R R E T T , London The Parable of the Profitable Servant (Luke xvii. 7—10)

165

J . C. F E N T O N , Oxford The Argument in Hebrews

175

M. A. FRIGGENS, Saint Buryan The Relationship of the Prophetic Quotations in Matthew ii in the Light of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle

183

Alexandria, Virginia New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

189

P. G A R N E T , Montreal Some Qumran Exegetical Cruces in the Light of Exilic Soteriology

201

M. D. G O U L D E R , Birmingham The Liturgical Origin of St. John's Gospel

205

P. GRECH, Rome Jewish Christianity and the Purpose of Acts

223

H. B. G R E E N , Mirfield Solomon the Son of David in Matthaean Typology

227

Hull The Reproach of the Messiah in the Epistle to the Hebrews

231

S. Hemraj, Lucknow The Verb 'To Do' in St. John

241

A.-M. DENIS,

R . H . FULLER,

A . T . HANSON,

Contents

IX

C. J . A. HICKLING, L o n d o n

Conflicting Motives in the Redaction of Matthew: Some Considerations on the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 18 : 15-20

247

J . H O U S T O N , Cambridge The Words of the Lord and Christian Prophecy: The Irrelevance of I Cor. 7

261

F. J O H N S O N , Canterbury A Suggested Understanding of the Eucharistie Words

265

G. K E H N S C H E R P E R , Greifswald Philological Hints at Traditional-Historic Relations between the Explosion of the Volcano Santorini (Thera) and the Tradition of the Egyptian Plagues

271

W.

P.

L. G. KELLY, O t t a w a

George Campbell's Four Gospels, 1789

277

Lincoln Anti-Christian Tendency in pre-Marcan Traditions of the Sanhedrin Trial

283

R . KEMPTHOKNE,

R . KIEFFER, L u n d

Einige Überlegungen zum Menschenbild bei Paulus in Verbindung mit dem Heilsereignis . C. J. A. LASH, N e w c a s t l e - u p o n - T y n e

287

Fashionable Sports: Hymn-Hunting in I Peter

293

S O P H I E L A W S , London The Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of James

299

A . R . C. L E A N E Y ,

Bath

The Akedah, Paul and the Atonement, or: Is a Doctrine of the Atonement Possible? . . .

307

G. M. LEE, Bedford Translation Greek in the New Testament

317

Edinburgh Paul and the Jerusalem Decree: A Reappraisal

327

J . I. H . MCDONALD,

L E O K A D I A MALUNOWICZ

I

Citations bibliques dans 1'epigraphie grecque

333

J . L . M A R S H A L L , Retford Melchizedek in Hebrews, Philo and Justin Martyr

339

R . A. MASON, O x f o r d

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

343

I. A. MOIR, E d i n b u r g h

The Text of Colossians in Minuscule Manuscripts Housed in Great Britain. Some Preliminary Comments

355

F . N E I R Y N C K , Lou vain Tradition and Redaction in John XX, 1—18

359

F. W. N O B R I S , Johnson City, Tenn. Asia Minor before Ignatius: Walter Bauer Reconsidered

365

X

Contents

J . C. O'NEILL, Cambridge

Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St Paul

379

D . L . POWELL, E x e t e r

Christ as High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews

387

A . M. RAMSEY, D u r h a m

Jesus Christ and the Modern World

401

W. HEADER, Mount Pleasant, Michigan The Riddle of the Identification of the Polis in Rev. 11 : 1 - 1 3

407

J . M. R O B I N S O N , Claremont

The Future of New Testament Theology

415

E. A. R U S S E L L , Belfast The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel

427

W . SCHENK, G ö t t i n g e n

Die makrosyntaktische Signalfunktion des lukanischen Textems vnoojQitpeiv

443

O. J . F. SEITZ, Gambier, Ohio The Rejection of the Son of Man: Mark Compared with Q

451

P. J . M. SOUTHWELL, Oxford Genesis i a 'Wisdom' Story?

467

W . D . STACEY, Bristol

A Pre-Battle Rite in Ancient Israel ?

471

J . V. STEWART, Northolt The Nearness and the Distance of God. An Enquiry into the Meaning of the Idea of the Kingdom in the Present Time

475

R . G. TANNER, Newcastle, N . S. W .

S. Paul and Stoic Physics

481

A . C. T H I S E L T O N , Sheffield

On the Logical Grammar of Justification in Paul

491

B. H . THROCKMORTON, Jr., Bangor, Maine The vaoQ in Paul

497

N . TURNER, E l y

Biblical Greek — the Peculiar Language of a Peculiar People W . ULLMANN, Berlin Was heißt deuteropaulinisch?

505 513

D . H . VAN DAALEN, H a r r i n g t o n

The °emunah / nianq of Habakkuk 2. 4 and Romans 1.17

523

J . P . M. VAN DER P L O E G O. P . , Nijmegen Adoration and Praise of God in the Old Testament

529

. .

Contents

XI

Lancaster The Origin and Place of Presbyters in the New Testament Church

541

N. W A L T E R , Naumburg Glaube und irdischer Jesus im Johannesevangelium

547

Chester The Lost Beginning of St. Mark's Gospel

553

F . E . VOKES,

R . WAY-RIDER,

W . WTJELLNER,

Berkeley, California

Tradition and Interpretation of the "Wise—Powerful—Noble" Birmingham Notes on the Corinthian Correspondence FRANCES M . YOUNG,

Triad in I Cor 1, 26

. . .

557 563

The Logos Outside St John N . S. F. ALLDRIT, L i m p s f i e l d

I t is usual for modern New Testament scholars t o regard Logos Christology as confined t o the Johannine writings, while recognizing t h a t there are passages in the Pauline writings and the Epistle to the Hebrews which present the same type of Christology without using the word Aoyog. The Fathers however, scarcely aware of any theological development within the New Testament, could find Logos Christology anywhere, and passages where we normally expound the word Aoyog in some other way were by them understood as references to t h e Eternal Son, and occasionally they produced such passages in their refutations of heresies. Neither these writers nor their opponents appear to have been aware of any alternative interpretation. There is this to be said on the Fathers' behalf: t h a t they were using the same language as the N. T. writers, and in time these early theologians were far nearer to the N. T. writers t h a n we are ourselves. So their interpretation deserves our respect, in the absence of other considerations. One such passage is the prologue of St. Luke's gospel — Lk 1. 2, xaftcog nagedoaav r\(iiv oi AJT' AQYfjq avxoTttai xal V71T]QETCU yevofievoi rov Aoyov. Of t h i s p a s s a g e L a g r a n g e

comments t h a t the word Aoyog is interpreted Christologically by the Greek Fathers. I n favour of their interpretation it can be said t h a t it is difficult to see how one can be an avrojirrjg of any Aoyog except t h a t which became incarnate, while if the word Aoyog is understood Christologically, t h e thought becomes similar to t h a t of 1 J o h n 1. 1, o scoQaxaftev rolg orrjQiag ravrrjg

e^anearaArj. Here the Christological sense of the word Aoyog is clear from t h e subsequent verses: verse 29 refers to avrov, who was crucified; this refers back to rovrov of verse 27, and the only possible antecedent of this in verse 26 (apart from J o h n the Baptist) is Aoyog. Jesus has not been mentioned by name since verse 23. So the Aoyog of verse 26 was crucified. The expression Aoyog amrrjQiag need present

2

N . S. F. ALLDRIT

no greater difficulty than koyog fcoij? in I Jn I . 1; the presence of the word acorr]giag is obviously to be attributed to an allusion to Psalm 106. 20 L X X , aneareike rov Puo-yov avrov xai idaaxo avrovg. This same passage from Psalm 106 (Hebrew 107) lies behind Acts 10. 36, where Athanasius (Adversus Arianos 4. 30) interprets the word Xoyog Christologically. Discussion of this possibility is unfortunately complicated by problems concerning the text and punctuation. Tov koyov [or] oaieareiXsv roig violg 'Iagarjk evayyefa^o/xsvoQ elg^vrjv did 'Irjaov Xqiarov ovTog eariv ndvrow xvgiog v/uelg o'idare TO yevofisvov grjfia xad1' okrjg rrjg 'Iovdaiag

. . .

If we retain ov how do we punctuate the passage? If we make TOV koyov the object of o '¿dare and regard gfj/na as in apposition to it, the meaning could only be that God in preaching the gospel of peace through Jesus was starting a rumour in Judaea that Jesus was doing good and healing demoniacs. I t is unlikely that either St. Peter or St. Luke would say this, and the use of anoaTskXeiv and the interpretation of Psalm 107. 20 would be very strange. I t is also difficult to see what was in the writer's mind if he linked God's preaching of peace with the rumour of Jesus' thaumaturgy. I t is more probable that v. 37 is not an amplification of v. 36, but a new idea. If then we put a full stop before vfielg oidare we are left with an epanalepsis with the subject attracted into the case of the relative, like I Cor. 10. 16; and the meaning would be, " T h e Logos whom God, preaching peace through Jesus Christ, sent to the children of Israel, is Lord of all". This is the suggestion of Blass, but in order to escape the personal sense of Xoyog he wished to emend xvgiog to xoivog. Why should such emendation be necessary? If we omit ov, Kirksopp Lake and Foakes Jackson tell us that the phrase ovrog eariv narrow xvgiog is most naturally taken to refer to koyov, not to Jesus Christ, " B u t it seems on the whole decidedly better to refer xvgiog to Jesus and treat the phrase as an ejaculatory parenthesis" — once again we encounter unwillingness to admit a personal sense for Xoyog outside the Johannine writings. Whatever the correct interpretation is, it may well be that we have here a clue to the problem of how Logos Christology arose — how the human Messiah could come to be identified with the principle by which the whole universe was created and hangs together, and without which it would presumably disintegrate. For however we punctuate the passage, it is quite clear that Psalm 106, 20 L X X was closely associated with the person and ministry of Jesus, so that despite the Hellenistic overtones which the word Aoyog had undoubtedly acquired in some circles, the Logos theology of the early church can be seen to have been grounded in the 0 . T. Without these Hellenistic overtones which gave it some measure of hypostasization, the term would never had come to be used in the Christological sense; but it was only to be expected that Diasporan Jews who knew no Hebrew should interpret the Septuagint according to the philosophical theology of the Hellenistic world; and even Palestinian Jews were influenced by the Hellenistic philosophical climate, for doctrines of the Torah current in Rabbinic circles show the influence of both the Stoic koyog and the Platonic (W. D. Davies, St Paul and Rabbinic Judaism pp. 171—174). I n the works of Alexandrian Jews we can see something

The Logos Outside St John

3

of how the process took place. Philo took the assimilation of the Biblical Xoyot; with the Hellenistic as far as it could possibly go. In the Wisdom of Solomon the Logos of Platonico-Stoic eclecticism appears as Sophia, Ttvevfia voegov which birjxei xal %wQ£i dia navraov (7. 24), a phrase which recalls a Stoic description of the Logos (Stoic. Vet. Frag. II 416). Sometimes the actual word Aoyog is used instead of oo ovöfian 'Irjaov V 10 begegnet Apg 9, 27; 26, 9 u n d im Munde der Mitglieder des Synedriums — lediglich durch Hinzufügung des Artikels einen distanzierenden Gebrauch andeutend — Apg 4, 18; 5, 40. D a ß der N a m e Jesus eine derartige Heilsbedeutung hat, zeigt sich in dem folgenden Bemühen, diese Bedeutung etymologisch zu erklären, wie dies Mt 1, 21—23 geschieht. So deutlich die Begründung der Erklärung mit dem Zitat aus J s 7, 14 auf den Evangelisten zurückgeht, so deutlich erweist gerade dieser mühevolle Versuch die Verwurzelung des Namens Jesus in der Tradition als Heilsname. Ohne etymologische Bemühung interpretiert Lk 1, 31 f. den N a m e n Jesus in gleicher Bedeutung u n d berichtet 2, 21 die Namensgebung als Vollzug der göttlichen Anweisung. F ü r die Tradition, in der der H y m n u s verwurzelt ist, darf d a r u m als der Heilsname, den Gott Jesus gegeben h a t , eben dieser N a m e Jesus angenommen werden. Diese Tradition h a t sich entwickelt, u n d die Titel Xgtarog und KVQIOQ sind mit dem Charakter des Namens angefügt worden, wie es sich vor allem bei Paulus beobachten läßt. To övofia xov XVQLOV RJFICOV 'Irjaov Xgiarov ist die von ihm bevorzugte Formulierung (IKor 1, 2. 10; 5, 4; 6, 11; I I T h 1, 12; 3, 6). U n d gewiß ist diese Formulierung d a n n auch in die Tradition eingegangen. Aber am Anfang steht der N a m e Jesus, u n d da wir den H y m n u s vorpaulinischer, urchristlicher Tradition zuzurechnen haben, ist dieser N a m e auch hier als der Würdename zu nehmen. E s ist eine ganz andere Frage, ob P a u l u s den H y m n u s derart verstanden wissen will. D a f ü r ihn die genannte erweiterte Formulierung kennzeichnend ist, erweist sich ro övo/na 'Irjaov als Kennzeichen der von Paulus übernommenen Tradition, nicht aber TÖ övofia ro VTCSQ näv övofia. Einerseits ist eine derartige Formulierung in der Tradition nicht anzutreffen, u n d andererseits entspricht der Superlativ ebenso wie in dem Verb vneqvxpovv der Vorliebe des Paulus f ü r derartige Übersteigerungen ( I I K o r 12, 7; I I T h 1, 3; I T h 4, 6; I I K o r 3, 10 u. a.). I s t das Ziel des H y m n u s damit der Preis des Heilsnamens Jesus verbunden mit dem Bekenntnis Kvgtog 'Irjaovg XQIOXÖQ (= I K o r 12, 3), so h a t dies f ü r das Verständnis des ganzen H y m n u s die Folgerung, daß er nicht den Mythos des präexistenten herab- u n d hinaufsteigenden Erlösers als Hintergrund h a t , sondern den urchristlichen Glauben an das Kyrios-Sein des gekreuzigten Jesus, dessen Weg von der Geburt bis zur Erhöhung der H y m n u s besingt. 3. Gegen die Annahme, daß V6—11 einheitlich als geschlossener H y m n u s vorpaulinischer H e r k u n f t anzunehmen ist, steht bereits die unterschiedliche S t r u k turierung des H y m n u s bei den Exegeten. 7 Verschiedene Kriterien legen es n a h e . 7

3»

Lediglich die Zweiteilung des Hymnus wird durchgehend akzeptiert, während die strophische Gliederung, die Lohmeyer Kyrios S. 5 vorschlägt, keineswegs derart allgemein akzeptiert wird. Vor allem J. Jeremias, Zur Gedankenführung in den Paulinischen Briefen, Studia Paulina 1953, S. 146—154 hat eine andere Gliederung vorgeschlagen. Wiederum anders gliedert G. Strekker, Redaktion und Tradition im Christushymnus Philipper 2, 6 - 1 1 ZNW 55/1964 S. 6 3 - 7 8 . vgl. den Bericht bei Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, Diss. Bonn 1967, S. 137ff.

24

H . W . BABTSCH

für die erste Hälfte des Hymnus (V6—8) insgesamt vorpaulinische Herkunft anzunehmen, während die zweite Hälfte (V9—11) stärkere paulinische Eingriffe zeigt. a) Während in V6—8 die Vokabeln /loqcprj, iaa oyftfia, xevovv, raneivovv und vnrjxoos von Christus als nicht-paulinisch bzw. gegenüber dem paulinischen Gebrauch in unterschiedlicher Bedeutung erscheinen, läßt sich dies für die zweite Hälfte nicht einmal uneingeschränkt für die Vokabeln vnsqvipovv und ovo/ia sagen. Wir hatten bereits gesehen, daß Paulus in beiden Vokabeln übersteigernde Akzente selbständig setzt, so daß wir hier eindeutig einen Eingriff in die Tradition feststellen können. Traditionelle Elemente, die sich als solche ausweisen, sind also in der zweiten Hälfte wesentlich spärlicher als in der ersten. b) Im ersten Teil ist Christus Subjekt, im zweiten zunächst Gott, um am Ende auf diejenigen überzugehen, die im Namen des Erhöhten anbeten werden. Es zeigt sich damit ein Unterschied der Struktur zwischen den beiden Hälften des Hymnus. c) Ein struktureller Unterschied zwischen beiden Hälften ist auch darin zu sehen, daß im ersten Teil Partizipien, gehalten durch drei finite Verben die zentralen Aussagen tragen, während im zweiten Teil sich kein einziges Partizip findet. d) Für den ersten Teil läßt sich im Unterschied zum zweiten eine klare hymnische Struktur in durchgehend nicht-paulinischer Diktion feststellen. Lediglich das überschießende Glied der letzten Zeile — bisher als einzige paulinische Hinzufügung angesehen — könnte ein Zusatz sein, ohne daß selbst diese Annahme zwingend ist: XQIOTOS 'Iriaovg SV [10Q(pfl &SOV V7lOQ% aAAa eavrov exevcoaev f^OQ, Mysi xvgios, ort Ifiol xdfiipei näv yow, xal näaa ykmcraa e£ofioXoyr\d£xai tm -&sq>. Nur auf den ersten Blick scheint zwischen beiden Zitierungen der Unterschied zu bestehen, daß Paulus R m 14, wörtlich dem L X X Text entsprechend, die Anbetung Gottes nennt, während Phil 2 die Anbetung dem Kyrios Jesus dargebracht wird. Tatsächlich sagt Phil 2 lediglich, daß die Proskynese im Namen Jesu dargebracht wird, und das Bekenntnis „zur Ehre Gottes" durch das Bekenntnis Kvgiog 'Irjoovg XgicnoQ entspricht dem Bekenntnis zu Gott im J e s a j a t e x t wie R m 14. Daß Paulus bei der Zitierung von J s 45, 23 den L X X Text auch in seinem K o n t e x t im Blick hat, kann auch zur Erklärung des Zusatzes „der Himmlischen, Irdischen u n d Unterirdischen" beitragen; denn im K o n t e x t von J s 45 entspricht näv yow V20 oi arpCo/isvoi änö rwv e&vcov u n d V22 ol an Eay/irov xf\c, yrjg. Haben wir es bei dem Zitat mit einer Interpretation durch Paulus zu t u n , so erübrigt es sich, den genannten Zusatz auf kosmische Wesen zu beziehen. 9 E s soll damit nicht ausgeschlossen werden, daß Paulus entsprechend seinem Gebrauch von xziaig R m 8, 19—22 an die gesamte Schöpfung denkt, zu der auch Geistmächte gehören, aber entfaltet ist dies erst im Kolosserbrief. 10 8 9

10

Vgl. M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 3. Aufl. 1959, S. 15. Gegen Lohmeyer Kyrios und Phil, sowie Martin Dibelius, Philipperbrief z. St. Die parallele Formulierung in Zauberpapyri kann dies ebenso wenig belegen wie Ign ad Trall. 9, 1. Daß Ignatius von Antiochien mit exakt den gleichen Bezeichnungen offensichtlich Geistwesen meint, die bei dem Erlösungsdrama zuschauen, beweist zwar, daß Phil 2, lOf so verstanden wurde, aber keineswegs, daß Paulus oder die Urchristenheit derart die kosmische Herrschaft Christi besingen wollte. Den Kolosserbrief halte ich aufgrund der abweichenden Terminologie und vor allem wegen der mysterienhaften Vorstellung vom stellvertretenden Leiden des Apostels in Analogie zum Leiden Christi für nicht-paulinisch, vgl. die knappe Aufzählung der Gründe bei E. Käsemann, RGG III, Sp. 1728, G. Bornkamm, Die Häresie des Kolosserbriefes, Das Ende des Gesetzes, 2. Aufl. 1961, S. 139, ausführlicher bei W. Marxsen, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1963, S. 160.

26

H. W.

BARTSCH

Als traditionelle Elemente des zweiten Teils bleiben also nur die Erhöhung als Charakterisierung der Auferstehung, die Verwendung des Namens Jesus und das Bekenntnis Kvgiog 'IrjoovQ XQIÜX6Q. Da es sehr unwahrscheinlich ist, daß der Hymnus mit der Aussage über den (Rreuzes)tod Jesu geschlossen hat, darf also angenommen werden, daß Paulus mithilfe des Zitats Js 45, 23 und der Zusätze, die dem Zitat den apokalyptischen Ausblick geben, sowie durch die preisenden Übersteigerungen, die am stärksten den poetischen, nicht technischen Gebrauch von Begriffen zeigen11, die ursprünglich abschließende Strophe erweitert hat. Zu dieser abschließenden Strophe darf als Abschluß das Bekenntnis gerechnet werden, da der ganze Hymnus damit durch den ,,Namen" Xgiarog 'Irjoovg — 'Irjaovi; XgiOTog umschlossen ist. Ausgehend von dem bisherigen Ergebnis, daß der Hymnus Jesus als den Christus besingt, demnach alle Aussagen sich auf den Weg des historischen Jesus beziehen, wird die Möglichkeit neu zu erwägen sein, daß die ersten Zeilen Gn 1, 26f. und 5, 1 sowie Gn 3, 5 aufnehmen und in dem Sinne auf Jesus beziehen, daß er ebenso wie Adam nach dem Bilde Gottes geschaffen wurde, aber nicht wie dieser die Gottgleichheit zu rauben suchte. Eine Interpretation des Hymnus auf dieser Grundlage hat O. Cullmann vertreten 12 , allerdings mit der Annahme, daß Jesus damit als der Himmelsmensch verstanden sei, der „die Ebed-Jahwe-Rolle auf sich nahm", so daß sowohl vom Präexistenten wie vom irdischen Jesus gehandelt wird. Falls die Beziehung zu Gn 1, 26f. etc. anzunehmen ist, ist allerdings eine Deutung mithilfe der Urmenschbzw. Himmelsmensch-Mythologie keineswegs notwendig. Die rabbinischen Spekulationen über Adam und die Schöpfungsgeschichte sind vielfältig und keineswegs bildet die Urmensch-Mythologie den Mittelpunkt oder gar einen außerhalb des alttestamentlichen Denkens stehenden Ansatzpunkt für diese Spekulationen. Die Abwandlung der Aussage Gn 1, 27: xar' elxova §eov enoirjoev avrov. zu Phil 2, 6: sv (toQyfj &sov vnaQxmv betrifft nicht nur die Vokabeln eixcov und ¡ioq &eä> (vgl. Jh 19, 7!). Allerdings will das Johannes13

Die Abwandlung entspricht damit dem Inhalt von Gn 1, 26f, nach dem die Gottesebenbildlichkeit die leibliche Erscheinung des Menschen meint (vgl. Gerhard von Bad, Das erste Buch Mose Genesis, 9. Aufl. 1972, S. 37f sowie Gerhard Kittel, ThWtbNT II, 1935, S. 388f). 14 O. Cullmann, Christologie S. 181 übersieht die Parallelität der beiden ersten Zeilen der zwei Strophen, wenn er die Beziehung zu Gn 1, 26f. für „die Gestalt des Himmelsmenschen" annimmt, „in der Jesus Christus . . . . im Uranfang war". Es kann dagegen angenommen werden, daß für den Zusammenhang des Hymnus das Charakteristikum der Gottesebenbildlichkeit wesentlich ist, daß die Elohimgestalt die Herrschaft über die Schöpfung einschließt (vgl. dazu H. Wildberger, Das Abbild Gottes Gen. 1, 26—30 und die dort angegebene Literatur, ThZ. 21/1965 S. 245ff und 481 ff). Dies gilt jedoch für den Menschen, nicht für ein präexistentes Wesen. 15 Es ist nicht nötig, die Vokabel anders zu interpretieren, als sie allein in der außerchristlichen Literatur begegnet, Bezeichnung für die Tätigkeit des Baubens (W. Foerster, ThWtbNT 1,1933, S. 472). Die Bemühungen von M. Dibelius im Exkurs zur Vokabel (Handbuch zum NT S. 75f), die ganze Wendung durch „als Beute betrachten, für einen guten Fund halten" oder in vulgären Jargon der Gegenwart übertragen „für ein gefundenes Fressen halten" zu übertragen, haben nicht nur gegen sich, daß „eine solche B e d e n s a r t . . . zu trivial sei, um in dem ernsten und pathetischen Christushymnus verwendet zu werden." In der paraphrasierenden Übertragung verzichtet Dibelius gänzlich auf eine Übertragung dieser Wendung. Die Übertragung stützt sich auf eine Wendung, die nicht mit der des Christushymnus identisch ist, äoTtay/ua jioieiaftai=

evQrjfia fjyela§ai.

«> Vgl. Joh. Schneider ThWtbNT VII, 1964, S. 954ff., der allerdings den aktiven Charakter der Vokabel unterbewertet. Die Haltung eines Menschen kann gerade, wenn die des Vornehmen der des Sklaven gegenübergestellt wird (Luc. Somnium 13), nicht ohne das entsprechende Verhalten beurteilt werden. " G. Stählin, ThWtbNT, I I I , 1938, S. 353. Diese Gleichheit wird spezifiziert als „Würde-, Willensund Wesensgleichheit".

28

H . W . BARTSCH

evangelium keineswegs die Gottgleichheit Jesu in dem Sinne behaupten, wie sie für die Juden als Blasphemie erscheint. Vor allem wehrt die frühchristliche Überlieferung den Vorwurf ab, Jesus habe sich selbst eine Würde bzw. eine Vollmacht beigelegt. Diesem Vorwurf gegenüber ist auch die Aussage des Hymnus zu verstehen, daß Jesus nicht in Anspruch nahm, Gott gleich zu sein.18 Die Parallelität der jeweils dritten Zeilen beider Strophen hat in der Exegese zuerst zur Annahme eines Parallelismus membrorum geführt. Jedoch erhalten die Aussagen naturgemäß eine andere Bedeutung, wenn mit der Kenosis, der Demütigung nicht die Menschwerdung gemeint sein kann, sondern diese Aussagen v o m irdischen Jesus her zu verstehen sind. Die Vokabel xevovv begegnet im A T in Zusammenhängen, die vom Gericht Gottes über Jerusalem bzw. über die Menschheit handeln (Jer 14, 2; 15, 9; Ez 12, 20; 26, 2). Dieser Zusammenhang wird noch deutlicher, wenn man die anderen griechischen Übersetzungen der hebräischen Vokabel Vax vergleicht I R g 2, 5; Js 24, 4. 7; 33, 9 u. ö. Zwar begegnet das Verbum niemals wie im Hymnus in reflexiver Form, aber sie kann danach nur die Unterwerfung unter dieses Gericht Gottes meinen. Da das Exil ebenso wie die Unterwerfung des Volkes Israel durch fremde Herrscher als Gericht Gottes verstanden werden, darf die Aussage des Hymnus in diesem Sinn zu interpretieren sein: Jesus unterwirft sich dem Gericht, das Gott mit der Unterwerfung durch die Römer über sein Volk verhängt hat. Dieselbe Bedeutung hat nahezu das parallele Verb der zweiten Strophe raueivovv, das in der Tradition als Gegenbegriff zu vyjovv konkrete Bedeutung hat (Mt 23, 12//Lk 14, 11; 18, 14 - I R g 2, 7; Ez 17, 24; Sir 7, 11). Es bedeutet die Unterwerfung unter die Abhängigkeit von einem Herrn, wie es konkret in der Geschichte von Sara und Hagar Gn 16,6.9 belegt ist. Auch im übertragenen Sinn geht die konkrete Bedeutung nicht verloren. Bei Josephus (Bell. I V , 319; 365) hat die Vokabel ausschließlich negative Bedeutung, bezeichnet den niederen Rang von Menschen. Die scheinbar bis zur Identität der Bedeutung gehende Parallele der beiden Verben ist nicht dahin zu differenzieren, daß raneivovv nach M t 11, 29 als innere Haltung zu verstehen ist. Auch die Demut vor Gott (Jac 4, 10) ist nur insofern im Hymnus mit angesprochen, als die konkrete Erniedrigung als Gericht Gottes gesehen wird. Die letzten Zeilen der beiden Strophen sind von daher bereits in ihrer Bedeutung insoweit bestimmt, als sie in gleicher Weise konkret auf das Schicksal des Volkes Israel zu jener Zeit bezogen sind. Ist mit ¿avrov exevmaev gesagt, daß Jesus sich dem über sein Volk verhängten Gericht Gottes unterwarf, dann führt die Aussage ¡xog) and t h e noun "teaching" (biba^rj) in a narrow sense, applying it specifically to instruction in the law of God. 6 His "teaching", in the Matthaean presentation, is set forth in the form of directions for the conduct of life—commands which are meant to be obeyed. This overriding conception comes out clearly and unmistakably in the words of the risen Jesus, given as his final charge to his disciples, which are in a way the key to the understanding of the entire gospel. "Go . . . and make disciples of all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all t h a t I have commanded y o u " (Matt. 28:19—20). The content of the teaching is envisaged as consisting of commands which men are to observe. The same thought is conveyed in the parable of the two houses which forms the conclusion of the sermon on the mount. The words that Jesus has spoken, it is implied, consist of directions for things to be done. The man who hears these things and does them is likened to a man who built his house upon a rock; the man who hears them and does not do them is likened to a man who built his house upon the sand. I t is not a m a t t e r of understanding, or even of intention, but of action. The teachings of Jesus are rules for the conduct of life; they declare in the form of concrete requirements the will of God for man; and it is vain to call Jesus "Lord" unless men do the will of his Father which is in heaven, as Jesus has made it known (Matt. 7:21). So far does this go t h a t Matthew has been accused of 'rabbinizing' Christianity, or 're-Judaizing' the gospel, of substituting a new law for the grace of God which 6

4

"Freilich besteht kein Zweifel, daß im Matthäusevangelium ôiôdaxeiv gegenüber der Markusredaktion eingeengt erscheint und speziell die Gesetzlehre Jesu kennzeichnet" (G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit 2 [Bonn, 1965] p. 127). See also the remarks of Dom J. Dupont, on "Enseignment" chez Matthieu' in his article "Le point de vue de Matthieu dans le chapitre des paraboles" (L'Evangile selon Matthieu: Rédaction et Théologie [BEThL X X I X , Gembloux, 1972] ed. M. Didier, 252—255). "Nous croyons que l'évangéliste applique ce verbe à un enseignement qui a pour objet les exigences que la volonté divine impose à la conduite des hommes." Studia Evangelica VII

38

F . W . BEARE

brings salvation "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy" (Tit. 3:5 AV). And certainly the gospel of Matthew, far more widely used throughout the second century than any other Christian writing, contributed powerfully to the growing tendency to legalize the Christian religioneven though we have to wait for the Roman (African) lawyer Tertullian to venture to define the Christian religion as a nova lex—the "new law" alongside the "old law" of Moses. The keynote is struck in the series of pronouncements which introduce the body of the sermon (5:17—20). Jesus proclaims that he has not come to destroy but to fulfil. I n the context, it is clearly the fulfilment of the law t h a t is meant, though Jesus speaks of " t h e law and the prophets". Not one iota, not one tiny stroke is to pass from the law while heaven and earth stand. There is to be no relaxation; "Whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." The scribes and the Pharisees may be punctilious in the keeping of the law, but Jesus warns his hearers t h a t "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven". This seems to be a far cry from the insistence of St. Paul t h a t "a man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (Rom. 3:28; cf. Gal. 2:16); that in the gospel "the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law" (%co(>is vo/iov — Rom. 3:21); and who declares t h a t "If it is the adherents of the law who are to be heirs (that is, in Matthew's phrase, to enter the kingdom of heaven), then faith is null and the promise is void" (Rom. 4:41 RSV). Yet we must recall t h a t St. Paul also tells us t h a t "God has done what the law . . . could not do; sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" (Rom. 8:3—4). At all events, it is no part of my purpose to reconcile the divergent approaches of St. Paul and St. Matthew. Perhaps they are less acute than appears on the surface. Perhaps we might say t h a t if the words of Jesus, as Matthew interprets them, lend themselves to the support of a new legalism, the words of St. Paul, as he wrote and published them, could be and were misinterpreted by others as advocating antinomianism (Rom. 3:8). The continuing validity of the Mosaic law has been affirmed in the most uncompromising terms. Yet Matthew now brings before us a series of six antitheses in which Jesus on his own authority revises the traditional law and gives it a new interpretation. He recalls the old with the phrase: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old", and he follows this with his own pronouncement, " B u t I say to you". I n the mind of Matthew, these antitheses serve to clarify what is meant by the "fulfilling" of the law. I t is not merely that Jesus himself keeps the law, but that in his teaching he fills it with a deeper meaning. The commandments are not relaxed, much less nullified, but are made still more stringent and searching. The command to do no murder is deepened to include the prohibition of anger, which carries within it the impulse to commit murder (cf. 1 John 3:15— "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer"); and then the commandment is applied in a positive sense to demand the active quest of reconciliation with an alienated brother. The commandment which prohibits adultery is extended to

Jesus as Teacher and Thaumaturge: the Matthaean Portrait

39

include the lustful look which implies the will to commit adultery. The commandment to love your neighbour is extended to include the love of enemies; and the lex talionis ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth")—initially a law designed to set a limit upon revenge—is deepened to prohibit the taking of any revenge at all, and is extended in a positive sense to demand t h a t we requite evil with good by walking the second mile and by giving your shirt to the man who compels you to hand over your jacket. We cannot go through the sermon in all its parts, but we must take note t h a t as he comes to the end of it, Matthew brings in the well-known sentence which we know as the Golden Rule, which corresponds to the initial pronouncement about the intention of Jesus to fulfil the law and the prophets. He now sums it all up in the words: "Whatsoever you wish t h a t men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets" (7:12). We may fairly take these words as revealing Matthew's understanding of what it means to fulfil the law and the prophets. And at this point Matthew comes strangely close to St. Paul, who wrote to the Romans: Owe no man anything, except to love one another ; for he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet", and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom. 13:8—10 RSV) Finally, I would point out that while Matthew begins with the presentation of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, and maintains this theme throughout the gospel story, it turns out at the end that the Messianic categories are insufficient, and t h a t he who came into the world as Israel's Messiah is now exalted to the sovereignty of the universe. "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me", proclaims the risen Lord. And in the light of t h a t revelation the whole of his earthly career is set in a new light. The Torah t h a t Jesus as Messiah delivered t o the men of Israel is now entrusted to his disciples t h a t it may be made the law of life for all mankind. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all t h a t I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (28:19-20).

4*

The Markau Redaction of the Transfiguration E. BEST, Glasgow

Since we are interested in the setting of this incident in Mark's gospel and his interpretation of it it is unnecessary to inquire after its origin, earlier Sitz im Leben, or meaning in the tradition before Mark; in particular we do not need to discuss Riesenfeld's 1 theory that it is closely related to the Feast of Tabernacles, for it is impossible that Mark could have expected his readers to pick up and understand this background. However there are other Old Testament motifs which may have helped to shape the account in its earlier stages and which could have been appreciated in Rome and we have to ask whether these were of importance in Mark's use of the pericope. The background has been found in the theophanies of Mount Sinai to which the idea of the new Moses would be related and in the apocalyptic scenery of Daniel which would bring in the idea of the Son of Man; it is not necessary that these should be regarded as alternatives; both may have affected the tradition. 2 Apart from this commentators have tended to divide in recent years between those who relate the Transfiguration to the resurrection and those who relate it to the Parousia. 3 There are obvious connections in both cases. 8.38 and 9.1 immediately preceding the Transfiguration suggest the latter and are supported by the transformation of Jesus' body, which might be expected at the Parousia. The direct reference to the resurrection in 9.9f. linked to the prediction of it in Mark at 8.31 suggest the former. Here it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the origin of the Transfiguration in a resurrection appearance which has subsequently been relocated in the 1

Jésus transfiguré. L'arrière-plan du récit evangélique de la transfiguration de Nôtre-Seigneur. Lund, 1947. 2 M. Sabbe, 'La rédaction du récit de la Transfiguration' in La Venue du Messie (Recherches Bibliques VI) Bruges, 1962, pp. 65—100, traces both backgrounds in t h e account. 3 The most recent survey is t h a t of J . A. Ziesler, 'The Transfiguration Story and the Markan Soteriology', Exp. Times 81 (1969/70) 263—8, in which most of the literature is listed. I t needs however to be supplemented b y M. Horstmann, Studien zur markinischen Christologie (Münster, 1969), pp. 72—139. We should note also: M. Thrall, 'Elijah and Moses in Mark's account of the Transfiguration', NTS 16 (1969/70) 3 0 5 - 1 7 ; W. Gerber 'Die Metamorphose Jesu, Mark 9. 2f. par.' TZ 23 (1967) 385—95; A. Feuillet, 'Les perspectives propres à chaque évangéliste dans le récit de la Transfiguration', Bib. 39 (1958) 281-301; R. Lafontaine e t P. M. Beernaert, 'Essai sur la structure de Marc 8. 2 7 - 9 . 13', Recherches de Se. Rel. 57 (1969) 5 4 3 - 6 1 ; P. G . Bretscher, 'Exodus 4. 2 2 - 2 3 and the Voice from Heaven', J B L 87 (1968) 3 0 1 - 3 1 1 ; P . Neirynck, 'Minor Agreements Matthew-Luke in the Transfiguration Story' in Orientierung an Jesus ( F ü r Josef Schmid; edited P. Hoffmann) Freiburg, 1973, pp. 2 5 3 - 6 6 ; W. Schmithals, 'Der Markusschluß, die Verklärungsgeschichte und die Aussendung der Zwölf', ZTK 69 (1972) 3 7 9 - 4 1 1 ; T. A. Burkiii, Mysterious Revelation (Cornell, 1963) pp. 145ff.; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom and the Son of Man (S. N. T. S. Monograph Series 21; Cambridge, 1973), pp. 53 ff.

42

E . BEST

earthly life of Jesus and Mark's alleged view that in the Transfiguration the risen Jesus and not the Jesus of the Second Coming is presented to the disciples. Despite Bultmann's endorsement of the former theory 4 it is not tenable; C. H. Dodd in a classic study 5 of the 'form' of the resurrection appearance narratives has clearly demonstrated that the Transfiguration lacks the characteristics of the resurrection 'form'. There is no initial sense of lonely abandonment on the part of the disciples, no introductory word of greeting, reproach, or command from Jesus to those to whom he appears, no recognition by them of the figure who appears as the earthly Jesus they have previously known, no commission or instruction from Jesus to the disciples. Instead we find, what we do not find in any of the resurrection accounts, that Jesus is silent, that there is a voice from heaven which identifies Jesus, not as the earthly one, but as the super-human (which seems unnecessary in a resurrection appearance), that he is accompanied by two heavenly figures, and that uxp&rj, the characteristic word of the appearances, is used of these figures and not of Jesus. We possess at least two distinct traditions about the Transfiguration, for the account in 2 Pet. 1.16—18 does not depend on any of the synoptic accounts. Nearest to Matthew it differs from it considerably: 6 the mountain is described as 'holy' and not as 'high', the voice speaks 'from heaven' and not 'from the cloud', the words of the voice are in a different order from that found in Matthew, fxov is added to dyanrjzos, ¿yd) inserted before evdoxrjoa and els ov used instead of ev o>. No mention is made of the cloud or of Moses and Elijah but this, it must be allowed, may only be because the account has been stripped of superfluous detail in order to confirm the authority of 'Peter'. The Ethiopian version of the Apocalypse of Peter (chs. 15—17)7 may represent yet another tradition or be allied to that in 2 Peter since the mountain is again described as holy. The disciples are praying (in the Lukan account it is Jesus who prays) as they go with Jesus to the mountain, and their interest lies not in Jesus but in the heavenly figures; it is these, unnamed at first, who apparently are transfigured, and the point of the narrative seems to be that their transfigured form discloses the nature of heavenly existence. At its conclusion Jesus as well as Moses and Elijah is borne away by the cloud. More interesting but much more difficult to evaluate is the assertion that Matthew and Luke had access either to another tradition in addition to that of Mark or to the tradition which Mark used; as is well known there are a number of minor agreements between them against Mark. The evidence has been examined 4

History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 259. He was by no means the first to suggest a resurrection setting but his imprimatur has led to its wide acceptance without independent examination. 5 'The Appearances of the Risen Christ: an Essay in Form-Criticism of the Gospels' in Studies in the Gospels (Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot), Oxford, 1955, pp. 9—35. Cf. also G. H. Boobyer, St. Mark and the Transfiguration Story, Edinburgh 1942; Sabbe, art. cit. Curiously C. E. Carlston, 'Transfiguration and Resurrection', JBL 80 (1961) 233—40, who advocates a misplaced resurrection account is unaware of Dodd's article; so also is Schmithals (see. n. 3). 6 Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (London, 1969) ad loc. See also C. Bigg, The Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Edinburgh, 1910); K. H. Schelkle, Der Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief (Freiberg, 1964). 7 See E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. R. McL. Wilson, London, 1965) II, pp. 663 ff. for this and for its relation to the Akhmim version.

The Markan Redaction of the Transfiguration

43

most recently by Schramm 8 and Neirynck 9 who reach opposite conclusions. The discussion raises so many wider issues in relation to synoptic source criticism that it is impossible to discuss it here. In order to determine Mark's understanding of the pericope we begin with his redactional activity. 10 In v. 2 YMxibiav /xovovg is clearly Markan for: (i) Mark loves double expressions; 11 (ii) he uses y.ar'idiav frequently in redactional passages (4. 34; 6. 31, 32; 7. 33; 9. 28; 13. 3); (iii) he regularly depicts Jesus as separating the disciples or a group of them for special teaching (4. 10, 34; 7. 17, 24; 8. 10 etc.); here we have such a separation of three disciples from the remainder and from the crowd (8. 34) and they are given special instruction (9. 7) and revelation. 12 If these words are Markan how much of the rest of the verse is his? The 'high mountain' could be (cf. 3. 13; 6. 46; 13. 3) but is not distinctively so for it was in such general use to describe a place of revelation (cf. in the N. T. Mt. 5. 1; 15. 29; 28. 16; Lk. 6. 12)« that it was almost certainly part of the pre-Markan tradition; the scene must have had some geographical setting and it has the same setting in the independent tradition of 2 Pet. 1. 16—18. None of the other words in the verse is characteristically Markan. v> The association of Peter, James and John with Jesus is found also at 5. 37; 14. 33 (cf. 1. 16-20; 13. 3); it is difficult to determine whether Mark is responsible for their names in our pericope 15 ; Peter is so much a part of the story that his name must have present from the beginning; Mark could either have introduced the three in place of a general discipleship reference or in place of the sole name of Peter 1 6 (three disciples balances the three booths which Peter sug8 T. Schramm, Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas (S. N. T. S. Monograph Series 14), Cambridge, 1971, pp. 1 3 6 - 9 . 9 A r t . cit. 10 We do not need to examine the earlier course of the development of the tradition; cf. F. H a h n , The Titles of Jesus in Christology, London 1969, pp. 334—7; H o r s t m a n n , op. cit., pp. 74—80. H . P. Müller, 'Die Verklärung Jesu', ZNW, 51 (1960) 56—64, divides t h e pericope into two distinct earlier accounts, vv. 2 ab, 7 (9) and vv. 2 c—6, 8, which he believes were joined a t t h e time when t h e Messiah Christology a n d t h e Son of Man Christology were united. This will have been pre-Markan. Many of t h e a t t e m p t s t o find two sources for t h e narrative derive f r o m Lohmeyer's view (which he later abandoned in his Markus) t h a t t h e idea of transfiguration in t h e story is a Hellenistic addition t o an earlier Jewish tradition; see his 'Die Verklärung J e s u nach dem Markus-Evangelium', Z N W 21 (1922) 185—215. Some of t h e difficulties which have led t o division hypotheses can be accounted for more easily through the hypothesis of Markan redaction. 11 Cf. F . Neirynck, Duality in Mark: Contributions to t h e S t u d y of t h e Markan Redaction, Leuven, 1973. 12 Sabbe, art. cit., thinks incorrectly t h a t the secrecy derives f r o m t h e n a t u r e of apocalyptic revelation. 13 W. Foerster, T D N T V pp. 475ff.; U. Mauser, Christ in t h e Wilderness (Stud, in Bib. Theol. 39), London, 1963; J . Schreiber, Theologie des Vertrauens, H a m b u r g , 1967, pp. 164—7. 14 IlaQa^afißdvw does appear in Markan redactional passages (4. 36; 5. 40; 7. 4; 10. 32; 14. 33) b u t it is a normal word on each occasion and it is used more regularly b y Matthew (sixteen times t o Marji's six). 15 As a unit of three they are probably pre-Markan for t h e y come at t h e head of his list of t h e Twelve in 3. 16f. Andrew is pushed down t h e list from his natural position beside Peter, and t h e three are t h e only ones in it who have been given 'nicknames' b y Jesus. lü Cf. B u l t m a n n , op. cit., p. 260; H o r s t m a n n , pp. 83—5; Müller, art. cit., rraoa/a/i/Jai'co is also closely associated with these three names in 14. 33.

44

E . BEST

gests building). The reference to 'six days' is surprising since Mark apart from the Passion narrative generally fails to supply temporal data; there is no clear sixsymbolism in Mark (in its origin the number six may go back to Exod. 24. 16); it is difficult to interpret within the Gospel. Mark tends to retain the irrelevant details that come to him in the tradition17, cf. his retention here of the description of Jesus as Rabbi which both Matthew and Luke change. We conclude that the six days was found in the pre-Markan stage of the tradition.18 But if we ascribe the six days to the tradition this implies that in the tradition our pericope possessed a temporal connection with some other event. Has then Mark broken or disturbed a connection which previously existed? Schmithals (art. cit.) has recently suggested a new theory which accounts for the six days. He argues that it is inconceivable that Mark's source which provided him with a connected and detailed account of the arrest, trial and execution, death, burial of Jesus and included the discovery of the empty tomb could have lacked resurrection appearances. In fact the transfiguration followed in Mark's source directly after the discovery of the empty tomb (after 16. 8), and was dated as taking place six days after that event.19 A time dating here would correspond to the series of such data throughout the-passion narrative. Mark however decided that he would not follow his source at this point. He inserted 14. 28; 16.7 into it as a conscious replacement of 'appearences' and removed the Transfiguration, leaving 16. 8b which has caused so much trouble to commentators. In the source the women kept silence through fear but Jesus appeared to Peter. He assumes that only Peter 20 was mentioned in the Transfiguration account in Mark's source as vv. 5f. would indicate, and thus the story corresponded to the Petrine appearance of 1 Cor. 15.5. In the source also, as the Matthean and Lukan accounts show for they had access to it, Jesus' whole being was transfigured; Mark omits this and speaks only of a transformation of his clothes because in the pericope's new position it would be improper for the historical Jesus to have had his existence transformed. Moses and Elijah, who according to Jewish tradition could return as heavenly visitants, indicate the eschatological nature of the event. Mark changed the order 'Moses and Elijah' to 'Elijah with Moses' because he wished to emphasise Elijah in view of vv. 11—13; Matthew and Luke restore the original order again indicating that they knew Mark's source. The story ended in the source with the rapture of Jesus along with Moses and Elijah; the cloud of course would be a suitable vehicle for such a rapture.21 The earliest tradition of the resurrection appearances not only recounted an appearance to Peter but one to the Twelve (1 Cor. 15. 5) and Schmithals discovers Cf. Best, 'Mark's Preservation of the Tradition', in: L'Evangile selon Mare (ed. M. Sabbe, Gembloux, 1974), pp. 21—34, 'Markus als Bewahrer der Überlieferung' in: Das Markus-Evangelium (ed. R. Pesch, Darmstadt, 1979), 390-409. 18 Luke has apparently failed to see what the reference was for he has changed the six days to eight. 19 Bultmann, op. cit., pp. 259f. and others had already suggested dating the Transfiguration six days after the crucifixion but had not suggested that Mark himself moved the event. H. M. Teeple, The Mosaic Eschatological Prophet (J. B. L. Monograph Series, X ) Philadelphia, 1957, p. 85, argues that the Transfiguration was originally an account of the enthronement of Jesus as the Christ, a week after his resurrection. » Cf. n. 16 supra. 2' Cf. Acts 1. 9. 17

The Markan Redaction of the Transfiguration

45

this in 3. 13—19, their call. 22 He also accepts the suggestion of E . Linnemann 2 3 that 16. 15—20 is early but argues unlike her that it was the ending of Mark's source which he rejected but which survived and was later restored by someone who knew the source; thus the source gave the commissioning of the Twelve as well as their call. (It is difficult to see why Mark should discard such a clear commission and be content with 3. 14, 15a, which according to Schmithals he provided, and with 6. 7ff.) Why did Mark carry out this extensive re-editing of his source? Had he not done so his Messianic secret theory would have been impossible; he needed to eliminate from his source those pericopae which set the disclosure of Jesus' secret after his resurrection, and he required pericopae which acknowledged it in secret before his death. B y moving the story of the appearance to Peter, he was able to fulfill this purpose. What are we to say to this ? First of all the transference of the position of material which Schmithals suggests does not accord with what we know of Mark's editorial habits. H. W. Kuhn 2 4 has shown how Mark held together the larger complexes of material which he received, even though they sometimes contained units which he did not require; e. g. most of 10. 1—45 came to him as a unit; he only wished to use the final section, 10. 35—45, but because it was part of an existing complex he retained the whole—though of course adding to it and modifying it. As I myself have attempted to show in another paper he did the same with the smaller sections of the tradition, carefully preserving material though it was not necessary for his wider purposes. 25 I t was not then his habit to break up the sections of his sources. Turning now more directly to the Transfiguration account itself Schmithals several times assumes that Matthew and Luke knew not only Mark but the source which he used (in this way he accounts for their agreements against Mark). But Schmithals has also argued that the Transfiguration was not an isolated item in the pre-Markan tradition but part of a connected Passion narrative. Matthew and Luke can therefore only have known it as part of such a connected account. Why did they not restore it to its original position when at times they actually restored its original wording ? They do not adhere to Mark's Messianic secret theory and were therefore under no compulsion to place it prior to Jesus' death. Matthew instead of restoring it substitutes another commission to the Twelve and dispenses with the appearance to Peter which ancient tradition required. Luke for his part shows his awareness of the tradition about Peter (24. 34) yet omits the opportunity to narrate it; and he makes use of yet another commission. One of the points at which Matthew and Luke return to the source is in their agreement that Jesus' face shone, which Mark eliminated because it was unsuitable in a story about the earthly Jesus; would not Matthew and Luke also have been aware of its unsuitability ? I f Schmithals makes out Mark to be a clever editor he also makes both Luke and Matthew to be blunderers. In respect of the six day period and Mark's Passion source, so far as we can judge 22

23 24 25

He omits vv. 14b, 15 as Markan from the account as it is alleged to have appeared in Mark's source. XafSeïv avrov, se retrouve littéralement en Jér. 47, 1 L X X (TM 40,1). Or Bar. 1, 1 - 1 5 - B. N. Wambacq l'a bien montré est un centon : voir Jeremias . . ., Roermond, 1957, p. 363.

Le personnage de Baruch et l'histoire du livre de Jérémie

77

rise1J. Il est seulement dit de Baruch qu'il a écrit (sous la dictée de Jérémie) les paroles du livre et qu'il en a lu le contenu devant Jéchonias et son entourage en exil. Les m o t s xal ovroi oi koyoi rov jiifiMov ovç eygaipe Bagovx (v. 1) renvoient

beaucoup plus naturellement à ce qui précède qu'à ce qui suit, donc aux cinquante-deux chapitres de Jérémie plutôt qu'au prétendu livre de Baruch qui suit, et cela tant du point de vue de la grammaire (qui n'est pas décisive ici) que du point de vue du sens de la phrase. Si alors on se souvient que la critique externe peut montrer que, jusqu'au II ème siècle de notre ère en tout cas et plus tard chez les Latins, le «Livre de Baruch» n'a pas eu d'existence distincte du livre grec de Jérémie dont il faisait partie, les quatre premiers versets de Baruch apparaissent simultanément comme une sorte de colophon au Jérémie grec et comme une introduction au récit d'une lecture solennelle de ce même livre, dans des circonstances à préciser. Cette lecture solennelle de Jérémie est, toujours selon Baruch (v. 6 et 10), à l'origine d'une collecte et de l'envoi d'une mission à Jérusalem, chargée d'un livret que les Hiérosolymitains sont invités à lire et dont le contenu peut être soit tout ce qui suit (1, 15 à 5, 9), soit une partie de ce qui suit: au moins la prière de confession (1, 15 à 3, 8). Nulle part il n'est dit ou suggéré que Baruch soit l'auteur de la prière de confession et de la suite. Arrivé à ce point, une référence au chapitre 9 de Daniel peut aider à saisir la logique de l'articulation du livre de Jérémie et de son appendice. Les ressemblances littérales de la prière de confession de Daniel (9, 4—19) avec celle de Baruch sont bien connues. Et il a été prouvé à suffisance que Baruch dépend de Daniel 12 . Il y a plus. A ma connaissance, personne n'a observé que ces deux prières de confession, si semblables dans leur contenu, le sont aussi dans leur emplacement. Toutes deux se situent après une lecture scripturaire et, en l'occurence, une lecture du livre de Jérémie. La prière de Daniel suit une méditation sur la prophétie des soixante-dix années de Jérémie (25, 11—12 et 29, 10 TM), 11

12

L ' a u t e u r de la présente communication a justifié cette position en Î969, lors des Journées Bibliques de Louvain: Le nom de Baruch dans la littérature pseudépigraphique: l'Apocalypse syriaque et le livre deutérocanonique, dans La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna. Comptes rendus des Journées bibliques de 1969 à Louvain, éd. par W. C. v a n Unnik, Brill, Leiden 1974, p. 56—72. Voir u n résumé dans Le livre deutérocanonique de Baruch dans la liturgie romaine, dans Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R . P. Dom Bernard B o t t e O. S. B Louvain, 1972, p. 31—48, et dans le Bulletin de la Bible latine (Bulletin d'ancienne littérature chrétienne latine, t . V), annexé à i a Revue bénédictine 80, 1970, p. [204]—[206]. Les t r a v a u x de Bernard N. W a m b a c q sont, à mon avis, les premiers à avoir orienté les recherches dans une perspective féconde, depuis ceux, t o u t aussi importants, de H e n r y St. J o h n Thackeray. B. N. W a m b a c q écrit: «Vers 63 (58 ?) l'auteur a rédigé 4, 4—5, 9. Il a a j o u t é à son œuvre la prière pénitentielle qui circulait à son époque, et qui elle aussi déplorait la fameuse déportation. Comme il écrivait en grec, l'auteur a pris la traduction grecque existante. P a r une brève notice ajoutée par lui (3, 10—13), il a a d a p t é u n psaume didactique, où les Israélites étaient exhortés à méditer sur la transcendance de la Loi (3, 9—4, 4). Il a fait précéder le t o u t d'une introduction, rédigée elle aussi en grec, probablement avec l'intention de donner à son œuvre un caractère liturgique (1, 14). » (L'unité du livre de Baruch, dans Biblica 47 [1966], p. 574—576). Voir B. X. W a m b a c q , Les prières de Baruch (1, 15—2, 19) e t de Daniel (9, 15—19), dans Biblica 40, 1959, p. 463—475. L ' a u t e u r formule deux conclusions: 1. La prière de Daniel est antérieure à celle de Baruch. 2. L ' a u t e u r de celle-ci vivait en Palestine à un moment où ni la ville ni le temple n'étaient en ruine. Ces conclusions me paraissent fondées. J e fais une réserve sur un point: rien n'impose que l'auteur ait vécu en Palestine.

78

P . - M . BOGAERT

prophétie qui porte sur le retour du peuple exilé. Quant à la prière de confession dite de Baruch, elle n'est nulle part attribuée à Baruch, mais elle suit la lecture de Jérémie faite par un nouveau Baruch devant des exilés de marque comparables à Jéchonias et à son entourage. Comme le Baruch de l'histoire, ce nouveau Baruch n'est pas seulement scribe et lecteur, il est aussi le garant de l'accomplissement des oracles prononcés par Jérémie. Pas plus que le Baruch de l'histoire, le nouveau Baruch n'est un auteur. Il a été clairement montré que les versets 1 à 15 du chapitre 1 er du Livre de Baruch constituent une sorte de centon d'expressions tirées de la Bible grecque 13 . Il faut ajouter que, pour le fond, ce passage est à la fois une réplique et une antithèse du fameux chapitre 36 racontant l'épisode du rouleau déchiré. D'un côté, la lecture du rouleau entraîne une réaction d'opposition; de l'autre, elle entraîne la pénitence des grands et du peuple. Des deux côtés, le livre lu est constitué des oracles de Jérémie, et c'est Baruch qui les lit devant la cour. Ce n'est pas un hasard si le personnage, vrai ou fictif, chargé de la seconde lecture reçoit le nom de Baruch. Deux lignes d'interprétation sont dès lors possible. La première verrait dans le début du Livre de Baruch un fait uniquement littéraire: rien dans l'histoire du judaïsme ne sous-tendrait le récit de la lecture solennelle faite par un Baruch dont le nom et la réalité seraient d'invention. Cette ligne d'interprétation peut être soutenue, et il ne faut pas trop vite l'écarter au profit d'une seconde qui donne lieu à plus d'hypothèses. La seule difficulté qu'elle présente est que plusieurs détails contenus dans Bar. 1, 1—15 ne peuvent s'expliquer complètement par des parallèles bibliques et orientent vers une époque voisine du début de notre ère. Certains de ces détails ne paraissent pas avoir pu être inventés sinon pour correspondre à des événements historiques. L'autre ligne d'interprétation, sans négliger l'aspect littéraire, fait droit aussi à ces indices historiques. On peut la préciser de la manière suivante: 1. Elle suppose une lecture publique, au moins partielle, de Jérémie à l'occasion de l'anniversaire de la prise de Jérusalem (v. 2), et cela dans la Diaspora. Daniel et Baruch sont dès lors d'anciens témoins d'une lecture publique des Prophètes 14. 2. Bar. 1, 1—15 n'étant qu'un centon est certainement rédigé en grec et ne se justifie qu'ajouté à une version grecque de Jérémie. Cela n'empêche nullement que l'une ou l'autre partie du «livre de Baruch» soit traduite de l'hébreu 1 5 . S'il pouvait être prouvé qu'un même traducteur a travaillé à Jérémie et à Baruch, il serait tentant de conclure que la lecture solennelle de Jérémie grec a eu lieu à 13 14

15

Voir note 10. II paraît possible ainsi de rejoindre l'intuition de H. St. John Thackeray (The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, Londres, 1921), sans tomber dans les invraisemblances de sa démonstration. Voir B. N. Wambacq, L'unité littéraire de Bar., I—III, 8, dans Sacra Pagina. Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica, 1958, edd. J. Coppens, A. Descamps, É. Massaux, Gembloux, 1959, 1.1, p. 454—460: «Bar., I, 3—14, n'est pas une version; c'est un texte rédigé en grec par un auteur familier des Septante. Par conséquent, on ne saurait attribuer à un même auteur Bar., I, 3—14 et la prière pénitentielle, qui, elle, fur rédigée en hébreu. De plus, celui qui a traduit la prière pénitentielle n'est point non plus celui qui a rédigé notre introduction (p. 460).»

Le personnage de Baruch et l'histoire du livre de Jérémie

79

l'occasion de l'achèvement de la version grecque 16 . Il faut laisser cette hypothèse sans suite, du moins provisoirement 17 . 3. L'envoi à Jérusalem du fruit d'une collecte, la prière et les sacrifices pour les souverains païens sont caractéristiques d'une époque et ont de bons parallèles au début de notre ère dans le Judaïsme 18 . 4. Trois circonstances politiques devraient permettre de préciser l'époque à laquelle a eu lieu cette lecture : Il ressort des versets 7 et suivants qu'à Jérusalem l'autorité est entre les mains du Prêtre 19 , c'est-à-dire du grand prêtre, Joakim, et de ses collègues les prêtres. Le Temple fonctionne normalement, et il s'y fait des sacrifices. Dans le lieu, une ville sans doute, où a lieu la lecture solennelle, il faut noter la présence simultanée d'une communauté juive normale et d'un groupe de personnages princiers et royaux. Ici c'est moins la mention de Jéchonias qui est décisive — elle s'explique assez par la ressemblance avec Jér. 36 (TM), la lecture du rouleau — que celle, très curieuse dans sa précision, des fils des rois, vimv rwv flaaiXéoyv (v. 4). Je propose ici l'interprétation qui me paraît la meilleur, mais que je tiens pour une simple hypothèse. Il est de tradition dans la famille d'Hérode le Grand d'envoyer les princes en séjour de formation à Rome. On peut citer Alexandre et Aristobule en 23 avant J. C., Archélaiis, Philippe et Antipas vers 10 avant J. C. Une vingtaine d'années plus tard, la densité de cette présence à Rome est plus manifeste. Salomé, sœur du grand Hérode et mère de la Bérénice dont il va être question, meurt en 10 après 16

H. St. John Thackeray (The Greek Translators of Jeremiah, dans The Journal of Theological Studies 4 [1902—1903], p. 245—266) a montré que deux traducteurs ont collaboré à la version grecque de Jérémie, chacun pour une moitié. La démonstration a été acceptée, avec quelques petites nuances: voir J . Ziegler, dans Septuaginta . . ., t. XV (Jeremías. Baruch. Threni. Epistula Jeremiae), Gôttingen, 1957, p. 128, n. 1. Thackeray a montré aussi, après d'autres, que le grec de la première partie de Baruch a des affinités avec celui du traducteur de la deuxième partie de Jérémie. Ces affinités toutefois peuvent s'expliquer de différentes manières. Le dernier état de la pensée de Thackeray se lit dans A New Commentary on Holy Scripture including the Apocrypha, ed. by Ch. Gore, etc., Londres, S. P. C. K., 1928, p. 102—106 de la section «Apocrypha». " H. St. J . Thackeray (The Journal of Theological Studies 4 [1902-1903], p. 398, n. 2) a émis la suggestion que l'auteur de la première partie de Baruch serait le second des traducteurs de Jérémie. Les faits qu'il signale sont indiscutables, mais ils sont susceptibles d'autres explications, style anthologique par exemple. De plus, il faudrait de très graves raisons pour situer la traduction de Jérémie en grec fort tard ou l'ensemble appelé Livre de Baruch deux siècles avant notre ère. Il y a une explication naturelle aux ressemblances signalées par Thackeray: le personnage qui a ajouté cinq chapitres à Jérémie a eu au moins un rôle de rédacteur et d'éditeur sur ces cinq chapitres, et il avait toutes les raisons de bien connaître son Jérémie grec. 18 Prières et sacrifices pour les souverains païens: voilà un sujet qui mériterait une étude approfondie. On peut laisser de côté Jér 29, 7 (TM) trop général. Le plus ancien témoignage pourrait être une inscription grecque trouvée à Schedia (près d'Alexandrie): voir Wilhelmus Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones selectae . . ., t. II, Leipzig, 1905, p. 467, n° 726. L'inscription est du temps de Ptolémée I I I Evergète I e r (246—221); noter cependant que proseuchè y désigne la synagogue, non la prière. Pour les autres témoignages, voir Emil Schürer, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, t. II, 4ème éd., 1907, p. 357-362 et 499-500, ainsi que les commentaires à 1 Tim. 2, 2. Au sujet des collectes, voir E. Schürer, op. cit., t. III, 4& me éd., 1909, p. 148-149. 19 Sur l'usage tardif d'àoytsQevç, voir Gottlob Schrenk, dans Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neueri Testament, t. III, p. 266.

80

P . - M . BOGAERT

J . C. environ en léguant ses biens à l'impératrice Livie (plus tard Julie) 20 . Bérénice, épouse d'Aristobule assassiné en 7 avant J . C., est une amie intime d'Antonia Minor 21 , mère du futur empereur Claude; elle vit dans l'entourage d'Auguste 2 2 . Son fils Agrippa I e r est à Rome depuis 4 avant J . C. et grandit avec Tibère 2 3 ; ses deux autres fils sont peut-être à Rome. Reste à expliquer le pluriel de rois dans l'expression «fils des rois». Ce pluriel peut rappeler que les descendants d'Hérode sont alliés à d'autres familles royales. Ainsi Alexandre déjà nommé a épousé Glaphyra, fille du roi de Cappadoce, Archélaos, et celle-ci, après la mort de son mari en 7 avant J . C., épouse J u b a I I de Maurétanie 24 , personnage qui vit dans l'entourage d'Auguste avec une réputation littéraire. Alexandre et Glaphyra ont des enfants dont l'un, Tigrane IV, a été brièvement roi d'Arménie vers la fin du règne d'Auguste et a ensuite vécu à Rome. E t à côté de ces noms mentionnés par Flavius Josèphe et Strabon, combien sont ignorés 25 ? La prière pour le souverain mentionne deux bénéficiaires, Nabuchodonosor et son fils Balthasar. Même dans Dan. 5, 2, d'où vient cette généalogie approximative, Nabuchodonosor et Balthasar ne sont pas cités ensemble. Ils sont d'ailleurs des souverains hostiles. Le jonction de ces deux noms me paraît supposer l'existence d'une corégence ou d'une adoption. La considération simultanée de ces trois circonstances politiques suggère une localisation à Rome et une date qui se situerait vers la fin du règne d'Auguste (mort en 14 après J . C.) et après la déposition d'Archélaiis (en 6 après J . C.). La question de la succession f u t lancinante pour Auguste, et il dut procéder à plusieurs adoptions; durant les dernières années de son règne la présence de princes juifs paraît avoir été très dense; et aucun souverain juif ne peut prétendre régner à Jérusalem pendant ce laps de temps. Mais il importe de redire ici que localisation et datation précises restent du domaine de l'hypothèse. Certaines en revanche me paraissent une localisation générale dans la Dispersion et une datation imprécise entre la prise de Jérusalem par Pompée et sa destruction en soixante-dix. 26 Conclusions Voici, résumées, les conclusions auxquelles aboutit ce travail: 1. La fonction historique de Baruch apparaît mieux lorsqu'elle est replacée dans l'ordre original du livre de Jérémie, celui de la Septante. Sa fonction dépasse celle 20 Flavius Josèphe, AJ, XVIII, II, 2 (§ 31). Livia, appelée plus tard Julia, a vécu de 57 av. J. C. à 29 après J. C. 21 36 av. J. C. - 37 après J. C. 22 Strabon XVI, 765. 23 Flavius Josèphe, AJ, XVIII, VI, 1 et 5(§§ 143-144 et 165). M Né vers 50 av. J. C., mort vers 23 après J. C. 25 Jean-Baptiste Frey (Les communautés juives à Rome aux premiers temps de l'Égl ise, dans Recherches de Science Religieuse 20 [1930], p. 267—297; Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum, 1.1, Rome, 1936, p. LUI—CXLIV) et, plus récemment, Harry J. Léon (The Jews of the Ancient Rome, Philadelphia, 1960, XII—378 p.) ont noté l'existence à Rome de ces personnalités princières. Le présent travail fait peut-être percevoir par quel biais cette présence a pu jouer un rôle religieux. 26 Ces dates ressortent des travaux de B. N. Wambacq et de ses prédécesseurs (voir note 11). Après 70, l'attitude vis-à-vis du Temple (détruit) et du pouvoir civil serait différente.

Le personnage de Baruch et l'histoire du livre de Jérémie

81

du lecteur ou du copiste ; elle est celle d'un notaire ou d'un archiviste qui a dans sa charge de constater l'accomplissement. 2. La critique interne, confirmant les conclusions de la critique externe 2 7 , n'arrive pas à discerner l'existence ancienne d'un «Livre de Baruch» dans les cinq chapitres auxquels nous donnons ce nom ; elle y voit seulement un appendice à la version grecque de Jérémie. Ni dans l'appendice ni dans le livre de Jérémie, Baruch n'est donné comme un auteur. Les cinq chapitres du «Livre de Baruch» sont ainsi à rapprocher des suppléments deutérocanoniques de Daniel et d'Esther, puisqu'ils cessent d'être indépendants. 3. La critique littéraire doit souligner le parallélisme antithétique entre Jér. 36 TM (lecture du rouleau de Jérémie par Baruch devant le roi) er Bar. 1, où une action similaire entraîne le résultat opposé. Quelle que soit la portée historique des faits narrés par Bar. 1, cette constatation marque bien le mécanisme littéraire selon lequel a été opérée l'addition des cinq chapitres (ou d'une partie d'entre eux). 4. Certains détails invitent à voir dans Bar. 1, 1—15 plus qu'une simple fiction littéraire. Il y a très probablement un fundamentum in re. Une lecture publique de la version grecque de Jérémie (ou d'une partie de celle-ci), suivie d'une collecte et de l'envoi d'une mission à Jérusalem, a dû avoir lieu entre 63 avant J . C. et 70 après J . C. Il est permis de tenter des hypothèses plus précises. 5. Ainsi, à tous les stades de son histoire, le nom de Baruch est associé au Livre de Jérémie comme celui d'un secrétaire et d'un notaire vigilant. Ce n'est qu'avec VApocalypse syriaque de Baruch qu'il deviendra un nom d'auteur, et cela après soixante-dix de notre ère. 27

Voir les articles mentionnés à la note 11. — Le raisonnement suivi ici dans le cadre de la critique interne n'a qu'un élément en commun avec celui suivi dans la critique externe: la succession immédiate Jér. 2 à 52 et Bar. 1 à 5.

Is a Basis of Fact Discernible in the Miracle Story of the Healing of the Blind Man at Bethsaida (Mk viii. 22-26)? i W. J. P.

BOYD,

Falmouth

In the wake of Form Criticism, New Testament scholarship has tended to say about the question of how far any Gospel incident may be regarded as historical, that the question cannot be answered directly, as all units of tradition have been preserved primarily because they served some theological need or other in the Primitive Church. The chief importance about any pericope is the light it throws on the life and faith of the earliest Christians. Such an observation has yielded a rich harvest of results, and has helped us to understand the Primitive Church in a much more adequate way. However, we cannot totally ignore the question of historicity, for the forbidden historical questions such as 'Did it really happen?' or 'Is this a true record?' persistently pose themselves, even though we may prefer to ignore them as we may judge our procedures for determining such questions as inadequate. This is where the story of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida is so interesting, as in its present form it could be regarded as theologically embarrassing. Perhaps that is why neither Matthew nor Luke include it in their gospels. Their omissions and revisions of Marcan material are always interesting, and they appear to be much more sensitive to theologically embarrassing material than Mark ever was. In the miracle story of the healing of the epileptic boy (Mk ix. 14—29; Mt xvii. 14—20 (21); Lk ix. 37—43a) Mark describes two fits suffered by the boy, the second occurring after Jesus' command to the evil spirit to depart (v 26). Both Matthew and Luke alter the narrative to indicate the immediate obedience of the demon to the apopompe of Jesus. In the Marcan account it would be possible to interpret the story as suggesting that the first command of Jesus was insufficient on its own, and even the second needed to be followed by the touch of Jesus to resuscitate the lad. Similarly we recall the well-known revisions of Mark by the first and third gospels such as the graceful omission of Mark's ¿Qyiofteig (Mk i. 41 D), the 'warm indignation' of Jesus when healing the leper; or the opinion of the family or friends of Jesus that he was mentally deranged (Mk iii. 21). In all these instances, it is difficult to rebut the probability that historicity is found in the Marcan rather than the other Synoptic revised accounts. The story of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida maintains the Marcan characteristics of detailed recital regardless of possibly unfortunate theological implications being involved. It is a remarkable story on several counts: (a) the miracle appears to be achieved in two stages; (b) Jesus does not appear to be 1 Cf. Mt ix. 27-31, xii. 22, xv. 30f., xx. 29-34, xxi. 14; Mkx. 46-52; Lk vii. 21, xviii. 35-43; Jn ix. 1—7.

84

\V. J. P. BOYD

too sure what the result will be of his first actions of applying spittle to t h e eyes and of laying hands upon the blind man (our first stage), for he asks t h e patient, 'Can you see a n y t h i n g ? ' 2 ; (c) dissatisfied with the man's reply, Jesus then lays his hands upon t h e man's eyes a second time, this time with completely satisfactory results, 'and he saw clearly and was restored, a n d he continued to gaze at everything, seeing distinctly' 3 . The story is unique in suggesting t h a t Jesus laid his hands upon the man twice, and the man's answer t o t h e question of Jesus about whether he could see anything, ' I see men, b u t I see t h e m as walking trees' 4 , has suggested to some commentators t h a t a gradual cure is intended. The story is prima facie embarrassing theologically, as the conventional understanding of miracle sees it as a demonstration of God's omnipotent a n d omniscient saving power which is more t h a n adequate for any possible contingencies in any given state of affairs. This miracle-story, however, suggests t h a t Jesus was almost feeling his way, as he proceeded on a strictly pragmatic basis. Pragmatism characterizes the whole incident: When t h e y first brought t h e blind man, asking Jesus to touch him and heal him, we read t h a t Jesus, 'took hold of t h e hand of t h e blind man' (v 23, t h u s displaying imaginative insight and consideration for his condition), 'and led him out of t h e village' (away f r o m the confusion a n d clamour of the bustling crowd, to where they could quietly concentrate on what had to be done), 'and he spat into his eyes' 5 (as an aid to faith, recalling how Tobit received his sight when his son Tobias 'blew into his eyes' 6 , a n d then applied the medicament prepared f r o m the gall of the dolphin, Tobit xi. 11, 12); he questioned him as any doctor would when he wanted to know how effective a course of t r e a t m e n t in fact h a d been. The pragmatic note is maintained u p to t h e final dismissal, when instead of the customary injunction not to publicise the miracle 7 , Jesus simply said, 'Do not go into t h e village' (viii. 26) as he sent him home; for he realised t h a t whether the man was silent or not, all would be bound to know he was cured, if t h e y saw him walking about freely. The m a t t e r of fact t r e a t m e n t of things, which implies acting on a basis of contrivance to achieve efficiently given ends, is, as J o h n Stuart Mill reminded us long ago, in principle opposed to omnipotence. 8 Our exegetical difficulties can be positively aided at this point by t h e contribution of modern medical science. The last three decades have seen t h e development of sophisticated techniques in ophthalmic surgery which have enabled a number of people born blind, to see for t h e first time when t h e y were already adults. Their experience of seeing for the first time is now well-documented. 9 2

Cf. Mk viii. 23 inrjQmra avrov, El n fSMneig; Cf. Mk viii. 25 xal SiEpXeyev, xal ajiexareartj, xal ¿vefSAsjiev rrjXavyibq anavra. 4 Cf. viii. 24 j8Xenai rovg dv&Qomovg, on d>g Sevdfja oooj Jieotnarovvrag. 5 Cf. viii. 23 xal nrvaag £(? ra o///iara avrov . . . 6 Cf. Tobit xi. 11 (N) xal eveqwar^aev eig TOVQ Ot)A?./Aov; avrov. 7 Cf. Mt viii. 4, ix. 30, Mk i. 44, v. 43, vii. 36, the variant reading, 'Tell nobody in the village', in viii. 26 is a flagrant harmonisation with this tradition; ix. 9, Lk v. 14, viii. 56. 8 Cf. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), Three Essays on Religion I, III ( 3 7 - 8 ; 176f.), London 1874. 9 Cf. E. D. Adrian, The Physical Background of Perception, Oxford 1974; K. S. Lashley, The Mechanism of Vision, in: Genetic Psychology Monographs 37, 107 (1948); J. Z. Young, Doubt and Certainty in Science. A Biologist's reflections on the Brain, Oxford 1951, pp. 61—66; also Margaret Robertson's first-hand testimony in the "News of the World" issues of 23rd and 30th Jan. 1972. 3

Is a Basis of Fact Discernible in Mk viii. 22-26?

85

I quote Professor Young's summary of the reports: "The patient on opening his eyes for the first time gets little or no enjoyment. Indeed he finds the experience painful. He reports only a spinning mass of lights and colours . . . His brain has not been trained in the rules for seeing . . . If our blind man is to make use of his eyes, he too, must train his brain . . . At first he only experiences a mass of colour, but gradually he learns to distinguish shapes . . . For example, one man when shown an orange a week after beginning to see, said that it was gold. When asked what shape it was, he said, 'Let me touch it and I will tell you'. 'After doing so, he said that it was an orange. Then he looked long at it and said, 'Yes I can see it is round.' Shown next a blue square, he said that it was blue and round. A triangle he also described as round. When the angles were pointed out to him, he said, 'Ah! yes, I understand now, one can see how they feel." These reports throw a flood of light on the miracle story of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. His reply about seeing men as walking trees indicates that he too on seeing was having some difficulty in distinguishing his shapes. One thing that the reports make clear is that the first experience of seeing is very much conditioned by previous experiences. The Gospel story does not tell us whether the blind man at Bethsaida had been born blind or not; but his reply suggests that if he had been sighted, it was not for any length of time. Blindness, if not from birth, then in all probability occurred in early childhood. The reports also imply that this miracle had to be in two stages, for in reality Jesus is recorded in the Marcan account as having performed two quite distinct miracles. The first miracle was to restore the man's sight, and this was no mean feat in itself, as the scientific data relating to the process of vision demonstrate. The retina contains 137 million light-sensitive receptor cells, 130 million rods for black and white vision and 7 million cones responsive to colour. Optic nerve impulses are transmitted to the brain at a velocity of circa 300 m. p. h., and the whole process of seeing an object occurs within two-thousandths of a second for a normal sighted person. Thus to start from total blindness and achieve the efficient functioning of this whole, immensely complicated nervous net-work is a miracle of quite staggering proportions. Yet the man's answer revealed another dilemma, he was unable to distinguish shapes clearly, just as any modern patient who has gained sight through surgery is unable to do so. Jesus, therefore, lays his hands upon the man again. This time the aim is different; by divine power the ability to distinguish clearly through sight, which normal sighted persons gained by training in the early years of infancy, is imprinted on the brain of the once blind man, so that he is able to gaze continuously and yet see distinctly. It is only by such training that our brains are able to pattern correctly the data presented to them by the optic nerve. We must understand the Marcan account in this way — if we believe the miracle really happened, and the sense of the factual recital of real events is particularly strong in this narrative. This interpretation has the merit of dissolving the possible theologically embarrassing elements of the Marcan miracle-story, and at the same time justifying the sequence of events which had made it such a difficult tale for the first and third evangelists.

7 Studia Evangelica VII

St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History T. A. BURKILL, East Bergholt

I t would seem that a certain reciprocity is involved in St. Mark's interpretation of the conflict between the opposing forces of good and evil. Those hostile to Jesus attribute to him the crime of blasphemy, and thereby they unwittingly lay themselves open to the self-same charge (2:7; 3:28—30; 11:21; 14:64). And such a rendering of the matter doubtless adumbrates an odium theologicum t h a t had emerged in the evangelist's own ecclesial situation. The enemies of the apostolic gospel commit blasphemy in t h a t they malign the name of God, confounding the workings of his beneficent Spirit (1:10) with the workings ofBeelzebul, the prince of t h e demons (3:22). They confuse the good with the bad, and this, for St. Mark, is an unpardonable offence (3:29). Especially significant is the consideration that, in view of the mutual blaspheming entailed in the said odium theologicum, a viable exegesis can hardly construe St. Mark's assessment of the world process exclusively in terms of so-called Heilsgeschichte ("salvation history"). There is another side to the coin. Thus, in the Markan assessment, the future of the Jewish leaders is evidently no brighter t h a n t h a t of Judas Iscariot (14:21); in their case, as in t h a t of the hosts ofBeelzebul, the apostolic gospel is really bad news and the career of Jesus fundamentally amounts to a Verdammungsgeschichte ("damnation history"). So, despite his eschatological hope, the evangelist is by no means an unqualified optimist those assigned to the category of the lost being far more numerous than scholars usually acknowledge. As in Palestine so elsewhere, ol fisyaXoi ("the great ones") are commonly motivated by unworthy ambitions, forcing their way to governmental power out of an inordinate lust for personal aggrandisement (10:42f.). St. Mark's sympathies are primarily on the side of the masses as distinct from those of high estate 2, and yet it remains t h a t in toto his contemporaries constitute an adulterous and sinful generation (8:38), ordinary folk being only too easily misled by the nefarious machinations of their political leaders (10:42; 15:10 f.). As for the chosen race, its doom is sealed; the cursed fig tree inevitably perishes (11:21), or, as the point is otherwise made, the care of the Lord's vineyard is confided to others (12:9). But what of these others? Although now the divinely appointed elect of a new dispensation (13:20), they are nonetheless still Liable to be led astray (13:5, 22), and collectively they make up but a persecuted and scattered minority (13:9, 27) whose existence can be maintained only at the cost of self-denial and persistent vigilance (10:21; 13:33). Thus even the Messiah's true kinsfolk, t h e 1

Cf. our New Light on the Earliest Gospel (Ithaca, N. Y., and London), pp. 129f. 2 See ibid., pp. 173if.

7»

88

T. A. Burkill

multiracial heirs of erstwhile Israelite privilege (3:35), do not escape the weakness of the flesh (14:38), their capacity for holding out under stress being severely limited (14:37). And, since salvation is the reward for endurance to the end (13:13), we can safely infer t h a t for the most part t h e prospective coming of the Son of Man will bring shame rather t h a n joy (cf. 8:38). Accordingly, the term svayyehov ("good news") belongs to t h e tendentious vocabulary of the early church; and mutatis mutandis much t h e same holds of the German expression Heilsgeschichte, which has come to be so widely used among biblical theologians during recent decades. As Morton Smith acutely observes 3 , in each instance the word "expresses the viewpoint of the elect. B u t the elect were a minority (Lk. 13. 23f. and par.; Acts 4. 12; I I Thess. 1. 8; etc.). From the viewpoint of most of the expected participants, as expressed b y Celsus, the predicted events seemed rather a Verdammungsgeschichte (Adv. Cels. 3. 16; 4. 23, 73; 5. 14; 7. 9; 8. 48). G. Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes, Gottingen, 1916, 123, has conjectured t h a t it was the doctrine of the coming judgment which brought upon the early Christians the charge of being enemies of mankind. (Consequently, J o h n ' s insistence t h a t Jesus is not to be t h e judge of the world, may be apologetic, ib. 120—4)." This passage, we submit, brings out a significant aspect of primitive Christian thought t h a t has been unduly neglected, and, unless our evaluation of the relevant data is seriously a t fault, the earliest canonical gospel provides ample additional evidence for the validity of Morton Smith's general contention. Looking more closely at the Markan treatment of conspicuously hostile forces, we recall t h a t it is largely governed by a lex talionis such as is nicely formulated by the Apostle Paul when he writes, "God certainly deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict y o u " (1 Thess. 1:6). There has to be a final settling of accounts. Regarding St. Mark's depiction of the demonic agents of Satan, he makes it obvious t h a t , while knowing the mysterium, they have no saving niarig. They immediately apprehend t h a t the coming of Jesus heralds their imminent destruction, and their encounter with the terrible t r u t h sends t h e m into wild extravagances of convulsive agitation (Mark 1:26; 5:13; 9:20,26). They are dismayed, but being inherently evil they cannot bring themselves to repentance, a radical change of mind t h a t would effect a localised suspension of the normal operations of nemesis, the divinely constituted law of retribution. Moreover, the evangelist apparently takes it for granted t h a t the words as well as the deeds of the unclean spirits bear witness not only to their special faculties of cognition b u t also t o their utter depravity, a corruption which indeed mars their ethical vision. Although they have supernatural powers of locomotion and can see the mysterium a n d its damnatory implications, t h e y fail to understand the inner workings of the Kingdom of God. Thus in 5:7 b the demons t h a t dement a hapless Gerasene, speaking collectively as a single individual, address Jesus blasphemously in the following terms: " I adjure (oQxi£co) you b y God, torment me n o t " 4 . This injunction, imperiously made under the t h r e a t of a divine curse should it be disobeyed, presupposes t h a t the Most High could repudiate his own Son, the Beloved with 3 4

See "Pauline Problems apropos of J. Munck, 'Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte'" in H.T.R., L, 1957,109, n. 6. The N.E.B. translation, "In God's name do not torment me", is too mild a rendering of the Greek.

St Mark's Gospel as Damnation History

89

whom he is well pleased (1:11; 5:7a). So God's name is here taken in vain, the demons failing to grasp that, if their own satanic forces are not divided against themselves (3:23ff.), neither are those of the Most High; and the calamitous outcome of their blasphemous adjuration is that they are promptly despatched to the depths of the sea (5:13). The Jewish leaders are also conspicuously hostile to the truth, and their fate is no better than that of the hosts of Beelzebul; but whereas the latter know what lies in store for them, the former unwittingly contrive their own liquidation. For, as indicated earlier, in attributing to Jesus the crime of ¡ikaoqyrjfiia (14:63f.), they themselves blindly commit the very offence of which they speak. Their unanimous verdict, like the concerted adjuration of 5:7b, presupposes that God's Kingdom is divided against itself, and so it amounts to the unpardonable offence of blasphemy against the holy Spirit (3:29), the Spirit that descended upon Jesus .at the commencement of his earthly ministry (1:10). However humble his family connections, a person so inspired could never blaspheme against the heavenly source of his manifest wisdom and power; and to be scandalised at such an individual is itself a most odious axavbaXov, an astonishing response that inevitably brings the the privations of amaxia ("unbelief") in its train (6:Iff.). Hence St. Mark's interpretation in this context adumbrates the same concept of a retributive reciprocity as that discernible in his treatment of the demons. The crucial decision to damn Jesus for blasphemy must react violently upon those who make it, the result being that all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes (14:53b) expose themselves to a divine curse, a condemnation apparently to be ultimately ratified at the great assize held in prospect at 14:62. And if at this juncture something of the resplendent glory of the nagovaia is allowed to pierce the gloom of the Lord's humiliation 5 , from another point of view the coming of the eschatological Son of Man casts ominous shadows before it. In other words, those who blaspheme are necessarily blasphemed, and therefore the evangelist already at 11:14 can depict Jesus as prefiguring the final verdict of the victorious Son of Man by permitting him to curse the fig tree because of its unfruitfulness. 6 5 6

See our Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, N. Y.), pp. 242f., 322f. Of course Israel—here symbolised by the fig tree—responds to this imprecation by consigning Jesus to the curse of crucifixion (cf. Deut. 21: 23; Gal. 3: 13). But the latter •will have the last word at the naoovaia (Mark 8:38).

The Composition ol Mark 1 - 1 2 R.

BUTTERWORTH

S.

J.,

London

I n spite of the assertion of a scholar of the eminence of Joachim Jeremias t h a t 'the search for a systematic structure of the gospel [of Mark] is a lost labour of love' the fact remains that analysis of chapters 1—12 does disclose a systematically structured pattern which not only offers an explanation of the evangelist's use of various titles of Jesus but also casts much light on the overall theme of the gospel. The full analysis is available elsewhere. 2 I here present my findings in summary form. Let us ignore the 'prologue' of the gospel (1:1—13) for the moment. 1:14—12:44 can be shown to consist of six Sections, of varying lengths, but each with a straightforward and consistently repeated four-part pattern. Only one apparent departure from this regular internal structure is to be found, and that, not surprisingly, in the parallel 'cycles' which begin with the Feeding of the 5000 and the Feeding of the 4000 (6. 30—8:26). And even here it is a matter of precisely two parts of what is the normal regular structure being, for some reason or other, duplicated. This duplication confirms rather than undermines the regularity of the structure throughout. 3 The four parts of each of the first five Sections can be described as containing the following: Part 1 has some kind of expression of the status or authority of Jesus. Part 2 contains a call to some kind or degree of discipleship. Part 3 (which is consistently the longest part) consists of various reactions to Jesus; and these reactions have primarily to do with misunderstanding Jesus in some way. Part 4 describes a healing episode, and faith in Jesus has much to do with the efficacy of the cure or cures. 1 2 3

New Testament Theology, Vol. I, London 1971, p. 38. Heythrop Journal 13, 1972, 5-26. The details of the six Sections, each with four parts, are as follows : 1 2 3 4 A 1:14-15 1:21-39 1:40—45 1:16 -20 B 2:1-12 2:13 -14 2:15-28 3:1-6 3:20-5:20 C 3:13 -19 5:21-43 3:7-12 D 6:1-6 6 : 7 - 13 6:14-29 6:30-7:23 7:24-37 8:1-21 8:22-26 E 8:27-33 8:34 -9:1 9:2-10:45 10:46-52 F 11:1-11 11:12 - 1 4 11:15-12:40 12:41-44

92

R. Butterworth

The final sixth Section has the regular four parts also, but its second part is not a call but the opposite of a call — a rejection. And its fourth part contains not a cure but the saving example of the poor widow who displays that degree of faith which alone will cure the ills of human nature. Nothing, apart from the confirmatory duplication of two parts (already mentioned), disturbs the regular four-part pattern of the six Sections. There is one theme which especially catches the attention of the reader who follows this analysis of Mark's gospel. The call to discipleship, repeated in each of the first five Sections, does not remain statically identical throughout. In the first Section the authoritative call of Jesus is simply to following him. The disciples are not yet even called disciples. In the second Section Jesus goes further and associates men with himself in associating himself with them. In the third Section the disciples are drawn into an intimacy with Jesus which surpasses their relationship with him up to this point. In the fourth Section they actively cooperate in Jesus' ministry. And in the fifth Section, which marks the high point of Mark's treatment of the discipleship tiieme, a new and definitive aspect of discipleship emerges —that of imitative participation in the suffering of Jesus whereby his disciples are to come to share with him in the glory of the Father. The sixth Section, which differs from the other five in taking the opposite view (as mentioned above, it has a rejection in place of a call), deals with what might be called 'undiscipleship', and exemplifies it in the attitude of the Jews to Jesus. The third part of this sixth Section is substantially a sharp, even bitter, critique of the bogus Jewish attitudes to religion, to truth, even to their own Scriptures—attitudes which are the death of even the possibility of true discipleship. Whilst there are, of course, other points of view from which other themes (e. g., faith and understanding) in these Sections could be usefully examined, it is true that the theme of discipleship is carefully developed in them, first by a steady deepening of the idea of discipleship of Jesus in the first five Sections, and then by the shocking contrast of the sixth Section. A further feature of Mk 1:14—12:44 reinforces the analysis into six Sections. Each of the six Sections appears to work with a particular title of Jesus. True, in two Sections (significantly, perhaps, the first and the last) the particular title is curiously masked. But in both of these cases the title is most probably 'MessiahChrist'. In the first Section the activity of Jesus is messianic, but the corresponding title is not actually mentioned: just as in the final sixth Section much of Jesus' activity may have messianic coloration, but the title is again not used of Jesus—whatever is made of the strange controversy on the Davidic descent of the Messiah-Christ (12:35—36), which occurs in this Section. Still, such reticence concerning the Messiah-Christ will hardly surprise Marcan scholars. In the remaining four Sections the following titles are used, and each one only in its own particular Section. In the second Section 'Son of man' is used, but not, it would seem, as a title of transcendence. In the third Section 'Son of God' is used to state the truth of the personal divinity of Jesus. In the fourth Section it is as 'Prophet' that Jesus is presented. And in the fifth Section 'Son of man' is once more used, but now by way of presenting Jesus as a transcendent figure. I t is possible to combine what is said on the theme of discipleship in the six Sections with the use of particular titles. Thus the first Section presents a call to follow Jesus as the promised Messiah who has come (but without applying the

The Composition of Mark 1—12

93

title to Jesus). I n the second Section Jesus calls sinful men into association and solidarity with himself, the Son of man. The third Section asks men to respond to the call of Jesus, and this involves a new intimacy or relatedness to Jesus and through Jesus to God whose Son Jesus is. The call of Jesus in the fourth Section involves cooperation in Jesus' own prophetic mission. I n the f i f t h Section the call of Jesus demands imitative participation in the suffering and death of Jesus if men are to achieve a share in the glory of the Son of man before the Father. In the final sixth Section Jesus, as the hidden Messiah-Christ who has come and whom Judaism will not recognise, rejects the Jews from discipleship. Seen in this way, Mk. 1:14—12:44 begins to look like a set of six carefully worked catecheses on discipleship, each employing a different title of Jesus in pursuance of its particular pedagogical aim, each with the same basic four-part pattern, and yet preserving the framework of the historical ministry of Jesus. To these six Sections the 'prologue' of the gospel (1:1—13) is an overture which carefully introduces Jesus as the Messiah-Christ (without, of course, mentioning the title), as the spirit-filled Son of God at his baptism, and as the prophet who undergoes prophetic experience in the desert. Jesus is not introduced as the Son of man in the prologue. Perhaps this is because Mark's whole pupose had to do with leading his readers' attention away from the still inadequate titles under which Jesus was traditionally presented, and with refocussing t h a t attention on a new view of Jesus as the Son of man, at once human and transcendent, who calls men to a degree of faithful discipleship which involves imitative participation in suffering and in eventual glory. At any rate, this analysis, presented here in the baldest of outlines, may not be all that far from having discovered those 'teachings' which Peter is said by Papias to have delivered 'with a view to the needs' 4 , and which Mark is said to have written down. For what greater need would there have been than to win faithful disciples of Jesus? * Ap. Eusebius, H. E. 3. 39. 15.

Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint G. B. CAIRD, Oxford

T h e grandson of Jesus ben Sira of Jerusalem, who t r a n s l a t e d his g r a n d f a t h e r ' s book into Greek, is t h e only one of all the contributors t o t h e Septuagint to break t h e seal of a n o n y m i t y by telling us something about himself a n d his methods a n d difficulties. His Translator's Preface has a first-hand a u t h e n t i c i t y which we miss in t h e letter of Pseudo-Aristeas t o Philocrates, with its legendary description of t h e translation of t h e P e n t a t e u c h on the island of P h a r o s b y seventy scholars imported f r o m Jerusalem at t h e behest of P t o l e m y Philadelphus. Accordingly it provides us with our most secure starting point for a critical s t u d y of Septuagint origins. The Preface gives us three pieces of information. 1. J e s u s ben Sira wrote a book in Hebrew which he intended to be used as a companion t o t h e scholarly s t u d y of t h e Scriptures, ' t h e law, t h e prophets, a n d t h e other writings'. 2. His grandson translated this book into Greek, discovering through his labours how impossible a task translation is, a n d concluding t h a t 'not only with t h i s book, b u t with t h e law, t h e prophets, a n d t h e rest of t h e writings, it makes no small difference to read t h e m in t h e original.' 3. H e began this work on his arrival in E g y p t in t h e reign of Euergetes in t h e thirty-eighth year, usually t a k e n to be t h e year 132 B. C. I t is t r u e t h a t t h e d a t e is expressed in mildly ambiguous terms. B u t all other interpretations of it are so much less probable t h a n t h e traditional one t h a t I propose here to assume it t o be correct. I t has been common practice t o infer from this Preface t h a t all, or a t least t h e m a j o r i t y , of t h e books which subsequently comprised t h e Hebrew canon had already been t r a n s l a t e d into Greek b y 132 B. C. T h e inference h a d t h e weighty s u p p o r t of H . B. Swete. 'The writer of t h e Prologue . . . uses words which imply t h a t " t h e Law, t h e Prophets, and t h e rest of t h e books" were already current in a translation. . . . U n d e r Euergetes I I t h e Alexandrian J e w s possessed, in addition t o t h e original Greek P e n t a t e u c h , a collection of prophetic books, and a n u m b e r of other writings belonging t o their national literature which h a d not as y e t formed themselves into a complete group. . . . Since t h e a u t h o r of t h e Prologue was a Palestinian J e w , we m a y perhaps assume t h a t under al nQotprjreiai a n d ra Xoma TWV fhfiXkov he includes such books of b o t h classes as were already in circulation in Palestine. If this inference is a safe one, it will follow t h a t all t h e " P r o p h e t s " of t h e Hebrew canon, " f o r m e r " and " l a t t e r " , h a d been t r a n s l a t e d before 132 B.C.' 1 The same point is p u t with even greater confidence in t h e recent work of Sidney Jellicoe: 'the suggestion would seem r a t h e r t o be t h a t t h e Greek translation of t h e 1

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 24.

96

G. B. Caird

Law, the Prophets, and the rest of the Books, had been in existence for some time.' 2 I propose to adduce evidence from Ecclesiasticus itself to show that this inference is erroneous. The correct inference is the much more modest one with which Swete began the passage from which I have just quoted, viz. that the translator of Ecclesiasticus had access to Greek versions of the Law, of some of the prophetic books, and of some of the writings. About the dating of the Septuagint as a whole only one statement can be made without fear of controversion: the process of translation was begun after the foundation of Alexandria in 331 B. C. and completed before A. D. 230, when Origen began work on his Hexapla. The probability is that the process, from Pentateuch to Ecclesiastes, was spread, however unevenly, over the greater part of the five intervening centuries. But when we come to allot the constituent segments to their places in this lengthy period, we have to rely on the use of three rather blunt tools: citation, style, and borrowing. In the past, attention has been concentrated on citation. It is well for us to recognise at the outset how exiguous and how imprecise is the information we can derive from this source. Up to the beginning of the Christian era the only evidence of this sort comes from fragments of Alexander Polyhistor (c. 50 B. C.) preserved by Clement and Eusebius 3 , from which we learn that the L X X Pentateuch was cited by the historian Demetrius (c. 200 B. C.), that 2 Chronicles was cited by Eupolemus, and Job by Aristeas; and all that we know of the last two writers is that they must have antedated Polyhistor who referred to them. Moreover, the use of the L X X Job by Aristeas does not mean that the whole book had been translated by the beginning of the first century B. C. We know from an examination of the book itself that the L X X Job was a partial translation, later supplemented from Theodotion. The quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament show the joint acquaintance of its various authors with the L X X version of the Pentateuch, Kingdoms /? and y, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the Twelve. Philo, who in contrast with his many hundreds of quotations from the Pentateuch has only some fifty from the rest of the Old Testament, certainly used the L X X version of Kingdoms a and y, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve, and probably also of Joshua, Judges, and Job. 4 We have it on the authority of Thackeray that Josephus used for the historical books from 1 Samuel to 1 Maccabees a L X X text akin to that of the Lucianic recension, but that he shows no sign of having used any known Greek version of the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges. 5 The earliest writer to quote from the L X X Ezekiel is Clement of Rome. Even at the end of the second century A. D. we are still without a quotation by any author from Esther, Canticles, or Ecclesiastes. 2 3 4

5

The Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 60. See Swete, op. cit., pp. 370—1. See H. E. Ryle, Philo and Holy Scripture; W. L. Knox, A Note on Philo's Use of the Old Testament, Journal of Theological Studies 41, 1940, pp. 30—34; F. H. Colson, Philo's Quotations from the Old Testament, ibid., pp. 237-251. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian, pp. 80—9.

Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint

97

The evidence of style has been used mainly by Thackeray and his disciples. According to Thackeray, the process of translation had three stages. 1. To the third century B. C. he assigned only the Pentateuch. 2. To the second century belonged Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve, the early portions of the books of Kingdoms, and probably the Psalter. 3. All other translations belonged to the first century B. C. or later. He believed t h a t the provenance of the versions belonging to the first two stages could be attested by a comparison of their Greek diction with t h a t of the papyri of their respective centuries. The third stage was characterized by increasing hellenization on the one hand and an emergent fundamentalist literalism on the other. I t will be observed t h a t Thackeray's findings run clean counter to the more orthodox opinion which other scholars from Swete to Jellicoe have derived from the Translator's Preface to Ecclesiasticus. I am not qualified to pass judgment on the validity of his stylistic criteria, but I have always been inclined to accept his results, at least as a working hypothesis. My interest in this paper is to see what additional information can be supplied by the use of the third tool, which I have called borrowing. Borrowing may be defined as the reverse side of literary influence, and it is a Septuagintal phenomenon universally recognised. The translators of the Pentateuch established patterns and equivalences which subsequent translators copied, some more slavishly than others, in dealing with other books of the Old Testament. But in Ecclesiasticus we meet borrowing of a more complex type. Ben Sira's book was intended as a compendium of the Old Testament Scriptures, and from the surviving fragments of the Hebrew text, late and corrupt as they are, we can see that he constantly used scriptural phrases which were sometimes long enough to amount to actual citations. This is particularly so in chapters 44 to 49, which sing the praises of the heroes of the nation's history. For our purpose the important point is this, that, whenever the grandson recognises such a scriptural borrowing in his grandfather's Hebrew, he himself borrows from the appropriate Greek translation, if one happens to be available to him. A comparison, then, between the text of Ecclesiasticus and t h a t of the parallel books of the Sepluagint ought to enable us to detect which books of the Old Testament he had at his disposal in Greek. The dependence of our translator on the L X X Pentateuch is obvious from 44:16 to 45:25, and I need illustrate it by only a handful of examples. The most striking instance comes right at the beginning of the series in the story of Enoch in 44:16. Ben Sira's Hebrew closely follows Gen. 5:22: 'Enoch walked with the Lord and was taken.' The Greek follows the very free translation of the L X X : 'Evcbx ETIRJQEOTRJAEV Kvgiq) xai /IETers&r]. The stories of Noah and Abraham are full of words and phrases culled from the L X X . Thereafter we constantly find rare words from the same source, yvoipog for the Egyptian darkness, ooiaxoQ instead of §da for the pomegranates on Aaron's robe, the interpretation of the high priest's breastpiece as 'the oracle of judgment' (TO P.oyiov rfjg xgiaecog), mSagig (a Persian loan-word) for Aaron's mitre. I n 45:20 there are three lines which are closer to t h e L X X of Numbers 18:20 t h a n they are t o the Hebrew of Ben Sira. Then suddenly, when we come to the story of Joshua, all this comes to an end.

98

G. B. Caird

I n the first six verses of chapter 46 Ben Sira's Hebrew six times echoes t h e Hebrew t e x t of the book of Joshua, and in each case the translator shows himself independent of the L X X of t h a t book. ]3 1i3J is rendered xoaraiog ev noXefxi», though the equivalent phrase in t h e L X X Joshua is dvvaxdg EV LO%6I. 2. HO» r n t f n is h e r e 616.60x05 Mwafj a n d in J o s . 1:1 TO> vjiovgyuj Mcuvarj.

3. Joshua's weapon (fiT?) is Qo/Mpata in Ecclus. and yalaog in Jos. 8:18. 4. I n Jos. 1:5 ^piS1? Bf'X ax'iv N1? becomes in t h e L X X ovx avTiar^asrai avftgamog xarevo'miov vfiwv. Ben Sira's Hebrew closely follows the biblical t e x t : asm 1 ' ris 1 ? ion B u t t h e translator has taken t h e preposition in a temporal rather t h a n a spatial sense: rig TCQOTSQOV avrov ovrwg SAVR): (Who prior to him made such a stand?). 5. I n Jos. 10:13 the sun stood still (earrj o rjfaog). B u t in Ecclus. we find aveno6iaev o rjhog, a correct technical term for t h e retrograde motion of a heavenly body (cf. 48:23). 6. I n 46:6 the translator may have misread the word 0"in as D3"in {navonUav), b u t he certainly does not follow the L X X Joshua, which invariably renders this word by avadefxa. The obvious impression made by this cumulative evidence is t h a t t h e translator of Ecclesiasticus did not know the L X X Joshua, and this impression is reinforced when in the following four verses, which still have to do with Joshua, we find a n u m b e r of clear borrowings from the L X X Pentateuch. Unfortunately Ben Sira's paragraph on t h e Judges is too summary and devoid of specific reference t o afford us any evidence whatever about the translation of t h a t book. When we come t o Samuel the evidence is at first sight discouraging. The lords of the Philistines, who in Kingdoms a are ot aargdmai rcov aXXoqivXmv, are in Ecclus. agxovreg &vfaariein, and this suggests complete independence. B u t &vAioriei(i is t h e regular form in t h e Pentateuch, from which, as we have seen, our translator borrows extensively; and he might well have rejected oargifairjg as slang, a barbarism with an impact rather like t h a t of nabob in English. We m a y therefore feel justified in discounting this particular divergence. On t h e positive side we m a y place his use of t h e phrase aqvog yaladrjvov, which he appears t o have derived from 1 Kingd. 7:9. For yaXa-d-rjvog is a rare, poetical word which apart from these two occurrences is found in the L X X only in Amos 6:4, where it has no Hebrew equivalent. The common word for a suckling, whether of man or of beast, is •{hjMCtov. This one phrase thus provides adequate reason for thinking t h a t our translator knew Kingdoms a, and it can be supported by other minor indications. On the other hand, he shows no trace whatever of acquaintance with the other three books of Kingdoms. His t r e a t m e n t of Solomon in particular manifests as clear marks of independence as we have seen in his treatment of Joshua. This is the more surprising in t h a t Thaokeray believed t h a t Kingdoms y was one of t h e earliest parts of t h e prophetic corpus to be translated. I n 47:9 David is credited with having 'appointed musicians t o stand before t h e altar'. The word ipalrq>6og is not found in extra-biblical Greek. I n t h e Septuagint it occurs nine times in Chronicles and once in 1 Esdras. The identical phrase, xal

Ben Sira and the Dating of the Septuagint

99

earrjae rpakrwdovg, appears in 2 Chron. 20:21. The Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus is at this point defective, but enough of it survives to prove that the Greek is not a simple, straightforward translation of it. Some outside influence has been at work. Though one such piece by itself is hardly conclusive, we have here at least a hint that the translator of Ecclesiasticus possessed the work of the Chronicler in Greek. Gerleman has proved conclusively that the translation of Chronicles was quite independent of, and probably earlier than, the parallel translation of SamuelKings 6 , and we have already been reminded that, next to the Pentateuch, this iB the earliest part of the Septuagint to be quoted by an outside source. The largely negative results we have attained for the former prophets stand in marked contrast to the positive results we shall now find for the latter prophets. There can be no doubt that 48:24 is a double borrowing from the LXX Isaiah. nvsvfiari fisyakq) idev ra ea%axa xal nagexakeaev rovg nsvdovvrag ev

Zeimv.

For ra ecr^ara as a rendering for rvnnx, cf. Isa. 41:22; 46:10; 47:7; and the second stich is simply an abbreviation of the LXX of Isa. 61:2—3. In the biblical account of Jeremiah's call he was appointed prophet 'to pull down and to uproot, to destroy and to demolish, to build and to plant.' Ben Sira's synopsis reproduces five of these six verbs from the original Hebrew, and in the Greek they become: exQi^ovv xal xaxovv xai (baavTWQ olxodofislv xai

ajioXMsiv xmaymxeveiv.

Four of these Greek verbs are identical with those used in the L X X of Jer. 1:10, and the fifth (xaxovv) comes from the parallel passage in 31:28(27). 'As I watched over them with intent to pull down and to uproot, to demolish and destroy and harm, so now will I watch over them to build and to plant.' That this agreement is more than coincidence is proved by the fact that, outside Ecclesiasticus, Jer. 1:10 is the only place in the LXX where tfW is translated by exqi&vv, even in Jeremiah where the word occurs eleven times. The conclusion then is that our translator was familiar with both halves of the LXX Jeremiah. 'Ezekiel saw a vision and related the types of the chariot.' So runs the Hebrew of 49:8. But in the Greek this receives some elaboration: '/eCext^A, og elder oqaaiv So^rjg rjv vnedeiiev avroj enI agfiarog %eQov§ei(i.

There can be no doubt that one source of this elaboration was the L X X of Ezekiel, for the first stich is produced by eliding Ezek. 1:1 (xal eldov ¿Qaoeig Qeov) with 1:28 (Avrrj f\ ogaaig ofiouxtfiaxog So^rjg Kvgiov).

B u t t h e e x p r e s s i o n ' t h e c h a r i o t of t h e

cherubim' does not occur in Ezekiel, either in the Hebrew or in the Greek. Indeed Ben Sira was, to the best of our knowledge, the first writer to use the word rD3*pa in connexion with Ezekiel's vision. The phrase T O AG/ua TOJV %EQOVF}E.IFJ. 6

G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint. II. Chronicles, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift 1946.

100

G . B . CAIKD

occurs elsewhere only in the L X X of 1 Chron. 28:18—a further hint that this may have been one of the books available in Greek to our translator. Finally, in the brief paragraph about Zerubbabel, we have two clear borrowings from the L X X Haggai (2:23 and 1:2). I t may seem surprising that I should have reached this point without even mentioning the obvious parallels between Ecclesiasticus and Proverbs. I do not profess as yet to have made an exhaustive comparison between the Greek versions of these two books, and all I can give you is a single example to illustrate the results which I should expect from such a comprehensive study. The passage I have chosen for this purpose is 4:11—15, which contains parallels to Proverbs in every verse. 11a *II ootpia viovg avtrjg àvvxpcoaev. 'Avvipovv is a favourite word of Ecclus., but the L X X Proverbs always uses the simple form of the verb (e. g. 4:8; 14:34). 12 a Kal oi ÓQ&QÌ&VTSS Jigòg avrrjv èfin^rja&rjaovTai evqjQoavvrjg. The L X X Proverbs never renders "in© by ooifoiteiv, which appears to have been a Septuagintal neologism. 13a ó xqarmv avrfjg x^rjQovofi^aei dd£av. Here is rendered by ó xgarmv avxfjQ, but in Prov. 3:18 by TOIQ hzegeidofiévoig sn' avxr\v. 14a oi kargsvovrsg amfj XeiTovQyrjGovaiv avrà). Here we have JTWTp rendered by two different Greek verbs. Compare the L X X of Prov. 29:12, which has oi vn

avróv.

15 a xai o jioooeMojv avrjj xaraaxrjvcóaei nenov&cóg (n033). Compare the L X X of

Prov. 1:33, which has xaxaaxr]vu>aei en ehtidi. Even so short a passage as this gives us the impression that the two translators worked in complete independence of one another, and that the translator of Proverbs aimed at more idiomatic renderings and greater elegance of style. It evinces precisely that hellenizing tendency which Thackeray believed to be one of the characteristics of his third stage of translation. Let us then summarize the findings of this all too brief study. We have discovered evidence to show that, besides the L X X Pentateuch, of which he made full and constant use, Ben Sira's grandson had knowledge of the L X X version of Kingdoms a, of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, of Ezekiel, of the Twelve, and possibly of Chronicles. By contrast there is evidence that he had no such knowledge of the L X X Joshua, Kingdoms /?, y, and Ò, or of Proverbs. Whether he had any acquaintance with the L X X Psalter is a question which will require separate and more elaborate treatment. I t is interesting to note how far these results confirm those which Thackeray reached by the use of a very different method, and how completely they overthrow the inference which Swete and his followers have drawn from the Translator's Preface. From his statement that it makes a difference to read the Law, the prophets, and the rest of the books in the original, we cannot safely infer that the would-be scholars for whose benefit he undertook his laborious task already had the option of reading them all in Greek.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel in John 2:13-22 R. J. CAMPBELL, Lamorlaye, France

Signs of these times indicate a changing theological climate, a veritable revival of biblical study, which is seen in no other area like t h a t of Johannine studies. The throb of interest is in this Gospel particularly. Former conclusions are being reevaluated with fresh insights. The mystery of Jesus' life, the relationship to the Old Testament, Palestinian connections, Hellenistic elements, harmony with the Synoptics — a number of these questions have been re-opened. And above all else, there seems to be fresh recognition of the fact t h a t the writer cast his theology in historical terms. The problem of understanding history often re-asserts itself. Yet not long ago even the suggestion of a return to the "Quest of the Historical Jesus" was not taken seriously—it was simply in vain. During the past century, three trends in this quest may be discerned: the 'old' search for the historical Jesus, then a reversal of direction which led to the affirmation t h a t no biography was possible, and presently what is referred to by many as a 'new' quest. Concern for what the man Jesus was really like is not, of course, a new thing. Church fathers of the first few centuries, as well as their opponents, manifested just such an interest. Tatian's Diatessaron is but one example. The Middle Ages had their pictures in drama, dogma and art—accentuated by Medieval halos and pietas. The Renaissance and Reformation, majoring in historical studies, directed fresh interest to the man Jesus and to biblical source materials (thanks to t h e discovery of better manuscripts). Protestant Orthodoxy, in effect, tried to harmonize all the Gospel accounts into one smooth composite. The rise of rationalism and critical Bible study in the eighteenth century provoked a distinct change in the study of the life of Jesus. (J. Jeremias isolates the date of 1778 and the name of H. S. Reimarus for the start of what was called the Quest. 1 ) The Age of Reason began to ask questions as to whether John's Gospel or the Synoptics preserve the most historical picture of Jesus (and some of these questions are still being asked): did He speak in parables or in discourse — and during one year or three? Was the Temple cleansed on Palm Sunday (Matthew), Monday after (seemingly, Mark) or early in Jesus' ministry (John)? But the basic premise insisted that a biography of Jesus could be reconstructed if we could learn how to evaluate the sources correctly. The historical figure of Jesus was not a vague spirit or "idea". Scholars devoted themselves to the development of the historical method and worked toward a solution of the problem of "sources" or traditions behind our written Gospels. 1

8

J. Jeremias, The Problem of the Historical Jesus, p. 3. Studia Evangelica V I I

102

R . J . CAMPBELL

But after 1900 the pendulum swung again: the conclusion was reached that for scientific and theological reasons no biography of Jesus could ever be written. Three factors seem to have changed the formerly optimistic hopes: the rediscovery of eschatology in Jesus' preaching 2 , the emergence of form criticism and its emphasis upon the free-floating, detached stories about Jesus and, finally, the existential understanding of history whereby the study of history was not an objective "it" but an "I-thou" relationship. R. Bultmann has influenced many in his insistence upon the latter; in his critical examination of the sources about Jesus he found little of historical reliability. Said he, " I t is not permitted to go beyond 'proclamation' (the kerygma), using it as a 'source' in order to re-construct the 'historic' Jesus with his messianic consciousness, for this belongs to the past. It is not the historic Christ who is the Lord, but Jesus Christ as he is encountered in the proclamation." 3 These words, and others like them, were regarded as almost canonical for a quarter of a century in all the circles influenced by the Form-critical tradition. Finally, the pendulum has swung a third time, not back to the extremes of the nineteenth century but toward a specific interest in the Jesus of history. Curiously, the real reaction leading to this latest "Quest" came from among Prof. Bultmann's own former students and followers such as E. Kasemann (and his nowfamous paper read at a gathering of former Marburg students in 1953), E. Fuchs and G. Bornkamm who said, " I t is impossible seriously to suggest that the Gospels and the traditions contained in them forbid us to ask the question regarding the historical Jesus. They not merely permit the attempt: they positively require it." 4 " I t is significant", observed J . A. Robinson, "that these scholars feel most free to move toward a new quest." 5 This pursuit still recognized the kerygma as the keenest edge of the gospel (viewing Jesus as the Christ and never just as Jesus): a "proved" Jesus Christ is regarded as both historically impossible and theologically a contradiction; it is held that a quest back through the proclamation will reveal a Jesus who, particularly in his sayings, is consistent with the kerygma of the church. This new direction of thought (which C. H. Dodd calls "a changed theological climate") has been gaining strength over the last twenty years. Today we can approach the Gospels historically for an understanding of what they meant to say —in that day and ours. The original aim of Gospel-writing was not so much edification of the Church as the maintenance in its historical purity of the original missionary message. Its relevance for history—because of what had happened in history—was of prime importance. As C. H. Dodd states, " I t still remains a part of the task of the student of history to discover how it actually happened. And I think we may assume that the evangelist intended to record that which happened." 6 To this we would agree. The Gospels, all four of them, furnish evidences 2 3 4 5 6

See A. Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede, or The Quest for the Historical Jesus. R. Bultmann, The Significance of the Historic Jesus for the Theology of Paul, vol. 1, p. 208. G. Bornkamm, Jesus von Nazareth, p. 20. J. M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus, p. 10. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 447. (It is questioned here whether, as Prof. Dodd continues, "he would have felt free to modify the factual record in order to bring out the meaning". Freedom of authorship must still be limited by several dominant guidelines such

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

103

for an historical portrait, the essential reliability of which is not only a message b u t a portrait. And all four Gospels look at Jesus with the eyes of faith. All historical study involves an element of interpretation. These observations are now modifying the former tendency to disregard J o h n ' s Gospel in the search for t h e historical Jesus (even as J o h a n n Griesbach, in 1774, first used t h e term "synoptics" to indicate t h a t J o h n was not a primary historical source). Today T. W. Manson's words (underlined also by G. B o m k a m m ) are t h e spokesmen for m a n y scholars when he said, "The question of the historical value of the F o u r t h Gospel is wide open again." 7 At least three of the five points 8 of Bishop Robinson's "New L o o k " are continually with us as 1.) " a growing body of evidence t h a t t h e F o u r t h Gospel enshrines a tradition of the Ministry which is independent of t h e Synoptic accounts, 2.) bears distinct marks of its Palestinian origin, and 3.) is on some points quite possibly superior to the Synoptic record." I n fact these have become pillars in the basic structure of a rene wed biblical theology t h a t gives us a confidence in J o h n ' s Gospel as an historical source quite inconceivable f i f t y years ago. The author of the F o u r t h Gospel apparently set out t o write a gospel, a story of t h e life, death and resurrection of Jesus in a narrative of words and deeds testifying t h a t Jesus was t h e Son of God—as did t h e other three evangelists. And even though J o h n is such an interpreter of tradition about Jesus, therefore intensely Christological, must this mean he is casual about t h e historical origins? Does he in fact handle events nonchalantly, freely arranging and modifying t h e m to f i t his theme ? The Gospel accounts may all be b o t h theological and historical. Although admittedly more theologian t h a n historian, he was a prophet fully convinced t h a t " t h e Logos became flesh"—and his role as witness to the T r u t h made it very important t h a t what he narrated should really have happened. Growing recognition of the fact t h a t this Gospel embodies this perspective m a y be t e r m e d The New Quest for the Historical John. I n taking this Quest seriously, the writer of these pages sets himself t h e t a s k of showing on internal grounds t h a t the F o u r t h Gospel is an historical a n d not only a theological document. The intent of the Evangelist is extremely i m p o r t a n t : we do not mean it was primarily an historical one. His interest may indeed have been theological, as he expressly states (20 : 31), b u t he did present his t r u t h s in sentences and paragraphs, propositions based on fact t h a t was eye-witnessed. The writer did not invent his story, nor modify plain facts of history t o teach theological t r u t h . The events t h a t the Evangelist records really did t a k e place. H e did not p u t words into the mouth of Jesus to support doctrines contained in brief utterances, although at times it is difficult to find t h e separation between citation and commentary (as in chap. 3). The question is not elaboration of Jesus' words into long theological discourses b u t rather t h e summarization of elaborate discussions in relation to central topics of faith. This in no respect derogates from their complete authority and truthfulness.

7

8

8*

as the intrgrity of an eye-witness, with other witnesses present, and faithfulness to the words of the Source himself.) T. W. Manson, The Life of Jesus: Some Tendencies in Present-day Research, (Studies in honor of C. H. Dodd), ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube, 1956, p. 219, n. 2. The subject of his paper at the Oxford Conference on the Four Gospels in 1957, published in Studia Evangelica I and in "Studies in Biblical Theology", 1962.

104

R . J . CAMPBELL

The question of historicity is often involved in the sequence of events as though chronological order was essential to historicity. And the problem of historical accuracy in J o h n "cannot in fact be divorced f r o m t h e whole problem of history in the gospels. I t is here t h a t a new approach is most evident" 9 in these latter days: John must not be historical when his record differs from that of the Synoptics: This conclusion had been widely accepted. Historicity—or the lack of it—is necessary to explain the differences. Actually both documents m a y well be theological. "Mark is not presenting chronology above all else b u t is very concerned to reveal what was happening; then any correction of Mark made by John—or so-called "correction"—would not be a chronological question, but theological. Chronology is present but clearly secondary." 1 0 C. H . Dodd affirms t h a t " a severe concentration on the synoptic record, to the exclusion of the Johannine contribution, leads to an impoverished, one-sided and incredible view of the facts . . . as a part of history." « The primary question then would seem to be: can historicity be claimed without reference to harmonization of t h e sequence of events ? A few illustrations f r o m within the Synoptics will illustrate t h a t this is so. The healing of t h e centurion's servant (Matt. 8:5ff., and Lk. 7:1 ff.) is placed in a different sequence, t h e healing of a leprous m a n in Matthew being inserted before Jesus' entry into Capernaum. B o t h events, however, do follow immediately after Jesus' Sermon (—and was it on t h e plain or on the mountain ? Luke indicates t h a t Jesus spoke " a t a level place" where the people were able to gather around (6:17—19). Luke seems to anticipate what happened after the sermon when he gave this detail, b u t then steps back to record the sermon Jesus spoke before his descent to his disciples (6:20). Chronological sequence is clearly not obligatory.) Apart from the number of Beatitudes in this Sermon—9 for Matthew a n d 4 for Luke—notice how the order in which they are recorded is not a chronological one, number three in Matthew being number four in Luke. I n fact, this Sermon—if it be a single entity—is interlaced with miracles and dialogue and various events in Luke's account f r o m chapters 6 through 16. I t is apparent t h a t Matthew arranges his presentation topically rather t h a n chronologically, (e. g. five great discourses, portraying Jesus as a new and greater Moses, seven parables of t h e Kingdom, and ten miracles in sequence). I n Mark 9:42—50 teaching is about sin, fire and salt; b u t chronological and even topical considerations gave way t o concerns of memorization and instruction. Strict chronology is apparently ignored in Mark 2:1—3:6 in grouping five accounts of conflict between Jesus and t h e scribes or Pharisees. Furthermore, Luke has what is commonly known as a travel narrative (9:51—18:14) depicting the movement of Jesus f r o m Galilee to J e r u salem. This period is differently arranged from the other Synoptics with little reference to geography or chronology. Much of t h e material is peculiar to Luke and arranged in such a way as to direct attention on Jerusalem as preparation for t h e Passion narratives to follow. A consecutive catalogue of events is not given nor was it intended, quite apparently. "Luke's attention to t h e journey sequence was overshadowed by his greater interest in the character of the contents, alternat9 E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, p. 182. w J. Marsh, Saint John, p. 49. " C. H. Dodd, The Fourth Gospel, p. 446.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

105

ing between instruction and discussion" 12 , designed especially for the training of preachers and missionaries. 13 Throughout Luke-Acts Jerusalem appears as the center stage of redemptive history, the goal toward which Jesus moves in the Gospel of Luke, and this Holy City is the same base from which the Christians carry the Gospel in Acts. This would satisfactorily explain why Luke reverses Matthew's order of the second and third temptations of Jesus (Lk. 4:5, 9) in order t h a t the temptation which took place in Jerusalem might be climactic. Other examples could be noted. Does it matter for history whether Matthew or Luke are chronological ? Does it change the truthfulness of either account? Certainly historicity may remain untouched. The events factually took place at a time and place in history. The time-sequence simply relates one event to another event in only one of several ways. Alphabeti cal or numerical order—or argumentation by choice of subject or theme — each has its own raison d'etre. (Chronology seems to be of secondary importance at times in the Book of Acts as well. I t is notoriously difficult to discern at what precise point Paul spent several years in Arabia after his conversion (Acts 9:19—23). Did he begin preaching the deity of Jesus Christ just a few days after his transforming experience—though very possible—or was it after he had had time to re-structure his entire theology? I n any case Luke is extremely nonchalant on this sequence. Another notable instance is the date of the faminerelief visit of Saul/Paul to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30, usually dated about 46 A. D. However, the first century historian Josephus confirms the death of Herod Agrippa (from "pains in the belly" [with no mention of "worms"] in deference to the Romans) as having occurred by 44 A. D.—Acts 12:23. 14 This chronology represents a step backwards from the previous date—yet the historicity of neither account is affected.) The question of the chronological or thematic arrangement of the events does not alter their historical accuracy—and would solve many of t h e alleged contradictions or mistakes in Synoptic relationship, either because seemingly out of place in sequence or consciously correcting another record. The a t t e m p t s at harmonization should not be at the expense of the criteria of an objective historical account, which is indispensable for faith. The incidents are historical even though subordinated to a theological and apologetical purpose. I t would also be a mistake to declare that John is entirely indifferent to chronological and biographical sequence in preference to a thematic scheme. The Prologue and the Passion Narrative may be highly interpretive but they also have respect for chronology. The narrative paragraphs of 1:19—11:54 have some chronological sense: John's followers became Jesus' disciples, and the focus on Galilee (where three of the sign-miracles take place) fades in favor of J u d a e a in preparation for the climax in Jerusalem. Attention to the 'forms' is one positive contribution from modern form criticism, and more recognition is being given their historicity than earlier. This objective criterion is necessary, though some of the facts may reflect a subjective choice among the many facts available. The portrait may well be interpretive b u t based upon a nucleus of historical facts in t h a t person's life. 12 13 14

D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 163. Bo Reicke, Studia Evangélica I, p. 214. Josephus, Antiquities XIX, v. 1, and viii. 2.

106

R . J . CAMPBELL

The following conclusion is proposed: Gospel writers were faithful to history in the presentation of their theological portrait of Jesus Christ though at times very indifferent to a strict chronological sequence of the events used to picture his life . This statement will be tested by an exposition of Jesus' visit to the Temple in Jerusalem as recorded by John where he forcibly evicted bankers and butchers from the outer Court. The account reads as follows (original translation): Since the Jewish Passover was nearly at hand, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the outer court of the temple he came upon people engaged in selling oxen, sheep and pigeons for sacrifices and the money-changers seated at their own counters. Making a kind of whip out of cords he drove the whole group of them out of the temple with their sheep and oxen; he overturned the tables of the money-changers, scattering their coins. He told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away from here! You are not to turn my Father's house into a market-place!" Later his disciples remembered the words of Scripture, "Zeal for thy house shall destroy me". A t this the Jews demanded of him, "What miracle-sign can you show us, authorizing you to do this?" "Destroy this sanctuary", was Jesus' reply, "and in three days I will raise it up". The Jews then said, "The building of this sanctuary has taken forty-six years, are you going to raise it again in three days?" Actually he was talking about the sanctuary of his body. Later, after his resurrection from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this and they believed that the Scripture, to which he had referred, had been accomplished.

I t must be acknowledged that there is nothing a priori impossible about this incident, historically speaking. But it will be helpful to underline certain historical features. References is made to business activity in the Temple, probably the outer court, called the Court of the Gentiles. The contemporary circumstances were as follows: since the Exile the annual temple tax had to be paid by every male Israelite of 20 years and over; this tax of half a shekel (equal to 2 drachmas), clue by the time of Passover, as well as all other offerings to be purchased, had to be with the ancient "Tyrian" coinage. Since only Roman money was coined in Palestine in the time of Jesus, there was need for money changers. (Such scholars as P. Billerbeck, J . Jeremias, A. Edersheim and E. Schiirer confirm indications of such commerce in the temple precincts.) 15 There would naturally occur abuse of this transaction, but the proportions were truly excessive. The specific term used in J o h n 2:15—xoMvPioreZg—for which the Aramaic form is qolbon—refers not to money-changing in itself but the usurious charges or fees for any transaction above the half-shekel amount of between 17% and 33% (scholars differ on the exact rate). Much more could be purchased in the Temple court than merely the half-shekel for the tax. Sacrifices and purification rites were needful: blemish-free animals had to be certified and/or acquired; many complications could be avoided by a regular 'kosher' market close at hand where duly-inspected animals could be purchased, all

15

Many priests claimed exemption of this tax, based on an ingenious application of Lev. 6:23: since the offering of a priest was not to be eaten, and since the Temple-tribute was used to secure such offerings as the shewbread afterwards eaten by priests, they reasoned that they could not consistently be taxed to purchase this bread. It was argued, to the annoyance of the rabbis, that this was incompatible with Levitical prescriptions! See A. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesua the Messiah, pp. 367 f.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

107

charges included. 16 Spiralling priced became common-place as the days before the Passover expired. I t is easy to imagine the gross abuses of such commerce; the correct currency was available for a price — but always with the disputing and bargaining of an Eastern money-changer. From various Jewish writings we know that the Temple had become a veritable merchandise mart. Furthermore, we are told that these highly improper transactions produced a vast accumulation of wealth for the Temple treasuries. The Jerusalem Talmud (i. 7, p. 46) indicates there was not a set law concerning the profits, at least at that later date. But most certainly they paid a considerable rental or percentage to the Temple officials. I t is very significant that this market is described as the "Bazaars of the Sons of Annas," the Priest so infamous in New Testament history. Josephus and the Rabbis give a bleak picture of the avarice and corruption of this entire family. (Josephus describes Ananus, the son of the Annas of the New Testament, as "a great hoarder up of money, very rich, known to despoil by open violence the common priests of their official revenues." 17 ) Little wonder that Jesus should denounce the Temple-market as "a den of robbers." (Mark 11 : 17). I t is noteworthy that the unrighteousness of this traffic and the greed of the Bazaar owners was most unpopular among the people in Jesus' day. Eventually popular indignation swept away these merchants from the Temple three years before the destruction of Jerusalem because of the corruption t h a t characterized their dealings. The patriarchs Simeon and Baba ben Bata refer to gross unfair practises and widespread reaction among the people against such abuse. 18 Thus the action of Jesus fits perfectly well into an historical situation. The scene of his attempted purification of one of the main sources of income for the family Annas and the chief priests has rich significance. We can understand why the authorities only challenged the authority of Christ by a perplexing question (and received an equally puzzling answer). "The unpopularity of the whole traffic, plus their consciences, prevented their proceeding to actual violence." 19 The context (Jn. 2 : 23) also indicates Jesus may have gained considerable popular support by His dramatic action which caught his enemies by complete surprise. The crowds may well have responded with sympathetic admiration reminiscent of Messianic promise of Temple righteousness. This would have gained him respect, approval and, not least, secured his personal safety. There is a second outstanding feature of historic significance t h a t underlines the historicity of this even as John recorded it. The answer Jesus gave to their challence of authority and demand for some authenticating sign was a statement they could not forget—nor understand. I t was a kind of riddle. I t is well-known that the Semitic mind loves mysteries and often uses enigmatical words which require either t h a t the hearer have the secret key to reveal its meaning or go in search for it and find it. The disciples later found that key (vs. 22) but the Jews, because their unbelief only grew more intense, never found it. 16

17 18 19

V. Epstein substantiates the presence of animals in the Temple following a dispute between Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. ZNTW, 55, 1964, pp. 42 ff. Josephus' Antiquities, X X 9,2—4. Talmudic Tractate "Kerith" cited by A. Edersheim, op. cit.,p. 371. Ibid., p. 372 — also note H. E. W. Turner, Jesus Master and Lord, p. 325; "Christ had a powerful confederate in the conscience of the offenders".

108

R . J . CAMPBELL

The fact t h a t this statement recorded by John ivas an historical utterance is verified by the false-witnesses at Jesiis' trial—for all their contradictory testimony, they did underline the truthfulness of such an occurence (Mk. 14: 57). The words ascribed to Jesus here in the Fourth Gospel must have been uttered by him. The casual reference in Mark was false not because it was unhistorical, but because they could not agree as to wJiat he had said—nor did he actually say what they said he did. They sought for a pretext by which to be rid of him, but their efforts were badly coordinated. The witnesses were false because they distorted the words of Jesus. He had not said that he personally would destroy and reconstruct Herod's yet-unfinished temple in three short days. The aorist imperative expressed one decisive act. Applied to Christ it might have had future significance: you will crucify the Christ, He will rise again and be the Victor— or even "if you persist in your unbelief, He will finally triumph in the end." The second action is contingent on the first. But in any case it was not as the witnesses falsely testified t h a t he said he would destroy the Temple. C. H . Dodd notes that the use of an imperative for a condition is a Semitism which may mean that John's form of this saying is quite old. 20 But R. Bultmann rightly insists that this imperative is more than a simple condition: it is the ironical imperative found in the prophets (Amos 4 : 4 and Isa. 8 : 9); 21 it means: "Go ahead and do this and see what happens!" Notice t h a t Jesus does not say he wants the Jews to do this terrible thing. His words imply the very opposite, namely that he is trying to restrain the Jews from doing this frightful thing, but t h a t for some reason and in some way they are bent on doing it in spite of him. Jesus' words really signified then, "Go on in your evil course, since nothing will deter you, and you will have the sign for which you call, the sign t h a t will really convince you!" The imperative is not merely a concession: if you destroy. I t reckons with the unbelief of the Jews as a deplorable fact t h a t cannot be changed, just as Jesus reckoned also with the treachery of Judas when he commanded, "What you are going to do, do quickly," (Jn. 13 : 27). The Jews will perform this monstrous deed of destroying their own Sanctuary by rejecting and killing him who was the divine reality for which the Sanctuary stood, whom it was to serve with all its services. 22 How can they have the type when they reject the anti-type ? Can they keep the promise when they spurn the fulfillment ? (What is the use of a beautiful photograph of father or mother when the moment the person himself appears he is thrown out with abuse ?) By killing the body of Jesus the Jews would pull down their own Sanctuary. The rejection of the Saviour involved judgment (Jn. 12 : 31 . . . "nowisthe judgment of this world . . .") and then the Sanctuary would also be taken away. Although the Jews must have felt the sharp sting in that command "Destroy this Temple by your evil, nefarious practices . . .," the one point t h a t mystified the Jews completely—the real heart of Jesus' 'riddle'—was the phrase "in three days." Although somewhat less elegant than other expressions usually referring to the resurrection ("on the third d a y " or "after three days") there is no doubt t h a t Jesus meant it this way. Any reference to resurrection was absolutely beyond 20 21 22

C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 302. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, p. 88. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of John, p. 217.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

109

the ability of the Jews to believe. Even the disciples of Jesus only understood after the event had occurred—and perhaps after the Spirit of Truth had come "to teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all t h a t I have said to you" (Jn. 14: 26). Even at the crucifixion they taunted him with this: "You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself!" (Matt. 27 : 46). I t is important to note that the false witnesses of Mark's account confirm not only that Jesus said something about destroying the Temple but t h a t he also spoke of another Temple "not made with hands," arising from the same occasion. Although unable to have benefitted from John's insight, something in what Jesus said caused them to think of future reconstruction—at least of a new, glorious Temple in the Messianic Age, more glorious than the contemporary model "made with hands," and even perhaps other than another structure of stone. Whatever they understood, this is confirmation of the historical reality of the statement by Jesus as J o h n recorded it. None of the Synoptic accounts of the purification of the Temple quote Jesus as having said this. I t seems to be an obvious reference to the Johannine version of this event. (It was a deliberate statement, yet Ernst Renan dared to characterize Jesus' action as only a whim: "One day his bad humor against the Temple drew from him an imprudent word."!) 23 There is yet another feature of singular historical significance: far from being fiction, John's record of Jesus' statement brought quite a normal reaction from the Jews regarding the present Temple construction. The command to destroy the Sanctuary sounded blasphemous to Jewish ears, for what Jew would think of such a thing, especially now when so many years had already been spent in the re-building. And the 46 years to which reference is made are verifiable: Herod the Great (tetrarch of Galilee from 41 B. C. and Judaea from 37 B. C., called the "king of the Jews") began to rebuild the Temple on a grander and more elaborate scale to conciliate the Jews, the re-construction of Nehemiah and Ezra having been inferior. Josephus informs us 2 ' 1 t h a t this construction began 20/19 B. C. or 734—35 A. U. C. The porch and the sanctuary with the Holy of Holies were finished by 16 B. C. and the court by 9 B. C.—repairs and improvements were continued until the work was finally considered terminated in A. D. 63 under the Procurator Albums. 25 Reckoning from these dates it would establish the date for Jesus' statement as 27/28 A. D. (or the Passover of 28 A. D.). 26 The hazards of establishing an exact chronology for the ministry of Jesus are well known (so much depends on the feasts in John's Gospel including the unnamed one in 5 : 1 ) . But this date would agree with t h a t of Luke 3 : 1 , which fixes the ministry of John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (October 27—28 A. D., according to the Syrian calendar with ante-dating). The number of years cited by John obviously refers to the Temple from the immediate context. (Even though some as A. Loisy take it to mean Jesus was 46 years of age—because 23 24 25 26

E. Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. 367. Josephus, Antiquities, XV, 11,1—6. Ibid., X X , 9, 7. The phrase "it has taken 46 years . . ." is a complexive aorist for an action not yet completed, yet summing up the whole process (as also Jn. 4:3).

110

R . J . CAMPBELL

John says the Temple is Jesus' body, and the Jews said "You'rs not yet fifty years old" (Jn. 8: 57)—we take it to be more feasible that Luke was correct when he stated Jesus was about 30 years old (Lk. 3: 23).27 This is still less than fifty and fits better with established chronological dates.) Again it would seem clear that John is in harmony with specific dates of Roman history also contained in the Synoptics. And, "for the present debate this would suit the chronology of the life of Jesus very well. The Passover of Jn. 2 : 14 would then be that of A. D. 28 with the last Passover in 30 A. D." 2 8 Any symbolic sense, or fanciful calculation such as that of Augustine, hardly seems to have been the intention of the evangelist. More will be said about dating the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus. J. B. Lightfoot rightly said, " I t is difficult to square this reference with the idea of a late writer who sat loose to accurate historical writing." 29 Summarizing the importance of these features of historical significance, this criterion is proposed for establishing historical value: where a specific event is unique to the Fourth Gospel and makes sense of the Synoptic story of Jesus, we may be reasonably sure that this event is historically authentic. This we would apply to this dialogue between Jesus and these Jews as recorded by John. Inevitably we must consider the long-standing debate between a wide gamut of scholars on the independent reliability of the Johannine account—is it merely an accidental similarity with Synoptic records?—was there direct—or indirect— dependence of John on Mark—or was it Luke?—how to account for the similarities and differences ? —or do all the records draw on a common oral source which was adapted and expanded with additional information in each tradition ? What place did chronology play in each scheme ? The features that John shares with the Synoptic accounts are several: the temple precincts, driving out the sellers of doves, overturning the tables of the money-changers and reference to the Temple as a house. Yet after all is this similarity not inevitable ? How else can one report such an action without reference to the same vocabulary? Are these so similar as to demand literary dependence? Whenever the story was told there must have been mention of these facts or else the event would be bereft of its most essential elements.30 I t seems self-evident that in John we are dealing with a man who is not piecing together written sources but placing his stamp upon an oral tradition with a sovereign freedom. As M. Philippe Menoud stated, it is as if he were saying to us from beginning to end, "La Tradition c'est moi!":u Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, concurs—Christian Doctrine, Bk. I I , Ch. 38:42. R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, p. 351; consensus among scholars concerning these dates is increasing. 29 J. B. Lightfoot, St. John's Gospel, p. 112. 30 Since the publication in 1938 of Cambridge scholar P. Gardner-Smith's brilliant argument for John's independent authority for the life of Jesus, the list of savants who support his thesis has' been growing steadily, notably including C. H. Dodd and R. E. Brown in recent years. Even more widespread is the view that John knew none of our Synoptic Gospels but did know the tradition reproduced by these Gospels. This might explain "nard" (12:3) for example. C. K . Barrett said John lost his copy of Mark and wrote from memory. See W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 144. 31 P. Menoud, Cahier Theologique, 3, p. 68. 27

28

Evidence for the Historicity of the F o u r t h Gospel

111

Features of the incident uniquely related by John merit fuller consideration. These features will be enumerated here: (1) t h e mention of oxen and sheep (of. Lev. 1, 3) for b u r n t offerings a n d peace offerings; lambs for t h e Passover were most essential; (2) t h e action was against sellers only, not the buyers as in Mark; t h e protest seemed more broad in Mark in t h a t the Temple was for all nations and not only one people; (3) t h e whip, formed of cords (used t o tie animals or their feed); weapons were forbidden in t h e court of t h e Temple b u t whips were p e r m i t t e d ; (4) a t r i p to Jerusalem situated very early in Jesus' ministry: b u t when one considers t h e importance of t h a t Holy City and t h e Temple to every Jew, this would be natural for one with Messianic claims; (5) Jesus demanded t h a t t h e sellers of pigeons carry t h e m out whereas in Mark no one could carry a n y t h i n g across t h e c o u r t y a r d ; (6) Jesus called the Temple " M y F a t h e r ' s H o u s e " ; this is a good J o h a n n i n e logion; (reference t o God as " F a t h e r " is found in Mark 12 times, in Luke 6 times, in Matthew 20 times — b u t in J o h n 107 times! and "My F a t h e r " 27 times in J o h n compared t o 16 in Matthew and 4 in Luke.) J o h n made " F a t h e r " the natural n a m e for God among Christians; this could be understood as coming f r o m Jesus' Messianic consciousness (cf. Zech. 14: 21) t o explain his bold use of a u t h o r i t y ; (7) Jesus stated t h a t t h e y were making t h e Temple a market-place of commerce a n d t r a d e ; there is no mention of t h e positive aspect t h a t it should be a place of worship a n d prayer as in Mark; (8) Psa. 69: 10 is uniquely cited in J o h n though changed to t h e f u t u r e tense and pointed to J e s u s ; it underlined t h e dangerous implications of his action: it will cost him his life; mortal h a t r e d of Jesus b y t h e Jews is soon forthcoming (Jn. 5 : 16, 18); it was more t h a n a fit of temper in t h e Psalm as well; (9) t h e d e m a n d for a sign to verify liis authority seems t o have come almost immediately, within minutes; in J o h n ' s context this tends to stigmatize the J e w s as unbelievers contrasted with t h e disciples and m a n y others who believed in him (2:11,23); (10) t h e sign t h a t he granted was to be no immediate miracle, b u t rather t h e raising of t h e Sanct u a r y ; (John's word, iyeigeiv, can mean construction, b u t also resurrection of t h e body—the Synoptics use t h e word "to rebuild" applicable only t o a building); any sign on this occasion was refused in t h e Synoptics—and a t other times only t h e resurrection was t h e sign g r a n t e d (e. g. Matt. 12:38-40; 16:1-4); (11) t h e commentary by the author of the Gospel as to what Jesus really m e a n t and when this was finally understood b y t h e disciples; t o J o h n , Jesus is t h e t r u e "house of G o d " ; his Ecclesiology was based u p o n his Christology; such explanatory comments are common t o this Gospel—12 times in a l l - e . g. 6:6, 64, 71; 12:6, 33.

To many students of Scripture this last distinctive feature of the Fourth Gospel comprises the real difference, the major problem of John. The Synoptics seem to see no more in the event than an attempt by Jesus to reform Temple abuses, a protest in action. Jesus' conduct in cleaning out the Temple court in John means the same thing, a protest like that of the prophets of old against the corruption of the holiness of God's house. The arrival of a Messianic purification was not to be ignored. But there is more: the Fourth Evangelist brings an additional facet—the advent of a new, spiritual worship of God. The evangelist clearly presents this additional truth: Jesus meant to include a deeper theological meaning. It makes Jesus the "place" where God is to be adored, the true "house of God" (cf. Jn. 1 : 51). With him and in him the time of the worship of God "in spirit and truth" (Jn. 4 : 23) has arrived. It was not understood by anyone at the time Jesus left the Temple, and only by the disciples later on. From the above enumeration it is evident that a strong case can be made for Johannine independence of all Synoptic literary sources. He is familiar with the factual aspects of the event from a common oral tradition. As Prof. Higgins has

R. J.

CAMPBELL

said, "There is good reason for the view that this Gospel is not the fourth or latest, if by that is meant, as it frequently is, that there is little or nothing in it which is primitive. The sources or traditions used by the fourth evangelist deserve at least as much respect as those employed by Synoptics." 32 Then what indications of primitive tradition might be discerned here? There are several: (1) unlike the Synoptics, there is a close connection between the action in the Temple and the challenge of the Jewish leaders to his right to be so presumptuous. In John it appears to arise immediately. In the Synoptics it is separated from the cleansing and in Matthew and Luke especially the immediate context for their question is during his teaching activity. Did his discourse provide the catalyst even though the Temple protest would seem to have been the reason that provoked their demand ? John identifies cause and effect very clearly. (2) Another distinct difference is John's use of the imperative (already mentioned above). "Destroy" puts the burden for the destruction of the Temple on Jewish leaders. They were to initiate the action. The other records state Jesus himself would destroy the Temple, as apparently the way the enemies of Jesus had understood his words. Whether deliberately inverted or just misunderstood, only John really explains why their witness was false (other than that their testimony was self-contradictory, said Mark). This gives John the benefit of a tradition at least equal if not superior to that of Mark. (3) The great "sign" of Jesus is the resurrection; this was true for Matthew as well as John (cf. Lk. l i :29—30), but the Fourth Gospel is unique in associating it with Jesus' saying on the destruction of the Temple. John's presentation has no resemblance to the Synoptic story; this is an original feature that ignores any acquaintance with Matthew or Mark. John knew that a sign had been asked of Jeses; like all other Christians he knew the resurrection to be that sign. John also knew of the statement about the destruction of the Temple and the restoration "in three days". As has been shown, there is ample evidence in the Synoptics t h a t Jesus said something like this, although the saying itself is only found, misquoted, in vhe mouths of his enemies. (Luke's only mention of it is in Acts 6:14 in similar circumstances.) John connects the saying with the resurrection and the demand for a sign. How natural this seems to be. 33 "And since the character of the Temple was here in question, it is a most suitable place to introduce the saying and the interpretation. But would it have been equally natural if the evangelist had been writing with Mark before him?" 3 4

How could John have known ? — or not known — the real meaning until later ? His statement (vss. 21—22) enables us to discern the inner workings of the mind of John and his fellow-disciples (and John only understood along with them); this would certify historical reality. "No pseudo-John living in the second century could invent this ignorance of the apostle regarding a saying of Jesus that he himself had invented." 35 Furthermore, "the structure of the whole pericope, the disciples' remembering a text of Scripture (as in 12 : 16) and the insertion of such an 'aside' (cf. 4 : 27, 33; 12 : 17f.; 13 : 28f.; 16 : 17f.) rather tell in favour of the narrative style of the evangelist himself." 36 To what/or to whom is this statement attributed then? Several facets need to be underlined: (1) Jesus himself was the originator of the forms. If Jesus could not have taught as the Johannine Christ did, where could such teachings have arisen? Such an unfamiliar picture could never have 32

A. J . B. Higgins, The Historicity of the Fourth Gospel, p. 82. D. Guthrie, op. cit., p. 300. 34 P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 16 35 R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 221. 36 R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 348. 33

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

113

received authentication if it did not really exist in common tradition. I t is prepostrous to suppose that the originator of Johannine stories was one who was even greater than Jesus himself. 37 (2) Eye-witness testimony had great influence (then as now). Many eye-witnesses were present in the Christian community until late in the first century. The early Christians were quite prepared to suffer even death because of the uniqueness of the Author and Finisher of their faith — not to defend the products of their own imagination. No evangelist would have been able to impose a theological slant on his writings that was foreign to the general outlook of the primitive community. As Bishop Westcott rightly observed, if John had not kept strictly to the essence of what Jesus had said, he might easily have brought out in the saying itself the sense which he discovered in it at a later time. 38 (3) The controlling influence of the Holy Spirit must be emphasized. Not only was Christ greater than the Christian community which he founded, but the Spirit of Truth, t h a t "another Counsellor" or Paraclete, guaranteed the continuation of his work—including their fuller understanding of his words. This special help was in fulfillment of Jesus' own promise to them. The Johannine account was in no sense an attempt to justify the self-claims of the disciples. Not only did the Holy Spirit control the traditions by men sensitive to his promptings and eager to maintain the honor of Christ, but the Spirit also aided the memory and controlled selection of traditions to be included in the personal contribution of each author. Their different emphases and presentation of their particular portrait of Christ was the work of the Spirit of God even above the natural theological bent of the individuals. Their personality and personal preference was not over-ridden, but "the harmony of their presentations is unaccountable apart from the acceptance of a more than normal intuition, the dynamic operation of the Spirit in the final writers of the canonical Gospels." 39

We conclude then that the reliability of the Gospel writers was most credible. They each represented an arresting figure portrayed in paragraphs of words and sentences. Jews, trained from childhood to worship only the invisible God, felt constrained to worship a man they had known in daily life. They were willing to die for this truth. The Gospels must have been reliable or else the whole phenomenon of the growth of the early Church remains a mystery. The Gospels accurately preserved the history of their times. This can be illustrated by the fact that the Epistles contain no parables: it was not a pedagogical device used by early Christians, evidence that they would not have introduced them into the Gospels. Nor do the Epistles include the Christological title "Son of Man" so frequent in the Gospels (especially the Synoptics), showing this to be distinctive of Jesus and authentic. On the other hand, the Gospels say nothing about crucial issues demanding a solution such as the circumcision of Gentile converts and meat offered to idols as found in the Acts and the Epistles. Paul specifically separated his own statements on marriage and divorce from Jesus' words (note I Cor. 7 : 25 particularly). The early Christians carefully preserved and protected Jesus' own teachings from intermingling with their applications to problems that arose. The tradition was trustworthy because it was well-preserved; the Source being what he was, this tradition met the needs of a growing community. Having already affirmed that the purification of the Temple constitutes an historical event by itself irrespective of the sequence in relation to other events (chronological or alphabetical order or other), something more needs to be said about the apparent discrepancies in the time-order of the event between Mark (followed by Matthew and Luke) and John. It is well known that there are three 37 38 39

D. Guthrie, op. cit., pp. 267-68. B. F. Westcott, op. cit., p. lviii, n. 1. D. Guthrie, op. cit., p. 208.

114

R . J . CAMPBELL

notable difficulties in the chronology of the life of Jesus as recorded in the four Gospels: (a) the dating of the Last Supper, (b) the length of Jesus' public ministry, and (c) the date for the cleansing of the Temple. I t is also generally agreed that the last problem is the most difficult. And in many respects the crux of the problem of historicity and John's Gospel is situated in this action of Jesus in the Temple. In some ways the easiest solution would be to propose two cleansings (one at the beginning, the other near the close of the ministry) because this would explain the differences, which are substantial. 40 Yet this has its own problems. Most modern scholars dismiss this option as sheer over-simplification or obviously impossible for two reasons: it is assumed that the two traditions describe the same action, basically, and it is unlikely such a serious censure of the priesthood in the Temple itself would be permitted twice. The approach of C. K. Barrett is typical: a double cleansing is without evidence if the literary dependence of John on Mark is accepted—which he does. 41 Others feel it is a vain, desperate attempt at harmonization of Mark and John, such as C. H. Dodd.'' 2 They generally feel t h a t the disposition of John's material, placing this incident early, shows theological reasons rather than chronological. This merits consideration unless it means making "chronology" equivalent to "history" with the resultant modification of historical records to fit a theological theme—as Prof. Barrett seems willing to do: "John's interpretation of the Cleansing involves some modification of the original story." 4 3 If current research favors increasing confidence in John's attention to historical accuracy, these objections can be met. The thesis of this study thus far has been to defend the reliability and independence of the Johannine writing. His history makes good sense in itself, and is based on historical fact unavailable in Synoptic literary sources. And it gives the Synoptics better sense. The action described overlaps Synoptics writings only in facts that would be common to any story of temple-cleansing. If similar conditions were repeated, the moral integrity and authority Jesus knew he possessed would strongly suggest he could not have gone near the Temple without doing it a second time. As for the Temple guard or the Jewish priests, several things need to be observed. He could well have taken them by surprise on the first occasion. The context indicates (vs. 23) he may well have had considerable popular sympathy for his action. As a matter of fact he was not even arrested but only questioned about his credentials. He wasn't even rebuked—status was the issue! Perhaps Messianic significance was attached to such a deed and prompted their inquiry, even tempering their action. Even with the purification as Mark records it, the chief priests moved very cautiously against him, resorting to intrigue and secrecy for his eventual arrest. They had respect for his popularity rating. They set word-traps (Mk. 12: 12) and finally hired a traitor (14: 10) who sought an easy occasion (14: 11) to deliver 40

Two separate cleansings are accepted by the following commentators: A. Edersheim, I \ Godet, R. H. Gundry, E. K. Harrison, R. C. H. Lenski, L. Morris, A. Plummer, R. V. G. Tasker, M. C. Tenney and B. P. Westcott. 41 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, p. 163. 42 C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, p. 157. « C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 163.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

115

him to them quietly. Although the majority of scholars favor the Synoptic positioning because it leads naturally to the arrest, it is here questioned whether or not this was really so, in view of the fact t h a t this action seemed to occupy so little place in the trial. After the abortive attempt to enlist witnesses, no formal charge is pressed against him on this subject (even though the blasphemers under the cross took up the saying). John is equally convincing that the raising of Lazarus and the popular support this raised up led to the decision of the Sanhedrin to be rid of Jesus. This was much aggravated by his entry into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday" (Jn. 12 : 12). I n the Synoptics, his parables, pointed particularly at them, provoked further hatred among these Jewish leaders for him (Mk. 12 : 12 et al.). The final move toward the removal of Jesus was the culmination of all of these events. (It does seem a bit strange, however, t h a t there is no mention nor even hint of a first cleansing during the "repeat performance" the second time, either in the words of Jesus or others, nor in details surrounding the event.) Nevertheless if there was only one cleansing of the Temple, it must be decided whether the Synoptic or the Johannine timing is correct (early or late in Jesus' ministry) — and to account for the major differences between them. (At least one scholar, T. Cottam, 4 4 felt t h a t the only solution was a re-arrangement of the text with J n . 2 : 13b—25 placed after the raising of Lazarus. Interestingly, R . Bultmann's "ecclesiastical redactor(s)" did not make any re-arrangement of this passage at all in spite of extensive changes elsewhere). (It seems suspicious t h a t attempted re-arrangements of John's text rest on the assumption t h a t the original John was meticulous about chronology after all!) Supposing the Synoptic chronology to be correct, for sake of argument, (as accepted by C. K . Barrett, J . H. Bernard, C. H. Dodd, E. C. Hoskyns, R. H . Lightfoot, J . N. Sanders, et al.), what are the strong points of this position? That this was a serious public affront to the Temple authorities and their spiritual leadership is surely true. Not so much Temple worship was implicated as was their prestige and respect exposed and insulted. I n Synoptic chronology the priests then determined to put him to death (Mk. 11 : 18). This Temple-action of Jesus would explain their drastic decision. In John, by contrast, Jesus continues to move freely about the Temple for about two years afterward. Furthermore, there is strength in the question whether Jesus would have had sufficient public status as a prophet and a large enough following for any earlier protest of sorts; the Synoptic sequence justifies this since Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem immediately preceded his action in the Temple. The major weakness with this scheme is the rather weak cause and effect relationship between the Temple-cleansing per se and the final crisis. At least four provocative dialogues with his enemies plus several pointed warnings to his disciples concerning the scribes and Pharisees (including the barbed parable of 12 : 12) are found between Mark 11 : 15 and 14 : 43 . . . between his action in the Temple and actual arrest. Furthermore, the abuses of the 'sons of Annas' had long before 44

T. Cottam, The Fourth Gospel Re-arranged, pp. 47ff. E. Redlich proposed putting 2:13—3:21 after 12:36 as more proper in the context; he based this on his calculation of the format of papyrus codices ; his estimate differed somewhat from what Westcott and Hort had computed of 1460 to 1500 letters per quire of 2 leaves. See the Expository Times LV, 4, pp. 89—92 of January, 1944.

116

R . J . CAMPBELL

aroused the ire of many and very early Jesus could have had considerable popular support against them (if only very volatile support for himself, as he himself knew — J n . 2 : 25). Realizing this, delegations of scribes and Pharisees came to oppose him in Galilee long before the final events in Jerusalem (see Mk. 3 : 22; 7 : l). 45 The cleansing of the Temple in Synoptic sequence is insufficient to explain in the space of a few days how Christ was welcomed, admired, then rejected, judged, condemned and crucified. If the great lament of Jesus over Jerusalem receives its just interpretation, more than one visit to David's city, the heart of Jewish religious life, is plainly necessary (Matt. 23 : 37) as seen in the general chronology of the Fourth Gospel. What are the advantages then of the Johannine sequence of events (which is more plausible to such as J . Weiss, M.-J. Lagrange, A. H . McNeile, A. E. Brooke, J . A. T. Robinson, V. Taylor, et al.). The Johannine outline has several journeys to Jerusalem for different feasts and therefore situates the cleansing of the Temple at the point in time where it really happened — for according to these scholars, since there is only one journey to Jerusalem included in the Synoptics, the one at the close of Jesus' ministry, those Gospel writers were obliged to place the scene during that visit to the Holy City. But it is also argued that the Synoptics betray earlier visits to Jerusalem and a possible earlier setting for the scene. For example Jesus' question to them about John the Baptist would indicate his ministry was of recent occurrence—hence John's calendar. Luke tells us t h a t early in His ministry Jesus was preaching in the synagogues of Judaea (the preferred textual reading — not Galilee — Lk. 4 : 44). Also, at Jesus' trial the witnesses seem to have recalled his words with difficulty, and finally could not agree on what he did say, indicating that Jesus had said this some time ago—two years before in John's chronicles. I t does seem likely it was not spoken t h a t same week. Perhaps they had misunderstood him from far back in the crowd or just forgot—but a considerable time lapse does lend a better explanation for their difficulty. Furthermore, were it not for John's general outline of chronology, the Synoptic plan of Jesus' life would be limited to a very short period in which to accomplish all that he did—and arouse the violent reactions which resulted. (The inferences in Mk. 2 : 23 of fully developed grain between Passover and Pentecost and Mk. 14: 1 point to a period of not more than a year.) In John, Jesus leaves Galilee three times for Jerusalem (2:13, 5 : 1; 7 : 10) and from the last visit he stays on in Jerusalem and/or Judaea. From this feast of Tabernacles through the feast of Dedication (10 : 22) he stays in Jerusalem and returns for the Passover of his death (11 : 55 or 18 : 28), which is the third Passover referred to (besides 2 : 13/23 and 6 : 4). (Since the best attested text, including the Bodmer Papyrus, mentions only "a feast" in 5 : 1 we have no specific date prescribed here, though Purim may be a good possibility in view of the "four months until harvest", 4 : 35). These indications will suffice to show how preoccupied the evangelist is with the calendar. The clear impression received is that he meant to be taken seriously, t h a t the festivals were not a mere artificial framework but correspond to facts. 45

R. Y. G. Tasker, John, p. 61, calls this "virtually a 'counter-attack' by asserting that Jesus was possessed by Beelzebub, prince of the demons".

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

117

Why should the first visit be considered an exception to this because of the theological pronouncements of Jesus? Yet at times Gospel writers were casual about sequence in parallel scenes, or within the story of the same scene: in Matt. 8 : 26 their lack of faith was rebuked before the storm was stopped; in Mk. 4 : 39—40 and Lk. 8 : 24—25, the storm was calmed and then the disciples were rebuked. Because of John's strong theological overtones, many would reject a strict chronology. This problem must be recognized. Perhaps John could have deliberately displaced the cleansing narrative for his theological theme. It is certainly true that for John his primary desire is the statement of Jesus about the Temple and significance it held for his body and the resurrection. Yet it is not conceivable that he would correct the Synoptic narratives—he never hints at this; his own passion story presupposes action in the Temple to explain official hostility to him and his final arrest. Re-arrangement of the text is also excluded as unnecessary and lacking demonstration. As C. K. Barrett has expressed it, "Neither displacement theories nor redaction are needed to explain the present state of the gospel." 46 It is suggested that the critic's method of analyzing a book is suspect—hence our desire to return to the original; books worth preserving were not made in their way: multiple authors, each re-editing what was done before, changing the order and contents to fit a new situation, yet keeping the theme and pseudonym as their own. Such extensive alterations would not be readily received. There is a reverence about a completed book, and much more so for a work recognized by early Christians as authoritative from a disciple of Christ. And since it was very soon read in the assemblies, this would be its own verification and protection. Both an eye-witness writer and eye-witnesses in the audience would certainly guarantee faithfulness to history, even in the very forms. The best solution to the Johannine-Synoptic problem seems to favor an early date for a temple cleansing along Johannine lines. Mark's account may be out of place chronologically although closely historical—unless one accepts two separate cleansings (and this position is gaining respectability). John seems to have convincing traits of chronological accuracy with reliable historicity—even over Synoptic tradition. The tension between Jesus and the Sanhedrin thus began to build up quite early (from Jn. 5 : 18 within the first year—then 7 : 13, 25, 44, and 8 : 59 six months later). The historical situation seems to demand this event early in his career with a zeal for outward and ceremonial purity, an illustration of subsequent stress on the inwardness of true religion. He thus inaugurated his vocation by fulfilling the prophecy concerning the One who would come as Israel's refining and purifying agent (Mai. 3 : 1—3). There was a great use of personal authority—of One self-conscious of His destiny and exactly why he was there—he must be about his Father's business and first of all put a stop to this notorious desecration of His Father's house! His action "would have been more likely to succeed when the hostility of the authorities was not yet focused on him." 47 The factors that led to the final confrontation developed over many, many months. « C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 20. « J. Weiss, Die Schriften des N. T., (ed. 3, i 179). 9 Studia Evangelica VII

118

R . J . CAMPBELL

The suggested solution of one outstanding, contemporary scholar deserves special mention. Raymond E. Brown proposes a plausible hypothesis that Jesus uttered a prophetic warning about the destruction of the Temple buildings during his first journey to Jerusalem at the beginning of his ministry. The Synoptic recollection of this warning appears later on and was used against Jesus, but the time when the warning was given is not told us. But Jesus' action in the Temple precincts took place in the last days of his life/' 8 This solution, commendable in t h a t he tries to select the best of the arguments for Markan and Johannine sequence and harmonize them, is still seriously deficient. (a) There is no manuscript justification for dividing this pericope in half and assigning each to a different time, or suggesting t h a t the final redactor rearranged these elements for thematic reasons. Neither Origen, who had access to the books and traditions preserved in the Cathechetical School of Alexandria, of which he was the head, nor Eusebius, who had access to the library at Caesarea, give any indication t h a t Gospel writings were put together in this way. 49 (b) The usual order for Johannine structure is action, then teaching—the work, then the word—to explain the significance. Perhaps in this case he felt free to move the event to an earlier setting so as to precede the explanation, but it seems far more typical of him to have observed actual sequence, (c) There are too many unique characteristics of this Temple-action as J o h n has recorded it to say he has simply embellished the Markan account. That both records may have come from an earlier story is only conjecture and speculation—not convincing argument. These differences in chronology between John and the Synoptics are difficult to resolve—and this particular event may well be the most difficult. If it be not resolved, all is not lost. To the contrary, the rich significance of each portrait remains. The casual nonchalance of the Gospel writers regarding time sequence may well serve to sharpen our focus on other for more essential truths. How did John harmonize the Temple-purification with other historical facts and their theological significance for the self-revelation of Jesus Christ? How does John's meditative, devotional air of mature reflections have historical value ?— are not these reminiscences just as original from deep personal impressions of his association with the Logos of God? The unity of the entire account seems to withstand all controversy to the contrary. "The cleansing of the Temple and the 'saying on the Temple,' the action of Jesus and the reaction of the 'Jews' form an admirable unity." 5 0 And considering also the Synoptic version, especially Mark, Jesus' action in the Temple and the "question of authority" form an historical unity. Even though it all serves a theological perspective (in Mark as in John) the unity of elements shows t h a t the evangelist is well acqainted with Jewish views and historical facts, such as the building of the Temple. To refer to misunderstandings by the Jews is a favorite device of this Evangelist and certain to remain in the memory. 48

R. E. Brown, op. cit., p. 118, 120. R. Bultmann also proposes the combination of two independent episodes ; R. Schnackenburg considered it, but demurs. « H. P. V. Nunn, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 113. 50 R. Schnackenburg, op. cit., pp. 344—45.

Evidence for the Historicity of the Fourth Gospel

119

This incident early in John's Gospel was to set the stage, determine the positions and the manner in which the conflict would be carried out. The conflict was set and the outcome clear: Crucify Him—and inevitably they would—and He will triumph in his resurrection. The question of challenge, the demand for a sign received one clear answer—and they unwittingly fulfilled it. The primary reference is surely to the resurrection, but it is John's witness to the truth of Jesus' self-consciousness that reveals a double meaning in the words. They may well point also to the ultimate abolition of the Temple and its sacrificial system— but this John may not have understood until much later. The chronology of John takes on real theological significance: Jesus was 'near the cross' not only during the last week (as in Mark) but at the very beginning of his ministry, even as his precursor announced "Behold the Lamb of God!" (And one day, in the heavenly Jerusalem, there will be no need of a temple for "God himself and the Lamb are the temple thereof" — Rev. 21 : 22.) In this action and word Jesus is opposing directly the party responsible for this market-bazaar, (Moffatt termed it "a shop"), the Jewish priests and especially Annas (18: 31). Jerusalem and the Temple represent the power against which Jesus fights.51 The manner of existing Jewish worship is condemned. This will be replaced by a new order of worship, just as the miraculous change of content in the six water jars in Cana, signified by neither in Jerusalem nor in Samaria but worshipping "in spirit and truth" (4 : 24), in the Spirit of Christ, the One who would give "rivers of living water" (7 : 38—39) by his Spirit he would pour out. A 'new Temple' worship truly is a theme of John's Gospel.52 That Jesus acted as reformer cannot be denied, but it was more than reformation: upon reflection the disciples became convinced that Jesus' zeal for purity of worship eventually caused his death. His was a prophet's fervor, shared by many a prophet before him, much in harmony with Zech. 14 : 21 (and although not cited by John it may well apply). Jesus was also applying the law of Moses to correct open abuse so that the grace of the Gospel might follow. The hearts of the nation needed to be cleansed. The Sanctuary was the house in which God dwelt or tented among men (1 : 14). The "convenience" of being able to purchase sacrificial animals close at hand, within the Temple courtyard, was a basic part of His protest. His action was more than that of a Jewish reformer: it is a sign of the advent of Messiah "that John in particular was eager to present throughout his writing." 53 All his actions implied a special relationship with God. He acted upon a divine mandate. The Son of Man wielded his divine authority. And his behaviour as well as his express statements indicate he was aware of his Sonship. "Ultimately, therefore, the cleansing of the Temple becomes a revelation of his glory (cf. Jn. 2: 11) which is disclosed to those who believe." 54 This theme was introduced R . Bultmann, op. cit., p. 122. L . Morris, Commentary on the Gospel of John, p. 203. Although the "body of Christ" as the community of New Testament believers is a Pauline concept and hardly Johannine, it is interesting that the Essenes of Qumran thought of themselves as the new Temple, though lacking any equivalent to Christ. The person and work of Christ is absolutely essential and unique for John and the N. T. 53 Ibid., p. 196. 51

52

54

9*

R . Schnackenburg, op. cit., p. 353.

120

R . J . CAMPBELL

in John's Prologue as he said, "We beheld his glory . . . that of the only Son from the Father . . . full of grace and truth." To conclude then, it bears repeating that the purpose of this study has been to inspire new confidence in John as an historically reliable testimony of the events recorded, thus affirming the reality of his witness to the historical person of Jesus Christ. In the classic words of Bishop Westcott, "Christian doctrine is history, and this is above all the lesson of the Fourth Gospel. The Synoptic narratives are implicit dogmas not less truly than John's dogmas are concrete facts. The real difference is that the earliest Gospel contains the fundamental facts and words which experience afterwards interpreted, while the latest Gospel reviews the fact in the light of their interpretation. The discovery of the law of phenomena does not make the record of the phenomena less correct." 55 It is as true today as when R. E. Brown wrote it in 1965, "In the biblical movement today there is no area more alive than that of Johannine studies." 56 B. F. Westcott, E. Hoskyns, R. H. Lightfoot and J. N. Sanders each left unfinished manuscripts—all commentaries on the Fourth Gospel to be completed by another generation. This unfinished task must still be pursued. The drama of the Fourth Gospel sets before us the challenge to faith and the disastrous folly of disbelief. There is yet one further door through which the human spirit must pass, if it would enter the inner sanctuary. It is the experience of personal appropriation of true life. When scholar and prophet, preacher and priest have done their best, a question remains on which the individual must make his own decision, since no one can make it for him. "What is truth?" "I am the truth . . . and the way . . . and eternal life — that they might know Thee, the only true God." And they that worship Him in spirit and truth must bow the knee to the resurrected Sanctuary of Jesus Christ. 55

B. F. Westcott, Gospel of St. John, p. liii. 56 R. E. Brown, "The Fourth Gospel in Modern Research" - Bible Today i (20, 1965) pp. 1302-

1303.

The Place o! Romans ix—xi within the Structure and Thought of the Letter W.

S . CAMPBELL,

Birmingham

The merit of Johannes Munck's book, Christ and Israel1, is that in it he approaches Romans ix—xi as a missionary document. Unlike older commentators he does not look to these chapters for answers to philosophical questions concerning theodicy etc., nor does he view them as abstract theology divorced from a specific historical situation. Instead he locates them firmly in the context of Paul's missionary work.2 They are Paul's understanding and evaluation of his contemporary situation in which the traditional understanding of the order of events in the 'Heilsgeschichte' had to be revised due to Israel's unbelief.3 Munck maintains that T. W. Manson's essay "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans — and Others" has invalidated the widespread assumption that Romans is "a theological presentation unaffected by time and history", and that it is now possible to read Romans as "a missionary's contribution to a discussion".4 The impact of this approach is evidenced by the fact that P. Richardson in a recent book can introduce his study of the letter with the statement, "There is a growing consensus that Romans must be interpreted in the light of Paul's missionary situation".5 In this paper I intend to follow the general approach of Munck, and in keeping with what I believe to be a current trend, I will attempt to interpret the passage in the light of the cultural, social and political environment out of which it originated.6 But unlike Munck, who interprets the letter primarily on the basis of Paul's own situation and background in the Eastern world,71 wish to set the letter firmly in the context of the 'Sitz im Leben' of the Roman church to which it is addressed. My reasons for pursuing this approach have already been outlined elsewhere.8 1

2 Eng. trans, by Ingeborg Nixon, Philadelphia 1967. Ibid., p. 5f. Cf. Munck's larger work, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, Eng. trans, by F. Clarke, London 1959, especially chs. 6 and 9. 4 Ibid., p. 200. Manson's essay has been republished in: Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. M. Black, Manchester 1962, p. 225ff. 5 Israel in the Apostolic Church, Cambridge 1969, p. 126. 6 Recently the need to take into account Paul's 'conversation-partners' and their opinions, terminology etc. has been increasingly recognised; cf. R. H. Fuller's review of E. Güttgemanns' book: Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr, Journal of Biblical Literature 86, 1967, p. 98f., in which he lists W. Schmithals, D. Georgi, U. Wilckens and E. Güttgemanns as exponents of this new approach to Pauline interpretation. Cf. also R. Jewett: Paul's Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Settings, Leiden 1971, and the fascinating volume of essays by J. M. Robinson and H. Köster: Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia 1971. 7 Cf. Christ and Israel, p. 7. 8 In an article entitled: Why did Paul write Romans? published June 1974 in The Expository Times. This article lists some recent literature on Romans which is not referred to in the present study. 3

122

W . S . CAMPBELL

I. Romans ix-xi within the Structure of the Letter I t is generally agreed t h a t the letter to the Romans may be divided into four main sections, chs. i—iv, v—viii, ix—xi and xii. ff. U p to about 1930, the predominant view was t h a t the first section ended at ch. v:21. 9 The theme of this section was considered to be justification, and t h a t of the second section (vi—viii) sanctification. B u t in more recent times a majority of scholars locate the break a t the end of ch. iv. For example, Nygren entitles the first section (i: 18—iv:25) "He who through faith is righteous", and the second (v—viii) "He who through faith is righteous shall live". 10 A few scholars, namely Zahn 1 1 , Feuillet 1 2 and Leenhardt 1 3 make the division between vv. 11 and 12 of ch. v. For the purpose of this paper we locate the break at the end of ch. iv and for the following reasons. a) At this point there is a change in subject matter — it is no longer Jews and Gentiles. These are not mentioned again until ch. ix. b) There is a change in vocabulary. Life now dominates rather t h a n faith — jiiariQ is not mentioned after ch. v :2 until ch. ix. 14 c) There is also a change in style at ch. v :1 — it is no longer argumentative with questions and objections but declarative and exultant. 1 5 d) Whereas in i: 18— iv:25 the discussion is held mostly in the third person, in chs. v—viii with the exception of v:12—21 the second and first persons plural predominate. 16 e) The fact t h a t Paul in ch. viii gives a fuller elucidation and development of the themes already stated in ch. v:l—11 17 , lends support to the view t h a t chs. v—viii constitute a main section within the letter. There is little doubt as to the location of the second main break in the letter. The climax of exultant confidence which Paul attains at the end of ch. viii has the effect of making i x : 1 appear like a fresh beginning. The sudden break has led some scholars to regard ix—xi as an independent section, something in the nature of an appendix to i—viii. For example, Sanday and Headlam say "St. Paul has now finished his main argument" 1 8 and C. H. Dodd, who maintains t h a t chs. ix—xi may originally have existed separately as a sermon on the Jewish problem which Paul decided to include in this letter, goes so far as to claim t h a t one may pass over these chapters without any sense of a gap in the argument. 1 9 Already in 1836 F. C. Baur complained that scholars neglected ix—xi because they re-

9 10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17 18 10

Cf. Sanday and Headlam, The Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., Edinburgh 1902. Commentary on Romans, Eng. trans, by C. C. Rasmussen, Philadelphia 1949. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 3. Aufl., Leipzig 1925. Le plan salvifique de Dieu, Revue Biblique 57,1950, pp. 336ff. The Epistle to the Romans, Eng. trans, by H. Knight, London 1961. Cf. J. Dupont, Le problème de la structure littéraire de l'épître aux Romains, Revue Biblique 62, 1955, pp. 374ff., and Nygren op. cit. p. 86. Cf. Dupont op. cit., p. 374, Leenhardt op. cit., p. 131 f., and U. Luz, Zum Aufbau vom Rom. i—viii, Theologische Zeitschrift 25,1969, p. 178. Cf. N. A. Dahl, Two Notes on Romans v, Studia Theologica 5, 1951, p. 40. Cf. Dahl op. cit., p. 39f. Op. cit., p. 225. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, London 1932, p. 148.

The Place of Romans ix—xi within the Letter

123

garded these chapters as secondary and subordinate — as adding little to the kernel of Paul's thought which, in their view, was contained in chs. i—viii.20 But apart from the sudden break at the end of ch. viii there is no real basis in the letter for holding t h a t ix—xi is either appendix or digression any more than any other section. When we take into account the fact t h a t the dominant theme of the first main section — Jews, Gentiles and the Gospel — is also the theme of the third main section and of part of the fourth main section, namely chs. xiv and xv (the weak and the strong), then a different understanding of the theme of the letter emerges. On this view, ix—xi are in the main stream of the argument and not a back-water, if we may use Noack's imagery. 21 I t is highly probable that Paul's use of what we may loosely term the diatribe style has contributed to the confusion surrounding what is central in Romans. Certain parts of the letter such as iii: 21—26 are written in a declarative or kerygmatic style. 22 I n these for the most part Paul sets forth the significance of the Cross and the new life t h a t proceeds from it. But in other sections the line of thought is frequently interrupted by questions and objections which have the effect of causing some parts of the letter such as v i : 1 ff. to appear as digressions. 23 These interruptions frequently serve as headings introducing the theme of a new paragraph or sub-section, as in vi: 15 and ix : 14. I t would appear that in any attempt to discover the original 'Sitz im Leben' of the letter most insight is to be gained from a study of the questions and objections. These are, as Liitgert pointed out many years ago, 24 not merely a literary device but they indicate the main issues to which Paul addresses himself in Romans. They occur in the greatest concentration in iii: 1—9 where there is a questiony in almost every verse. Following on his introductory discussion in chs. i—ii Paul lists here a number of questions with which he intends to deal later in the letter. 25 With the exception of iii: 8 (the doing of evil t h a t good may come) which is refuted in v i : 1 ff., most of the issues raised here are discussed in chs. ix—xi, as Jeremias 2 6 and others have noted. 27 Significantly, the very first issue which Paul lists in iii: 1 is the question of Jewish advantage. To this he gives a brief positive answer and then immediately drops the subject; but contrary to Dodd's opinion, this is not because Paul is embarrassed 2 8 but simply because he intends to deal with it in more detail later. 20

This criticism was first expressed in an essay on Romans published in the Tübinger Zeitschrift für Theologie, 1836, 111, p. 59ff., and now republished in: F. C. Baur, Ausgewählte Werke in Einzelausgaben, ed. K. Scholder, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1963, p. 147 ff. 21 Current and Backwater in the Epistle to the Romans, Studia Theologica 19, 1965, p. 155 ff. 22 B y charting the incidence of questions, H. E. Stoessel divides Rom. i—xi into two types of passages, those in a declarative and those in an argumentative style: Notes on Romans xii:l—2, Interpretation 17, 1963, p. 168. 23 Cf. Dahl op. cit., p. 40f. 24 Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem, BFChTh 17, Gütersloh 1913, especially pp. 69—79. 25 H. L. Ellison claims that Paul's brief references here are the equivalent of the modern «Titers footnotes — he is indicating his awareness of problems to which he will return in more detail later; The Mystery of Israel, Exeter 1968, p. 25. 26 Zur Gedankenführung in den paulinischen Briefen, in Studia Paulina: in honorem Johannis de Zwaan Septuagenarii, ed. J. N. Sevenster and W. C. v a n Unnik, Haarlem 1953, p. 146f. 27 Cf. Dupont op. cit., p. 393, and Luz op. cit., p. 168f. 28 Op. cit., p. 46. In the thought of Paul as in that of Second Isaiah by whom his theology is

124

W . S . CAMPBELL

Thus if we are correct in the contention that the questions represent t h e real issues which Paul must discuss in this letter, then not only are chs. ix—xi closely connected in style and content with much of the remainder of the letter, but the issue concerning Jewish advantage which occupies Paul in these chapters is no after-thought. I t is a theme of such significance that it is introduced in iii: 1—2 as the foremost in the list of subjects which Paul intends to discuss. This is entirely in keeping with i : 16 where the phrase "to t h e J e w first" occurs as part of the theme of the letter. I t would seem appropriate therefore to consider chs. ix—xi as being at least equal in significance to chs. i—viii. I t may even be legitimate to regard ix—xi as t h e climax of chs. i—xi. F. C. Baur questioned whether the latter understanding would not provide a much more satisfactory account both of the aim and drift of the letter and of t h e historical relations out of which it arose. To quote his own words " . . . we should find in these three chapters the germ and centre of t h e whole, from which the other parts sprang; and we should take our stand on these three chapters to enter into the apostle's original conception, from which the whole organism of the epistle was developed, as we have it especially in the first eight chapters". 2 9 A consequence of this view of the letter is that Paul's discussion of grace, faith, law, works etc., in chs. iii—viii is to be understood as preparatory t o the discussion concerning Israel's election in ix—xi. In support of this the following examples m a y be cited as indications of the extent to which the content of chs. iii—viii is presupposed throughout chs. ix—xi. "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy" (ix : 16); "Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith: but Israel who pursued t h e righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works" (ix: 30—32); "So too at this present time there is a remnant chosen b y grace. B u t if it is b y grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise it would be no more grace" (xi: 5—6). I t can also be shown that Paul's use of t h e Abraham tradition in ch. iv. is closely connected with t h e thought of chs. ix—xi, and serves a useful function as preparation for t h e discussion concerning t h e salvation of Israel in ix: 1 ff. For example in iv:3ff. t h e verb hoyi£eo§ai is a k e y concept in Paul's argument on faith being reckoned as righteousness. B u t t h e same verb is also used in ix:7 f. where it describes t h e free activity of God in t h e choice of his seed. 30 This would appear t o indicate t h a t in Paul's mind the question concerning t h e justification of believers is also a question concerning t h e constitution of the people of God. 31 I t would seem unwarranted therefore t o discuss Paul's doctrine of justification in isolation from his understanding of t h e people of God or vice versa. And y e t t h e strongly influenced, particularism and universalism are not antithetical but correlative, cf. J. Muilenburg: The Way of Israel, London 1962, p. 146. 29 Paul: His Life and Works, I & II, Eng. trans, by A. Menzies, Theological Translation Fund Library, ed. E. Zeller 1876, p. 315. 3« Cf. C. K. Barrett, Romans (Black's N. T. Commentaries), London 1962, p. 181. 31 Cf. C. Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk: Eine Untersuchung zu Römer ix—xi, FRLANT, Bd. 86,1964, p. 106f.

The Place of Romans ix—xi •within the Letter

125

astonishing fact is that exegetes since F. C. Baur have failed for the most part to take chs. ix—xi into account in their understanding of the righteousness of God in the letter.32 The result of this is that since soteriology has not been properly related to ecclesiology, the doctrine of justification has tended to deteriorate into a theory concerning the redemption of the individual.33 For Paul the figure of Abraham provides a focal point where the connection between justification by faith and membership of the people of God is fully illustrated. Abraham is an excellent example of a man of faith; he believed as a Gentile and therefore may legitimately be regarded as the father of Gentile Christians34; but since he was circumcised, he is also truly the father of Jewish Christians (cf. iv: 16). We fail to appreciate Paul's intention however if we see Abraham only as an example and ch. iv as merely the scriptural justification for what has already been stated in ch. iii. In ch.iv and in ix-xi descent from Abraham, whether by natural or spiritual means, is a basic issue. Schlatter reminds us of the importance of this for Paul.35 I f he had allowed any separation between the Israel of the Old Testament and the new community of faith, this would have created an insurmountable problem for Paul's gospel. Thus the reason for the interest in Abraham is that he was the one to whom the promise was first given.36 Paul in common with Old Testament writers and Luke sees Abraham as the first link in a series of prophesy and fulfilment.37 The question concerning one's connection with Abraham is also a question concerning the validity and the recipients of the promise given to Abraham. According to the image of ch. ix, Abraham is the root or the stem of that tree from which branches are broken off or into which they are grafted.38 What needs to be noted is that for Paul there is only one tree; if Gentiles are to call Abraham father, they must realize that they are forever indebted to Israel as the people through whom God chose to reveal himself in fulfilment of the promise given to Abraham. Paul's choice of Abraham in ch. iv is by no means fortuitous, but is clearly designed to provide a foundation for his discussion in ch.ix—xi concerning the salvation of Israel. In both these sections of the letter the theme of 'Abrahamskindschaft' occurs; the question concerning the identity and the continuity of the people of God is the basic issue in both.39 The difficulty of Paul's task is that he is 32 Ibid., p. 18. 33 Cf. E. Kasemann, N e w Testament Questions Today, Eng. trans, by W . J. Montague, London 1969, p. 15. 34 Contrary to 0. Michel's opinion, Paul does not wish to claim that Abraham is first of all father of Gentile Christians: Der Brief an die Romer, 12. Aufl., Gottingen 1963, p. 120. 35 Cf. Gottes Gerechtigkeit. Ein Kommentar zum Romerbrief, 3. Aufl., Stuttgart 1959, p. 158. 36 Cf. E. Kasemann, The Faith of Abraham in Romans iv, in: Perspectives on Paul, Eng. trans, by M. Kohl, London 1971, p. 98; also U . Wilckens, Zu Romer iii:21—iv:25, Evangelische Theologie 24, p. 601. 37 Cf. N . A . Dahl, The Story of Abraham in Luke-Acts, in: Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honour of Paul Schubert, ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn, 1966, p. 153. 38 Whereas in Galatians, the emphasis is upon Abraham as a man of faith, in Romans Abraham's function is to secure the continuity of salvation history, cf. K . Berger, Abraham in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen, Munch. Theologische Zeitschrift 17,1966, pp. 47ff. 3y Cf. Muller op. cit., p. 107; Michel op. cit., p. 123.

126

W . S . CAMPBELL

attempting to explain the element of discontinuity between the Church and Judaism which has been created by the Christ-event whilst at the same time maintaining t h a t the Church is heir to the promises made to Abraham. I I . The Composition of the Christian Community at Rome Obviously this cannot be determined solely from chs. ix—xi, but must be related to the letter as a whole. However, if it is correct to hold t h a t chs. ix—xi is a significant section, then it would be legitimate to expect that its contents would shed some light on the situation to which the entire letter is addressed. According to xi :13ff. Paul specifically addresses himself to Gentiles — "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles". This does not mean t h a t up to this point he has been speaking to Jewish Christians and t h a t he now turns his attention to the Gentile members of the congregation. Hort puts this point well. "Though the Greek is ambiguous, the context appears to me decisive for taking v/ilv as the church itself, and not a part of it. I n all the long discussion bearing on the Jews, occupying nearly two and a half chapters, the Jews are invariably spoken of in the third person. I n the half chapter t h a t follows the Gentiles are spoken of in the second person. Exposition has here passed into exhortation and warning, and the warning is exclusively addressed to Gentiles; to Christians who had once been Jews, not a word is addressed." 4 0 J . H . Ropes in the essay "The Epistle to the Romans and Jewish Christianity" makes a similar point. 4 1 Whilst I agree t h a t the letter is directed to Gentile Christians, I believe t h a t there was probably a Jewish Christian minority in the church at Rome. F. C. Baur's obsession with Judaisers has possibly caused Munck and others to overreact at this point. Despite the fact t h a t there are still scholars who are of the opinion t h a t Rauer's classic study of 'the weak' has never been surpassed nor entirely refuted 4 2 ,1 remain unconvinced by his thesis t h a t the 'weak' were ascetics of Gentile rather than of Jewish or proselyte origin. I t should be emphasized that Paul's carefully formulated statements in xi:28—32 on the inter-relatedness of Jew and Gentile in salvation, and his exhortations to mutual acceptance in xv:7f. would have relevance only in a church where there were some Jewish Christians. 43 40

As quoted by Sanday and Headlam op. cit., p. 324. Published in: Studies in Early Christianity, ed. by S. J. Case, Chicago 1928, pp. 353ff. Cf. aiso Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind p. 200. 42 E. g. Jewett op. cit., pp. 42ff. and R. J. Karris, Rom. xiv:l—xv:13 and the Occasion of Romans, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34,1973, pp. 155 ff. 43 Whether one ought to use the word church in relation to the Roman Christians is uncertain — on the situation that may have existed there cf. H. W. Bartsch: Die Empfänger des Römerbriefes, Studia Theologica 25, 1971, pp. 81 ff., and P. Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2, 19, London 1971, pp. 7 ff.

41

The Place of Romans ix—xi within the Letter

127

I I I . The Situation which Paul addresses in Romans ix—xi Why should Paul address Gentile Christians in Rome on the subject of Israel's salvation? The reason is t h a t these Christians believed that Israel had been finally rejected by God (cf. x i : l l ) . I t should be stressed here that xi:13ff. is not purely hypothetical but relates to opinions actually held in Rome. The Gentile Christians instead of sorrowing over the unbelief of Israel boasted that the Jews had been broken off in order t h a t they might be grafted into the tree of salvation (xi:17ff.). Although Paul freely acknowledges the fact of Israel's disobedience (cf. ix:30ff., xi: 7), he is horrified at the Gentile Christians' presumption t h a t they have replaced the Jews as the chosen people. I t is to counteract this misinterpretation of the fact of Israel's unbelief, and the subsequent Gentile presumption, that Romans ix-xi and possibly the entire letter is written. I t is apparent from the attitude of these Gentile Christians t h a t animosity existed between Jews and Gentiles in Rome. This may have been due to several factors. Firstly, antijudaism was rife throughout the Mediterranean world at this time, and it is likely t h a t the Christians were influenced by the general 'Kulturk a m p f ' between Jew and Gentile. 44 In addition to this the Gentile Christians' pride may have stemmed from the fact that they were now in the majority in the church at Rome and they may well have reacted against Jewish Christian dominance of an earlier decade. 45 Associated with these, and possibly the strongest, a third factor t h a t caused polarity at Rome was the nationalistic unrest in Palestine. 46 This unrest placed the large Jewish community in Rome in a severe dilemma. How could they continue to live as loyal subjects in the capital and yet share in those aspirations t h a t already were pointing to an eventual head-on collision between their compatriots in Palestine and the Romans? That some Jews in Rome did share such aspirations is evidenced by Claudius' edicts against the Jews from 40-49 A. D. 47 Because of their origins in Judaism, the Roman Gentile Christians could not avoid being affected by the developments in Palestine. But unlike the Diaspora Jews they had no reason for supporting Jewish nationalism. Why should Gentiles suffer on account of Jewish aspirations? Thus the troubles in Palestine were probably influential in causing separatist tendencies in the Gentile Christians in Rome — possibly even to the extent of the advocation of complete separation from Jewish Christians and the 'Urgemeinde' in Jerusalem. But if the Gentile Christians had dissociated themselves completely from Jews and Judaism, this would have had a most serious effect on the entire Church — 44

Cf. Lütgert op. cit., pp. 88ff. and H. W. Bartsch, Die antisemitischen Gegner des Paulus im Römerbrief, in: Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament?, Abhandlungen zum christlich-jüdischen Dialog, Bd. 2, hrsg. von H. Gollwitzer, München 1967, pp. 27ff. 45 Cf. W. Wiefel, Die jüdische Gemeinschaft im antiken Rom und die Anfänge des römischen Christentums: Bemerkung zu Anlaß und Zweck des Römerbriefes, Judaica 26, 1970, pp. 65ff. 46 For an interesting viewpoint and a useful survey of the relevant literature cf. M. Borg: A New Context for Romans xiii, N. T. S. 19, pp. 205 ff. 47 Cf. S. Benko, The Edict of Claudius of A. D. 49 and the Instigator Chrestus, Theologische Zeitschrift 25,1969, pp. 406ff.

128

H . J . CHURCHILL

on its view of the Old Testament, on the mission to the Jews and above all on the reception of Paul's collection in Jerusalem. Those likely to suffer most as a result of a move would be the Jewish Christians, 'the weak'. Torn between loyalty to their own people in the Palestinian cause and to their fellow Gentile Christians, the Jewish Christians would be in an impasse, oppressed on both sides. Paul, because of his unique position as the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles, could not avoid being implicated in the controversy at Rome. It had never been his intention to found a Gentile branch of the Church which would separate itself from the trunk of Abraham. But despite Paul's good intentions there were elements in his gospel that could have been misinterpreted in such a way as to appear to encourage separation from Judaism. 48 It is quite possible that the Gentile Christians in Rome believed that Paul supported their opinions and they may even have appealed to him to champion their cause. But in this they were entirely mistaken — their picture of Paul proved to be very one-sided. Faced with the possibility that the pattern of events in Rome would lead to the refusal of his collection at Jerusalem and to division throughout the church, Paul writes in Rom. ix—xi on God's elective purpose for Jew and Gentile. In it he emphasizes the priority of the Jew because, as Ropes has pointed out, what Paul dreaded in such circumstances was not too much Judaism but rather too little appreciation of the Christian's inheritance from Judaism. 49

IV. The Argument of Romans ix—xi Paul commences each of the three chapters with the subject of Israel's salvation. He makes his own position clear — he is willing to become anathema himself if only it could be a means of saving Israel. He calls his own people by the honoured title, Israelites 50 , and then completes the list of their privileges which he left unfinished in iii: 2. 51 These privileges still pertain to Israel as a result of the status granted at the Exodus. 52 Paul argues that God's word or purpose 53 has not failed. He takes examples from the Old Testament to demonstrate that even within the covenant people God freely exercised His sovereignty in having mercy upon whom He willed (ix:15). It is not until ix:22ff. that the inclusion of Gentiles is introduced and even there Paul does not simply take the prerogatives of Israel and transfer them to Gentiles.54 What Paul does is to show that whilst « Cf. G. Friedrich, RGG, 3. Aufl., V, 1961, 1139f. and G. Eichholz, Der ökumenische und missionarische Horizont der Kirche, in: Tradition und Interpretation: Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Hermeneutik, München 1965, pp. 85ff. 49 Op. cit., p. 365. Marcionite tendencies were apparent in Roman Christianity long before Marcion himself arrived there, cf. Lütgert op. cit., p. 89. 50 In chs. ix—xi 'IovöaloQ occurs only at ix:24, x:12. B y calling them Israelites Paul shows that he is aware of the unique position of his own people in 'Heilsgeschichte', contra G. Klein, E v . Th. 23,1963, pp. 424ff. 61 Cf. H. Lietzmann, A n die Römer, ThHK, 3. Aufl. Tübingen 1932, p. 89, and Luz op. cit., p. 167f. m Cf. Barrett op. cit., pp. 62 and 177. M Cf. Michel op. cit., p. 231. M Cf. Richardson op. cit. p. 131. For this reason it is not helpful to describe the Church of N. T. times or of the present as eschatological Israel, contra E. Dinkier, The Historical and the Eschatological Israel in Rom. ix—xi, Journal of Religion 36,1956, pp. 109ff.

The Place of Romans ix—xi within the Letter

129

the promises retain their basic application to Israel they are opened up to include Gentiles also. But although he argues fiercely for the unconditional freedom of the divine mercy (cf. ix:6—21), Paul applies his argument in an unexpected fashion. 55 Since God is free he is not bound to save the nation of Israel, but neither, since he is truly free, is he bound to reject her in spite of disobedience. "God remains free as regards the disobedient just as he is free towards the obedient", as Barth puts it. 56 Thus we may summarize what Paul says in ix:22ff., "What is it to you Gentiles if God treats the disobedience of Israel with infinite patience?" 57 In ix:30—x:3, Paul analyses the reasons for Israel's unbelief and in x:4ff. the conditions for receiving the righteousness of faith. The emphasis in x:4ff. is no longer upon what self-righteous Jews have failed to do but upon what Christ has done in bringing righteousness for all, and upon how that righteousness is revealed. 58 Paul's emphasis upon the universality of the Gospel presupposes the advent of the Messiah when the old barriers erected by the Law would be broken down; but for him the Gospel is universal not through emancipation from the Law but through the fulfilment of the Law in Christ.59 In x:6ff. Paul emphasizes that the eschatological conditions have been realized — the Age to Come has dawned. The essence of these verses is an invitation to participate in the Law's fulfilment. 60 The conclusion to which Paul directs his argument is found in x:12—13 — "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek", and therefore "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved". The manner in which Paul in x:l—3 discusses the salvation of Israel, his Christological understanding of the Law in x:4ff. 6 1 and his use of the Wisdom tradition 62 in x:6—10 indicate that what Paul intends here by his stress upon 'no distinction' is that Jews may still come to faith in the same way as Gentiles. In x: 14—21 the emphasis is not upon the failure of the Jews to believe the Gospel although this is presupposed throughout. Paul's argument would seem to be — "How are Jews to believe if they are not evangelized?" Are they likely to believe if they are regarded as already reprobate? Although it is still possible for Israel to believe, Paul considers this unlikely so long as Christians regard her as rejected. B y the reference to the provoking to jealousy in x: 19, Paul hints that the Gentile Christians have a part to play in the salvation of Israel. The conclusion of this chapter is hopeful, the divine patience being symbolized by the out-stretched hands. 55

Cf. H. W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, T h H K , Berlin 1963, p. 167f. A Shorter Commentary on Romans, London 1959, p . 127. 57 Cf. Barrett's analysis op. cit., p. 109. 68 Cf. A. J. Bandstra, The Law and the Elements of this World, K a m p e n 1964, p. 104, and C. E. B. Cranfield, St. Paul and the Law, The Scottish Journal of Theology 17, 1964, p. 49. 53 Cf. R. Bring, The Message to the Gentiles, Studia Theologica 19, 1965, pp. 30ff. 60 Cf. Barth, op. cit. p. 143. B1 Cf. Cranfield op. cit. p. 48 and P. Flückiger, Christus, des Gesetzes rEXOQ, Theologische Zeitschrift 11,1955, pp. 153ff.; R. Bring, Christus und das Gesetz, Leiden 1969, and P. J. D u Plessis, Teteioq: The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, K a m p e n 1959, pp. 242ff. 62 Cf. M. J. Suggs, The Word is Near Y o u : R o m . x:6—10 within thn Purpose of the Letter,: in Christian History and Interpretation. Studies presented to John Knox, ed. W . R. Parmer etc., Cambridge 1967, pp. 289ff. and R. Bring: Paul and the Old Testament: A Study of the Ideas of Election, Faith and Law in Paul with Special Reference to Rom. ix:30—x:21, Studia Theologica 25, 1971, pp. 21 ff. 56

130

W . S. C A M P B E L L

In xi:lff. Paul's hope for Israel is set out in terms of the fact of his own conversion, of the believing remnant63 and of the faithfulness of God, culminating in the mystery revealed in vv. 25ff. Contrary to Gentile Christian speculation Israel's unbelief is not final but only partial and temporary.64 In the end, all Israel, in the sense of the totality of the nation65, will be saved. This knowledge is of utmost significance to Gentile Christians because it is only after and by means of the full coming to faith of the Gentiles that Israel will be saved (vv. 25—26). This event will be no mere apocalyptic 'tour de force' but a work of grace in which both Jewish and Gentile Christians have a definite function.66 Jewish Christians are expected to evangelize their own people. But Paul also sees the Gentile Christians as having a vital part to play in the salvation of Israel. Since he is seeking to evangelize Israel the long way round i. e. by way of the Gentiles (vv. 13—15) the latter are in a position to hasten or hinder Israel's salvation. Thus Paul's prophecy in v. 25 has a practical import. We use the term prophecy rather than prediction since this is Paul's response as a Christian to the Roman Gentile Christians' view that Israel has been finally rejected by God. This is Paul looking at Israel's unbelief in the light of the Cross. As Paul dwelt on the problem of Israel's unbelief, he came to see that just as God had used the disobedience of the Jews to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, so he would eventually win the Jews by the obedience of the Gentiles, who would provoke his own people to jealousy (xi:30—32). In response to the Gentile Christians who had misunderstood their own election as electedness and Israel's disobedience as rejection, Paul can only reply that the door of salvation is still open to Israel. Since God is free in his mercy and faithful to his promise, his gifts and call are irrevocable (v. 29). Paul's faith is that the God who was able to use the disobedience of the Jews to bring salvation to the Gentiles is able to save His own people. Surely the God who changed Saul the persecutor into Paul the apostle to the Gentiles can work a miracle of grace to graft back again the branches broken off from his own tree. I t should be noted that however hopeful Paul may be concerning Israel, his proclamation is still truly prophetic. The conditional element is present — if Gentile Christians become presumptuous they will be cut off and if Jews do not persist in unbelief they too will be grafted in.67 Paul could be accused of making a prediction only if no conditions were attached to the realization of the promise. I f we have correctly envisaged the situation to which Paul addresses himself in chs.ix—xi, then I submit that we ought to revise some aspects of our understanding of Paul's character and theology. In this interpretation Paul emerges as a dynamic missionary open to the future of God. These chapters represent his argument for free and gracious election over against some kind of predestinarían The emphasis is on a 'saving' remnant rather than on a 'saved', cf. Munck, Christ and Israel, p. llOf. 64 Cf. Munck op. cit., pp. 131 ff. 65 But not every individual Jew, cf. Richardson op. cit., p. 128. 66 There are not two ways of salvation in Rom. ix—xi, contra C. Plag, Israels Wege zum Heil, Stuttgart 1969. 6 ' Cf. Barrett op. cit., p. 219. 63

The Place of Romans ix—xi within the Letter

131

determinism on the part of the Roman Christians. I t is the latter who ought to be credited with some of the unpleasant beliefs normally attributed to Paul. 6 8 We conclude therefore t h a t Romans was written to counteract a misunderstanding of the role of Jew and Gentile in the purpose of God. 69 This was creating problems in the Christian community at Rome and was likely to have repercussions throughout the Church. I t is possible, depending on which section one stresses most, to arrive at two apparently differing interpretations of the letter. One might hold t h a t its theme is justification by faith or, on the other hand, t h a t it concerns the relationship of Jew and Gentile in the Gospel. B u t this is a false dichotomy; there is no need to choose between these as if they were mutually exclusive interpretations because as M. Barth has pointed out, for Paul the two themes, justification by faith and the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Gospel, are not only inseparable but are in the last analysis identical. 70 In Romans it is Paul's doctrine of justification which is the basis of his understanding of the relationship of Jew and Gentile in the Gospel. There is no need to stress one section of Romans at the expense of the other. The content of chs.iii—viii is basic to the total argument. But since it is not until chs.ix—xi t h a t the function and relevance of Paul's statements in the previous chapters become plain, then it ought to be acknowledged t h a t it is in this section t h a t we find the crux of Paul's argument in the letter. This section is not an appendix to an argument in i—viii, but the climax of a argument extending throughout i—xi — as Goppelt states, " I t actually is the keystone which closes the arch of Paul's theology and holds it all together". 7 1 68

Some of H. J. Schoeps' criticisms of Paul would then be clearly shown to be unfounded, cf. Paul: The Theology of the Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religions History, London 1961, pp. 213ff. Cf. also M. Barth, Was Paul an Anti-Semite? Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5,1968, pp. 78ff. 69 Contra A. Wikenhauser's statement, "In spite of what Augustine, Jerome and the ancient prologue say, it is unlikely that Paul intended to heal disputes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians", New Testament Introduction, London 1965, p. 406. 70 Cf. M. Barth, Jews and Gentiles: The Social Character of Justification in Paul, Journal of Ecumenical Studies 5,1968, p. 258. 71 Jesus, Paul and Judaism, New York 1964, p. 153. Since this paper was given the author has published other relevant articles, some of which are listed in 'Romans iii as a Key to the Structure and Thought ol the Letter', Novum Testarnentum 23 (Jan. 1981) pp. 22-40.

The Pastoral Epistles: A Problem for Preachers and Others J. H.

CHURCHILL,

Carlisle

I t did not need Messrs A. Q. Morton and J . McLennan and their publicity in the Observer about ten years back to tell us that the Pastorals are pastiches. This had been observed as it were with the naked eye f i f t y years ago by Dr. P. N. Harrison in his widely acclaimed book, The Problems of the Pastoral Epistles (1921). I t s fame however seems to have escaped parts of Scotland. 1 That book had one unfortunate result, which I do not think Dr. Harrison intended ; it has resulted in both examiners and teachers relegating the Pastorals to a sort of limbo. B. H. Streeter writing in The Primitive Church in 1929, p. 102 using the findings of Harrison, says " I t seems clear t h a t 2 Timothy embodies several authentic letters of the Apostle — these being short notes, similar to many, only a few lines in length, that have been discovered among the papyrus in Egypt. Titus concludes with one such one; but 1 Timothy would seem to be entirely the composition of the editor." The result of this, I suspect, has been that preachers have been uncomfortable about using the Pastorals, apart from detached texts; 'it would require too much explanation to do more' we have tended to think or say. Yet we have gone on using texts from the Pastorals in the Book of Common Prayer, and as a basis for many other prayers, and as has often been observed there is a close connection between Lex Orandi and Lex Credendi. We have used these pastiches in fact more than we think. Perhaps significantly, it is 1 Timothy which proves the most familiar when we skim through it. 1 Timothy gives us the familiar 'Comfortable Word', in 1. 15, 'Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, t h a t Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.' Almost immediately afterwards in 1. 17 it gives us the doxology, 'Now unto the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever Amen' used in the 1928 burial service. The 1928 Prayer Book also gives us this epistle for a Bishop in 3. 15—16, 'Thou knowest how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God', and its credal-form statements about Christ, 'He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit, Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.' 1

A. Q. Morton & J. McLennan, Christianity and the Computer (1964). Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966).

10

Studia Evangélica VII

J. H. Churchill,

134

Chapter 3. 1—6 naturally has provided the epistle for the consecration of the Bishop, 'Faithful is the saying, if a man seeketh the office of a bishop he desireth a good work', and verses 8—13 provide t h e epistle for the making of a deacon, 'Deacons in like manner must be grave; not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre'. We could go on and find m a n y other familiar passages out of 1 Timothy, and the other Pastorals. We need to realise what we are doing; we are using the Pastorals very heavily in our prayers and liturgy, b u t find them embarrassing to talk and preach about. This kind of double talk should be ended. The problem is really a false one, created by our unconscious semi-fundamentalism. For many who by no means call themselves fundamentalists continue in a divided state; on the one hand they have a critical understanding which takes t h e m as far as being hesitant about using certain passages of the New Testament; on the other hand this does not stop t h e m combining this with an uncritical acceptance of texts for other purposes. We very much need to use our criticism constructively and carry it through further, and see the use of the different stages in forming the New Testament and the constructive use of all of them. Whether you describe the Pastorals as early Catholicism or late Paulinism makes little difference. This is a highly important stage which shows us how the teachings of Paul and the first generation have carried over the subsequent generation, and have been carried over to us. We may find t h a t in comparison the Pastorals strike a lower note than the genuine Pauline epistles. After all it is given to few of us to compare favourably with our teachers; and the idea of continuous progress should certainly be open to question in t h e theological faculty. Some of the notes struck by the Pastorals may be lower down t h e scale, b u t they are you might say in the same key, and have echoed down the corridors of history. The Pastorals sound three particular notes t h a t were clearly of great importance in the maintenance of the common life of the church. In these days of group study we have been rightly alerted to the importance of group maintenance, and these notes of the pastorals are certainly very relevant to t h a t , three in particular — the notes of credal statement, of church order, and of conduct. They can all be seen in the genuine Pauline epistles, and then of course take fuller formulation in t h e middle of the second century. I t is interesting t h a t one set of statements of importance in the Pastorals are introduced by, or referred to, b y the remark, 'This is a saying worthy of acceptance'. Some of these have a credal form, some have a hymn-like structure which reminds us of the importance t h a t hymn-making has played in fashioning of the church's faith from t h e earliest times, certainly to the present. We have already looked at one of these hymn-like statements in 1 Timothy 3. 16. Dr J . N. D. Kelly in his Early Christian Creeds 1950 p. 19 picks up an earlier one in 1 Timothy 2. 5. 'For there is one God, likewise one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.' He

adds

another two-clause confession,

the creed-like character of which

The Pastoral Epistles

135

leaps at once to the eye, in 1 Timothy 6. 13. ' I charge you in the sight of God, who gives life to all things, and Christ Jesus, who witnessed the fine confession, in the time of Pontius Pilate, t h a t you keep your commission spotless without reproach, until the coming again of Our Lord Jesus Christ.' He then finds another fragmentary creed in 2 Timothy 4. 1. ' I charge you in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and by his coming again and his kingdom.' I think it is not difficult here to see something of the excitement of the developing affirmations of the early church, and also to catch something of the overtones of worship, of rhythmic phrase, and chanting. The two senses of orthodoxy, right belief and right worship, meet here. The organised life of the church is clearly indicated in these epistles. We have already referred to the particular portions about bishops and deacons. In 1 Timothy elders also come in for mention in chapter 5, and it looks as though these may well be the same as the bishop, as the leaders of the church. I n a sense all these three epistles revolve round the leadership and oversight of the church. Paul himself is represented as the great overseer, one might almost say as the great arch-bishop, or patriarch. Timothy and Titus are the assistants, or suffragan overseers of the subordinate units. Timothy was ordained to his ministry 'by prophecy with the laying on of hands' (1 Timothy 4. 14 to 2 Timothy 1. 6), given the charisma to carry out this work. I t has been suggested t h a t Timothy was the model of the urban diocesan ofEphesus, and Titus of the rural diocese of Crete. There is more to the organisation of the church than the ministry of its bishops, or elders or deacons. There is a definite class of widows; there is a possible reference to women deacons in 1 Timothy 3. 9. Yet before this there is the strong limitation on women in 2. 11. 'Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness'. As we have already thought one of the Pastorals' main aims is, as it were, to boost the ministry; they can be, perhaps rightly, charged with being the first stages of clericalisation in the church. On the other hand chapter 2 of Titus shows some of the earliest thinking about different groups of laity within the church, where it sets out its sober teaching for, first older men, then older women, and then the young women, and the younger men. This is one of the few glimpses we get of the early church considering the different folk in its membership. Of course there is the separate advice to slaves; this thows similarity with the form of teaching in the Colossians and the Ephesians and 1 Peter. In other ways too the Pastorals remind us of the primitive christian catechism t h a t seems to underlie some of the later writings in the New Testament as is well described in the book of t h a t name, The Primitive Christian Catechism, by Philip 10*

136

J . H . CHURCHILL

Carrington (Cambridge 1940). There are clear echoes of baptismal teaching in Titus from 1 Peter. 2 Titus 2. 11. 14, 'For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for the the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, t h a t he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possesion zealous of good works.' This has echoes of phrases in 1 Peter 1. 13, 'be sober and set your hope perfectly on the grace t h a t is brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ . . . not fashioning yourself according to your former lusts . . . but . . . be yourself also holy . . . knowing that ye were redeemed . . .' Go on to the next chapter Titus 3. 4—7.' But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love towards men, appeared not by work done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; t h a t being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life'. Here are more echoes from the same passage in 1 Peter with its more familiar opening, 'Blessed be the God the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled'. I t is interesting to note again that both these passages in Titus, and the latter one in Peter have all commended themselves to the church in its worship, and the Titus passages have been used as effective lessons at Christmas time, and the 1 Peter passage as both anthem and prayer at Easter time. Here indeed is popular theology in the making. We may not feel quite so cheerful about the popular morality t h a t is presented in the Pastorals. I t is interesting to note t h a t here too there is almost a refrain developed. Some of the passages about what might be termed general morality are developed in opposition t o the false teaching, which seems to have a gnostic flavour about it. This flavour is shown both in an over-zealous asceticism b u t also in an overpretentious intellectualism. We know enough of modern parallels for these tendencies, not to be surprised t h a t the Pastorals developed a rather nononsense, plain man, morality or even moralism. We can work backwards through these three epistles. I n Titus the moral requirements of the church leaders are set out immediately in 1.7. and 8.' For the Bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; b u t given to hospitality, a lover of good, soberminded, just, holy, temperate'. I n 2. 1, Titus is exhorted to 'speak the things which befit the sound doctrine' — the didaaxaMa. This teaching proceeds t o be the moral advice to the four groups of men and women mentioned before, and then to the slaves. There is a strong stress on sobriety, 'the aged men to be grave, and soberminded, the aged women likewise to be reverent in demeanour, the young women to be sober minded, and the young men also', and Titus himself is t o be 'an example of good works, in gravity and sound speech t h a t cannot be condemned'. This leads to the baptismal echoes we have already noted, which sum all this up with something like a chorus in 2. 12. 2 See A. T. Hanson, Studies in the Pastoral Epistles (SPCK 1968), ch. 7.

The Pastoral Epistles

137

'We should live soberly and righteously, godly in this present world' — 'aoqigovcog xai dixaicog xat

svaefiwg'.

This chorus is echoed again in 2 Timothy in its central section in chapter 2. Timothy is told to avoid the errors of those who play with words, and is given clear indication of the moral line he must take in 2. 22. 'Flee youthful lusts, and follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them t h a t call on the Lord out of a pure heart'. This leads on in chapter 3 to the warning of the grievous times to come when men will be 'lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy'. These themes are shown to have a more positive light in 1 Timothy, which is in many ways a freer composition. Again much of the moral conduct is developed out of the criticism of the false teaching. I n chapter 4 the false asceticism is attacked — 'Forbidding t o marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created t o be received with thanksgiving by them t h a t believe, and know the truth, t h a t every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.' (1 Timothy 4. 3—5) I n answer to this Timothy is to be, in 4. 12, an example 'to them t h a t believe in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity' picking up some familiar phrases from other passages. So does the earlier reminder t h a t 'godliness is profitable for all things' in 4.8, bringing back the favourite word evaefieia.

More familiar phrases are gathered up in the final section of this epistle. Here again after instructions about the elders, and the widows and slaves, the writer returns t o what he considers the fundamental issue about true teaching in 1 Timothy 6. 3 following. Here he contrasts true godliness with 'doting about questioning and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing t h a t godliness is gain'. Then follows an interesting play about godliness and gain in 6. 6. 'godliness with contentment is great gain', where the Revised Version of 'contentment' translates t h a t Stoic avragxeia though clearly it is intended in a Christian sense. The New English Bible boldy translates, 'and of course religion does yield high dividends, but only to the man whose resources are within him'. 'evaefieia fiera amaQxeiag', is an interesting mixture of Jewish and Stoic virtue, which in many ways is a fair summary of the Pastorals. At the same time there are distinct echoes of the gospels, not least of St. Luke, at this point; Dives and Lazarus are not far away. Indeed the following verse 10 of this chapter 6 of 1 Timothy, 'the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil', is popularly thought to be a fair summary of gospel teaching, and is often ascribed to them. There is a similar mixture of the gospels and prudential ethics in the paragraph which comes near the end of this chapter, at 6. 17. 'Charge them t h a t are rich in this present world, t h a t they be not high-minded, nor have their hopes set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who givethus richly all things to enjoy; t h a t they do good, t h a t they be rich in good works, that they be ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, t h a t they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed'. I n many ways this is spelling out what the gospels are saying. In this and other ways the Pastorals have an uncanny knack of turning up in

138

J . H . CHURCHILL

present thinking and praying. I think it is time we came clean about this, and did not live in a schizophrenic state of dismissing them critically on the one hand, and using them liturgically on the other. Furthermore we have seen enough to know that the answer will not be found by dropping the liturgical use. It is more likely to be found in coming to terms with the developing life of the church, and realising that the New Testament gives us the beginning of that development and not just the once for all fixed exposition. The trouble about fundamentalism is not that it asks us to take too much from the Bible, but asks us to take much too little. Its answer is to take, in effect, just the first generation, whereas the New Testament offers us at least three. We can say more: it offers us not only three generations, it also sets us at least three levels or classes; we ought to welcome this, for few of us are first class men or women. We ought to gain a lot from seeing the development of second and third class parts in the New Testament. We need to view them critically, but also constructively, because most of the work in the world has to be done by second and third class people. It is quite worth seeing the way in which the use of words in the Pastorals is different from the use in the true Pauline epistles, but not as the superficial critics do, in order to dismiss the Pastorals, but to study them. It is quite worth noting the different way in which niarig is used; you can see the difference between the existential relationship of humility and trust in Paul, and the use of rj niaxtg with a definite article, which signifies the formulation of belief in the Pastorals. It is worth noting too, that law is used differently in the Pastorals, not of the great contrast with the old Jewish covenant of Paul, but here apparently to refer to a more general moral law, as in 1 Timothy 1. 7 following. In fact the New English Bible is bold to refer to it as 'the moral law'; 'they set out to be teachers of the moral law' This of course is a fair development of Paul, who in Romans 1 and 2 has to face the fact that the Gentiles are often 'a law unto themselves' and who, in Romans 13, pleads for the use of the civil law. So here Timothy goes on in 1. 8—10, 'But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully, as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men, for men-stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine.' This is a fair mixture of Romans 1 and 13, though it is certainly in a lower key than Paul. All the same Christianity had to move out from its concentration on the Jewish question to a wider and more humble consideration of the behaviour in the every-day world, and appeal to men's reason. It is good that we can return to the fresh springs of faith in the existential struggles of Paul; yet we have already seen that the summary of the faith in Timothy paved the way for the church's formulation of its creed. This enabled it to carry its mission to the world and both gather its converts and preserve its incisiveness in a very eclectic world. It might be said in fact that for the Pauline faith of maris, the Pastorals substitute the more Jewish idea of religion, or godliness of svoefieia. It would probably be fairer to surmise that evae^eia probably covers some of the warmer relational aspects of Christianity which in the Pauline epistles

The Pastoral Epistles

139

is represented by the more mystical ev Xqiarqt. Certainly we may regret that large areas of the church seemed to lose the mystical element fairly quickly. We can at least be thankful that Pastorals and others preserve the aspect of godliness. We might even take a modern lesson from this; those who have thought to reform Christianity in recent years, have often done so, in the first instance, from a rediscovery of Jesus, which has seemed in many ways a recapturing of the vivid faith of Paul, and has been tinged with his mysticism. Unfortunately the tinge has faded all too quickly, and hardly been communicated to followers; they in fact could benefit considerably by the godliness of the Pastorals, humble though it may seem to them, for, let me repeat again, most of us are humble people who need to reckon with such things. W e can carry this constructive use of second and third generation Christianity further, even more critically. As we look at the rather modest moral teachings, we might take note of the opposition it was meeting, and take in its shrewd criticism of the false teachings with its constant stress on the way it spends its time talking and wrangling. The robust translation of the New English Bible of 1 Timothy 6. 3 following, shows that what might have been at first a doctrinaire condemnation, has some very real point to it. ' I f anyone is teaching otherwise and will not give his mind to wholesome precepts — I mean those of Our Lord Jesus Christ — and a good religious teaching — I call him a pompous ignoramus. He is morbidly keen on mere verbal questions and quibbles which give rise to jealousy, quarrelling, slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles; all typical of men who have let their reasoning powers become atrophied, and have lost their grip on the truth'. A t the same time the general moral teaching does seem rather modest with its heavy emphasis on sobriety. Perhaps this was the inevitable price of Christianity surviving in a difficult world where, it is clear to see from the New Testament documents themselves, people easily turned to either apocalyptic dreams or mystical amorality to escape the difficulty of living in a totalitarian slave society. But there are echoes of the gospels, when Timothy is reminded in 2 Timothy, 2. 24—25, 'The Lord's servant must not strive but be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing in meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves; if, peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth.' In many ways this is the text for the next 200 years of the church, from the Pastorals to the end of the first century through the tunnel of the years of persecution till the Edict of Constantine. Another echo of the gospel shows us that this is no negative acceptance, indeed 1 Timothy 6. 12 has been the text most used or rather misused by militarists: 'Fight the good fight of the faith'. They seldom go on to read the rest of the text, 'lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses. I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and of Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of Our Lord Jesus Christ'. On the other side, we ought to remark on the limited and conservative nature of the moral teaching; indeed the Pastorals may help us to have the courage to be discerning in our use of the New Testament. We are made aware that the New Testament writers are very much children of their time; we are aware too that

140

J . H . CHURCHILL

the level of inspiration, if we put it like that, is by no means constant. This will make us value the flashes and new insights all the more. We may not be surprised t h a t the writer who advocates sobriety for men and women old and young is very dampening on the subject of women in church. I t is not surprising; Paul speaks similarly in places, but it is all the more noteworthy t h a t he sees t h a t 'in Christ there is neither male or female'. His original insight is thrown into bold relief by these later writings. Some may express their problems about the New Testament in the form of asking 'what have the critics been doing with our New Testament?' Others p u t it in the form of 'What do we do now after the critics?' The problem for both these, as for the critics themselves, is to accept the fact t h a t the church has not only taken to itself, but used the whole of the New Testament, the whole hotch-potch if you like. I doubt very much if this is the regrettable business that critics sometimes make it out to be. I think there is something much more constructive to be made out of this. Perhaps the Pastorals can show us something of the value of these lesser parts in three ways. In the first place they show us how the Christian faith actually came to be handed on; so many people are depressed by the feeling that we often present the world with a revelation from an Olympian height. I n the second place the lesser parts may make us value the greater parts more fully; they throw Paul and the gospel into high relief. I n the third place we discover t h a t in the process of the relating the greater parts to us, these lesser parts have produced notable formulations, many of which have passed into our worship and prayer. Perhaps we can learn to use them more gladly and fully if we see them as part of a remarkable process; through good years and lean years, through great men and lesser men, first, second and third class writers, gradually make more and more available to us. We can use them gratefully for many of us, and certainly the author of this paper, are by no means in the first class.

A Possible Connection between the Letter of James and the Events of John 7 and 8 J . G. CRADDOCK, S o u t h w e l l

This paper seeks to test the hypothesis t h a t the author of the Letter of James was present during the events described in John 7 and 8: "When His brethren were gone up to the Feast, then went He also u p " (John 7 J0 ). The hypothesis involves two assumptions: first, that it has not yet been shown conclusively that the author of the Letter could not have been the brother of our Lord; and second, t h a t John 7 and 8 contains historical material. The testing of the hypothesis will necessarily test the second assumption — which is not made in the interests of obscurantism. I t is recognised that if there is historical material in the Fourth Gospel, it is so fused into John's theology as to be virtually inseparable from it; nevertheless it will be suggested t h a t the lectionary structure of John could reasonably be explained in terms of Jesus' use of His preaching material. John 7 and 8 are set at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (7 2 , 14, 37). Carringt o n 1 made the suggestion, without giving his reasons for it, t h a t James may have been intended for use on the Day of Atonement. The reading, even of an English version, reveals so many parallels between James and passages quoted by Guilding 2 as Tabernacles lections, that one must suppose t h a t not all of them are fortuitous. I t may be true then t h a t James and J o h n 7 and 8 share a particular Festival background. Without prejudging any results, an author writing at the time of a particular feast might well cast his mind back to previous experiences of t h a t feast. Those experiences might include the actions and reactions of himself, or of others. Parallels between the Gospel and the Letter might arise in three ways: 1. Because the Letter was dependent upon the Gospel or the Gospel upon the Letter 2. Because both shared a common literary background 3. Because the author of the Letter recalled incidents recorded in the Gospel. Thus, features which must occur if the hypothesis were true, could prima facie be explained in two other ways. Of course, it is not in fact suggested t h a t the Letter might be dependent upon the Fourth Gospel or vice versa. And while it is true t h a t James does contain Johannine words — such as doing and abiding — t h a t does not make dependence more likely than a common origin. For may not t h e words have been Dominical before they became Johannine ? A common Festival background would create a difficulty in testing the hypothesis. Parallels may be expected if there is any common background. Thus, 1

2

Carrington, P.: The Primitive Christian Calendar; a Study in the Making of the Markan Gospel. Cambridge 1952. Guilding, A . : The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship. Oxford 1960.

142

J . G . CRADDOCK

Jesus' teaching that He is the Light of the world, and James' teaching that God is the Father of Lights, are likely to be derived independently from the candle ceremonial of the Feast. Parallels which might provide some real confirmation of the possibility that the author of the Letter was actually a character in the Tabernacles section of John would either be not directly attributable to the Lectionary or to the ceremonial; or they would be composite parallels unlikely to have been compiled independently. We must note that even if all parallels could be attributed to common lections or ceremonial, the hypothesis would not thereby be disproved: the three ways in which the parallels might arise are not mutually exclusive. Thus, there is a parallel between John 72/' ("Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement") and James 21£t ("Are ye not partial judges with evil thoughts?"). Did James allude to teaching of Jesus which had no lectionary background? Did both draw independently — or did James and John so draw — on Psalm 82, a psalm read, according to Guilding, at the time of Tabernacles? Or was James' mind stimulated by that lection because he recollected Jesus having used it in his hearing ? A passage which might suggest that he did recollect his own attitude is John 7 3 : "His brethren therefore said unto Him 'Depart hence and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold the works which thou doest'". An over-riding theme of James' Letter is epitomised in Jas 2 "I w iH shew thee my faith by my works". It may also be significant that in John 7 35 the Jews ask: "Will He go unto the Dispersion and teach the Greeks?" James, as the latter-day Jacob, writes not merely to the twelve tribes, but to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion. Other parallels which may seem important include the following : John 8 47 : "He that is of God heareth God's words: for this cause ye hear them not because ye are not of God". John 8 31 : "If ye abide in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". Jas l 2 2 : "Be ye doers of the word, not hearers only, deceiving your own selves". Jas l 2 5 : "He that looketh into the perfect Law of Liberty and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, that man shall be blessed in his doing".

Other such passages may be found: John 8 4 ' ,ft : "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . . . When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own' .

James complains that "Ye lust and have not" (4 2 ); exhorts us "Resist the devil" (47); and teaches that "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed" (l1'')- The temptation in the present context is to see Jesus commenting on the lection (Is 4327) and James recollecting the commentary. Another passage in which — according to Guilding — Jesus comments on that lection (Is 43 10 ) is John 8 28 : "When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am He". If one thinks in John's terms (that the glory of God is seen in the Cross), there appears to be a parallel in James, not to the lection, but to Jesus' comment: "Humble yourselves in the sight of God and He shall lift you up" (Jas 4 io). It may be added that in the Gospel, Jesus presents Abraham whose works were not emulated by his descendents (John 839), while Jame§ presents Abraham whose

A Possible Connection between James and John 7 and 8

143

attitude to works ought to have been emulated, but was not (Jas 2 21 ). I n the Gospel, Jesus asks "Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you keepeth the Law?" (John 7 19 ). I n the Letter, James insists "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, yet stumble in one point, shall be guilty of all" (Jas 2 10 ). The following verse in the Letter raises a fresh problem: "He t h a t said 'Do not commit adultery' said also 'Do not kill'" (Jas 2 11 ). Stumbling in a single point, having otherwise kept the law in its entirety, seems to demand bathos: perhaps " H e t h a t said 'Do not commit adultery' said also 'Do not covet t h y neighbour's ass' " . S o why did James write as he did? I t is true t h a t the commandments not to commit adultery and not to kill (albeit with the command not steal interposed) occur in that order in the L X X in Exodus 20. But when t h a t version is quoted in Luke (18 20) and in Romans (13°), it is quoted fully, not in the elided form t h a t James uses. In any case, if Guilding is right, the version of the Decalogue read during Tabernacles was not t h a t of Exodus but t h a t of Deuteronomy, where the order of the commandments is the opposite of that in James. I t therefore seems possible — perhaps likely — t h a t James was not quoting directly from the Decalogue at all. Now in view of the absence of evidence for the inclusion of the pericope adulterae in John until the twelfth century, it would be outrageous to t r y to solve the problem in James by suggesting that the pericope ought historically to be present in John. With diffidence — not to say trepidation — I make the suggestion nonetheless : t h a t at some occurrence of the Feast of Tabernacles an adulteress actually was brought to Jesus, and that John recorded it. (Feasts of Tabernacles — particularly if Jesus were present — cannot have been wholly without incident; and to say t h a t what is described in the pericope cannot have occurred is obscurantism in its own right). Now James implies t h a t there had been — or still were — those (with whom his readers might identify) who prided themselves on not having committed adultery but who would not balk at murder. If the pericope stands, then the same situation occurs in J o h n : some, while implicitly disapproving of the adulteress, sought to kill Jesus (John 8 '•il). Guilding maintains t h a t the insertion of the pericope in John was intelligent, both liturgically and theologically. " I t has apparently been done with a clear understanding of St. John's lectionary scheme, and the verdict t h a t the story has strayed into its present position would appear to be a mistaken one". If we admit with her that the lectionary basis of the Gospel (which became lost and was rediscovered only recently) was understood late in the history of the transmission of the Gospel, then we should have to admit t h a t a reliable historical source could have been preserved t h a t late also. Leon Morris, commenting 3 on Guilding's book, wrote t h a t all theories which see a lectionary behind John's Gospel are committed to the view t h a t the synagogue is a major interest of the evangelist; while in fact the evangelist is not so interested. But it is possible to suggest a reason for a lectionary pattern in the Gospel without supposing t h a t John imposed the pattern upon his paraclete: 1. If there were any set readings at all, then it is much more likely that Jesus would have commented upon them than that He would have ignored them. The ministry would then have had a lectionary pattern. 3

Morris, L.: The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries. London, Tyndale Press 1964.

144

J . G . CRADDOCK

2. If Jesus commented on set readings, it is much more likely that His followers would have remembered them than that they would have forgotten them. 3. It is more likely that an evangelist (unless he were totally isolated from tradition about his Lord) would incorporate into his Gospel even half-remembered comments of Jesus, than that he would ignore everything which was remembered and invent something else. The possibility of appeal to fact is implied in 1 Cor 15 6 ; an interest in fact, as well as in theology, is implied in the case of a postfirst generation christian community in Heb 2 3 .

Thus, if it is thought possible t h a t John constructed his Gospel in accordance with the Lectionary; and if (as perhaps in Luke 4) it was possible for Jesus to preach from a Lectionary, it is suggested t h a t the discourses in the Fourth Gospel follow a lectionary pattern because Jesus Himself did. Is it not then possible t h a t Jewish leaders, whose scriptural readings were at t h a t time about adultery and judgement, thought it appropriate to bring to Jesus an adulteress — for judgement? And did they therefore indirectly stimulate James' comment t h a t He (by implication Jesus, not Yahwe) who had said 'Do not commit adultery', said also 'Do not kill' ? Whether or not these observations provide any real confirmation of the hypothesis t h a t the author of the Letter of James was present during the events described in John 7 and 8 is outside my expertise. I therefore — who am a scientist and only an amateur theologian — present them to those more learned in these matters than I, knowing t h a t even if they are judged to be unsound they will at least (like the woman in the pericope) be judged with kindness

New Light on 2 Peter from the Bodmer Papyrus J . CREHAN S . J . , L o n d o n

The Bodmer papyrus of 1 and 2 Peter (P 72) was presented to Pope Paul on his visit to Geneva and is now at the Vatican Library. I t does not seem to have attracted much attention from scholars since its publication, in spite of the fact that the textual tradition of these epistles is not of the best. I t was even supposed (by Vansittart, in 1871) 1 t h a t 2 Peter was transmitted for a long period after its origin by means of a single ms. The papyrus itself dates from the third century, earlier rather than later, and its readings should therefore merit some attention if they are notably different from the existing tradition. The critical work done by Bigg 2 and Mayor 3 in their commentaries on 2 Peter, though it is more than sixty years old and usually comes to opposed conclusions, has not been improved upon since those days and must be the starting point for any new work. The most important new reading in P 72 occurs at 2 Pet 3:16 where the future tense is found instead of the present for the verb t h a t describes what foolish people do to the epistles of our dear brother Paul. I t is not t h a t they twist them to their own destruction, but t h a t they will twist them in the future. The papyrus is not unique in this reading, but the support it previously had was not very substantial. The future tense was written in codex C but was afterwards corrected to the present. Codex P (the 9th century Leningrad uncial which Bigg in his commentary [p. 252] judged to have great importance in 2 Peter) also reads the future, as do some minuscules, 323, 642, 1611 (in the first hand, afterwards corrected), 1765 and 2138. The fact t h a t correctors have twice removed this reading from mss. in favour of the present, taken along with the fact t h a t the reading occurs in P 72, which is so much earlier, suggests t h a t this was an ancient reading which was being driven out by "commonsense" emendation in later centuries when it seemed obvious t h a t the twisting of St Paul must have gone on while St Peter was still alive. If now one takes the future tense as a prophecy or simple forecast of what will happen when both Peter and Paul are removed from the scene, the main obstacle to dating 2 Peter within the lifetime of St Peter is removed at a stroke. Mayor in his commentary (p. 168) put the difficulty thus: "There was a collection of writings later than the Old Testament known to the writer as Scripture, of which St Paul's epistles formed a part. But such an assumption can hardly be conceived possible before the middle of the second century." Bigg, who disagreed with Mayor, wrote (p. 241): "Certainly Clement of Rome had a collection of 1 2 3

C. Vansittart, in Journal of Philology, 3 (1871) 358. J. B. Mayor, The Second Epistle of St Peter and the Epistle of St Jude (1907). C. Bigg, The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude (1901).

146

J . CREHAN

Pauline epistles, and so had Ignatius (Eph. 12)." If one now considers the writer of 2 Peter to be making a forecast of what is likely in the future, one is not held to a date-line ante quem non that must be drawn at or near 80 AD. One is in fact free to think that such a forecast might have been made before the onset of the Jewish revolt in 67. I t was always likely that St Paul's epistles would be collected. The directions he gave in Col 4 : 1 6 about having that letter read in Laodicea and about securing for their own church the letter written to Laodicea indicate what went on. The proposal of T. W. Manson to regard the salutations in Rom 16 as meant for the copy of that epistle which went to Ephesus has been widely accepted; one consequence of this is to make it seem likely that individual churches already in the lifetime of St Paul were acquiring a collection of his letters. The time at which control of such reading matter by the Church began cannot have been far distant from the year 67. Dr C. H. Roberts 5 has suggested that the codex (as opposed to the roll) was a distinctively Christian product; it was certainly not Jewish, and Dr Roberts has even proposed that Mark may have taken his own gospel to Egypt in codex form, whence the codex-form then emerged as the distinctive Christian book-style for the papyri, giving us 99 examples of codex material for the New Testament against one roll. The Yale papyrus of Gen 14 is dated by its editors to 90 AD, and is made for Christian use. I t has abbreviations of the nomina sacra that would have been insulting to a Jew; it is a codex and it has the number of Abraham's servants expressed numerically by the letters TIH, thus conveying to a Christian reader the symbol of the Cross and the first two letters of the name Jesus in Greek. About this papyrus Dr Roberts has commented: "A papyrus codex of the Old Testament presupposes a codex of some New Testament book of an earlier date." I t is beginning to look as if the period from 67 to 90 was the vital time for the collection of apostolic writings. That Peter should foresee the future twisting of Pauline epistles when writing in 65 or 66 is not as surprising as it was thought when the great commentaries were written in the early years of this century. The other important reading of P 72 occurs at 2 Pet 1: 15. This time a present tense is put instead of a future, so that Peter says: " I am taking steps for you to be able to bring these things to mind from time to time after my departure." If this is the right reading, it brings the composition of Mark's gospel within the lifetime of St Peter. I t is commonly agreed that the verse makes a real or a fictitious reference to Mark as the means of recalling to Christians some of the facts such as the Transfiguration which link Christ and Peter. The case for saying that the reference was put in by a forger who wanted his work to appear Petrine is much weaker than it was, in view of what has just been said about early Christian control of apostolic writing. What has not been noticed is that Irenaeus 6 (and for what it is worth, the anti-Marcionite prologue also) could have been led to the idea that Mark's gospel was made public after Peter's death 4 5

6

T. W. Manson, in t h e Bulletin of t h e J o h n Rylands Library 31 (1948) 224-240. I n Essays in honour of C. Bradford Welles (1966) 25—28: " P a p y r u s Yale 1 and t h e early Christian book". Irenaeus, adversus haereses I I I , i: 2. Irenaeus does not seem t o have cited 2 P e t e r in his surviving writings.

New Light on 2 Peter from the Bodmer Papyrus

147

precisely because of this verse in 2 Peter. If Irenaeus had the future tense here, it would incline him all the more to think t h a t Peter may have had some idea of getting Mark to write, but t h a t he was done to death before the plan was carried out. Mayor said of the passage: "Are we at liberty to find here an allusion to the gospel of St Mark? Must not t h a t have been already published before this epistle was written?" Later (p. cxliv) he added: "Mark made notes of Peter's teaching at the time and probably mentioned to him his intention of publishing his notes at some future time". If the future tense vanishes and gives place to the present, it is much easier to see this verse as a true report of what happened than to take it as a later forgery. The tradition about the composition of Mark's gospel implies t h a t Peter took an active interest in its composition. Twice Clement of Alexandria 7 is cited by Eusebius about this. Once Peter is said to have been neutral about the work, neither encouraging nor preventing it, while the other passage states t h a t Peter learnt of the work by revelation and rejoiced at Mark's enterprise. I t is not difficult to reconcile the two passages, since a neutral attitude at the outset of the work may have been followed by a welcome later, when Peter may have been absent from Rome. T h a t Peter was present in Rome for but a short time before his martyrdom is claimed by Porphyry in a well-known fragment 8 . That Mark should bring out the failings of Peter must have been a requirement of the apostle; this once secured, there would be cause for rejoicing in place of indifference and also a reason for Peter to say in his epistle t h a t he was now taking steps (in the present tense) to enable converts to recall to mind the great works of Christ. Papyrus 72 is supported in its reading of the present tense here by Sinaiticus, by Gwynn's Syriac 9 and by the Armenian (which probably derived from the Syriac). This distribution shows t h a t the reading could well be a survival t h a t had been supplanted elsewhere by a future tense which seemed to fit in better with the supposed facts of what Irenaeus said about the gospel having come out after the death of Peter. That the future should be found invariably in the ungrammatical form of the active, rather than the middle voice of the verb onovddCm, points to a hasty correction of the zeta into a sigma by a scribe careless of grammar. Some copyists seem t o have despaired of the bad grammar, and these substituted the aorist imperative: "Look you to it t h a t you have after my departure means t o recall etc." This would of course mean t h a t the idea of a direct connexion between Peter and Mark's gospel was being dropped. One could not claim t h a t P 72 had turned up to put us right about two readings, each of them involving a change of tense, without at least a glance at the other new readings in the papyrus which look as if they were right. The most important of these occurs at 2 Pet 3:10, where the papyrus has healed a very sore place by the addition of a single Greek word. "The earth and the works t h a t are in it will be found", read Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, "the earth and the works t h a t are in it will be taken away" reads C (the Ephraemi rescriptus). Some 7 8

9

Clement of Alexandria on Mark is cited in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 6:14 and 6:25. Porphyry, fragment 26, edited by Harnack in Abhandlungen der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 1916. John Gwynn, Remnants of later Syriac versions of the Bible (1911).

148

J . CREHAN

of the minuscules have "will be burnt up", while the Syriac and Coptic emend the reading of Sinaiticus by adding a negative: "will not be found". The papyrus has the addition of a participle: "will be found to be dissolved." Already in the verse it had been said that "the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat", and the repetition of the word "dissolved", now in the participle instead of being a main verb, is quite in keeping with the style of the epistle. That such a participle should have been omitted before the time of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is not surprising. The other readings have obviously been influenced by Mt 24 : 35 and Apoc 20 : 11 when sense could not be made out of the Sinaiticus reading. On the other hand the papyrus reading provides the original text out of which Sinaiticus derived its unintelligible reading by haplography. I t was this verse which persuaded Vansittart to put forth his claim that 2 Peter had been transmitted for a long period in a single copy; he argued that when a triple variety of text is found in a verse, there has been a series of separate attemps to decipher a worn place in the text, but this hypothesis is less likely than the explanation given above. The value of the Leningrad codex P in 2 Peter was noted by Bigg in his commentary (p. 252), and at 2 P e t 2:6 in the phrase about Sodom and Gomorrah "being made an example unto those t h a t should live ungodly", codex P (along with Vaticanus) and the papyrus have a different reading from the rest. They would read "set as a t y p e of things to come for the wicked". The change is simply the omission of a single letter (aoefleZv for aasfieaiv), but the papyrus reading is somewhat better from the point of view of grammar and is closer to the parallel passage in Jude 7. The problem of the priority of 2 Peter to J u d e cannot be argued fully here. I t may however be in order to say that in 2 Pet 2 : 1—3, where the parallel passages begin, J u d e has past tenses where 2 Peter has future. This would suggest t h a t 2 Peter is a warning whereas Jude is a lament for what has happened in the same kind. In 2 Pet 3 : 2 the writer says: " I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance t h a t you should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets and the command of your apostles which is the command of your Lord and Saviour." Jude 17 simply has: "That you remember the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of Our Lord Jesus." Jude is here clearly secondary and derivative, for 2 Peter has already cited "the command" (in 2 Pet 2 : 2 1 ) while J u d e omits mention of this and of the prophets. I t is not necessary to think of 2 Peter as a follow up to the churches of Pontus, Asia and Bithynia of what was said in 1 Peter; it may have been written to Rome or to Jerusalem as a sequel to a letter now lost. All t h a t can be learnt from 2 Pet 3 : 1 and 3 : 15 is t h a t the recipients had already had one letter from Paul and one from Peter. There are not many cities which suit this datum. The longsuffering of Christ which is mentioned in 2 Pet 3 : 15 as the theme of Paul's letter to this church agrees well enough with Rom 2 : 4 , and this convinced Mayor (p. 164) that the letter was meant for Rome. Robert Grant 1 0 has suggested t h a t 1 Tim 1 : 15—16 is a nearer parallel, but t h a t letter was not primarily addressed to a public audience Rome certainly could offer in Nero's day plenty of oppor10

Robert Grant, The Formation of the New Testament (1965) p. 25.

New Light on 2 Peter from the Bodmer Papyrus

149

tunity for "lascivious doings" (2 Pet 2 : 2) while the feigned words that enabled designing preachers to buy and sell the faithful might have come from Simon Magus, who has to be taken more seriously now that the Gnostic writings are beginning to bear out what the early Fathers said about him. The only clue to the character of the audience of 2 Peter which might have something to offer is the description (2 Pet 1 : 1 9 ) of the place of the Transfiguration as "the holy mountain". This seems very Jewish, suggesting the comparison with Moses, but whether Jewish Christians at Rome, at Corinth or elsewhere were being addressed is impossible to say. It will not do, however, in the light of what P 72 can tell us, to go on with the old complacency, as was done by the author of a very recent German dissertation 11 where it is averred that: "The fact that the author of 2 Peter in 3: 1 refers to 1 Peter, which was written near the end of the first century, and the conclusions of critical research that 2 Peter used Jude show that 2 Peter must have been written after 100 A. D." How critical is research that does not take into account the new evidence from P 72 for the text both of 2 Peter and of Jude ? A detailed comparison of the two epistles on the basis of the papyrus readings would be a profitable undertaking but that would require more space than is available here. 11

Isidore Frank, Der Sinn der Kanonbildung (Freiburg, theol. Studien, 90), 1971.

11 Studia Evangelica VII

A Fragment of an Early Recension of the Greek Exodus

G . I . D A VIES, C a m b r i d g e

The publication of D. Barthelemy's Les Devanciers d'Aquila1 was a landmark in research on the Greek Old Testament, and in particular revived interest in the work of the Jewish revisers who, well before the time of Origen, tried to make the Greek correspond more exactly to the Hebrew text in general use in their day. Recently the fragments of one of these recensions belonging to the book of Exodus have been examined afresh, with a view to testing some of Barthelemy's conclusions.2 The author of this study (as is quite proper in such an investigation) limited himself to a consideration of those fragments which are actually attested, in manuscript margins or ancient literature, as deriving from particular Greek versions of the Old Testament, the bulk of them being included in F. Field's Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt. But it has long been recognised that the 'revised versions' of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were heavily drawn on by Christian 'correctors' of the Greek, so that in many places translations deriving from one or other of them are to be found in the text (as distinct from the margin) of 'Septuagint' manuscripts.3 In a reconstruction of the Jewish revisions this kind of evidence must be given its place as well. I t is the main purpose of this Note to isolate a fragment which, despite some residual uncertainties, can be shown to be derived ultimately from Jewish recensional activity on the Greek text of Exodus. According to Ex. xviii. 3—4 (and 1 Chr. xxiii. 15) Zipporah bore Moses two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. Ex. iv. 20 refers to his sons, in the plural.4 But in Ex. ii. 22 the Hebrew of both the Massoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch has no reference to Eliezer, only Gershom being mentioned. Various of the ancient translations felt this to be a deficiency, and supplied the 'missing' information from Ex. xviii. 4. Such a longer text is found in a number of Septuagint manuscripts and dependent versions in, broadly speaking, three different forms. Two of these, attested respectively by the manuscripts o/82 76 83 85 108 129 and by a marginal addition in Eth', will be ignored here in favour of the much

1

2 3

4

Supplement to Vêtus Testamentum X (Leiden, 1963). For an English summary and assessment of Barthélemy's work see R. Kraft's review in Gnomon xxxvii (1965), pp. 474—483. K . G. O'Connell, The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus (Cambridge, Mass., 1972). Origen: H . B. Swete, A n Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1902), p. 69 (cf. his reference to Jerome, Praef. ad Chron. : 'quod maioris audaciae est, in editione L X X Theodotionis editionem miscuit . . .'). Lucian: J. Ziegler, Septuaginta: Ieremias. Baruch. Threni. Epistula Ieremiae (Göttingen, 1957), p. 85; D. W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle (Cambridge, 1959), p. 106. Nothing can be based on the singular in v. 25.

11*

152

G . I. DAVIES

more strongly supported third form, which appears, with only minor variations, in FM bd-npr-tvwxyb? zb2 (sub asterisco Mvz) Boh Lat Syhe3C(mg) : TO ôè ovofia TOV devréçov èxâXeaev 'EAieÇeg Ô yàqiïeoçrov narqôç ¡xov (iorj&éç fiov xal ÈQQvaaTo [is ex %eiQoç 0aQaâ>. The widespread acceptance of this particular wording is likely to be due to the influence of one of the great Christian recensions. Which one? The usual hexaplaric witnesses are divided : the addition appears in F kmx, but not in Syhex ac Arm Eth. Its omission in Syhex makes it most unlikely that it stood in Origen's fifth column, and its occurrence in some generally hexaplaric manuscripts could be attributed to contaminatio. The asterisks in Mvz are more of a problem, since this symbol usually indicates additions in Origen's fifth column to bring the Greek into conformity with the Hebrew — or rather the Jewish revisions of the Greek.5 But this is not its only use. I t also served on occasion to mark additions that were not hexaplaric.6 In particular, there are a number of places where distinctively Lucianic variants are identified in this way.7 In view of the strong support for the longer text in 'Lucianic' cursives (see below) it may well be that this is the significance of the asterisk here. The problems involved in the reconstruction of the Lucianic text of the Pentateuch are now well known, but D. W. Gooding, in his classification of manuscripts for Exodus, mentions dgnpt bw as a group which tends to preserve Lucianic readings.8 Our variant appears in all these manuscripts. I t is also found in the margin of the Syrohexaplar, which has a tendency to exhibit Lucianic readings.9 Although other sub-groups include the extra material (cf. fir ejsvz), the 'Lucianic' group is the only one of the major groupings defined by Gooding that unanimously presents it. This suggests that while it later enjoyed wider acceptance the variant was initially peculiar to the Lucianic recension. I t corresponds well to what is known of the harmonising activity of Lucian.10 I t is possible that the addition was already present in the 'Antiochene' text used by Lucian as the basis for his recension. The evidence for this is meagre but worthy of mention. 1) The Old Latin had a longer text at this point which is an exact rendering of the Greek variant under consideration here.11 The Old Cf. S. P. Brock, in Studia Patristica X = Texte und Untersuchungen 107 (Berlin, 1970), pp. 215-8. 6 Cf. Barthélémy, Devanciers, p. 136. 7 Cf. I. Soisalon-Soininen, Der Charakter der asterisierten Zusàtze in der Septuaginta (Helsinki, 1959), pp. 15—16. There are also cases of an asterisk appearing where a hexaplaric obelus would be expected (cf. Ziegler, Ieremias etc., p. 74). I t is not very probable that this is the case here, in view of the absence of the plus from the Syrohexaplar and other important hexaplaric witnesses — scribes did not usually omit obelised material. 8 Cf. The Account of the Tabernacle, p. 106, and also Gooding's Tyndale lecture, Recensions of the Septuagint Pentateuch (London, 1955), p. 15. The nucleus of the list was discerned by E. Hautsch, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens I (Berlin, 1909), pp. 1—28. A complication is that dpt often agree with the Egyptian versions, which has led some to regard them as witnesses to the Hesychian text (cf. A . V. Billen, JTS xxvi (1924—5), p. 266). According to R . Thornill (JTS N. S. X (1959), pp. 244, 246) n is Lucianic in Exodus. 9 Cf. S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford, 1968), p. 165; Ziegler, Ieremias etc., p. 84. M Cf. B. M. Metzger, N T S viii (1961-2), pp. 195-6. 11 Cf. U. Robert (éd.), Pentateuchi Yersio Latina Antiquissima E Codice Lugdunensi pt. 1 (Paris, 1881), p. 52. Sabatier cited an allusion by Augustine, in Trin. 3. 10, but it is in fact only a refer5

A Fragment of an Early Recension of the Greek Exodus

153

L a t i n often preserves a form of Septuagint t e x t older t h a n t h e recensions of Origen and Lucian, b u t it has been argued t h a t 'Lucianic' elements in it m a y be secondary developments and n o t necessarily shed light on t h e form of t h e 'Antiochene' t e x t prior to Lucian's revision. 12 2) The accounts of Moses' early life in Acts vii. 29 and Josephus, Ant. Iud. 2. 277—8 refer t o b o t h his sons a t t h e point in t h e narrative corresponding t o E x . ii. 22. This m a y mean t h a t t h e authors were familiar with a Greek version of Exodus which h a d a reference to Eliezer here, b u t it could also be due to their introducing information into t h e narrative which only appeared later in the Biblical t e x t which t h e y used. We cannot therefore be certain t h a t the v a c a n t was found in Septuagint manuscripts before t h e time of Lucian. 1 3 A clearer indication of the ultimate source of t h e addition is provided by some aspects of its wording. Although in general modelled on t h e B-text of the Septuagint of E x . ii. 22 and xviii. 4, it differs in three striking ways f r o m what a straightforward borrowing from these passages might be expected to give: (a) Instead of t h e word ¿TMovo/iaoev employed in E x . ii. 22 L X X t o render m p l of t h e M. T. it has exaXeasv; (b) The Aeycov of E x . xviii. 4 L X X , which was inserted against t h e M. T. t o introduce t h e direct speech in t h e second half of t h e verse, is o m i t t e d ; (c) Instead of igeiAaro, used in E x . xviii. 4 L X X t o translate t h e Hiphil of "72H, t h e variant has eggvoaro. I t is clear from this t h a t t h e 'harmonising' material was borrowed n o t from t h e Septuagint translation of Exodus b u t from another source which it would be possible t o identify if parallels t o t h e divergences noted could be found. This can in fact be done: (a) I n D e u t . iii. 9 L X X B renders imp"" O'lTX b y ol &oivixeg enovofidtovaiv (some other MSS. have t h e aorist); b u t marginal glosses in t h e manuscripts svz show t h a t either Aquila or Theodotion 'corrected' this t o Utdcovioi exalovv.Vt The reason will be t h a t search for precision characteristic of b o t h Aquila and Theodotion, in this case t h e desire to avoid unnecessary equivalents for Hebrew Nip. ence to Acts vii. 29 (Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae VersionesAntiquae Seu Vetus Italica (Rheims, 1743-9), ad loc.). 12 The matter is not yet settled, but see the discussion by B. Fischer, Studia Anselmiana xxvii— xxviii (Rome, 1951), pp. 169-177. 13 I make no apology for speaking of Lucian and the Lucianic recension, despite Barthélemy's claim that there was no such recension, except for some assimilation to the Jewish revisions in certain books (cf. Dévanciers, pp. 126—7). As Kraft pointed out (loc. cit.), the differences between the 'L-text' and the B-text in section a(S of Kingdoms show that the former is not identical with the original LXX, and the patristic testimonia to Lucian's work should probably still be associated with, in particular, many of the amplifications and Atticisms found in it (On this cf. S. P. Brock, Studia Evangelica V=Texte und Untersuchungen 103 (1968), pp. 176— 181). The value of Barthélemy's examples was to underline the fact, recognised long ago (cf. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta-Studien III (Gôttingen, 1911), pp. 235, 290—1) and not disputed here, that some 'Lucianic' readings were not innovations of Lucian but were derived from the older manuscripts available to him. This does not mean that all Lucianic readings are to be so explained, and Barthélémy himself has recently conceded that his earlier dismissal of Lucian was too sweeping (cf. LXX and Cognate Studies ii [1972], pp. 16—89). The uncertainty is due to variation in the manuscripts over the attribution of the later translations.

154

G. I.

DAVIES

Aquila evidently reserved ènovo/udÇo) and êvo/iàÇa> for and there is no attested case of his having used these words for although such renderings are quite common in the LXX, especially in the Pentateuch. 15 Theodotion appears not to have used them at all, and as an equivalent for Nip he prefers xakeco, even where L X X B has ènovofiaÇoi (cf. Jud. ii. 5). (b) The assimilation of the addition to the M. T. of Ex. xviii. 4 is of course typical of Aquila and Theodotion. Such changes are also regular in what Barthélémy has called the 'xaiye recension of the LXX. 1 0 (c) The Jewish Greek recensions also provide plentiful illustration of the preference for Qvofiai over èÇaigéo/xai as a rendering of the Hiphil of Thus on no less than four occasions Aquila replaced a form of ê£aiQéo/j,cu with one of gvofiai when the Hebrew is from (1 Kms. xxx. 22, Ez. xxxiii. 9, Ps. xxx (xxxi). 3, Job. v. 19), and ocoêrjoerai was similarly eliminated in Ps. xxxii (xxxiii). 16. Theodotion also made the change to SQQVGOJ in Ez. xxxiii. 9, and the alternation of Is. lvii. 13 should probably be attributed to him rather than to Aquila. But he is not so consistent as Aquila, for while the latter never uses e^aiqeofjiai for i', such a translation is attributed to him three times (Jud. vi. 9, xviii. 28, Ez. vii. 19). Numerous examples of the change are also to be found in the 1 xaiye' recension. Thus in section of Kingdoms, where the Lucianic cursives boc 2 e 2 often alone preserve the unrevised text 18 , there are five cases of êÇaigéo/uai being replaced as the equivalent of by (ivofiai (2 Kms. xii. 7, xiv. 16, xix. 9, xxii. 18, 49), in section yô two (4 Kms. xviii. 32, 34) and in Judges four (vi. 9, ix. 17, xi. 26, xviii. 28). But, just as in the case of Theodotion, the revision seems not to have been as thoroughgoing as that of Aquila, as no manuscript has a form of Qvofxai corresponding to b'SB in 2 Kms. xiv. 6 or to "?TSn in 2 Kms. xxii. I.1» 15

Aquila used ênovo/id^o) in Gen. xxx. 28 and ovofiâÇa> in J o b iii. 8. In the latter case the Hebrew form is in fact from 32p, but it could easily have been mistaken for one from 3pl. »« Cf. Barthélémy, Devanciers, pp. 9 8 - 9 , 196. 17 Even the one use of oxpaigéo/mi is not at all certain (Prov. xix. 19) ; the reading nvar/ attested in Field may well be Aquila's. 18 'Unrevised' in a relative sense, meaning a text t h a t escaped the 'xaiye' recension. 19 Barthélemy's view t h a t Theodotion was the author of at least part of what has come to be known as the 'xaiye' recension remains a real possibility. Recently Jellicoe has objected t h a t 'The elder contemporary of Irenaeus could hardly be one and the same person as the editor of the xaiye recension whom Barthélémy places a century or more earlier.' (VT xxiii (1973), p. 22). Elsewhere Jellicoe has written that a 2nd century date for Theodotion is required by the patristic evidence of Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius (Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 89). But of these it is only Epiphanius who gives any information about Theodotion's date, and Jellicoe himself is sceptical of his report (ibid. p. 83; cf. Swete, Introduction, p. 43). The passage of Irenaeus is contra Haereses 3. 21. 1, which gives only a terminus ante for Theodotion: (BÇ OEOÔOTÎCDV ijo/i»)vevaev 6 'Eqpéoioç xai 'AxvXaç . . . I t might even be argued t h a t this wording favours dating Theodotion before Aquila (so Barthélémy, Dévanciers, p. 147). I t looks as though Jellicoe's description of Theodotion as 'the elder contemporary of Irenaeus' is based only on the questionable testimony of Epiphanius. The similarity noted here between Theodotion and the xaiye recension in their treatment of Vxi is an additional argument for their affinity, if not their identity. But some problems remain. I t is remarkable, for example, t h a t in two verses in Judges (vi. 9, xviii. 28) the 'xaiye' group of manuscripts have the 'correction' of êÇaigéo/xai to QVO/MU, while according to the margin of z, has an unrevised text. At least two explanations are possible. Perhaps the 'xaiye' group in Judges represents the work of a more meticulous reviser t h a n Theodotion himself; or alternatively perhaps Origen's 6th column for Judges contained hot Theodotion but some other Greek version (so B. Lindars, J T S N. S. xxii [1971], p. 6).

A Fragment of an Early Recension of the Greek Exodus

155

Thus the differences between the additional material under consideration and the corresponding L X X passages can be explained entirely in terms of some recensional techniques regularly employed by Jewish revisers of the Septuagint translation, and it may safely be regarded as stemming ultimately from one of them. There is nothing strange in the introduction of such material into the LXX-tradition, in view of the known practice of Christian scholars of the 3rd and 4th centuries (above, p. 151). In fact Christian use of these versions goes back at least to the 2nd century and can probably be traced in the New Testament itself. 20 Two questions remain to be discussed: 1) Is it possible to determine which of the Jewish recensions was the ultimate source of the variant ? The evidence considered so far has shown affinities between the translation-technique employed in it and the revisions of the Septuagint by Theodotion, Aquila and the 'xaiye' recension, but does not permit a decision between these possible sources to be made. There are however two further factors which suggest t h a t Theodotion or the 'xaiye recension (which may be identical) is a more probable source than Aquila. First, the words êx %ELQOÇ 0agao'J, which appear at the end of the additional material, are not a literal translation of the M. T. nsns anna in Ex. xviii. 4 — they in fact correspond to the unrevised L X X there. Whether this be thought to be due to the reviser's possession of a Hebrew text different from the M. T. or to his lack of interest in this particular divergence, it is not what would be expected of Aquila. Second, where more than a word or two was involved the Christian revisers of the L X X , to whom we owe the preservation of such fragments as this, seem to have preferred Theodotion as a source for their 'corrections'. 21 2) By what process did this material enter the LXX-tradition? I t is conceivable t h a t a scribe copying an L X X manuscript filled what he saw as a gap by taking words from two separate places in a Jewish 'revised version' to which he had access. This presupposes an improbable way of working — for why go to so much trouble when the gap could be filled by material from the L X X manuscript itself? I t is more likely that a fuller text was already present in the 'revised version' at Ex. ii. 22, due either to its own developing textual tradition or to the inclusion of the additional material by the Jewish reviser himself. Should the latter be the case, it is probable t h a t the reviser was working with a Hebrew text in which the harmonisation had already been made, as he would be anxious to avoid discrepancies between the Greek and the Hebrew as he knew it. The biblical Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran have made it clear that prior to c. 100 A. D. the Old Testament existed in a variety of textual forms. Harmonising additions of the kind involved here — though not this particular one — occur in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and are also reported in some of the Qumran manuscripts.- 2 20

Cf. Barthélémy, Dévanciers, pp. 203ff., 228ff.; Jellicoe, Septuagint and Modern Study, p. 87. Cf. B. J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions (Cardiff, 1951), p. 134. -- On the Samaritan cf. J. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 69ff. A typical harmonising insertion, based on Num. xx. 14, 17—18, is made after Deut. ii. 7. For similar additions in Qumran manuscripts cf. P. W. Skehan, Biblical Archaeologist xxviii (1965), p. 99. The possibility that the variant under discussion goes back ultimately to a Hebrew text different from the M. T. was pointed out to me by Dr. S. P. Brock, to whose advice and bibliographical knowledge I am indebted at several points in this Note.

21

156

G. I. DAVIES

To conclude: The variant is not part of the original Septuagint, although it may yet reflect the existence of a fuller form of the Hebrew text than the M. T. Its origin (as far as the Greek is concerned) may be found in Jewish recensional activity of the 1st or 2nd century A. D., probably in the revision that came to be associated with the name of Theodotion. The next stage of its history is unclear, but it is reasonable to suppose that it appeared in the revised Septuagint text of Lucian (though not in the fifth column of Origen's Hexapla), and as a result gained widespread acceptance both in the Greek tradition itself and in some translations dependent on it.

The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics: the Status Quaestionis B . DEHANDSCHUTTER, L o u v a i n

The relation of the Gospel of Thomas ( = GTh) to the Synoptics was a much debated question a few years ago. During the second Oxford Congress on Biblical Studies (1961) several specialists dealt with it 1 . More recently, however, coptologists as well as historians of religion have paid more attention to the newly published texts of the Nag Hammadi library. On the other hand, New Testament exegetes are apparently more interested in the general problem of gnosticism and New Testament 2 . Many New Testament scholars accept today t h a t the GTh contains an independent gospel tradition which not only corroborates former investigation on several synoptic texts such as the parables 3 , but also is important for further formcritical and tradition-historical research on the canonical gospels 4 . Even in connection with the so-called Western Text, t h e synoptic sayings of the GTh are taken account of in recent articles by M. Mees, following the studies of G. Quispel 5 . Recent research on Q also reckons with the GTh as an independent collection of sayings 6 . I n short, it seems to be agreed t h a t the GTh contains an independent synoptic-like gospel tradition which throws light on the study of the Synoptics. W. Schräge is perhaps the most important but also the most criticised defender of the dependence of the GTh upon the synoptics 7 . The criticism against Schräge was not unjustified but, no matter how weak his argument taken from the Coptic gospel-translations may be, it does not mean t h a t the dependence hypothesis in itself is at the same time rendered improbable. Instead of criticising Schrage's critics or arguing against the hypothesis of independence in general 8 , I would 1

Cf. P. L. Cross (ed.), Studia Evangelica III (TU 88), Berlin 1964, p. 3 1 4 - 1 7 (J. B. Bauer); 390-401 (G. C. Stead) ; 4 4 7 - 5 9 (R. McL. Wilson). 2 Cf. R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament, Oxford, 1968; W. Schmithals, in N T S 16 (1969-70) 3 7 3 - 8 3 ; comp. K. Rudolph, in Theol. Rundschau 37 (1972) 295-322. 3 Cf. J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, London, 1963; comp, however our contribution La parabole des vignerons homicides (Me. X I I , 1—12) et l'Evangile selon Thomas, in M. Sabbe (ed.), L'Evangile selon Marc 'Leuven-Gembloux, 1974, p. 203—219. 4 To mention only two contributions: N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, London, 1967; more recently: T. Schramm, Der Markusstoff bei Lukas, Cambridge, 1971. 5 M. Mees, in Vetera Christianorum 4 (1967) 107-29; 5 (1968) 8 9 - 1 1 0 ; 7 (1970) 5 9 - 8 2 ; 285-303. 6 Comp, the survey of M. Devisch, Le document Q, source de Matthieu, in M. Didier (ed.), L'Evangile selon Matthieu. Rédaction et Théologie, Gembloux, 1972, 71—97. 7 W. Schräge, Das Verhältnis des Thomasevangeliums zur synoptischen Tradition und zu den koptischen Bibelübersetzungen, Berlin, 1964. 8 Cf. B. Dehandschutter, Les paraboles de l'Evangile selon Thomas. La parabole du trésor caché (log. 109), in Ephem. Theol. Lov. 47 (1971) 199-219, see p. 2 0 1 - 2 0 9 ; L'Evangile selon Thomas: témoin d'une tradition prélucanienne?, in F. Neirynck (ed.), L'Evangile de Luc. Problèmes littéraires et théologiques, Gembloux, 1973, 287—97.

158

B.

DEHANDSCHUTTER

like to propose here some considerations arising from our better knowledge of the contents of the Nag Hammadi texts. Firstly, some newly published texts, e. g. the Apocryphon of James (CG I, 1) and the Book of Thomas the Contender (CG II, 7), may be helpful for describing more exactly the specific gnostic character of the GTh. In the Apocryphon of James, the question of martyrdom and suffering is an important theme 9 and it explains very well the saying 58 of the GTh: "Jesus said: Blessed is the man who has suffered, he has found the Life" 1 0 , comp, the Apocryphon of James 6, 7—9: "Seek therefore death as the dead who seek life" Sayings 68 (comp. Matthew v. 11; Luke vi. 22), 69a (comp. Matthew v. 10) and 8212 0 f the GTh also could be interpreted in the light of the views expressed in the same Apocryphon. A full discussion of these texts, and of the gnostic interpretation of martyrdom in general, would lead us too far from our topic, but there are at least two reasons for reconsidering the whole question. On the one hand, the existing literature on the gnostic idea of martyrdom only mentions the information of heresiological sources which is sometimes contradictory (e. g. in the case of the doctrine of Basilides on martyrdom 1 3 ) and, on the other, in some recent contributions to the study of the christian meaning of the word "martyr", its origin has been connected with the discussion between orthodox writers and gnostic heretics about the value of martyrdom The gnostic character of the GTh can also be illustrated by different themes of the Book of Thomas the Contender,15 e. g. the knowledge of oneself, comp, the Book of Thomas 138, 15—18 and the GTh sayings 3b and 67. Another example is the theme of obtaining "rest" 16 on which the Book of Thomas ends (145, 10—16). On the other hand, the ideas of "reign" and "unification" mentioned in the latter text throw light on the same ideas occurring in the GTh. The comparison with such texts provides a more adequate distinction of the interpretative element in the GTh: the theme of "rest" in the Book of Thomas enables us to consider the saying 90 as a gnostic rendering of Matthew xi. 28—3017. Secondly, as far as the synoptic sayings are concerned, the GTh can be cha9

M. Malinine a. o., Epistula Jacobi Apocrypha, Zürich, 1968, p. X X V I - X X I X ; 4 8 - 5 5 . Translation from A. Guillaumont a. o., The Gospel of Thomas, London-Leiden, 1959, p. 33. 11 Translation from M. Malinine, Epistula Jacobi, p. 120. 12 This saying is understood in a "martyrological" way by J. Jeremias, Paroles inconnues de Jesus, Paris, 1970, 66—71; comp. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, Oxford, 1965, p. 100, n. 26; 209, n. 197. 13 Comp. Iren. adv. Haer. I, 24, 6 and Clem. Alex. Strom. IV, 12. In general: H. von Campenhausen, Die Idee des Martyriums in der alten Kirche, Tübingen, 1964 2 , 109—15; W. H. C. Frend, o. c., p. 11. Comp, also the older view of gnostic influence on Ignatius' theology of martyrdom (H. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Ignatiusbriefen, Giessen, 1929; H. W. Bartsch, Gnostisches Gut und Gemeindetradition bei Ignatius von Antiochien, Gütersloh, 1940. 14 Cf. N. Brox, Zeuge und Märtyrer, München, 1961, 2 1 1 - 2 4 ; and already E. Günther, Martys, Hamburg, 1941, 4 4 - 4 7 . 15 Cf. M. Kxause-P. Labib, Gnostische und hermetische Schriften aus Codex II und VI, Glückstadt, 1971, p. 89. 16 See our contribution L'Evangile selon Thomas, p. 291, n. 26; 292, n. 27; also Mt 13, 4 5 ^ 6 et l'Evangile selon Thomas. La parabole de la perle, in Ephem. Theol. Lov. 55 (1979) 243—265; comp. J. M. Robinson, in Trajectories through Early Christianity, Philadelphia, 1970, p. 44. 17 Comp, our contribution on the parable of the pearl mentioned n. 16. 10

The Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics

159

racterised as a christian-gnostic text, i. e. as a text which contains essentially christian materials interpreted in a gnostic way and not so much as a secondarily christianised gnostic text 1 8 . This characterisation has its consequences for t h e problem of dependence or independence. The first approach of such a christiangnostic text should be a literary critical one. The fact t h a t there has not been more attention to the literary criticism of t h e Nag H a m m a d i texts is a considerable deficiency, in particular for the GTh. The work has been initiated principally by R. Kasser whose analysis of the GTh, although published already 14 years ago 19 , has been neglected in the subsequent literature. Kasser reckons with a growth of t h e GTh in several stages, beginning from a gnostic hymn, enlarged by other elements and containing at a certain moment New Testament quotations interpreted in a gnostic way. Even if this conception is unlike the distinction about christian-gnostic and christianised gnostic texts mentioned above, it points rather to the dependence of the GTh vis-à-vis t h e Synoptics and it still remains valuable a f t e r the merely formcritical and tradition-historical approach on the part of New Testament exegetes. According to the view of Kasser also, the introduction of most sayings by "Jesus said", is a later addition. This implies t h a t speculations about the GTh as an early independent saying-collection might be without solid foundation. Thirdly, an observation can be added about t h e use of t h e canonical gospels in other Nag H a m m a d i texts. In the Gospel of Philip (CG I I , 3) 20 , for example the gospel references, although in gnostic interpretation, are generally accepted as undoubtedly derived from the canonical gospels. The same could be said of some passages from the Exegesis on the Soul (CG I I , 6). This of course is no direct evidence for the case of the GTh, b u t one can ask why what is accepted for the one text is not accepted for the other. The history of t h e GTh research shows t h a t the hypothesis of independence is connected with the supposed form of a saying-collection. With regard to single synoptic-type sayings in gnostic sources, t h e hypothesis of an independent gospel tradition has scarcely been considered ; see e. g., Pistis Sophia c. 95, comp. Matthew xi. 28—30 (GTh 90); Epiphan. Pan. 24, 5, 2 a n d Hippol. Ref. 6, 8, 33, comp. Matthew vii, 6 (GTh 93b). One serious problem remains for the possibility of dependence : the insufficient knowledge of the early Coptic gospel translations. To ameliorate this situation is an urgent task, not only for the correct interpretation of the GTh. Schrage once undertook this study 2 1 , but apparently he has not published it u p to now. Meanwhile, the only possible evaluation is by means of literary criticism which, as a sound method, should start f r o m t h e texts available in the GTh a n d the Synoptics. I n this connection it can be noted t h a t G. Strecker in a recent article denies the importance of the GTh for the reconstruction of the earliest form of 18

19

20 31

Cf. M. Krause, Der Stand der Veröffentlichung der Nag Hammadi-Texte, in U. Bianchi (ed.). Le Origini dello Gnosticismo, Leiden, 1967, 66—88, see p. 75; comp, however the judgement of W. Schneemelcher, in Neutestamentliche Apokryphen I, Tübingen, 1959 3 , p. 50—51. R. Kasser, in Rev. Théol. Phil. 3° Sér. 9 (1959) 357-70, see p. 3 6 5 - 6 6 ; L'Evangile selon Thomas, Neuchàtel, 1961, p. 19; 120; 155. Cf. J. E. Menard, L'Evangile selon Philippe, Strassbourg, 1967, 2 9 - 3 3 . Cf. W. Schrage, o. c., Vorwort; see now H. Quecke, Das Markusevangelium Sahidisch, Barcelona, 1972.

160

B. Dehandschutteb

Matthew v. 3 and v. 10 22 , and that S. Légasse abandoned his former view that the saying 90 of the GTh could be a witness for the earliest form of Matthew xi. 28-3023. The conclusion of what precedes can only be a warning against an overhasty use of the GTh in New Testament exegesis. In any case, one should refuse the viewpoint that it can be used without discussing the problem of dependence or independence 24 . If, however, the GTh is of less value for the study of the canonical gospel text, the apocryphon remains important for the history of (gnostic) gospel interpretation. 22

G. Strecker, Les macarismes du discours sur la montagne, in L'Evangile selon Matthieu (s. n. 6), 185-208, cf. p. 189, n. 7. 23 S. Legasse, L'« antijudaïsme » dans l'Evangile selon Matthieu, ibid., 417—28, cf. p. 428, n. 24. M So recently J. D. Crossan, in JBL 92 (1973) 244-66.

L'intégration des Douze à l'évangile de Marc A.-M.

DENIS,

Louvain

Plusieurs groupes se détachent dans le deuxième évangile 1 . Certains sont opposés à Jésus, surtout les Pharisiens avec les scribes et docteurs de la Loi, puis les grands prêtres avec les Sadducéens, et les Hérodiens. Indécise et réticente paraît sa propre famille. Plutôt favorable, sauf à la fin, est la foule, ou les foules, qui viennent à lui. Enfin, il y a les disciples et les Douze. Ces deux derniers groupes sont parfois difficilement discernables, car le premier semble quelquefois coïncider avec le second 2 . S'il y a lieu de distinguer celui-ci de l'autre, il est utile de passer d'abord en revue les passages où se trouve le terme ôcôôexa3 et de déterminer leur place dans la trame de l'évangile. Il s'agira ensuite de voir où est en scène un groupe autonome et d'évoquer brièvement en conclusion l'optique de Marc à son sujet. Il se trouve, dans le deuxième évangile, quinze emplois de ôcôôexa en douze péricopes différentes. Deux d'entre eux dénombrent les corbeilles de fragments après la première multiplication des pains (6, 43; 8, 19). Deux autres chiffrent la durée de la maladie de l'hémorrhoïsse (5, 25) et l'âge de la fille de Jaïre (5, 42), et trois fois, Judas est désigné comme l'un des Douze (14, 10. 20. 43). Il reste huit emplois en sept passages où est en question le groupe même: oi ôœôexa (3, 14. 16; 4, 10; 6, 7; 9, 35; 10, 32; 11, 11; 14, 17). L'on peut y ajouter la péricope où les fils de Zébédée demandent une place d'honneur dans le royaume et où les ôéxa chicanent les deux frères (10, 41) 4 . 1

Sur ces groupes, cf. par exemple H. L. Strack et P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, IV, 1928, 14e excursus, Die Pharisäer und Sadduzäer in der altjüdischen Literatur, p. 334—352 ; sur la valeur «typique» des groupes opposés à Jésus, cf. R. Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 7 e éd., 1967, p. 54—56; cf. aussi E. Klostermann, Das Markusevangelium, 5 e éd. Handbuch zum N. T., 1971, p. 25—26; E. Lohmeyer, Galiläa und Jerusalem, Forsch. Rel. Lit. A. iV. Test., 52, 1936, p. 31-32; 48-60; G. Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit, Forsch. Rel. Lit. A. N. Test., 82, 3 e éd., 1971, p. 30, 37, en référence aux chrétiens. 2 Cf. R. Bultmann, Geschichte (note 1), p. 71, 370; K. H. Rengstorf, art. /laêr/rr/ç, dans Theol. Wort., IV (1942), p. 454; W. Burgers, De instelling van de Twaalf in het Evangelie van Marcus, dans Eph. Theol. Lov., 36, 1960, p. 625—654, voir p. 643—644, pour l'auteur, à partir du choix des Douze (3, 13—19), «disciples» équivaut à «Douze», avant cela, le terme est indéterminé; K. G. Reploh, Markus—Lehrer der Gemeinde, Stuttgart, bibl. Monogr., 9, 1969, p. 47. 3 Cf. E. Klostermann, Markusev. (note 1), p. 34—36; K. H. Rengstorf, art. ôcoôexa, dans Theol. Wort., I I (1935), p. 325-328; B. Rigaux, Die „Zwölf" in Geschichte und Kerygma, dans Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, éd. H. Ristow et K. Matthiae, 1961, p. 468— 486, voir p. 470—475, l'étude envisage l'historicité du groupe; K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 2), p. 47-48. 4 On pourrait y ajouter le Svôsxa de la deuxième finale de Me., 16, 14.

162

A . - M . D%NIS

Pour situer ces passages, rappelons qu'il existe, dans l'évangile de Marc, plusieurs césures assez habituellement admises 5 . De toute manière, ce sont des moments importants et décisifs de l'histoire évangélique, permettant de répartir les ensembles de péricopes et de voir l'articulation de l'œuvre. Terminée la préface de l'évangile avec l'activité de Jean-Baptiste (1, 1—13), une de ces césures se marque après le premier groupe de cinq miracles et les cinq premières controverses, lorsque Pharisiens et Hérodiens tiennent conseil pour faire mourir Jésus (3, 6). Après les paraboles et le deuxième groupe de miracles, une deuxième césure est placée d'habitude après le récit de la mort de Jean-Baptiste (6, 30). Elle peut d'ailleurs s'établir aussi avant ce récit, lors du rejet de Jésus par les gens de Nazareth (6, 6), voire avant même cet épisode (5, 43) 6 . La section bien déterminée des pains se termine par une troisième césure, avant la confession par Pierre de la messianité de Jésus (8, 26). On peut ensuite réunir ensemble les trois annonces de la Passion, jusqu'aux Rameaux (11, 1), quatrième césure où commencent les activités de Jésus à Jérusalem: deuxième recueil de controverses et discours eschatologique. Enfin, la dernière Cène et la Passion commencent avec la cinquième et dernière césure (14, 1). Ceci posé, il est remarquable qu'à chacun de ces tournants, Marc tient à rappeler explicitement la présence des Douze, ol ôœôexa, et que plus d'une fois, il les met à l'avant-plan. Dès l'inauguration, en Galilée, de l'activité de Jésus, avant même le premier recueil de miracles, ils sont présents par la vocation des quatre premiers d'entre eux (1, 16—20), et pendant les premières controverses, par la vocation de Lévi, occasion de l'une d'elles (2, 14). Cependant, c'est précisément à la première césure, après la décision de perdre Jésus prise par les Pharisiens et les Hérodiens, que, suivant un sommaire général (3, 7—12), a lieu le choix des Douze avec l'énumération solennelle de leurs noms (3, 13—19). Auditeurs actifs des paraboles, ils interrogeront Jésus sur leur sens (4, 10) et assisteront au deuxième cycle de miracles. Mais après l'épisode de Nazareth, à la deuxième césure, le récit de la mort de Jean-Baptiste est très exactement encadré par leur envoi en mission par Jésus (6, 7—13) et le retour des «apôtres» (6, 30—31), seule apparition certaine du terme chez Marc 7 . Ce procédé d'encadrement est d'ailleurs courant chez l'évangéliste, et il met ici en évidence, un moment capital de l'évangile 8 : la mort du dernier prophète doit coïncider, dirait-on, avec la mis5

6

7

8

Différente est la division de la section Me., 1, 14—5, 43, adoptée par E. Klostermann, Markusev. (note 1) : il sépare les deux groupes de miracles ( i , 14—45 et 4, 35—5, 43) et le chapitre des paraboles (4, 1—34), et réunit ensemble les controverses de Galilée et les péricopes sur les Douze (2,1—3,35); au contraire, voir la division proposée par E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus (17 éd.), Kritisch-exeget. Komm. N. T., (1967); W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus, Porsch. Rel. Lit. A. N. T., 62, 1956, p. 39 (à propos du passage 3, 7 - 1 2 ) ; W. Burgers, De instelling (note 2), p. 643 (pour le même passage); K. Weiss, Ekklesiologie, Tradition und Geschichte in der Jungerunterweisung, Mark. 8, 27—10, 52, dans Der historische Jésus (note 3), p. 414—438, voir p. 416 (pour la section étudiée) ; K. G. Reploh (note 2), p. 37, 56, 87, 226. Cette césure peut aussi se placer en effet avant le rejet de Jésus par les gens de Nazareth, ainsi E. Klostermann (note 1), in Me., 1, 14; voir infra, sur les passages concernant cette césure. Plusieurs mss, y compris le Sin et le Vat. l'ajoutent en 3, 14, pour le choix des Douze, mais il est permis de croire à une contamination d'après le texte parallèle de Le., 6, 13. Ce passage est pratiquement négligé par K. H. Rengstorf, art. ôœôexa (note 3), mais au contraire, il est bien mis en valeur dans K. H. Rengstorf, Apostolat und Predigtamt, 2 e éd. 1954 (I e éd. 1934),

L'intégration des Douze à l'évangile de Marc

163

sion apostolique. Les Douze sont ensuite témoins et acteurs de premier plan, fait exceptionnel pour les récits de miracles 9 , dans la première multiplication des pains. Même s'ils ne sont pas signalés comme tels, le groupe des Douze est bien en scène, car la multiplication est jointe par Marc à leur retour de mission (6, 30), et les douze corbeilles de fragments peuvent les rappeler (6, 43; 8, 19). Des trois annonces de la Passion, les deux premières sont faites «aux disciples», sans précision (8, 31; cf. 8, 27; 9, 31), mais la troisième est adressée aux Douze explicitement (10, 32). Par ailleurs, la section s'ouvre par la confession de Pierre, le premier nommé du groupe (8, 27—30); la première annonce se continue par le reproche de Jésus au même Pierre (8, 33) et, plus loin, par la Transfiguration, réservée aux trois élus (9, 2—8) ; la deuxième annonce est suivie par le discours, formellement adressé aux Douze, sur le plus grand, serviteur des autres (9, 35); et la troisième, par la demande des deux fils de Zébédée, contestée par les dix autres (10, 41). Les Douze sont bien là tout le temps. L'on considère d'ailleurs souvent toute la section des annonces comme l'enseignement que Jésus leur réserve 10 . L'entrée à Jérusalem, césure suivante, se fait avec les mêmes, cités comme tels lorsque Jésus revient à Béthanie (11, 11), pour l'épisode du figuier desséché, et le discours eschatologique est adressé aux quatre premiers appelés (13, 3), qui étaient, dans la liste, les quatre premiers nommés (cf. 3, 16—18). Enfin, la dernière Cène est préparée par deux disciples (14, 13), dont il n'est pas dit qu'ils sont du groupe, mais les Douze sont bien, et seuls, les commensaux de Jésus (14, 17), et, normalement, ses compagnons à Gethsémani (14, 32). Par ailleurs, Marc souligne, pendant la Passion, le rôle de Judas, «l'un des Douze» (14, 10. 20. 4 3 ) e t il rappelle aussi le rôle de Pierre. La plupart de ces passages, c'est à noter, sont dus au Rédacteur et non à la source traditionnelle antérieure à Marc 12 . C'est le Rédacteur qui a rédigé, sur docup. 14—16; voir aussi E. Lohmeyer, Evangelium (note 5), in Me., 6, 12 ss, p. 115: il ne se décide pas sur la question historique au temps de Jésus, mais souligne l'importance du passage pour la mission chrétienne; E. Klostermann (note 1), p. 35—36; B. Rigaux, Die „Zwölf" (note 3), p. 475: il attribue peu d'importance au passage 6,6—13.30; K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), p. 56. 9 Sur le rôle des Douze dans la première multiplication des pains, voir les remarques de E. Lohmeyer, Evangelium (note 5), in 6,35—38, p. 126,128; au contraire K. G. Reploh, MarkusLehrer (note 3), ne l'envisage pas, non plus que dans la dernière Cène. 10 La section des annonces de la Passion, enseignement réservé aux Douze, cf. R. Bultmann, Geschichte (note 1), p. 356—357; E. Lohmeyer, Evangelium (note 5), p. 161; E. Klostermann (note 1), p. 78; particulièrement K. Weiss, Ekklesiologie (note 5), p . 4 1 6 ; également K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), p. 123. 11 Les deux autres synoptiques ne le rappellent que deux fois, Mt., 26, 14 et 47, Le., 22, 3 et 47; sur cette donnée considérée comme traditionnelle, cf. B. Rigaux, Die „Zwölf" (note 3), p. 472, 477—479; K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), p. 47; à l'opposé, mais très rapidement, cf. G. Klein, Die zwölf Apostel, Ursprung und Gehalt einer Idee, Forsch. Rel. Lit. A. N. T., 77, 1961, p. 36. 12 L'intervention du Rédacteur est relevée par R. Bultmann, Geschichte (note 1), p. 370, spécialement pour le choix des Douze : p. 65, 366 ; pour les paraboles : p. 71 ; pour la mission : p. 357 ; pour la confession de Pierre: p. 275—276; mais non pour les quatre du discours eschatologique: p. 370; même pour la Cène : p. 285 ; pour Gethsémani : p. 288—289 ; M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 5 e éd., 1966, p. 226: la liste est antérieure, mais le récit de l'élection est du Réd.; p. 229: la question des Douze sur les paraboles; W. Marxsen, Evangelist (note 5), p. 39, n. 6,

164

A.-M. DENIS

ments antécédents, le récit de l'élection et celui de la mission, l'épisode du figuier desséché sur le chemin de Béthanie. C'est lui qui a inséré l'intervention des Douze dans le chapitre des paraboles, dans les annonces de la Passion, celle des quatre dans le préambule au discours eschatologique, la qualification de Judas, l'un des Douze, dans l'annonce, à la Cène, de la trahison. Traditionnelle cependant et antérieure à Marc est certainement la liste des Douze 13 , lors de leur élection, leur présence peut-être aussi à la Cène et, au moins à Gethsémani, l'indication que Judas est l'un d'eux. Il est certes possible et même probable de voir plus d'une fois dans ce groupe, les représentants de toute la communauté 1 4 , à laquelle s'adressent par exemple les instructions de Jésus, dans la section des annonces de la Passion. Mais sans aucun doute, l'évangéliste veut les mettre à part de l'ensemble des disciples lors de l'élection (3, 13—19) et de la mission (6, 7—13. 30), avec la multiplication qui la prolonge, et l'on peut y ajouter la dernière Cène qui lui est sans doute apparentée (14,13) 15 . De même, la Transfiguration, avec l'ordre de n'en parler qu'après la résurrection, la question du plus grand, posée directement aux Douze (9, 35), et celle des fils de Zébédée (10, 41), ne mettent pas en scène la communauté entière mais les seuls Douze ou tels d'entre eux, au sujet de leurs devoirs à l'égard de cette même communauté. Ils doivent donc bien s'en distinguer. Nous pouvons ainsi discerner au long de l'évangile de Marc, traversant toute la trame de son étoffe, tel élément continu de la chaîne constitué, entre les disciples, par les Douze. Cette volonté théologique de Marc est motivée, c'est vraisemblable, par des problèmes surgis dans son église, tels le rôle et la sphère de l'autorité 1 6 . Mais c'est avec des données de la tradition et dans le cadre de la vie de Jésus qu'il les résout, comme des réalités déjà expérimentées, et non sous forme de prophéties pour l'avenir. Inachevée au temps du Jésus terrestre, l'image des Douze et de leur tâche se complétera après la résurrection et progressivement jusqu'au temps où le Rédacteur compose, jusqu'au portrait que Marc propose à sa communauté.

13 14

15

16

pour le choix des Douze; W. Burgers, D e instelling (note 2), p. 638—652, pour le même passage; G. Strecker, Der Weg (note 1), p. 191—192, n. 6, de même il évoque un usage traditionnel de ôdiôexa; K . G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), pour le choix : p. 43; pour la mission: p. 51 ; pour les paraboles: p. 60; pour le plus grand: p. 140; pour les fils de Zébédée: p. 163. Cf. B. R i g a u x , D i e „Zwölf" (note 3), p. 474; e t a u s s i W . Burgers, D e instelling (note 2), p. 6 4 8 - 6 5 0 . Soulignent cette représentation de la communauté R. Bultmann, Geschichte (note 1), pour la confession de Pierre: p. 276; cf. aussi E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium (note 5), p. 161, 201; spécialement E. Trocmé, La formation de l'évangile selon Marc, Études d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses, 57,1963, p. 139—144; cf. aussi K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), p. 48—49, 111. Cf. E. Klostermann, Markusev. (note 1), in 6, 41, p. 63; M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte (note 12), p. 92; E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium (note 5), p. 130, 161, souligne la différence, mais p. 310, note, les rapproche (d'après le Suppl., il avait sans doute l'intention de modifier cette note); le même, Galiläa (note 1), p. 59, note 4: il n'est pas sûr de devoir limiter aux seuls Douze la Cène, les présents à Gethsémani, l'indication de Judas; s'oppose également au rapprochement J. Behm, art. x X d o j , dans Theol. Wort., I I I (1938), p. 728; et surtout G. H. Boobyer, The Eucharistie Interpretation of the Miracles of the Loaves in St. Mark's Gospel, dans The Journ. Theol. Stud., 1952, p. 161—171: il refuse toute allusion eucharistique dans le récit des deux miracles; K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), ne traite pas de ces passages. Sur les problèmes de la communauté motivant la rédaction de Me., cf. particulièrement K. G. Reploh, Markus-Lehrer (note 3), p. 4 8 - 5 0 , 5 7 - 5 8 , 1 4 7 - 1 4 8 , 1 6 9 - 1 7 0 , 2 2 8 - 2 3 1 .

The Parable of the Profitable Servant (Luke xvii. 7 - 1 0 ) J . DUNCAN M . DEBRETT, L o n d o n

This beautiful and amusing parable, with its climax, 'We are unprofitable servants', was in controversy at the Reformation and slept until 1971. 1 A better knowledge of eastern customs, and the Jewish law, with the rediscovery of Jewish sayings about the master-slave relationship, and, not least, of a Jewish parable on the same lines as ours, may make it possible not only to recover the meaning of the parable, clearing away false interpretations, but also to display the connection that St. Luke observed between all the passages from xvii. 5 to 19. Since the underlying themes have not been observed, more than one older commentator supposed that Luke took the parable from the bottom of his portfolio, and found no better place for it than this. 2 It is true that a number of gospel passages are associated with it, and it could have been placed elsewhere, e. g. after the parable of the pounds. However, the theme of the breaking-in of the messianic age links the material from v. 5 onwards until the explicit discussion of the coming of that age at vv. 20—37, all followed immediately by the great parable of waiting on the Lord, xviii. 1—8, which ends with the key word Ttiariç, with which our section virtually began. These stories, and the material to which they allude, tell us subject to what conditions the messianic age will ripen, or 'come'. The readiness of the individual is a precondition, especially in the case of the apostolate, in whom preparation for the parousia is bound to be an occupation and a preoccupation. In more senses than one it is a thankless waiting. 1

Cornelius à Lapide, Commentarius in quatuor Evangelia, ad loc. (in the edn. f r o m A n t w e r p , 1681, the comment occupies fourcolumns). Matthaeus Polus, Synopsis C r i t i c o r u m I V ( L o n d o n , 1669), 1061—2. Grotius thought the story was ironical, depicting the attitude of t h e scribes. P. Schantz, Comm. über d. Evangelium d. heil. Lucas (Tiibingen, 1883), 427—30 ; A. Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu 2 I I (Tiibingen, 1910), 11—23; A. B. Bruce, Expositor's Greek Testament I (London, 1910), 592 (see also his Parabolic Teaching, London, 1882, ch. 7); M.-J. Lagrange, Évangile selon Saint Luc (Paris, 1921), 453—9 (it appears incidentally t h a t Maldonatus had a correct appreciation of the parable, not accepted b y Lagrange); E. Riggenbach, E i n Beitrag zum Verständnis der Parabel vom arbeitenden Knecht, N.K.Z. 34 (1923), 439—43; A. Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart, 1931), 384—90; A. T. Cadoux, Parables of Jesus (London, N.D.), 219-24; W. Michaelis, Das hochzeitliche Kleid (Berlin, 1939), 1 3 9 - 4 9 ; W. Barclay, A n d Jesus Said (Edinburgh, 1956), 201—4; K . H . Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen, 1962), 197—9 (rightly takes Luke xvii. 1—10 together, a n d points t o 1 Cor. iii. 5ff.); W. Pesch, Dar Lohngedanke in der Lehre Jesu (Munich, 1955), 20—22; J . J e r e mias, Parables of Jesus (London, 1963), 193; W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach L u k a s (Berlin, 1964), 332—4. A. Weiser, Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien (München, 1971), 105-119; P. S. Minear, J . B. L. 93 (1974) 82; H.-J. Klauck, Allegorie u. Allegorese (Münster, 1978), 330. 2 Godet reported b y a writer at Expositor 8 (1878), 365—78. R . E . Roberts, The Message of t h e Parables (London, 1935), 136.

12

Studia Evangelica VII

166

J . DUNCAN M . DERRETT

The Meaning of the Parable The surface meaning Jews had slaves, though not on the scale of the Greeks and Romans. 3 Slavery was often a humanitarian alternative to being slaughtered in war, or dying from starvation. Debtors might serve a period to pay off their indebtedness, and parents sell their children as slaves to prevent the family from dying of want. The Jews combined great practicality with a strong sentiment, not to say sentimentality, which classes them with their Asian neighbours rather than with western peoples, to whom slaves were in principle human tools. 4 The typical slave, called 'Canaanite slave', was a foreigner, who lacked full membership of the religious community. It is significant that he did not have the right to marry and formed only unstable sexual attachments. There were relatively few slaves in the Land of Israel, but many people found a use for them. 48 Jewish slaves were apt to be burdensome, and they were less popular. Our parable speaks of the relationship of a single slave to his master. This does not exclude the possibility of the master's having more than one slave in similar circumstances. But a household might have only one slave. The picture is of a non-Jewish slave, who is de facto part of the environment, observing the dietary laws, the Sabbath, etc., but not entitled to all the consideration, to which a Jewish slave would be entitled. Now a slave does not work for a wage, and has no reward in the ordinary sense. His time belongs to his master. Like a draught animal, his efficiency depends on his maintenance, and it is in his master's interest to look after him. Through him the capital is fructified. A male slave would do heavy, typically agricultural work, and still be needed in the house in the evening. He would take a snack with him for the heat of the day, and would expect, on returning at sundown 5 , to wash, change his clothes, drink some water, and then wait on his master, 3

Maimonides, Slaves (Code, XII, trans. Klein, 1951, 281). M. Mielziner, Die Verhältnisse der Sklaven bei den alten Hebräern (Copenhagen, 1859 = Slavery amongst the ancient Hebrews in E. M. F. Mielziner, Moses Mielziner, 1828-1903, New York, 1931, 64-103); Z. Kahn, L'Esclavage selon la Bible et le Talmud (Paris, 1867) (in Rapport. . . Séminaire Israélite, 63—202) ; J. Winter, Die Stellung der Sklaven bei den Juden in rechtlicher und gesellschaftlicher Beziehung nach talmudischen Quellen (Breslau, 1886), esp. 33—66; M. Olitzki, Der jüdische Sklave nach Josephus und der Halacha, Mag. für d. Wiss. des Judenthums 16 (1889), 73—83; D. Farbstein, Das Recht der unfreien und der freien Arbeiter nach jüdisch-talmudischem Recht (Frankfurt/M., 1896); S. Rubin, Das talmudische Recht. I. Abt. Personenrecht. I. Buch. Die Sklaverei (Wien, 1920). S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie II (Leipzig, 1911), 101-2. (Strack-) Billerbeck, Komm, zum N. Test. IV (Munich, 1928), Exk. 26 (Das altjüdische Sklavenwesen). Jewish Encyclopedia XI, 405—6. J. H. Heinemann, 'The status of the labourer in Jewish Law . . H.U.C.A. 25 (1954), 263ff. 4 Aristotle. Rep. i. 4, 13; Eth. Nie. viii. 13; W. L. Westermann, The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia 1955; J. Schmidt, Vie et mort des esclaves dans la Rome antique (Paris. Michel, 1973). 4a Matt. xiii. 27—28. E E. Urbach, Papers of the Inst. Jew. Stud. (London), I (Jerusalem, 1964), 1-94. 5 Jülicher correctly notices that Gen. xxx. 16 illustrated the sensitive nature of that situation. Cf. 1 Sam. xi. 5, Jdg. xix. 16. Ps. civ. 23.

The Parable of the Profitable Servant

167

the latter's sons and guests, and, only when they had finished, to sit down in a corner and consume what the others had left. For servants to eat after their masters is universal in the East. Asian communities that worship idols offer each meal first to the idol, and afterwards consume what is considered its leavings. There is some Jewish learning on a waiter's status and expectations. 6 At Passover the waiter is one of the company, and though he waits on them technically eats with them ;7 or, in other words, at the festival where every Israelite is a priest, one of the company waits on the rest. But Passover is Passover. Normally the host and guests enjoy what is served, course after course; delicacies sometimes barely go round, and less interesting fragments are left for the waiters. Since the great rabbis were served by their pupils, the rumblings of servants' stomachs found echoes in the Talmud. There are particulars of more pious and less pious masters' practices. Elijah might communicate with those who used to give a morsel from each dish, as it came, to the waiter. 8 The Talmud has a discussion of what foods can be withheld from the waiter! 9 Great teachers said they remembered feeling faint when they were young, and their masters considerately popped some savoury bits in their mouths. 10 Putting pieces into the waiter's mouth was a kind of tipping, 11 as wa# wiping perfumed hands on the waiter's hair. Neither when a slave comes home from the field, nor during the dinner, does the master feel that he owes the slave thanks. What is meant by 'thanks'? The Greek, or Roman, psychology is not utterly different, though it was the exception for slaves to form part of the family there, whereas it was the rule in the Land of Israel. Reciprocity and solidarity formed a great part of everyday life. A, not having received a benefit from B, makes a gift to B : this is a kindness; in Latin beneficium, in Hebrew it is tovah.12 This places B under obligation, and this is expressed in forms indicating, in Hebrew or in Greek, the acknowledgement of that obligation.13 The unreciprocated obligation is a credit, and the Jews called 6

'eved can be used for 'waiter', but the normal word is samas (Mishnah, Pes. VII. 13 (Danby. 146); b. Pes. 86a = Soncino trans., 454). See b. Qidd. 22b = Sonc. 109. b. B. M. 60b = Sonc, 360. ? b. Ber. 45a = Sonc. 275-6 (Mishnah, Ber. VII. 1). 8 See next note. j. B. Q. VIII, 6c ( = j. Ket. V, 38a; Schwab, X, 1888, 64; VIII, 1886, 74). R. Johanan always gave meat and wine to his waiter, quoting Job xxxi. 15. Billerbeck, op. cit.,II, 235; IV/2, 729. And see Midr. R. Exod. X X X . 9 = Sonc. 356-7; also b. Ber. 45a = Sonc. 275-6 (Ber. VII. 1); 47b = Sonc. 286. Maim., Code, Hil. Avadim IX. 8 quoted in trans, by Chavel, The Commandments I (London, 1967), 247 (Ps. cxxiii. 2). 9 b. Ket. 61a = Sonc. 365-6. 10 b. Ket. 61a = Sonc. 365-6. 11 b. Hull. 107b = Sonc. 594—5 (he must have washed his hands even if he does not touch the perusdh with them). 12 See next note. Luke vi. 3 2 - 3 4 (cf. 35), Si xii. 1, xx. 16. 1 Pet. ii. 19-20. The thought-world: Luke xiv. 12—14. Ignatius to Polycarp ii. 1. Riggenbach, ubi cit., 441—2 is of interest. But rv) if we misuse them. Or, to quote a saying from a different context, More means worse. I n the f i f t h and final exhortation he returns to the point twice. First there is the example of Esau: he was rejected and found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears; therefore, let none of the readers be immoral or irreligious (1216f). Secondly, there is the comparison between the fathers at Mount Sinai, and the recipients a t Mount Zion, and once more the a fortiori argument is used: If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less 25 (•JIOXV fiaXXov) shall we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven (12 ). I t would not, I believe, be an exaggeration to say t h a t the whole of the argument in Hebrews is directed to this point: it will be worse for us than it was for them. The idea had been introduced in the first exhortation: How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? (23). God has done more for us: he has made a new and better covenant with us; but just as those who disobeyed under the first covenant were punished, so also, but even more, 6hall we. And it is interesting to notice how Clement who, as we have already mentioned, appears to know Hebrews, makes the same point: "Ye see, brethren, in proportion as greater knowledge hath been vouchsafed unto us, so much the more are we exposed to danger" (Tr. Lightfoot). agate, adefapoi, oam nXeiovog xaTrj^iaydrjfiev yvuaecog, xoaovxco fialXov vnoxsifis&a xivdvvw (I Clement 41. 4). II. I would now like to raise, more briefly, three questions which would follow if what has been said so far were agreed. 1. In his Lectures on Hebrews (1517—1518), Luther refers to the Novatians when he is commenting on Hebrews 6 6 and 1026; and similarly Calvin, in his commentary on Hebrews (1549), says t h a t the Latin Churches did not accept Hebrews until a late date because "They suspected t h a t it favoured Novatus in denying pardon to the fallen; but t h a t this was a groundless opinion will be shown by various passages". 2 I n his translation of the New Testament of 1522 Luther printed Hebrews, with James, J u d e and Revelation, at the end of the book; and in the preface to Hebrews he drew attention to the teaching there on repentance: "Again, there is a hard knot to untie in the fact that in chapters 6 [vss. 4—6] and 10 [vs. 26] it flatly denies and forbids sinners repentance after baptism, and in chapter 12 [vs. 17], it says t h a t Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul's Epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear t h a t I do not know whether t h a t would be sufficient. My opinion is t h a t it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way . . . " 3 2 3

Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews by John Calvin Tr. J. Owen (Edinburgh 1853) p. XXVI. See W. G. Kümmel, The New Testament, The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (E. T. London 1973) pp. 23f.

180

J. C. FENTON

We have tried to show in the first part of this paper that Hebrews does in fact "deal with . . . one subject in an orderly w a y " ; and that the necessary conclusion of the author's argument, as he understands his argument, is that there can be no repentance of sins committed after baptism. I f therefore, as Calvin says, the reason why Hebrews was at one time not accepted in the West was because it was thought to favour the Novatians, was not this in fact a proper understanding of the document ? 2. The impossibility of repentance and forgiveness after baptism is the necessary conclusion of the writer's argument — as he understands his argument. But is there not a flaw in the logic, which he does not seem to have noticed? His thesis is, God has done more for us than he did for the fathers; he punished them if they disobeyed him; therefore we stand in danger of even greater punishment if we sin. This argument depends on an assumption that is never examined in Hebrews, namely, that the motive of God in the making of the new covenant is irrelevant to the matter. I t could be that the reason why God provided better things for us was to show that he is merciful and loving; and if that were the case, then the conclusion that he would punish us more severely would not be valid. On the contrary, the appropriate conclusion would be the opposite to that which is drawn in Hebrews: God has done better things for us, therefore he will judge us more leniently. (More means better.) An example of the false logic of Hebrews would be a child who noticed that his weekly rate of pocket-money increased at each of his birthdays, together with periodic increments from time to time to offset inflation, and thus reached the conclusion that since the benefits he received from his father were annually greater, so his father must be feared ever more and more; if he was punished by being sent out of dinner at the age of five, how many meals would he be deprived of at the age of fifteen ? I t has often been pointed out that there is only one explicit reference to the love of God for men in Hebrews; that is in an Old Testament quotation, and what it says, moreover, is that The Lord disciplines him whom he loves and chastises every son whom he receives (Proverbs 312, quoted at 126). The hidden assumption in the argument in Hebrews is that God's actions are to be understood wholly in terms of retributive justice; Vengeance is mine, I will repay. And again, The Lord will judge his people (1030). This is why God is a consuming fire (1229), and why it is a fearful thing to fall into his hands (1031); with this we may contrast even the Old Testament itself: Let us fall into the hand of the Lord, for his mercy is great (2 Samuel 2414). The error in the logic of Hebrews reflects an error in its theology; and, we might add, an error in its psychology: to say, I f you do this you will be punished, is in many cases as good a way as any to encourage people to do it. 3. Finally, is not the relationship between the old covenant and the new misunderstood in Hebrews? The author attempts to present salvation in cultic terms: better sacrifice, better priest. He is proceeding on the assumption that the gospel is superior to the law on the terms which the law itself sets forth. But this is to misconceive the relation between the old and the new. The gospel criticizes the law, as well as fulfilling it. One may not begin with the law, and project from it

The Argument in Hebrews

181

what the gospel will be; one must start with the gospel. 4 H a d the author of Hebrews started with the gospel, he might not have drawn a conclusion which, as Luther said, "seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St. Paul's Epistles". The argument in Hebrews is perhaps an example of putting new wine into old skins: the old skin in this case is the sacrificial system; and the author demonstrates at least t h a t if you do this, the wine is destroyed, and so is the skin. 4

Cf. L. Houlden, "The Bible and the Faith" in: Catholic Anglicans Today, Ed. J. Wilkinson (London 1968) pp. 3ff.

13

Studia Evangelica VII

The Relationship of the Prophetic Quotations in Matthew ii in the Light of the Triennial Lectionary Cycle M. A. FRIGGENS, Saint Buryan

Following D. Daube's conclusion that "the Infancy Narrative of Matthew contains many allusions to the Passover Midrash" 1 , C. H. Cave has attempted to relate Mt. i & ii to the regular sabbath readings of Nisan, according to the Triennial Lectionary Cycle of the Old Synagogue. 2 However, only some of the readings to which he refers are read near Passover, and the attempt falls short of demonstrating a systematic relationship. Many have felt t h a t Mt. ii is "midrashic"; t h a t is, at least, to propose t h a t at some time in their history its elements have been worded and arranged with a systematic relationship to scripture. We may, then, seek the subject passage, the row of pegs on which — in the name of midrash — the story has been hung. Naturally, secondary passages and allusions may be introduced which are related liturgically, exegetically, or meditation ally to the subject of the midrash, and even tertiary passages related in turn to these. In the case of a lectionary complex underlying a midrash, the seder will be the subject, the haphtarah the secondary passage, and other passages drawn in by the haphtarah text will be tertiary. Because of the role of the lectionary, the relationship in this case will be liturgical, exegetical and meditational. The complex which I shall propose is, I believe, more economical than Cave's, and with its secondary connections covers more of the midrashic elements in Mt. ii. The secondary connections are witnessed in the Geniza Lectionaries, although the relationship is not therefore neccessarily lectionary in origin. An inspection of the haphtaroth, or prophetic lessons, in the Palestinian Triennial Lectionary Cycle preserved in the Cairo Geniza Fragments and indicated by the early jewish homilies 3 , reveals t h a t the three quotations in Mt. ii fall, in correct sequence, close to the haphtaroth for three out of five consecutive sabbaths in Year 1 of the cycle, and t h a t on the intervening sabbaths haphtaroth were read which have great relevance for the nativity story. The Torah readings on these sabbaths are installments of the Jacob saga, which becomes on this understanding the subject of the midrashic element in Mt. ii. Others have felt the influence of the Jacob theme here 4 , and also in the Lucan nativity narrative 5 arriving at their conclusions by different routes. 1

The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism p. 190, quoted Cave. St. Matthew's Infancy Narrative, N.T.8. 9, p. 382 f. 3 J. Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue, Ohio, 1940. 4 Myles M. Bourke, Cath. Bibl. Quart. 22, p. 172, has felt that the Jesus-Israel-Jacob theme dominates all but the first of the five episodes in Matthew's narrative, rather than the more commonly noticed Jesus-Moses theme. 5 M. D. Goulder and M. L. Sanderson, J.T.S. (N. S.) 8, 1957, Luke's Infancy Narratives. 2

13*

184

M . A . FRIGGENS

Using the subject and secondary passages witnessed by the lections for these five sabbaths, we shall also find points of departure for tertiary allusions which seem to find their way into the narrative (e. g. the exodus motif). Before proceeding, a word must be said about the length of the haphtarah. Few have followed the suggestion t h a t it was in early times confined to one verse 6 , and indeed mishnaic permission for the reader to skip passages in the haphtarah 7 points to longer lessons at t h a t period. More common has been a tendency to take too much notice of the precise limits of the lessons indicated in the Geniza Fragments. Insofar as these lectionaries often specify the passages to be skipped, it is clear t h a t they are more precise than lections of mishnaic times. I t is well to consider the Geniza Fragments as evidence of the end of a process of abbreviating and formalising the prophetic lesson. If they are to be used in connection with earliest practice, then they must be used as pointers to longer passages, perhaps two or three chapters 8 , out of which the reading was to be taken. We shall now turn to a consideration of the quotations. 1. Micah 5 . 2 + 2 Samuel 5.2 I n two Geniza Fragments 9 the haphtarah to Gen. 27.29 is given as Mi. 5.6—13 + 6.8 and Mi. 5.7—6.8. The beginning, even at this late date uncertain, can obviously be taken back a few verses to include 5.2 at an earlier period. This haphtarah is also indicated elsewhere, notably in the early Genesis Rabbah and Tanhuma. I t is worth noting t h a t the theme of lordship is brought out in T a n h u m a : P s . 86.10 is quoted as a tertiary passage, "Because Thou art great . . .", the antecedent to "Because" being, "All nations whom Thou hast made shall come and worship before Thee", and the exodus miracles are recounted. The same midrash uses the Psalm for the day 1 0 as a bridge to Is. 52.7 and comments on the coming of the Messiah "by the mountain road". I t is, of course, an open question whether such allusions reflect traditional approaches to a passage or homiletic conceits of individual teachers. The first part of this compound quotation at Mt. 2.6 is evidently intended to call to mind the unquoted phrase, "whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting". The tail part, the davidic phrase "be shepherd of my people Israel", 2 Sam. 5.2, is a natural tertiary allusion springing from the mention of Bethlehem, either directly, or indirectly by way of 1 Sam. 17.12, "David was the son of t h a t Ephrathite of Bethlehem J u d a h " . The inauguration of the davidic kingship while Saul yet ruled, in the unquoted part of 2 Sam. 5.2, "When Saul was king . . . the Lord said . . . thou shalt be prince over Israel" is parallelled in Herod's circumstances in Mt. 2. The terror of Herod and all Jerusalem is parallelled in the terror of Saul and all Israel in 1 Sam. 17.11, when they hear the words of Goliath seeking a champion for Israel. 6 E. g. N. H. Snaith, The Triennial Cycle and the Psalter, Z.NT.W., 7 Megillah 4.4. 8 See below on the Hosea quotation. 9 J. Mann, op. cit., p. 216. 10 Ibid. p. 220.

N.F. 10, (1933), p. 302.

Prophetic Quotations in Matthew ii

185

The theme of lordship in 2 Sam. 5.2 provides a farther justification for bringing this verse in, as it reflects the first verse of the seder, Gen. 27. 29, "Let the people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee, be thou lord over thy brethren".11 Consideration of this quotation from Micah and 2 Samuel leads to the conclusion that Matthew presents the Christchild as davidic king and gentile lord, in the steps of Jacob-Israel. 2. Hosea 11.1 The geniza haphtarah to Gen. 28.10 is Hos. 12.13f.; Mann 12 puts forward, on the basis of the homilies, Hos. 12.13—13.5+14.9—10. This suggests that the earlier fuller section was chapters 12—14, and some justification is required for extending this to include 11. Now, Mann outlines a variant seder at Gen. 27.30, witnessed by Genesis Rabbah and Tanhuma, and shows that it is expounded in terms of Hos. 11. Furthermore, at this point in the Annual Lectionary Cycle both Ashkenazim and Sephardim, though not agreeing in detail, traditionally read from Hos. 11 and 12, suggesting an ancient link with this part of Genesis which transcends even the differences between the Annual and Triennial Cycles, and is based indeed in the text itself. At this point in Genesis Rabbah the birth of Messiah is mentioned in passing. The homilies mention how Jacob fled because Esau attempted to murder him. If this is ancient traditional exegesis we have a link with Herod the Idumaean and Roman puppet, Esau being ancestor of the Edomites and Rome and Edom being early exegetical equivalents. The homilist tells that God comforted Jacob in this situation, "appearing to him in a dream", and quotes Ps. 91.12, "He shall give his angels charge over thee . . .". At this point the lectionary suggests rather a general suitable background to Matthew's narrative, than specific use (except of course the quotation itself). In the haphtarah: (11.1) the unquoted part of the verse, "when Israel was a child, then I loved him", (12.3) the reference to the birth of Jacob, (12.13) the reference to Moses and the Exodus (one of several points of departure for Passover allusions), (14.5) the promise of messianic prosperity, (13.14) the promise of a redeemer from death (recalling the tradition — e. g. Ignatius 12a — that the nativity was the point at which death began to be abolished). Points of contact with the underlying seder are again general: the theophany at Bethel and the promise "in thy seed" 13 , the angels ascending and descending, perhaps reflected in Luke's narrative, although their appearance "in a dream" brings them closer to Matthew's angelic messengers. Mann 14 says that Gen. 28.12 was the basis of several Aggadic speculations about Jacob's miraculous dream, in which case Matthew's miraculous dreams may arise from an issue traditionally connected with the underlying text. 11

This last phrase "lord over thy brethren" may have been the point of departure for a reference to Joseph's dream, perhaps underlying Rev. 12.1 and Ignatius, Ep. to the Ephesians 19.2, where the sun, moon and stars appear at the nativity. « Op. cit. p. 226. "a Op. cit. 19. 3. 13 C. f. the pauline exegesis of this phrase. « Op. cit. p. 235.

186

M. A. FRIGGENS

3. Jeremiah 31.15 Passing over two sabbaths, we come to the Jeremiah quotation. The Geniza lists give two haphtaroth for Gen. 31.3: Jer. 30.10-18 and Mi. 6.3-7.20. M a n n ^ gives reasons for discounting the Micah passage. Jer. 31.15 falls within the scope of a haphtarah of the length t h a t we have been considering, in its unabbreviated form. The quotation in Matthew is little more than illustrative, but the rest of the passage has many points of contact: (30.7) the salvation of Jacob, (v. 9) the raising up again of David as King, (v. 15) the rescue of Israel from her sins (c. f. Matthew's reason for the name 'Jesus'), (31.1) the restoration of theocracy, (v. 8) the return of the exiles, (v. 22) the possible relevance of the obscure passage, "The Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall compass a m a n " , (v. 31) the new covenant, (v. 34) individual aquaintance with God and individual forgiveness. I n the underlying seder an angel tells Jacob to return to the land of Israel, which he does after some hesitation which seems to be reflected by Joseph (Mt. 2. 22). Laban's duplicity with Jacob, elaborated in jewish tradition 1 6 , "Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly . . . I might have sent thee away with mirth and songs . . . " seems to find its echo in Herod's double dealing with the Magi and/or the Christchild. The relationship between Jacob and Laban may also be the source of Herod's slaughter of the Innocents, or at least of the form in which that event is recounted, insofar as the Passover Haggadah 1 7 might be recalled by the mention of Laban, especially t h a t part which tells how he sought to kill all the children of Jacob, who escaped into Egypt. 1 8 4. The intervening sabbaths On the two sabbaths which we have passed over there are also significant reference points linking up with the nativity story. (a) The Geniza Lists 1 9 indicate Is. 60.15—61. 3 as the haphtarah to Gen. 29.31. (Mann puts forward 1 Sam. 1.2 f. as an alternative because most of the Aggadists do not appear to use this one, which he assigns to a late period. One might equally suggest that the Isaiah passage fell out of favour early because of christian claims based on it, and t h a t the passage used by the Aggadists is a later alternative.) The general points of contact between Mt. 2 and Is. 60 are: (v. 1) the epiphany of the Glory of the Lord, "Arise, shine . . .", and the advent of the messianic kingdom with prosperity. A particular point is the coming of visitors (v. 6) bringing gold and frankincense to proclaim the praises of the Lord. If "he shall be called a Nazarene" is derived fromNeser, we have at v. 21 one of the four occurrences of this word, interpreted messianicly in the Targum 2 0 to Is. 11.1. 15

lb. p. 256. 1« C. H. Cave, op. cit. 17 D. Daube, op. cit. 18 Derived from a change of vowel in Deut. 26.5, reading 13K for 13K 19 J. Mann, op. cit., p. 237. 20 J. F. Stenning (ed.), The Targum of Isaiah, 1949, ad loc.

Prophetic Quotations in Matthew ii

187

The visitors from Sheba are to bring gold and frankincense and (according to the Septuagint) " T h e Precious Stone", t h u s a t least parallelling t h e three gifts of the Magi. " T h e Precious Stone" is one of the gifts of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon, a n d t h e stone of David's crown. I t is, however, difficult t o see t h e link between this stone (which Josephus calls onyx) a n d myrrh. The underlying seder is the account of t h e birth of t h e twelve sons of Jacob, (b) The other intervening sabbath has as its lections Gen. 30.22 for t h e seder, and 1 Sam. 1.11—22 as the haphtarah. Although there are matters of common interest with t h e nativity story, it is difficult to say t h a t there is anything specifically reflected in Matthew. There is however a great deal in this p a r t of 1 Samuel intentionally and specifically reflected in Luke's narrative: Samuel is the only true life-long nazirite of t h e Old Testament, J o h n is to be such a nazirite as this. The homilies dwell upon the seven barren women of scripture, a n d God as the ultimate opener of the womb. They stress the thanksgiving of Leah a t t h e birth of J u d a h , and tell how her seventh pregnancy was hidden f r o m men. We will of course compare this with the barrenness of Elizabeth, the divine intervention, the mother hiding herself, and t h e thanksgiving of t h e Magnificat with its heavy dependence on t h e song of H a n n a h . Points of contact with the underlying seder are: (Gen. 30.23) "God h a t h taken away my reproach" and the thanksgiving of Leah. There is conceivably a further connection between the shepherding activities of J a c o b and t h e shepherds who come in from t h e pastures around Bethlehem. If it is t r u e t h a t these pastures were temple pastures 2 1 , then presumably t h e y had a concern for unblemished animals and Jacob's manipulation of his father-in-laws sheep in t h e seder would be a good cue for introducing them. Conclusion The complex of scriptural passages supplied by the Geniza lectionary for these five sabbaths contributes on the one hand an eminently suitable general setting for the nativity story, and on the other hand a number of specific details, including t h e quotations, which suggest t h a t it was intentionally so employed. One would not a t t e m p t to suggest t h a t Mt. 2 was designed to be read over five sabbaths, nor even t h a t it constitutes in itself a christian midrash on this complex of passages. B u t one might tentatively p u t forward t h e view t h a t Matthew a n d Luke have both drawn upon christian midrashic material which was based on this complex, a n d which did perhaps span a particular part of the year. I t is not neccessary to posit the existence of t h e haphtaroth of t h e Geniza Fragments in a fixed lectionary in t h e first century, a n d indeed criticisms of such a view must be given due weight. 22 However there is not t h e same objection to suggesting t h a t t h e Law was read triennially a t this time, or to suggesting t h a t the h a p h t a r o t h of the Geniza Fragments were selected when t h e lectionary was fixed from passages already homiletically or meditationally connected with t h e sederim. 21 22

Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i, pp. 186, 187. E. g. L. Morris, The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries, Tyndale Press, gives sufficient grounds for caution in his polemic against lectionary approaches to the New Testament.

M. A . FRIGGENS

If one takes such a view, then it is notable that the passages we have considered would have been read during the month Elul, in- the period of the Consolation Sabbaths, when men like Simeon "waited for the consolation of Israel", a time of the year described felicitously by H. St. John Thackeray in another context 2 3 as the Advent season of the jewish year. It is at the beginning of this period that J. van Goudoever 24 places the Lucan nativity, while A. Guilding places it at the end. 25 Even without the lectionary element this complex of passages surrounding the Jacob saga, which finds its way into the lectionary, deserves investigation as the subject of the midrashic material in Mt. 2. 23

The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, p. 83. Biblical Calenders, Leiden, 1961, p. 274. 25 The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship, p. 103.

New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority R . H . FULLER, Alexandria, Virginia

The term trajectory was introduced into NT scholarship by J . M. Robinson and Helmut Koester in their collection of essays published in the U.S.A. under the title, Trajectories through Early Christianity A Since this book has not been published in Britain, it seems appropriate to spend some time indicating what is meant by "trajectories". The Robinson-Koester volume was also published in Germany and the title of the German edition rendered "Trajectories" as Entwicklungslinien, lines of development. This German rendition explains in part what is meant by trajectories, but the latter word, in addition to its contemporary flavour, is far more suggestive than "lines of development". I t is true t h a t the word trajectory might suggest predetermined lines of development, but the two writers are aware of this and deny any such intended suggestion in their use of it: "The term trajectory may suggest too much determinative control at the initial point of departure, the angle at which the movement was launched, the torque of the initial thrust." The term is not used in such a way as to suggest t h a t the course of early Christian thought followed some theological or philosophically predetermined scheme, whether of predestination, apocalyptic denouement, Hegelian dialectical process, prophecy fulfillment pattern or the like. Rather, it is meant to suggest t h a t the future is open to all possibilities of development. What then are the advantages of the term ? I t suggests t h a t the course of the history of N T thought is subject to conflicting fields of gravity, pulling it first this way, then that. I t suggests that under these circumstances action may be taken to redirect t h a t course, reversing it, twisting it or modifying its speed. To keep up the metaphor, auxiliary guidance systems or retro-rockets can be employed. 2 Another possibility which has been opened up by the application of the trajectory principle to the history of early Christian thought is the possibility of bifurcation. A given trajectory may take two different courses, one leading to what later became orthodoxy and one (there could of course be more than one deviation) in the direction of what later came to be stigmatized by the Great Church as heresy. At this point the two authors acknowledged their dependence on W. Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,3 1

2 3

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. The SCM Press were offered the British rights on this book, but turned them down on the grounds that it did not appear "all that interesting" (Letter of the editor, J. Bowden, to R. H. Fuller, dated 29th January 1973). He promised t o reconsider publication if the rights were still free. Op. cit., p. 14. E T of Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum ( 2 1964).

190

R. H.

FULLER

We have spoken of conflicting gravitational pulls, and this point needs further explication. Previous study of the beginnings of Christianity usually assigned study of the Umwelt or environment of earliest Christianity to NT Introduction. Once one had defined the various environmental factors — whether Rabbinic Judaism, sectarian Judaism, the Mystery Religions or gnosticism, these factors were conceived as static entities. But they are seen by Koester and Robinson as themselves passing through a trajectory of their own, which influenced the various Christian trajectories in different ways at different stages. The Christian trajectories must therefore always be studied in relation to the extra-Christian trajectories. We cannot treat non-Christian religious or cultural phenomena as static entities providing a fixed background for the development of early Christian thought. I t should be clear from the foregoing t h a t despite the German rendering Entwicklungslinien, trajectories should not be thought of as straight line developments, of the kind Newman posed in his classic essay. The Christian trajectories are subject to all the vicissitudes which are inescapable to the human situation of historicity. The rest of the Robinson-Koester book is devoted to a study of a number of specific trajectories, some traced from one document to another, some from one generation to another. They involve both concepts — e. g., christological images, — and different kinds of literary forms — called variously by the French term genre or the German Gattung. The first study 4 takes up the modern categories of kerygma and history in the N T and shows t h a t these are not static categories, but refer to trajectories which are constantly on the move. Under the term kerygma it examines how t h e prePauline kerygmatic formulae became in Hellenistic Christianity a vehicle for an incipient gnostic understanding of Christian existence (1 Corinthians) and had to be corrected by Paul with a renewed emphasis upon the aravgéç, the cross of Christ, and upon the "not y e t " of Paul's distinctive apocalyptic stance. The partial abandonment of this stance in the deutero-Pauline literature (Ephesians, Colossians) is then traced. On the side of history, the development of the interpretation of the historical Jesus as a #etoç âvrjQ is studied, with particular reference to the correction of this Christology in Mark, Paul and J o h n . Chapter three 5 traces the trajectory of the logia-Gattung — collections of Jesus' sayings. Starting with px-e-Marcan collections, such as the source of the parable chapter (Mark 4) and the Q material, the fate of this Gattung is traced through its bifurcation into Matthew-Luke on the one hand, where it is combined with Mark and so integrated into the kerygma of the passion, and on the other hand into gnostic or semi-gnostic collections such as the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas, where the logia-Gattung is used to present the earthly Jesus as the purveyor of a gnostic type heavenly wisdom. Chapter four 6 need not concern us as it is devoted to tracing the various types of Christianity in different local centres past the NT period, but chapter five is perhaps the most important chapter in the 4 5 6

J. M. Robinson, "Kerygma and History in the New Testament" in op. cit., pp. 20—70. J. M. Robinson, "Logoi Sophon: On the Gattung of Q", op. cit., 71-113. H. Koester, "Gnomai Diaphorai: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity", op. cit., 114—157.

New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

191

book and very germane to our purpose, viz., an enquiry into the implications of the trajectory approach for the authority of t h e N T in the Christian church today. This chapter examines four different Gattungen in which the Jesus tradition crystallized: kerygmatic formulae, sayings collections, aretalogies or collections of miracle stories and revelation discourses. 7 Again, t h e bifurcation of these Gattungen is stressed: on the one hand, when taken up by leading N T writers they are secured for what later developed into Christian orthodoxy. On t h e other hand, each of these Gattungen, allowed to drift off uncorrected on a course of its own, later becomes the potential vehicle for heretical presentations of Christianity. Chapter six 8 deals with the various kerygmatic Christologies in t h e N T : Jesus as the apocalyptic Lord of the future, Jesus as Divine Man, Jesus as wisdom. Chapter seven 9 studies the history of t h e Johannine tradition from the earliest units of Jesus material through the written miracle collection, then the evangelist's use of this material as a launching pad for his revelatory discourses, a n d finally the Johannine redactor's corrections of the evangelist, whose own corrections of t h e aretalogy with discourse material opened up the danger of f u r t h e r development in a gnostic direction (John's gospel as a case almost of " o u t of the frying pan into t h e fire!") The trajectory method as propounded by Robinson a n d Koester has provided a framework in which many other streams of Christian thought are being interpreted. Doctoral students are discovering further trajectories, professors are hitting upon new ones in their lectures. I n particular I would like to report on one use of the trajectory pattern in ecumenical dialogue. During the years 1971— 1973 a task force of N T scholars, R o m a n Catholic and Lutheran, an offshoot of the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue in the U.S.A., has been studying the role of Peter in the New Testament. Two outsiders were co-opted, one Reformed and one Anglican, the latter of which I was privileged to be. We abandoned the simplistic use of M a t t . 16 : 17—19 as conclusive evidence pro or con for the papacy, and concentrated instead on how Peter was understood in the early Christian communities. We were interested less in the historical Simon and more in the ecclesiastical Cephas. E a c h relevant N T document was examined with all modern critical methods, including form-, tradition- and redaction criticism. We assumed critical positions for the epistles and Acts, distinguishing the Pauline homologoumena and antilegomena, treating Acts as a product of the sub-apostolic age and, more important, as an expression of Lucan theology rather t h a n as a history of the earliest community, and the church's epistles as pseudonymous writing of the sub-apostolic age. Peter appeared to be quite central in early Christian thought. 1 0 We found ourselves reconstructing a trajectory of the images of Peter. I n the period of the early Christian mission Peter was portrayed as the great Christian fisherman (Mk 1 : 14-20; L k 5 : 1 - 1 1 ; J n 21 : 1 - 1 4 ) . I n the more settled situation of the 7

H. Koester, "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels", op. cit., 158—204. H. Koester. "The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs", op. cit. 205—231. 9 J. M. Robinson, "The Johannine Trajectory", op. cit. 232-268. 10 Peter in the New Testament, by R. E. Brown et al., New York: Paulist Press and Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1973. 8

192

R . H . FULLER

subapostolic age Peter is seen preeminently as the shepherd or pastor of the sheep (Jn 21 : 15—19; 1 Pet 5 : 1—4). I n close connection with the image of the shepherd emerges the theme of Peter as the paradigm of martyrdom (Jn 13 : 7—8 following J n 10: 11, J n 21: 18—19; 1 Pet 5 : 1). Another part of the trajectory which became clear was t h a t of Peter as the recipient of special revelation, originating no doubt from the tradition t h a t he was the first to see the risen One (Mk 9 : 2 f f ; 2 Pet 1 : 16—18; cf. also the revelatory experiences of Peter in Acts 5 : I f f . ; Acts 12 : 7—9). Directly related to this is the further picture of Peter as the confessor of the true Christian faith (Mt 1 6 : 1 6 - 1 7 ; J n 6 : 66-68). Out of this springs the final development in the N T trajectory of Peter, Peter as the guardian of faith against false teaching (2 Pet 1 : 20—21; 3 : 15—16). But all through the trajectory there is the picture of Peter as a weak and sinful human being. Permit me to quote our conclusion, for it is germane to our theme: Thus in early Christian thought, as attested by the New Testament, there is a plurality of images associated with Peter: missionary, fisherman, pastoral shepherd, martyr, recipient of special revelation, confessor of the true faith, magisterial protector and repentant sinner. When a trajectory of these images is traced, we find indications of development from earlier to later images.

We recognized t h a t other trajectories can be traced in the NT, the trajectory of the Twelve or of Paul for instance. But the Petrine trajectory eventually outdistanced the other apostolic trajectories. Thus in 2 Peter Peter is invoked to correct the development of a Pauline trajectory in a gnostic direction. From this we went on to point out — and here is one of the distinctive advantages of the trajectory concept — t h a t the trajectory does not end with the N T (the same awareness was shown in the Robinson-Koester volume, where the continuation of NT trajectories into post NT orthodoxy and heresy was constantly recorded). This is what we say: Precisely because we have discovered the importance of the trajectory travelled by Peter's image, a trajectory that even in the New Testament is not coterminous with his historical career, this does not necessarily settle the question of Peter's importance for the subsequent church. The ecumenical discussion must involve not only the historical figure, but also the continuing trajectory of his image in the New Testament and beyond. To what extent is such a trajectory determined by the historical figure? To what extent is it determined by the accidents of history itself? [Here a footnote adds: Obviously there is another related question: To what extent has the later trajectory of Peter's image influenced the various Christian interpretations of Peter's roles in the New Testament? In short, the question of the effect of theological retrojection upon exegesis.] And whatever way we answer these questions, how does God's providence and His will for His church enter into the trajectory?

I quote this passage at length because it asks some of the systematic questions raised by the trajectory method, questions with which the remainder of this paper will be concerned. On the one hand there are clear gains for theology and exegesis from the trajectory approach. First it has reinforced the effect of form criticism in loosening up the older rigid distinction between scripture and tradition. Form criticism had shown t h a t the gospels were themselves the depository of tradition, while the work of A. Seeberg, E. Meyer and later of P. Carrington and E. G. Selwyn showed that this was also true of the epistles, which likewise enshrine many traditional formulae, kerygmatic, credal, liturgical and catechetical. The trajectory method has dealt another blow to this rigid distinction

New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

193

between scripture and tradition, for the NT is now seen as evidence for movements of thought which continue on their way into the period after the Canon. The NT writings break off when the trajectories are still in mid-course. For instance, we do not find the papacy in the Petrine texts, but we do find a trajectory which, for good or ill, was destined to produce one particular climax in the decrees of Vatican I. Scripture is now rightly seen as part of the on-going tradition of Christian faith and life. The trajectory method has likewise reinforced the pluralistic view of the NT. C. H. Dodd sought to discover a single kerygma which underlay all the writings of the NT. 11 But he achieved this by combining in an artificial synthesis a number of different kerygmatic formulae. E. Kásemann has shown that the NT exhibits rather a plurality of kerygmata, 12 thus leading to a search for a canon behind the canon. 13 The trajectory method has reinforced this awareness of the pluralism, and indeed extended it. It is no longer simply a matter of a plurality of kerygmata existing side by side, so that the question is merely, which kerygma? The kerygmata themselves are now seen to be involved in a process of change and development, so that the question now becomes, Which kerygma at what stage of its development, at what point in its trajectory? The NT is not a single static document, universally applicable as a norm of proclamation and doctrine, but a record of many different trajectories at many different stages of development. How then is it possible to apply such a canon as a norm ? If there is no such thing as orthodoxy in the NT, and if orthodoxy, as Koester and Robinson following W. Bauer assert, emerged later, what is the point of looking for an orthodox norm so early as the NT documents? Is not the only solution to follow the method of J. Wren-Lewis as cited by John A. T.Robinson: 138 "All we cansayis 'I believe in the values of the Roman Catholic Church,' or 'the Evangelical Christian tradition,' or 'British Public School Christianity'". Or, to put it in another way, should we not follow B. H. Streeter's verdict on the relative justification of different forms of church polity with the Alice in Wonderland, verdict that "Everyone has won, and all shall have prizes."13b The trajectory method, helpful as it is for the understanding of the historical processes of the development of early Christian thought, seems to reduce all Christian truth to a pluralistic relativism. Added to this is the further problem of hermeneutics, so well illustrated in Robinson-Koester, the problem that by repeating the same thing in a changed situation you end up by saying precisely the opposite. A statement which is orthodox in one situation can be heretical in another. Nowhere is this more clearly shown than by the difference between the line taken by Paul in First Corinthians, and that which he takes in Second. Against the local gnosticizers 14 11

C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (London: Hodder & Stoughton, UOSG). See the summary on p. 17 of the 1949 ed. E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (London: SCM 1964) speaks of the "variability of the primitive Christian kerygma" (op. cit., 100, cf. 103). 13 Käsemann, op. cit., 57f., who finds the canon within the canon in the NT message of the justification of the sinner. 138 John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (London: SCM, 1973), 30. 13b B. H. Streeter, The Primitive Church (London: Macmillan, 1930), viii. 14 1 Cor. 12 : 3 has bsen interpreted in many different ways. The interpretation given in the 12

194

R. H.

FULLER

in Corinth Paul insists t h a t one must hold at all costs to the sarkic Jesus. No one can say 'Irjaoiává§e/j,a ("To hell with the historical Jesus", 1 Cor 12:3) if he speaks through the Holy Spirit. The Christian gnostics regarded the historic life of Jesus as a temporary episode in the on-going revelation of wisdom. What mattered now was t h a t as the risen One he communicates still, as he did on earth, the heavenly wisdom to the initiated. I n 2 Corinthians, on the other hand, Paul is confronted with a very different situation. Wandering preachers claimed themselves to be fteioi ÜVÓQEQ in direct continuity with the historical Jesus (thus they preached "another Jesus", 2 Cor 11:4). Against this Paul has to repudiate any adherence to Christos known xará oaqxa (2 Cor. 5:16), and insists on knowing XQIOTOQ %axa nvsvfia, the very thing he rejected so strongly in 1 Corinthians. So even if we could locate one Archimedian point in the total N T witness and make t h a t the permanent criterion for Christian proclamation, faith and life, t h a t would be of no avail. For t h a t point, reasserted in a new situation, could have precisely the opposite effect. Now Helmut Koester is not oblivious of this need for a criterion or norm by which to assess the various kerygmata of the NT, and the church's continuing proclamation today. He first cites Ernst Kásemann's question 1 5 "Does the New Testament kerygma count the historical Jesus among the criteria of its own validity?" and goes on to make the following proposal: Accordingly we are confronted not with the quest for a new image of Jesus to be used as the norm for true belief, but with the question, whether and in which [sic: a Germanism] way that which has happened historically, i. e., in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth, is present in each given case as the criterion — not necessarily the content — of Christian proclamation and theology. Only in this way can our inquiry arrive at an evaluation of the orthodox and heretical tendencies of each new historical situation — certainly not in order to open a new heresy trial over the early Christian literature, but in order to recognize in which [again sic] way the criterion for true Christian faith, consciously or unconsciously, structured the reinterpretation of the religious traditions and presuppositions upon which Christianity was dependent.

This is a highly important statement, and calls for detailed comment. First, we note t h a t it appears to take a somewhat different line from Robinson, who, as we have seen, questioned whether the term trajectory might suggest too much determinative control at the initial point of departure. 1 6 But perhaps the two statements might be reconciled if the modifier "determinative" is stressed in Robinson's statement. I t is obviously not a case of automatic, inevitable determination, but of a criterion which has to be fought for and applied delicately in each successive situation, as the example of Paul in First and Second Corinthians shows. A second point to be observed is that Koester is taking up one particular side in the so-called new quest of the historical Jesus, viz., the side of the new questers against the kerygmatists. 17 I n my review of Robinson's book, A New

15

17

text was first proposed by W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1971), 126. It is followed by J. M. Robinson, op. cit., 22. H. Koester, op. cit., 160 and n. 7. Op. cit., 14. For the distinction between the "new questers" and the "kerygmatists" see R. H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study (New York: Scribner's, 1961) 25—52. The "new questers", notably Fuchs, Ebeling, Braun and J. M. Robinson himself, regard the historical Jesus as an

New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

195

Quest of the Historical Jesus, I opted firmly for the position of the kerygmatists against the of the new questers. 18 In other words, I opted for the kerygma of the post-Easter church rather than for the historical Jesus as the norm of Christian proclamation and faith. The reason for this was t h a t in my view the historical Jesus was made out of date by Easter, since the eschatological purpose of God had advanced further by Easter itself. Today I would not speak of the historical Jesus' being made out of date, for t h a t has since been exposed as precisely the position of the Corinthian gnostics. But I still think t h a t Easter must be taken up into the norm, or, if you will, the norm of the historical Jesus must be the historical Jesus as seen through the perspective of Easter faith. Koester's norm, if it stood by itself without qualification might lead, contrary I am sure to his intention, to an acceptance of the legitimacy of the a'AAoc 'Irjoovg of the wandering preachers in Second Corinthians. After all, the historical Jesus did perform exorcisms! Yet a one-sided preference for the kerygma is equally fraught with danger, as First Corinthians shows. The Corinthian gnosticizers accepted the exalted Lord as the continuing purveyer of wisdom, but relegated the historical Jesus to the archives. Moreover, as we have already seen, modern scholarship has demonstrated the plurality of the kerygmata and t h a t inevitably raises the question, which kerygma? If we are to find the answer to our search for an Archimedian point, it would be well to take another look at the way in which the Jesus traditions were finally absorbed into the documents of the New Testament. We begin with the Pauline homologoumena, Mark, Matthew-Luke, and John. Luke-Acts, the deutero-Pauline literature and the other later NT writings pose special problems which require separate treatment. Paul, as J . M. Robinson has shown, has taken up the wisdom Christology of the Corinthians, akin, he thinks, to the Christology of t h e Q tradition, and has corrected it with the insistence that the focal point of the wisdom Christology manifested in Jesus is not to be found in the sayings of Jesus per se, but in his death upon the cross which the sayings interpret. This event inaugurates a salvific process which will not be completed until the parousia (1 Cor. 1—4; 15). The corrective principle which Paul applies to Corinthian wisdom-gnosis is the kerygma of the cross, prefaced by the wisdom material in the earthly Jesus tradition, and followed by the proclamation of his resurrection seen in the context of the still outstanding parousia. His corrective principle is thus not the bare fact of the cross, but the cross set in a context of before and after. Paul's procedure is a carefully nuanced one and it would be easy, as it was easy for the Valentinians in the second century 1 9 , to isolate one aspect of it — in their case the alternative focus for Christian faith in lieu of the kerygma, and the kerygma as a vehicle for repristinating the historical Jesus. The "kerygmatists" (Kasemann, Conzelmann, Bornkamm, Hahn) regard the new quest as a legitimate enterprise for establishing the continuity between Jesus and the kerygma, but continue to maintain that the kerygma is the focus of Christian faith. is A T R 41 (1959), 232-235. 19 Elaine H. Pagels has assembled examples of Valentinian exegesis of Paul in The Gnostic Paul. Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). Cf. her similar study of gnostic exegesis of John, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis (SBL Monograph 17), (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1973).

196

R. H. FULLEK

wisdom aspect of the kerygma — and to interpret Paul in a completely gnostic sense. One can easily understand how they managed this by reading 1 Corinthians 2 : 6—16 out of context with the rest of the epistle with the latter's insistence on the centrality of the cross and the apocalyptic "not yet". What matters is the corrective principle that Paul applies. The same is true, though almost in the opposite direction, of Second Corinthians. Here, as Georgi has shown, an aretalogical Jesus tradition has been corrected by a cross-centred kerygma. I t is not in the aretalogical tradition that shines through Second Corinthians, but in the corrective principle applied, that the nub of the Pauline message is to be found. Similarly the heart of the Marcan message is to be found in the corrective which he applied to his aretalogical sources.20 This he achieved by using the aretalogies as a preface for a passion narrative by the device of the messianic secret, and by the body of teaching enshrined in the section 8 : 27—10: 45.21 In this way, the pre-Marcan miracle stories become préfigurations (to use Austin Farrer's term) of the ultimate messianic miracle which is the cross. John, too, follows an analogous procedure, though in his own way. He utilizes a more highly aretalogical tradition22 than Mark had, uses it as a launching pad for revelation discourses and dialogues and, like Mark23 makes this composite material a prelude to the passion narrative. The passion is thus interpreted as the ultimate manifestation of the divine glory prefigured in the words and works of the historical Jesus. But just as Paul had laid himself open to a gnostic (Valentinian) interpretation in 1 Corinthians 2 : 6—16, so John exposed himself to misinterpretation by some of his unguarded statements about Christology24 and the degree of realization in Jesus' offer of eternal life through his word. Therefore his work probably had to be corrected again by a redactor from within the Johannine school25. As we have already noted, the Johannine trajectory received a correction from the evangelist which Avent a little too far in the other direction, and had itself to be corrected with a renewed emphasis on the "not yet" and on the flesh and blood as well as the bread from heaven. I t would seem that we are now in principle able to find what we are looking For Mark's aretalogical sources cf. P. Achtemeier "Toward the Isolation of Pre-Marcan Catenae", J B L 89 (1970), 265—291; and idem, " T h e Origin and Function of the pre-Marcan Catenae", J B L 91 (1972), 198-221. For the Marcan corrective cf. T. J. Weeden, Mark-Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) and N. Perrin in H. Betz (ed.) Christology, A Modern Pilgrimage, 1—78. One may agree that Mark has provided a corrective to a theios aner Christology without accepting these authors' particular views about Mark's treatment of the disciples. 21 See Perrin's structural analysis of Mark in his essay cited above, n. 20. 22 For John's aretalogical source see R . Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971); W . Wilckens, Zeichen und Werke (Zürich: Zwingli Verlag, 1969); J. Becker "Wunder und Christologie", N T S 16 (1970), 130-148; R . T . Fortna, "Source and Redaction in the Fourth Gospel's Portrayal of Jesus' Signs", J B L 89 (1970), 151-166. 23 I find unconvincing R . T. Fortna's thesis that John's narrative source was a gospel in which the passion narrative was already prefixed with miracles. See R . T. Fortna, The Signs Gospel (London: Cambridge University, 1970). 24 Jesus appears in John 6 as the Bread from Heaven, a Christology susceptible of a gnostic interpretation with Jesus as the bearer of heavenly gnosis. The redactor sought to avert this peril by the addition of John 6: 51—58. 25 Thus R . E. Brown's modification of Bultmann's ecclesiastical redactor hypothesis. See R . E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (Garden City, N . Y . : Doubleday, 1966), xxxix. 20

N e w Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

197

for. The Archimedian point, the basic norm for Christian proclamation, a faith and life, is to be found not in the NT writings as such, but in the correctives they apply to the ongoing Christian trajectories. This correction in each instance involves the earthly Jesus who was crucified, and whose redemptive deed in the crucifixion is perpetuated in the exaltation and consummated in the parousia. The corrective seems to be the one stable element, though applied differently in each specific instance since something different has to be corrected. The N T provides us therefore not only with the initial impulse of Christian trajectories, but also with the corrective principles which have constantly to be applied anew as Christian thought develops. But what of the double work of Luke, and the post-Pauline epistolary literature? Do these exhibit the same corrective principles? Luke-Acts appears to contain far too much uncorrected aretalogical material. Take for instance Luke's treatment of Jesus at prayer. Whereas Mark and special source of Luke present Jesus' prayer as arising out of crisis situations, it is characteristic of Luke's redaction that Jesus prays in order to replenish his dvva/xig of which he had been drained in the performance of his miracles. Acts is even more strongly aretalogical. On listening to the N E B version of Paul's contest with the ftayog Elymas in Acts 13:4—12 a little while ago I was shocked how Paul was represented simply as a competing /udyog who happened to be more successful, and I wondered what the historical Paul of 2 Corinthians 10—13 would have made of it. Luke-Acts contains much raw, uncorrected §eiog avrjQ material as embarrassing to the contemporary NT scholar as it is to the educated layman. Can it be part of the norm ? Are we to say that Luke is to be accepted not for his redaction, as was the case with the other main NT writings, but only for some of the traditions he preserves (the Q material safely embedded as in Matthew, in the Marcan gospel form and the early kerygmatic material in the speeches of Acts?) Fortunately there is another side to Luke, and this is his setting of the Christ event and the ongoing life of the Christian community in a framework of salvation history. I know that this has been castigated by the Bultmann school as an early-catholicizing of the Pauline-Marcan eschatological message, but it should be understood as precisely a correction of a gnosticizing trajectory in the sub-apostolic age. 26 In this framework the embarrassing aretalogical materials are, I suggest, neutralized and rendered innocuous, for they are made subservient to the purpose of God in salvation history. Within this framework, too, the cross has its place, despite the recent castigation of Luke for this lack of a theology of the cross. For the cross is comprehended under the apocalyptic del21, a divine necessity in the working out of God's purpose in Heilsgeschichte. This lacks the profundity, no doubt, of the soteriological interpretations of the cross in the pre-Pauline formulae and in the Pauline theology of justification. But it cannot be said that Luke-Acts lacks a theologia cruris altogether. If the longer text of the supper narrative is accepted in accordance with current trends (Lk 22: 19 b—20) then Luke even has a VTIEQ theology of the atonement. 26

27

14

For an antignostic Sitz im Leben for Luke-Acts see C. H. Talbert, Luke and the Gnostics (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966). E. Fascher, "Theologische Beobachtungen zu del" in W. Eltester (ed.), Neutestamentliche Studien fur R. Bultmann (Berlin: Topelmann, 1954), 2 2 8 - 2 5 4 . Studia Evangelica VII

198

R . H . FULLER

Finally there are the deutero-Pauline writings and the other post-Pauline epistolary literature. Can these be regarded as part of the norm ? Or are these writings representative of uncorrected trajectories? In the main and in various degrees, Colossians, Ephesians, the Pastorals, Hebrews and 1 Peter preserve the Pauline heritage in the sub-apostolic age and adjust it to new conditions. Thus they may be accepted with little question as a legitimate continuation of the Pauline trajectory. Similarly, the Johannine epistles may be regarded as a continuation of the Johannine trajectory, probably along the lines set by the redactor of the fourth gospel (1 John may even have been the redactor's work). The real problem concerns the legitimacy of early Catholicism as such, elements of which are found to be present in varying degrees in most of the post-Pauline writings, and in its most virulent form in 2 Peter. Is the early catholic trajectory a mis-directed one ? I t could be argued that the early catholic developments — an institutionalized ministry, creed, liturgy, catechesis, developing magisterium, etc., were not only necessary in that age in order to preserve the earlier NT trajectories on course, but provide a permanently valid paradigm for their preservation today. And by preserving the Pauline homologoumena and the gospels the early catholic writings of the NT preserved also their own corrective. We are now, I think, in the position to answer some of the questions which this paper posed at the outset. Given the pluralism of the NT; given the fact that early Christian thought is constantly on the move; given, too, the fact that no position can be definitive because of the basic hermeneutical problem that a position asserted in one situation can mean something very different, perhaps even the precise opposite of its original meaning when repeated in a new situation; given in short all the problems about the authority of the NT which arise from the concept of trajectories; in what sense can the NT be normative for the proclamation, faith and life of the Christian community today? The answer lies, I suggest, in the directionality given to the trajectories by the great NT writers, Paul, Mark, John and the other NT writings consonant therewith. Broadly speaking the NT provides direction for its trajectories, a directionality which is applied by the main NT writers to trajectories when they are threatening to deviate from the course initiated by the Christ event. The question that always has to be asked of contemporary Christian proclamation, faith and life is not whether they correctly reproduce NT Christianity, or even one particular phase of NT Christianity, such as Paul, Mark or John, but rather, do they maintain that course, that directionality, in the totally different historical situation today ? Finally, we may now approach that question asked by the task force on Peter, namely, whether God's providence and his will for his church enter into the trajectory. Robinson and Koester were right when they eschewed the suggestion that a positive answer to this question should be assumed as an a priori to their enterprise in tracing early Christian trajectories. Such an answer can only come as a confession of faith at the end of an analysis, never as its presupposition. But for all their pluralism and variety we have found a remarkable consistency of direction between the principal writers of the NT. I am not even sure whether Bauer was entirely right in defining orthodoxy as a type of Christianity which finally emerged only in the second century out of the pluralistic possibilities of the first century-and-a-half in the history of Christian thought. If we view orthodoxy

New Testament Trajectories and Biblical Authority

199

not as a static datum, but as a direction, then we may see an orthodox direction present in a trajectory which runs from the Christ event through the earliest kerygma, t h e three main N T authors, the apologists, the church fathers (some of them, no doubt, not all) and the Reformation confessions. The discovery of early Christian trajectories should increase our confidence in the processes by which the canon of the N T finally came into being. I n this corpus the dominant place is occupied by the Pauline homologoumena and the four gospels — precisely those writings where (with the partial exception of Luke) the corrective to dangerously developing trajectories is most apparent. There is no reason, in the light of the early Christian trajectories, why the church should not confess t h a t it is these particular writings t h a t are authoritative norms for her continuing proclamation, faith and life, and t h a t it is the providence of God and his Holy Spirit t h a t can be seen by faith, after the event, at work in and through this very human process, the formation of the N T canon.

14*

Some Qumran Exegetical Cruces in the Light of Exilic Soteriology P . GARNET,

Montreal

By the term Exilic Soteriology I mean the belief, prevalent in the Judaism of the Persian and Greek periods, t h a t Israel was still in exile and t h a t the way to her release lay through confession of her sins and the acceptance of her punishment as just, in accordance with the requirements of Lev. 26: 40—42. I t is this demand for a doxology of judgement which inspires the great confessions of Ezra 9, Dan. 9 and the Prayer of Azariah. Further evidence for its widespread influence is provided by Jubilees 1, Test. Judah 23, Test. Benjamin 7 : 1—14 and Ps. Sol. 3 : 3 - 5 . When we come to Qumran, we find evidence for this way of thinking in sources as diverse as 4Q Dib Ham,* 1QH 5 : 5 f „ 16,2 1QS 8 : 1 - 1 2 , 10: 11-13 and CD 1 : 3—9.3 Even in the fragmentary material a constant theme is the Exile and t h e Return, including passages in the style of Lev. 26 and the curses of Deuteronomy. 4 The first crux I would like to consider in the light of this soteriology is the passage in 1QS 8 : 1—12 about the twelve men and the three priests. What is the function of these men? If they are to make atonement, why are they singled out for this task above the rest of the Community? What is the connection between the accepting of the punishment ?1X1, line 3, and the atonement for the land mentioned in lines 6 and 10? In answer to these questions I would like to make the following points. 1. The V + inf. constructions in lines 2—4 summarize in effect the content of the Exilic Soteriology as understood by the Community. 2. The phrase tsStra in line 3 does not require emendation or interpretation as an infinitive. I t makes good sense when taken with the preceding phrase: "accepting the punishment of iniquity amongst those who execute judgement." The reference is to the Community and its discipline. At Qumran, submission to God's punishment in accordance with the requirements of Lev. 26 : 41 took the form of submission to the reproof and penalties decreed by the Community. 1 2 3

4

This work consists almost entirely of confession and prayer for the restoration of Israel. It contains a clear allusion to Lev. 26: 41 (in 6: 5f.). These lines reflect Lev. 26: 18, 21, 24, 28, 44 and Dan. 11: 35, 12: 10, both influential passages in the Exilic Soteriology. Here there is an unmistakable allusion to Lev. 26: 45, as Solomon Schechter observed as long ago as 1910 in Documents of the Jewish Sectaries, (C.U.P.). See R. le Deaut, "Une citation de L6vitique, 26, 45 dans le Document de Damas I, 4; VI, 2," Rev. Qum., 6 (1967/8), pp. 2 8 9 291. E. g. the solemn imprecations of 1QDM with its concern for the sabbatical year recall Lev. 26. For prophecies of distress see 1Q25, 2Q23, 3Q5, 5Q14, 4Q179, 4Q182 2: 7 (DJYI5? TIN "ISTI).

202

P . GARNET

3. The phrases refer to "what has been revealed out of all the Torah" concerning the Exilic Soteriology, not to the functions of the Fifteen. 4. The function of the Fifteen, which is not expressed until line 11, is to act as trustees of the secret revelations of the Community. 5. pi» nx*l (line 3) is not the same as "IB3 (lines 6 and 10). The former is accepting the punish lent for one's own iniquity, and is a clear allusion to Lev. 26: 41. The latter is an atonement for the land. 6. This atonement for the land is primarily achieved through the punishment of the wicked (See the immediate context and Nu. 35 : 33, the only 0 . T. passage which refers to such an atonement). 7. The connection between accepting the punishment and the atonement for the land in this passage consists in the idea t h a t those who accept the punishment are worthy to punish the wicked and thus cleanse the land. I t is possible t h a t this process is thought of metaphorically as an atonement for the land, since Lev. 26 is full of concern for the land. 8. There is no vicarious atonement in this passage, since everyone suffers the punishment for his own iniquity. The next crux, 1QS 9 : 4f., speaks of an atonement which is to be achieved, not through animal sacrifices, but by "the offering of the lips DBW731?." This last term has been rendered by some 5 as referring to the correctness of the manner in which the praise is offered, whilst others 6 have translated it as expressing the fact that prayer is counted as a sweet savour. I t seems strange that 0BE7H, which is so prominent in the Community's theology, should be used in such a weak sense as these renderings suggest. Wherever CJDE731? occurs elsewhere in this scroll, it refers to punishment or the discipline of the Community. 7 I n the light of this usage it seems best to translate the present phrase as "the offering of the lips in the service of justice" or "in the execution of judgement". Thus the familiar 0 . T. theme of the sacrifice of praise is extended to include a doxology of judgement as in Hos. 14 : 3(2) and Ps. 51 : 16—19 (14—17). At the same time it appears t h a t the demand of Mic. 6 : 6—8 to "do judgement" rather than to offer material sacrifices has been interpreted as "executing judgement" through the reproof of the lips in the Council of the Community. At Qumran tSBt&O was the supreme value and the word was more likely to be filled with meaning than to be an empty term. The atonement in this passage is not an automatic process issuing from substitutionary suffering or vicarious righteousness. I t functions rather through the teaching activity of the Community and its sanctifying influence on those who join it (oVlS DON1? i m p n i l "TIC11?, lines 3f.). This atonement through the preservation of the truth, however, does not exclude the idea of atonement through the destruction of the wicked as in 1QS 8 : 6, 10, for the phrase "witnesses of t r u t h unto judgement" (8: 6) shows t h a t the knowledge of the t r u t h was considered an indispensable element there too. I n the present passage atonement is still primarily "atonement for the land", but this phrase has been expanded into the twin ideas of atonement for sin and acceptance for the land. 5 6

E. g. A. Dupont-Sommer, A. R. C. Leaney, E. Lohse, G. Vermes and P. Wernberg-Mjaller. E. g. W. H. Brownlee, G. Lambert. ? 5: 12, 6 : 9, 8 : 6.

Some Qumran Exegetical Cruces in the Light of Exilic Soteriology

203

Next I would like to examine the sentence in 1QS 9 : 24 which m a n y interpreters 8 have t a k e n t o mean "Everything t h a t happens to him, he shall accept willingly", thus ascribing to the maskil an a t t i t u d e of submissive acceptance which accords well with t h e demands of t h e Exilic Soteriology. W. H . Brownlee and P . Wernberg-Meller, however, have taken God to be the subject of t h e action of acceptance, t h u s admitting a quasi-sacrificial role for t h e maskil. T h e former's translation reads, "for everything done by him, He will gladly accept" a n d the latter's, "Then everything which is done, by t h a t he will be accepted as a freewill offering." B o t h of these renderings, however, a n d every other possible rendering which gives a sacrificial role to t h e maskil, involve the interpretation of one or more of the sentence components in a way which can be shown to be inherently less likely t h a n the alternatives. The following points m a y be noted in this connection. 1. iWSJn is not very likely to be a pendens construction. One would expect rather Vo31. The clause is a short one, not t h e kind to give rise to anacoluthon. 2. 13 is not likely to mean " b y h i m " , since Hebrew idiom tends to avoid passive constructions when the agent is expressed. 3 7TO5? can mean " t o perform against" in the Scrolls. 9 3. n a n a occurs elsewhere in the Scrolls only in 1QH 14: 24, where t h e text is too fragmentary to determine the meaning, and in 1QH 15 : 10, where the meaning is simply "willingly" and cannot be " b y a free-will offering". Furthermore, the context of 1QS 9 : 24 is concerned with m a n ' s acceptance of God's actions, n o t with God's acceptance of man's. Here, therefore, both the context and the probable meaning of t h e individual sentence components point to t h e same interpretation: the maskil must accept all t h a t befalls him. Thus he fulfils the demands of t h e Exilic Soteriology and proves his fitness t o enforce the same standards in the postulants a n d members it was his d u t y to assess. 10 Space forbids anything b u t the briefest t r e a t m e n t of t h e two f u r t h e r passages I wish to examine in t h e course of the present study. I n 1QS 10 : 24f., I suggest, the problematical phrase DSPS Bin "T57 has t h e meaning "until the punishment of their transgression is complete" a n d refers to the period of time required for the completion of Israel's punishment according to Dan. 9 : 24. The closest parallel known to me is found in the phrase in I Enoch 22 : 13 which R. H . Charles has translated "sinners, who were complete in transgression." 11 These are treated more leniently in t h e afterlife t h a n those sinners who had not been punished in their lifetime (vss. lOf.J.'It seems more likely, therefore, t h a t t h e y were "sinners, t h e punishment of whose transgressions was complete" rather t h a n sinners complete in transgression. Finally, t h e Exilic Soteriology lends support to J . Carmignac's interpretation of the difficult phrase "wilderness of Jerusalem" in 1QM 1 : 3 as referring to t h e spiritual ruins which needed to be repaired. 1 2 The theme of t h e Exile and t h e 8

E. g. T. Gaster, G. Lambert, A. R. C. Leaney and G. Vermes. » E. g. 1QS 5 : 12f., CD 1 : 2, 12; 8 : 11, 1QH 15 : 19, lQpHab 9 : If. For the O. T. cf. Esth. 2 : 11, "and what would become of her (M ¡TO»,-nni)." W IQS 9 : 12-19. 11 R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II (Oxford, Clarendon, 1913), p. 203. 12 J. Carmignac, La règle de la guerre (Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1958), p. 6.

204

P . GARNET

desolation of the holy land, classically enunciated in Lev. 26: 31 ff. was reinterpreted in terras of gentile pollution in Dan. 8 : 13, 9 : 27, 11 : 31 and 12 : 11. Thus the geographical Jerusalem could be viewed as a spiritual desert. We have seen, then, the influence of a way of thinking based on such passages as Lev. 26, Mic. 6—7, Dan. 9—12 and involving the themes of the exile of Israel, the sevenfold punishment, the desolation and gentile pollution of the land, the necessity of a doxology of judgement and, above all, the acceptance of God's judgement, his DBttftJ, as the highest possible value. When faced with difficulties in soteriological contexts we should examine any likely allusions to these themes and O. T. passages, since it is here, and not in Isa. 53, that the Community found the inspiration for its thinking about salvation.13 13

As the writer has shown in an unpublished thesis, Atonement Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls (McGill, 1971).

The Liturgical Origin of St. John's Gospel M. D . GOULDER, B i r m i n g h a m

The first Christians were all Jews, and took as a matter of course decisions about their Calendar which were of far-reaching importance. Three decisions in particular were to affect St John's Gospel: to observe sabbath with the traditional morning worship, to observe Passover in something like the traditional way, and to organise a preparation for converts in the same way as was traditional in Judaism, with circumcision for any male Gentiles and baptism for all before Passover. The first two practices in fact allowed of no other option. To be a Jew was to observe sabbath, and the Christian community saw sabbath worship both as a duty to hear the law and an opportunity to evangelise. The Jewish year was marked out by the feasts and fasts, and above all by the three great feasts, Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. No doubt from the Last Supper Christians ceased to eat a Paschal Lamb 1 : but when Passover came round a year after Jesus' Passion there could be no possible motive for discontinuing the ageold practice of celebrating the redemption of the people of God. This involved a short fast on the 14th Nisan, followed by a feast on the night of the 14th/15th Nisan 2 . While not specifying these two details, Luke gives us the impression of automatic continuance of Jewish worship in the Church: "they were continually in the Temple blessing God" (Lk. 24. 53), "Peter and John were going up to the Temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour" (Acts 3. 1), "When the day of Pentecost had come . . ." (Acts 2. 1). Paul is specific. In consequence of the counter-activities of certain men from James, he writes in despair to his Galatian converts, "You observe days and months and seasons and years!" (Gal. 4. 10) — days like, above all, sabbath; months, that is, new moons; seasons, Tabernacles, Dedication, etc.; years, the whole calendar. Later, as a result of t h e superior position taken by Jewish Christians over Epaphras' converts at Colossae, he writes, "Let no one judge you . . . in respect of a feast or a new moon or a sabbath" (Col. 3. 16). I n the case of the third point, the reception of converts, the situation is scarcely less clear. The Passover Law in Exodus expressly mentions the circumcision of converts in connection with the feast: "When a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it" (Exod. 12. 48). Similarly, before Joshua kept t h e first Passover in the Promised Land (Josh. 5. 10), all the males of Israel were recircumcised at Gibeath-haaroth (5. 2—9). By New Testament times admission to 1 2

I Cor. 5. 7. See, throughout, Table I, p. 206.

206

M . D . GOULDER

The Celebration of the Pasch Matthew (Pauline Churches) 14th Nisan (Preparation) 6 p. m. xxvi. 6 Anointing 9 p. m. 12 3 a. m.

Jews

Quartodecimans

John

(Baptism)

(Baptism)

xiii. xiv Night: Footwashing xv—xvii xviii. 1 Arrest xviii. 15 Cockcrow: Peter's Denial xviii. 28 Early: Trial b y Pilate xix. 1 Scourging xix. 14 6th hour: Crucifixion xix 28 Jesus dies before Sabbath

6 a. m. 9 a. m. Noon

Lambs killed

3 p. m.

Fast

Fast ends

Passover Meal

Passover Meal

Haggadah

Sermon

15th Nisan (Passover) 6 p. m. xxvi. 17 (Evening) Passover Meal 9 p. m. xxvi. 26 Institution of Eucharist 12 xxvi. 47 ( 3 x 1 hr) Arrest 3 a. m. xxvi. 69 (Cockcrow) Peter's Denial 6 a. m. xxvii. 1 (Morning) Trial 9 a. m. (Mk xv. 25) Crucifixion Noon xxvii. 45 (6th hour) Darkness 3 p. m. xxvii. 46 (9th hour) Jesus dies

Sunday after Passover 6 a. m. xxviii. 1 Resurrection Commission to Baptise 6 p. m.

Passover ends

xx. 1 Resurrection xx. 19 Appearance to X I I (Evening)

I s r a e l w a s s y m b o l i s e d b y a b a p t i s m f o r all, as well a s b y t h e circumcision o f t h e males:

most p r o s e l y t e s w e r e w o m e n , a n d t h e b a p t i s m a l b a t h s y m b o l i s e d

the

w a s h i n g a w a y o f t h e t a i n t o f h e a t h e n i s m 3 . T h e b a p t i s m still t o o k p l a c e b e f o r e P a s s o v e r , a n d t h e r a b b i s discussed h o w l o n g b e f o r e . " I f a m a n b e c a m e a p r o s e l y t e t h e d a y b e f o r e P a s s o v e r , h e m a y i m m e r s e h i m s e l f a n d e a t P a s c h in t h e e v e n i n g " ( b P e s . 9 1 b ) : so t a u g h t t h e school o f S h a m m a i , b u t t h e H i l l e l i t e s r e q u i r e d a w e e k . T h e 1st c. 3 a R a b b i E l e a z a r b . J a c o b says, " S o l d i e r s w e r e g u a r d s o f t h e g a t e s in I am content here with a brief generalisation: for a list of authorities and a critical comment see G. R . Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the N T (London 1962), pp. 18-31. 34 c. = century, throughout. 3

The Liturgical Origin of St. John's Gospel

207

Jerusalem (sc. before AD 70): they were baptised and ate their Paschal lambs in the evening" (j Pes. viii. 8). No doubt a t first converts to the Church were admitted on demand: but as time passed, and order, and later, catechesis, were felt to be important, old ways will have reasserted themselves. There is in fact no way of explaining the universality of baptism as a means of entering the Church, and the near-universality of the Paschal season for administering it, but by supposing t h a t it was the practice of the Palestinian church in the 30s and 40s. These three calendrical uses — the sabbath worship, the Jewish Passover use, and the pre-Passover admission of converts — were all amended for practical and theological reasons by St Paul. As long as the Church consisted of Jews and a few god-fearers, the old pattern sufficed: once Gentiles were a considerable part of a Christian community, as they became for the first time a t Antioch, there were urgent points both of principle and common sense against all three. Christians at Iconium and Lystra could no longer attend the Jewish synagogue, and hardly any of them were Jews. There was no point in their attending a Saturday morning synagogue-type service as well as a Saturday night 4 eucharist, and submission to the Jewish tradition here was an infringement of Christian liberty, which must be insisted on. Paul notes with anguish the imposition of the Jewish calendar in Galatia, and fears that circumcision will follow. He had dropped the sabbath morning service, and included the ministry of the word at night. The worship at Troas, when Eutychus fell out of the window, was a Saturday night service, and the worship at Corinth, with its agape, its protracted glossolalia and prophesying, was the same. Further, Pauline theology saw something deeper in Baptism than the washing away of past sins. Baptism was a uniting of the neophyte with Christ in his death and resurrection: not so much a washing as a drowning. I t s proper place is therefore on Sunday, the day of Jesus' Resurrection, and ideally on the Sunday after Passover, since it was on the Sunday after Passover t h a t Jesus rose again. Thus arises a shift in emphasis. Jewish Christians baptised, for cleansing, before the great celebration, Passover, which contains within its octave Easter Sunday when Jesus rose again. Pauline Christians continued to keep Passover, but held the major celebration the following Saturday night, with baptisms to unite with Christ. The celebration of the Resurrection on Easter Saturday night entails a full emphasis on the Lord's Passion at Passover. By the 4th c. Passover had dropped out of Catholic use, and Egeria saw Holy Week in operation at Jerusalem, Matt. 24.1—26.16 being read on Tuesday and Wednesday, Matt. 26.17—27.66 being used for a series of periodic stations through Maundy Thursday night, Matt. 28 being the Gospel for Easter morning: and the same pattern is evidenced in the Greek 5 , Syriac 6 and Armenian 7 lectionaries. Now t h e pattern of liturgical divisions has not been imposed upon the Matthaean t e x t : it is there already. "You know that after two days is the feast of Passover . . . When Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper (sc. the day before Passover) . . . On the first 4 5

6 7

See my Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London 1974), ch. 9. F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the NT (4e., London 1894), Vol. I, ch. I l l , Appendix, pp. 80—7. F. C. Burkitt, "The Early Syriac Lectionary System", Proc. of Brit, Acad. 1921-2, Vol. X. F. C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum (Oxford 1905), pp. 507ff.

208

M. D. Goulder

day of Unleavened Bread, when it was evening (i. e. 6 p. m.) . . . When they had sung an hymn (at the end of the meal) . . . Could you not watch with me one hour, one hour, one hour? (midnight) . . . And immediately the cock crowed (3 a. m.) . . . When morning came . . . they delivered him to Pilate (6 a. m.)". I t would be natural to think t h a t Jesus' Passion was remembered at Passover in the Matthaean church 8 because Jesus had suffered on Passover night and the day following; and t h a t the three-hourly notes of time in the Gospel correspond t o the church's use of the watches, in the first century as in the fourth. Further, Matthew has inserted into the Marcan tradition the command, "Make disciples of all nations, baptising t h e m " : and this would then be read on Easter night as authorising the Easter baptisms. Our earliest warrant for such a view is the 3rd c. Didascalia, which normally follows Matthew as its Gospel: "You must thus fast when the Jews celebrate Passover, and be zealous to fulfil your vigil in t h e midst of their Massoth" (ch. X X I ) . Nor, of course, are the three-hourly vigil-readings marked in Matthew's t e x t only: they are in Mark also, and Luke, and represent the developed use of t h e churches of Europe and Syria which stemmed from the Pauline mission. Lulled by the volume of Pauline correspondence in our NT, and by t h e veneration of Luke for his master, we tend to think t h a t the Pauline theology and practice had an easy and universal victory outside Palestine. Matters did not, however, seem like this in the middle of the 1st c., and we should be warned by the evidence of Gal. 2. When the chips were down, the break between Pauline Christians and "Jewish" Christians was as follows in AD 48: Pauline Christians 1 (Paul), Jewish Christians the rest. Even Barnabas was carried away b y their dissimulation. The battle was particularly hard-fought, and the result particularly disastrous, in Asia Minor, the first field of Pauline endeavour, a n d the first field of reaction of the scandalised followers of James. Paul writes in anger and frustration a t the news t h a t his Galatian converts have taken over the JewishChristian non-Gospel, the Law and the calendar, all but circumcision. W e are not to suppose t h a t the Jewish Christian year and observances were soon p u t away. Paul made the capital of his Asian mission a t Ephesus, and it was here t h a t the worst defeat was sustained. We do not know who founded the Ephesian church. Luke suggests t h a t Paul did, while spending a few days on his way back from Greece a t the end of the Greek mission, but the account is not detailed, and is unpersuasive. Luke makes plain anyway t h a t the church was p a r t of the synagogue for a protracted period, for Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos preaching in the synagogue, and it was not until some time after Paul's coming on t h e third journey t h a t the separation took place. Hence the Jewish roots of t h e Ephesian church must have been far stronger t h a n those in Galatia or Greece. Writing from Ephesus in I Cor. Paul speaks of his wide opportunities, b u t adds t h a t there are many adversaries, and in the same letter he speaks of "fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus", a familiar figure for dissident Christians 9 (I Cor. 16. 8f., 8 9

See note 4. @r](>iofiax£ç. If so we have more or less explicitly in Hebrews what is implicit in Paul: the vicarious sacrifice of the Messiah leads to thanksgiving in the Church and this takes the concrete form of eucharistie worship. One more relevant question about this Hebrews passage might be asked. The author writes 'For the bodies of those animals . . .' and 'So Jesus also . . .' This suggests some sort of a necessary connection between type and fulfilment. 23

H. Windisch, Der Hebräerbrief (2nd ed. Tübingen 1931). See C. Westermann, ed., Essays on Old Testament Interpretation (Eng. trans., London 1963 of German ed. Munich 1960) p. 62. And J. Héring, L'Epitre aux Hébreux (Neuchâtel-Paris 1954). 25 See Tractate Zebahim (ed. H. Freedman and J. Schacter in B. T. London 1948) p. 514, where the phrase 'outside the camp' in Levit. 16. 27 is taken as equivalent to 'outside Jerusalem on the east'. 26 See Tractate Yoma, p. 429. » A d . loc., Hebs. 13. 13. 28 See G. Bornkamm, Studien zu Antike und Urchristentum (Munich 1963) pp. 195—6; and B. W. Anderson, ed., The Old Testament and Christian Faith (London 1964) pp. 144—5. 24

240

A . T. HANSON

What was the connection? Why did Jesus have to suffer outside the gate? The author wishes to emphasise t h e fact t h a t we Christians are not like the Jews of old, who remained within the camp, who were not really identified with the victims which they offered, and who were still tied down to material things, a mere shadow of the real. The great point is acceptance of rejection, which includes both t h e new kind of offering and the identification of the offerers with their victim. Thus, as far as interpretation of the Scriptures is concerned, the writer believes t h a t the real-to-come was foreshadowed by the imperfect type. The very nature of its imperfection helped it to be a more significant type. This is in fact quite unlike the pesher interpretation of the Qumran sect, no matter how many verbal parallels there may be. The ultimate nexus between type and fulfilment lies not in any mechanical necessity for fulfilling the Scriptures, but in the disclosure of a pattern of divine activity. 29 29

Abbreviations used in this article are S —B = Strack—Billerbeck: Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (3 vols., 3rd ed. Munich 1916). B —T = The Babylonian Talmud, ed. I. Epstein (London 1935 4-).

The Verb 'To Do' in St John S . HEMRAJ, L u c k n o w

John says, "Every one that doeth evil (d A)J.A O KVQIOQ), t h a t t h e wife should n o t separate from her h u s b a n d " etc.; v. 12: "To t h e rest I say, not t h e Lord (teya> eyoj, ov% o KVQIOQ)" etc. I n v. 25, somewhat similarly, he begins a fresh discussion: "Now concerning virgins I have no command of t h e Lord, b u t I give m y opinion as one who by t h e Lord's mercy is t r u s t w o r t h y . " I t has been widely held t h a t t h e fact t h a t t h e early Christians could distinguish, as here, between t h e words of Jesus and t h e words of t h e church proves t h a t t h e radical form-critics are wrong in postulating t h e creation of sayings by t h e church which have entered t h e gospel-tradition as words of Jesus. V. Taylor, for example, says in his book on form-criticism 1 : " T h e first Christians were much more alive t o t h e distinction between w h a t Jesus h a d said and w h a t he h a d n o t said t h a n B u l t m a n n allows. I n I Cor. 7 Paul clearly distinguishes between his own commands and those which had been given b y Christ (vv. 10, 12); he speaks also of matters in respect of which he has 'no commandment of t h e Lord' . . . What an opportunity for a 'Christian formation'!" There are a number of objections to this line of argument. I t is illogical t o maintain t h a t because a distinction is made here it must have been made always. Further, it is tacitly assumed, yet by no means self-evident, t h a t when Paul says "not I but the L o r d " he means specifically "this commandment was given by the Lord in his earthly life". If t h a t is not w h a t is meant, the distinction is something quite other t h a n what is alleged. B u t above all — a n d this is t h e point I wish to concentrate on — there is no force in t h e argument unless the context is one where under t h e opposing theory one might naturally expect a newly created "saying of the L o r d " to appear. I shall show t h a t in fact the opposite is t r u e : t h a t this is one of t h e last places where one might expect such a saying t o be created. The one plausible mechanism by which new "words of the L o r d " might be created — certainly t h e only one sketched out with any clarity b y B u l t m a n n or his school — is this 2 . Christian prophets, we know, spoke in the name of t h e 1

2

18

V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, London 1935, 107f. Cf. also, e. g., J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London 1938, 80; H. A. Guy, New Testament Prophecy, London 1947, 116; F. Neugebauer, Geistsprüche und Jesuslogien, ZNW 53, 1962, 218ff. Cf. R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen 1967, 134f. Studia Evangelica VII

262

W . J . HOUSTON

risen Christ: their utterances could justifiably be described as "words of the Lord". If they continued to circulate, they might be impossible to distinguish from words uttered by Jesus in his earthly life. Now, if we came across a distinction of the kind Paul makes here in the context of a prophetic utterance, it would be significant. But in any other context, it could prove nothing as to how a prophetic "word of the Lord" might stand beside a word of the earthly Lord. Now this context is not prophetic; Paul is not at any point in this chapter speaking as a prophet, and the very subject-matter shows that he could not be. To prove this, let us look at the types of authority which Paul uses in the course of the chapter. Paul is deciding certain questions of conduct submitted to him by the Corinthians. He does this in the exercise of his authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ, the title by which he introduces himself (1. 1). In the passage on divorce, he quite simply lays down the law. He speaks first in the name of the Lord who has commissioned him, then in his own name; but in either case his authority is that which the Lord has given him: the apostle has spoken, and his decision must be adhered to as to the Lord's own 3 . The prophet also is conscious of such absolute authority, as we see from Revelation, but he expresses it differently. He speaks unselfconsciously in the name of the Lord — throughout. He cites no authority but the direct revelation made to his own ears and eyes. The formal distinctions — "not I but the Lord", "I say, not the Lord" — are foreign to prophecy. They are, however, typical of a kind of discourse with which Paul was familiar — the rabbinic statement of tradition in the discussion of halakah, preserved for us in the Mishnah. Formulas such as "Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y" meet us frequently. And Rabbi X, speaking at first in the name of Rabbi Y, his master, may go on to extend Y's ruling to a situation which he had not envisaged, and this he will do in his own name. This is precisely what Paul is doing here. First he states the general rule against divorce, and, parenthetically, makes it clear that Christ himself is the source of the ruling. In this case he is of course referring to a saying found several times in the Synoptic Gospels4, which there can scarcely be any doubt was spoken by the earthly Jesus. He then proceeds to a case not envisaged in Jesus' original ruling — that of a marriage where one party is a Christian and the other not — and gives on his own authority a modification of the ruling to fit the case. It is natural that Paul should employ the halakic method and make clear the relation of his own ruling to that of his Rabbi, for the subject-matter is in fact halakah. The subject-matter of prophecy, on the other hand, is in rabbinic terms haggadah. In haggadah the halakic precision in following, defining and refining tradition was not required. Therefore Paul's practice here does not permit the conclusion that such careful distinctions would be made in all types of discourse. It would be more natural to suppose that they would not be maintained in prophetic discourse. Nor does the second half of the chapter, w . 25ff., offer any better support 3

Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, London 1968, 163. 4 Mk 10.11 f. par. Mt 19. 9, Mt 5. 32 (M), Lk 16. 18 (L? Q?).

The Words of the Lord and Christian Prophecy

263

to the theory we are testing. Here, at first sight, Paul withdraws into an uncharacteristic diffidence, contrasting with the authoritative tone of the preceding passage. " I have no commandment of the Lord, but give my opinion (yvm/xrjv) as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." Again at the end of the passage, v. 40: "She is happier if she remains as she is, in my opinion (xara rrp> ifir/v yvdtfirjv) and I too think I have the Spirit of God". Clearly we are again far from prophetic utterance, in spite of the mention of the Spirit of God5. Paul's possession of the Spirit makes his opinion trustworthy, but that opinion is not an utterance dictated by the Spirit, that could be accepted as a word of the Lord. 6 The diffidence, however, is only apparent. I t does not mean that Paul is not sure of his ground, or that he does not think he has any authority in the matter. What he says is said with his usual assurance. However, he has no fixed rule to lay down but rather gives advice which he acknowledges need not and indeed should not be followed if one does not have the gift of continence. Hence all that the apparently diffident phrases mean is that Paul feels it inappropriate to give a universal, generally binding rule on this matter. Paul is still exercising his apostolic authority, but he has "no commandment of the L o r d " : he of course has no saying of the earthly Jesus on this subject; he also has no call to extend one on his own authority; nor does the subject call for a prophetic revelation. Taylor is quite beside the mark with his sneer "What an opportunity for a 'Christian formation'!" I t is nothing of the sort, since there is no opportunity for an authoritative pronouncement of any kind. I t is ridiculous to suppose that Paul, of all people, would be deterred from giving a definite ruling, if one were required, by the lack of a commandment of the Lord on the matter: v. 12 has already proved the contrary. The logic of the chapter seems to me to require that the meaning of enirayr] KVQ'LOV cannot in this place be restricted to sayings of the earthly Jesus. The lack of a saying of the earthly Jesus could not be a sufficient reason for giving an opinion rather than a command, but if a definite ruling is not required, the apostle of the Lord might characterize the situation as the lack of any kind of authority stemming from the Lord. Therefore in v. 10 also, although as it happens Paul is referring to a saying of the earthly Jesus, it seems likely that the main point of Paul's appeal to "the Lord" is to emphasize the source of his ruling, not to suggest anything about how or when it was given. This is borne out by the fact that in at least one place where Paul appeals to the authority of "the Lord" he certainly cannot be referring to the words of the earthly Jesus. I Thess. 4. 15 is debatable, but look at I Cor. 14. 37: " I f anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you comes from the Lord" — on xvgiov eaxiv.7 This refers to the directions Paul has given for the conduct of the assembly, and in particular for the exercise and ordering 5

6

7

And in spite of e. g. Robertson and Plummer ( A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Edinburgh 1911, 140, 161). Somewhat similarly H. Conzelmann, Der erste Brief an die Korinther, Göttingen 1964, 146 and n. 25. The text is uncertain, but whether evxohf) should be read or not makes little difference to the meaning.

18*

264

W . J. HOUSTON

of the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Although one or two scholars have attempted to argue t h a t Paul is alluding t o an otherwise unknown saying of Jesus, t h e case is far-fetched. Jesus is unlikely ever to have said anything about such matters. We must therefore interpret t h e verse with Hering 8 : "The orders given b y t h e Apostle should be considered as orders from t h e Lord — not as referring t o logia handed down, but because the Lord has guided him by his Spirit". Thus in ch. 14, so far from carefully distinguishing his own regulations from the words of the Lord, Paul identifies them closely enough to deceive at least one modern scholar into assuming an unrecorded saying of Jesus. This should not surprise us; for we have seen that Paul speaks with the authority of the Lord even where a word of the Lord cannot be directly appealed to. I Cor. 7 therefore in reality offers no evidence which would enable us to decide whether early Christians preserved a clear distinction between the words of the earthly Jesus and the words of the risen Lord mediated by prophecy. There is no prophecy in this chapter, nor would its subject matter have lent itself to prophetic treatment. The distinctions of authority which Paul makes are characteristic of a different type of discourse. The explicit appeal to the authority of "the Lord" here and elsewhere indicates Christ as the sources of authority, but not specifically a quotation of his earthly words. To the discussion of the authenticity of sayings in the Gospels, the chapter is irrelevant. 9 8 9

J. Hering, The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ET London 1962, 155. The question what would be valid evidence in the matter is discussed in M. E. Boring, How may we identify oracles of Christian prophets in the Synoptic Tradition? Mark 3:28—29 as a test case, JBL 91, 1972, 50ff.; and (with a bibliography) in my unpublished thesis, New Testament Prophecy and the Gospel Tradition (Oxford, D. Phil. 1973).

A Suggested Understanding of the Eucharistie Words P.

F.

JOHNSOS,

Canterbury

I t is noteworthy t h a t the early christian liturgies always refer to "the bread" and "the cup" in their institution narratives. 1 In the same way, the anamnesis, if it contains an oblation, talks of offering the bread and the cup.2 In some cases, too, the institution narrative may add details of the contents of the cup. 3 H. B. Swete pointed out a long time ago, in a survey of the second and third century evidence, t h a t there was a widespread christian view t h a t the bread and the wine were indeed Christ's body and blood. 4 There seemed to be two main views of how this happened, but the end result was not in doubt. All the more remarkable is it, then, t h a t the word " c u p " was retained in the liturgies. In some cases "wine" could possibly be understood for "cup" by metonymy, but t h a t explanation will scarcely hold for those rites in which details of the contents of the cup are given. Amid the variety of eucharistic rites which show such a sense of freedom from supposedly normative traditiones such as the scriptural ones, it seems strange t h a t the word " c u p " is persistently retained, and it is therefore suggested t h a t the word belongs to the earliest stage of the eucharistic tradition which we find deposited in Mark and Paul. I t seems necessary therefore to question the statement made in Arndt-Gingrich's Lexicon t h a t in the New Testament "norriQiov stands by metonymy for what it contains". Indeed, had we only the pauline eucharistic reports 5 we should not know t h a t the cup contained wine. I n the case of Mark, there is again nothing in the bread or cup words which helps, and we only know from the Lord's avowal of abstinence in the next verse 6 t h a t the cup mentioned must have contained wine. In neither case, therefore, are we entitled to assume without investigation t h a t in the earliest layers of these traditions there was a symbolical equation of the wine with the blood of the Lord, nor indeed similarly of the bread with the body of the Lord. I t is a common assumption t h a t the words of explanation (Deuteworte) are parallel in form and complementary in meaning. Jeremias, for instance, decides on this unquestioned basis t h a t the bread and the wine signify between them the flesh and blood of Jesus, i. e. his full humanity, because m i "I®3 is a common 1

E. g. Ap. Const. 8. 12. 36f., Lit. Basil., Lit. Chrysost., Lit. Jas., Anaphora Sarap., Lit. Hippol., Ambrose de Sacr. 4. 22f., Canon Rom., Didache 9 (even though not an institution narrative). 2 E. g. Ap. Const. 8. 12. 38, Lit. Hippol., Ambrose de Sacr. 4. 27, Canon Rom. 3 E. g. Ap. Const. 8. 12. 37, Lit. Basil. 4 JTS3.161. 5 1 Cor. 10. 16f., 11. 23ff. 6 Mk 14. 25.

266

P . F . JOHNSON

hebrew idiom for t h a t notion. 7 Yet if we look at the markan last supper narrative we find differences between the bread and the cup words which vitiate such an assumption. At Mk 14. 22, the sequence with the bread is taking, blessing, breaking, and distribution with the instruction t o eat and the explanation. At v. 24, the sequence with the cup is taking, blessing, distribution and consumption, and then t h e explanation. The words for "bless" are different, evXoyeIv for t h e bread and evyaoimelv for the cup. (The nuances of these words' meanings, or even t h e distinction between them, is irrelevant here.) The pauline information t h a t the cup was taken after supper is lacking. Although, therefore, we may see liturgical and harmonising tendencies at work, we are obliged to conclude t h a t both the markan and by implication the premarkan narrative reflect a tradition in which the actions with the bread and the cup were regarded as of individual significance. Let us consider the cup word further. Allowing for Derrett's assertion t h a t "we all know what the cup means and we need not waste time on drinking of blood" 8, perhaps we should just remind ourselves t h a t the word "cup" can be a metapher for the sharing of a common lot. 9 Because of the phrase " m y blood of the covenant" it is natural to make comparison with Ex. 24. 8 where, in the Old Testament narrative, Moses sprinkles the people with the second half of the sacrificial blood and says "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you with all these words". There are a number of comparisons to be made between the markan account of the last supper and the covenant making ceremony in Ex. 24, but the chief one is the correspondence of the drinking from the cup with the sprinkling of the blood on the adherents of the covenant. In the Exodus account Moses is giving meaning to the action, he is not making a metaphysical statement; rather the action of sprinkling with the blood of the sacrifice, part of which has been poured out at the foot of the altar, brings the people into the covenant with Y H W H . Similarly, in view of the cup metaphor, in the markan account the drinkers are associated in a common bond which is interpreted not as the blood of the covenant which Y H W H has imposed on you, but as "the blood of my covenant." Again, it is being suggested, we are dealing not with a symbolical equation, but with a statement interpreting an action. I t might be objected at this point t h a t the Targums should be our guide on the question whether such an adaptation of the biblical narrative is conceivable. Such a baldly "aprioristic" approach is, however, open to question simply because we know t h a t for whatever reason the New Testament is not entirely unoriginal. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to note a divergence in the targumic traditions of Exodus 24. I n both Onkelos and the Palestinian Targum the sprinkling with the second half of the blood in the basons is done upon the altar and not upon the people, "to propitiate for the people". This has occurred under the influence of Leviticus, which changed the law on expiatory sacrifices in order to avoid communion. 10 In the same way, at v. 11 ("they beheld God, and ate and ? The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (ET), 198-201. Law in the New Testament, 441. 9 E. g. Ezek. 23. 32ff., Hab. 2. 15f., Rev. passim. 10 Cf. A. Diez Macho, Targum Neofiti, ad loc. 8

A Suggested Understanding of the Eucharistie Words

267

drank") Onkelos has "(they) saw the glory of YHWH; and rejoiced in their sacrifices which were accepted with favor as though they had eaten and drunk." The Palestinian Targum is slightly different: they saw the glory of the Shekinah of YHWH and rejoiced that their oblations were received with favor, and so did eat and drink. In Neofiti, however, the people are sprinkled and the interpretation given just as in the biblical narrative. At v. 11 we read that they (the personnel are named differently in various mss.) saw the glory of the Shekinah of YHWH and they were recognised in their sacrifices which had been accepted as if they ate and drank (nig. they appeared as if they ate and drank). In other words, the expiatory interpretation of the second sprinkling is not unanimous. Moreover, although we see the usual heightening of the divine transcendence, the mention of eating and drinking in the presence of God as sacrificial activities expressing participation in his fellowship is retained. There are other features of the markan account which support the hypothesis which is emerging that it is to be seen as a "midrashic" type of development of the story in Exodus 24. These include the young men preparing the sacrifices (cf. the disciples going to prepare the passover), the twelve pillars as witnesses of the ceremony (cf. "the twelve" at the supper), and the communion sacrifices (D,n1?©) (cf. the action with the bread). Possibly also the large furnished upper room (avayaiov iargtofievov) with carpets or carpeted divans corresponds to the scene on the mountain where the God of Israel has under his feet a pavement of clear sapphire stone. 11 Two features call for particular comment here. First, Ex. 24. 8 has J V a r r m run ( L X X Idov TO alfia rfjg bia&RJXRJQ) while Mk 14. 24 has rovro eariv . . . Let us grant for the purposes of argument that the demonstrative and copula of the greek of themselves imply an equation of cup or wine with the blood; this will mean that liturgical tradition has been at work, as we see also from the parallel form of the words over both bread and cup. But, as syr® makes plain (it has for both bread and cup JJO), i. e. demonstrative and no copula), equation must be a later stage of the developing tradition, while the simple demonstrative is weak, with no more force than "behold". "When we remember Kahle's conclusion, following Torrey and others, that the text of the palimpsest preserves an early textual tradition which was modified by the needs of christian doctrine 12 , we can agree that behind even the markan form of the cup word is a saying still more analogous to that at Ex. 24. 8. A further support for the antiquity of the tradition in syr" is its preservation of the lectio difficilior "my blood of the new covenant" (/J. pok-jj —)oj), since this has been changed to "my blood, the new covenant" in Mt and Lk of syr s as well as in later syriac versions such as syr° Mt and Lk (that of Mk is wanting) and the peshitta. This leads us to our second particular feature, a brief examination of this well known crux. Much energy has been expended on deciding whether or not the greek TO alfia pov rfjg dia&rjxrjq is translateable into aramaic or mishnaic hebrew, if we make the 11 12

Cf. H. B. Swete, The Gospel according to St Mark, ad loc. Mk 14. 15. The Cairo Genizah, 285-293. And see n. 23 at end.

268

P . F . JOHNSON

usual assumption that the word fiov is to be taken with alfia to make two genitives governing it. Various examples have been produced to show the possibility of the construction in aramaic and syriac, even if it be held to be awkward; but then so is the greek awkward, even though other examples from both the New Testament and classical greek are available. Perhaps the real lesson to be drawn from these discussions is simply that grammar is a guide to correct speech, and not a slavemaster. There is however another possibility, and that is to regard fiov as governing the words following it, so that the phrase TO alfia fiov rfji diafirjxrjs would be translated "the blood of my covenant". The order of words fiov / aov / r//umv / vfitov + article + substantive is found in Mark, Matthew and Paul at various places 13 — certainly not as frequently as the construction in which the possessive follows the word it governs — and it is possible therefore to understand the greek in the way indicated. 14 In a recent article 15 E. Kutsch has pointed out that the word rvH3 must be understood not as Bund ( = lat. foedus), but as Bestimmung ( = stipulation) or Verpflichtung ( = obligation). This may be one's own duty, the duty laid on another, or the mutual obligation of two partners, and only in this last case is the understanding foedus at all appropriate. Moreover, he observes, the Old Testament does not know a two- or many-sided compact with YHWH as a party. This last statement might need modification to take account of the prophetic polemic against the abuse of the notion of election, but it may stand as a statement of principle. In short, mrP~ma is his promise or his law, and this leads to aramaic IWj? in the targums and diad-rjxrj in the LXX. On this basis, Kutsch concludes that the rite in Ex. 24. 8 knows no mutual swearing since sprinkling the blood on the altar means to give it to YHWH, not to make him a party to a compact. Consequently, the sprinkling of the blood puts the Israelites into a relationship of duty to YHWH. Now it is also the case that "my covenant" is a phrase frequently used as from the mouth of YHWH in the Old Testament, and we therefore are to understand this as "the obligation which I place upon you". Further, in view of the correspondences between the markan supper narrative and the rite in Ex. 24, we take the phrase TO alfia fiov rrjg diadrfxrjg as meaning "the blood of the obligation which / lay upon you" in parallel to Moses' words "the blood of the covenant which YHWH has laid upon you". In this way it is but one easy step to inserting the adjective "new", as many mss and versions (including syr s ) do, in order to elucidate the meaning encapsulated in the compact phrase TO alfia fiov rrjg dia&rjxrjs. We may accordingly hypothesise that the first stage of development of the cup word was a statement after the drinking of the cup, "This (is) the blood of my covenant", explaining the action on the basis of the cup symbolism, but not equating the wine with the blood of Jesus. Very early on, however, the understanding of atonement achieved by the blood of Jesus, as martyr or sin-offering (in those circles where his work or nature began to be seen in this way at all), allows 13 14

15

Winer-Moulton, Grammar of New Testament Greek (3 e ), 239. Cf. W. W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, § 1002; Blass-Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentIichen Griechisch, §§ 284. 1, 473. 1. "Das sogenannte 'Bundesblut' in Ex. 24. 8 und Sach. 9. 11", VT 23 (1973), 25.

A Suggested Understanding of the Eucharistie Words

269

the original explanatory word, in hebrew, aramaic or greek, to be understood as "my covenant-blood" with the natural addition "poured out for many". Opinions of course differ on whether Jesus himself could have understood his death in this way and so have himself interpreted the action with the cup in the words indicated. But the argument adduced is independent of whether or not Jesus himself interpreted the sharing of the cup in the way here hypothesised; nor does it require the supposition that the Passover is the exclusive key to understanding the eucharistic words. And we should note that, in the synoptics on the one hand and John on the other, there is an understanding that the Lord instituted a (new) covenant (as in the synoptics) or a new commandment (Jn 13.34). We are therefore concerned with a sacred meal in which the shared cup can be understood as participation in a covenant fellowship in extension of the Exodus 24 story along the "midrashic" lines already indicated, and possibly also with the incorporation of other motifs such as those in Isa. 53. The ceremony is understood as of dominical institution in the way illustrated by W. D. Davies from Pirqe Aboth 1. 1 16 , or in the way in which the pentateuch often presents its laws in the mouth of Moses or God. The example of the Essene and Qumran sectaries shows that the concept of a community of a new covenant did not necessarily require the actual shedding of blood; rather, the meal itself is understood sacrificially in a way implied in the previous references to the targums and for which there is abundant confirmatory evidence in the way the Old Testament and rabbinic writers use sacrificial language to describe activities other than the slaying of animals. 17 What of the bread word? The eating of bread at the meal will, it is suggested, have been seen as parallel to the D,n,7B? in Ex. 24. 5, but the interpretation of the bread, rather than of the eating of the bread, as "This is my body", must depend on a certain developed type of christological reflection. We should also at this stage need to leave open the question of whether, when it was first used, this phrase expressed a symbolic equivalence, or whether it referred to the sharing of the bread. Moreover, in view of the associations of the cup with covenant and obedience, it is necessary to take account of the Palestinian manna tradition documented by B. J . Malina 18 , who points out inter alia that Deut. 8. 3, 16 in the Neofiti and LXX traditions evidences a common interpretation that the manna symbolises man's need not only of food but also of obedience to God's covenant commands. Then of course there is the familiar idea of conveying divine power in a sacred meal. These suggestions would obviously need further exploration. Once these eucharistic developments start there may be several ways to proceed, and the history of early christian doctrine and eucharistic practice confirms that this is so. Bread eucharists, water only in the cup, the words of Didaehe 9 are just a few examples of varying understandings of the basic sacred meal in which the disciples of the Nazarene "beheld God and ate and drank". Perhaps J n 6. 25—end and Heb. 6. Iff. reflect just this type of controversy about how far or in what 16 17 18

Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 249. Cf. J. Jeremias, op. cit., 195. The Palestinian Manna Tradition (Brill, 1968), 92.

270

P . F . JOHNSON

direction to go, to say nothing of disputes reflected in sources outside the New Testament. Finally, it is worth remarking that S. Paul understood both cup and bread as a sharing in the blood and the body of Christ, and not as a direct symbolical equivalent. 19 W. D. Da vies has already pointed out that "the pauline account in its treatment of the element of blood does reflect the interests of Paul the rabbi" 20 , so that Paul is no more inviting anyone to drink blood than is the early Palestinian community. Kasemann too has indicated ways in which the pauline form of the institution narrative reflects features of pauline theology, so that despite Paul's assertion that he handed on the tradition he received from the Lord we must allow that he could reexpress things in his own way. 2 1 Yet we find "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" 22 , which avoids the notion of drinking blood and again implies that to share the cup is to renew membership of the community of the new covenant. In that sense the cup can be called the xoivcovia of Christ's blood, a participation (for Paul) in its atoning effects. So we find that Paul too is giving meaning to an act, rather than asserting a symbolic equation, and the command "Do this for m y dvdfivtjoig" shows that the eating and drinking in Paul's thought also are understood as sacrificial. 23 19 1 Cor. 10. 16f. 2« Op. cit., 246f. 21 The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord's Supper, in Essays on New Testament Themes, 108. 22 1 Cor. 11. 25. 23 The reading of syr8 Mk 14.24 as hana was taken from Burkitt's Evangelion da-Mepharreshe. Since delivering this paper, however, I have discovered that Burkitt's reading was corrected by Mrs A. S. Smith in The Old Syriac Gospels (London, 1910), and that the correct reading is hanaw, in agreement with the other Syriac readings. Consequently, the syr8 reading does not after all give independent support to the argument.

Philological Hints at Traditional-Historic Relations between the Explosion of the Volcano Santorini (Thera) and the Tradition of the Egyptian Plagues G.

KEHNSCHERPER,

Greifswald

With the re-discovery of the Minoan-Mycenean sphere of culture a considerable gap in our knowledge about the neighbours of Canaan and Israel in early biblical times begins to be closed. Since the to a great extent deciphered Linear-B-Corpus opened the Mycenean world to us we realize how little we theologians took into account the Greater Realm of Crete-Mycene and her religious and cultural influence. The flowering of Crete was overshadowed by the eruption of the Santorini volcano on the isle of Thera at the turn of the 15th to the 14th century before Christ. This event destroyed the Minoan culture at Crete and opened the way for spreading the continental Mycenean culture at Crete. The Santorini eruption was the greatest volcano catastrophe since the ice-age and is only to be compared with the earthquake catastrophe in Chile and the Pacific in the year 1960. H. v. Gaertringen, Reck, Galanopoulos, Marinatos, Luce, and the Swedish "Albatross Expedition 1946/47" lead by Pettersson proved that the explosion of the populated and formerly wooded volcanic island of Santorini destroyed the flowering culture of Crete by a terrible wave of flood and vapour and the eruption of more than 140 square kilometres of stone and ashes. According to excavations the flood wave originating from the volcanic cone which ripped open up to 300 m beneath the water mark was at Crete more than 30 m high. It also destroyed the Cretan domination up to then of the eastern Mediterranean between 1510 and 1450 B. C. Simultaneously with the volcanic catastrophe a conflagrational wave raced, probably in connection with glowing lava and embers, over Crete and burnt palaces and villages situated outside the flood wave. The results of this catastrophe have been proved so far for more than 40 settlements, palaces, isles, and caves of the Aegean sea. Part of the population emigrated to Lycia, to Egypt, and to Egyptian influenced areas of Canaan where we find them as "Kreti" (Cherethites) in the Bible. The legend of the Deukalian flood is the Achean version of the Santorini catastrophe, the legend of Talos is the Cretan version. The temple epigraphs at Medinet Habu contain Egyptian news about these events and the shifts of population which are also reflected by the Israelitic tradition in the legends of the Egyptian plagues and the Exodus tradition. An exact reconstruction of the events in natural history at the end of the bronze-age in the area of the eastern Mediterranean applying geological and archaeological material as well as probings into various literary traditions of this

272

G. KEHNSCHERPER

area as I published them (G. K und die Sonne verfinsterte sich. Aalen 1980 2 ; G. K., Kreta-Mykene-Santorin. Leipzig 19804) make it probable t h a t Santorini traditions were made use of in the Exodus tradition. I t seems further t h a t the preprophetic apocalyptic scheme is connected in a certain way with the Egyptian plagues which in turn may have led to a — now already secondary — encounter with traditions on the devastating results of the Santorini explosion, of the fall of ashes, the darkness, and the flood waves. Now there is in loose connection with the Exodus report another tradition of natural catastrophes in Exod. 7—10 which is known by the term "Egyptian Plagues". The text handed down is, however, bad and spoiled, its origins are vague and the claimed connection with Moses controversial. But could the numerous traditions in the Bible and in other Israelite sources and natural catastrophes in the time of the Exodus be a mere accident and could their origin be without any connection to the contemporary Santorini eruption ? Some details of the first, fifth, seventh, and ninth plagues arouse our interest because they concern phenomena which cannot be interpreted as a consequence of an extraordinary high-water of the Nile or of non-arrival of the Nile's floods. Exod. 9, 13—35 tells us about a visitation by barad ("na) which we generally translate by hail (LXX = yáhit,a). A Mishna-tract, viz. "The Mishna of Rabbi Eliezer" edited by H . G. Enelow in 1933, refers in this connection to glowing stones which fell down as an accompaniment of earthquake and fire; consequently barad should be translated in this place by "pumice stone" or "lumps of lava". Philo, Lib. antiqu. biblic., adopts this source in chap. XI. Latin translations of Exodus give barad as lapilli which means not only pebbles but also small pieces of pumice which only originates in volcanic eruptions. I n the Babylonic Talmud, Tract Berakhot 54b, the recollection is preserved t h a t the (stone) hail which fell down on E g y p t at the time of the Exodus was hot, i. e. it possibly was fallout of lava or pumice. L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews. 1925, VI p. 178, knows about this source. The word kolot (n'Vp, PI. of Vip) in Exod. 9, 23 hints at the fact t h a t the falling of hail was accompanied by loud noises, not by tempest (raam). raam (DSl) is used by Isaiah 29, 6; P s . L X X X I , 9; Ps. CIV, 7; Ps. L X X V I I , 19; Hiob 26, 14, and 39, 25 for tempest and great noise. The expression holot used in the plural in Exod. 9, 23 has parallels in I I Mos. 19, 16—18 and 20, 18 which obviously means thunder and great noise as accompaniments of seismic events. I n this connection it strikes you t h a t the reference to the Egyptian plagues in Ps. CV, 32 for the hail accompanying fire reads ninn1? VH (flaming fire) b u t not barak (p"l3) which is used in I I Sam. 22, 15; Ps. CXLIV, 6 and elsewhere for lightning. Correspondingly L X X rian 1 ? is not translated by aarQcatrj (lightning) but by TivQ xaratpXéyov (flaming fire = verzehrendes Feuer). Sap. Sal. 16, 16—17 also seems to know about a tradition t h a t fire at the Exodus was not akin to a thunderstorm, t h a t it was not simply extinguished by heavy rain but t h a t it seemed to go on burning. Instead of interpreting the phenomenon with Velikowsky as burning petrol it is more appropriate to think of smothering lava. For Joel 3, 3 which stands in the Jewish-Apocalyptic scheme of tradition influenced by the tradition of plagues it is to be stated t h a t it does not use

Santorini and the Tradition of the Egyptian Plagues

273

(tempestuos cloud) for the Apocalyptic cloud but rather rna*Ti from the root "Dan (palm-tree). According to Th. H. Ribison this designates a volcanic cloud of the well-known form of a palm-tree or a stone-pine. Reference should also be made to Tract Barakhot 59a—59 b (cf. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews. I I , 375; I I I , 316; VI, 116) where it is maintained that the pillar of cloud and fire in the Exodus was able to level mountains. Possibly here a recollection of the Santorini-kaldera was preserved. That Thera had even then trade relations to the Egyptian-influenced territory and consequently the disappearance of the whole core of the island by an explosion could not go wholly unnoticed in Egypt is proved by sporadic troves of Theranian ceramics at Cyprus and in the Egyptian domain in Palestine. Eusebius of Caesarea comments obviously on the basis of old traditions on Exod. 9: "There were a hail of stones and an earthquake to the effect that those who fled into houses before the hail of stones were slain by the earthquake because just at this time all the houses and most of the temples collapsed". More than once already the reddening of the water in Egypt reported in Exod. 7, 19—21 has been traced back to clouds of volcanic red dust without, however, being able to give any detailed specifications. But when Exod. 9, 8 points out that after that in an interesting chronology "fine powder like soot from a fire-place was dusting the whole of E g y p t " (. . . ashes of the furnace . . . 9, 8; and it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt . . . 9, 9) and when already in the next day a hail of stones rained, I arrived after an intense scrutiny of the profile of the ash layers extant from the Santorini explosion at the firm conviction that we should trust philologically the text handed down very highly. IT'S (root HIB) means indeed soot as from a fire place, red water is the correct reflection of observations of reddening by basalt ashes from Santorini, deep darkness means really impenetrable darkness. For the volcanological analysis of the Santorini deposits at Thera made by Reck, Marinatos, and Luce as well as the results of sound tests of Theranic ashes from the bottom of the sea off the Egyptian coast made by Pettersson and O. Mellis opened in many places the profile of the eruptive layers of the main eruption of the Santorini. Again and again we can see the following strata: Directly upon the cultured layer (late Minoan I I ) lies a layer 1 to 6 metres thick of red or pink coloured pumice dust of coarse, fine, and finest graining which widely transcends into reddish ashes. The origin and colouring of these masses are of basalt nature (basalt). Then follows subdivided by various distinctly lined strata a layer of coarse and fine material, preferably consisting of greenish and black-coloured cinders and lapilli which is called "Zone of multi-coloured stripes". Only then comes the main layer of white pumice sand without any subdividing strata of a thickness of 66 metres penetrated by some enclosures and bombs of lava. Since the sound tests of various research vessels have unquestionably proved the existence of Theranic ashes in the eastern Mediterranean including the oceanic areas off the delta of the Nile, relations to the Exodus-Plagues-Tradition can no longer be denied. Even off the Egyptian coast in a depth of 1,000 m the layers of Santorini ashes on the bottom of the sea is some centimetres thick and shows a distinct red colour. When the ash sediments on the bottom of the sea has such a thickness the fallout

274

G . KEHNSCHERPER

of ashes on the continent of lower Egypt must have been incomparably stronger and of devastating results. (The scientific sources as well as the results of sound tests I gave in the two already mentioned publications of mine). Again and again the apocalyptic scheme also refers to the darkness, namely in the particular form and way as handed down to us in Exod. 10, 21—23. Quite obviously it does not deal with a solar eclipse, an event which is not t h a t rare t h a t it could determine a whole line of traditions. Psalm CV, 39 rather hints at the fact t h a t it was a cloud of a very special kind t h a t enshrouded Israel, covered her and did not serve as a mere smoke pillar for orientation. According to a number of rabbinical sources compiled by L. Ginzberg, Legends I I , 359 seq. as well as by Josephus (Antiqu. of the Jews, Book I I , XIV) nonbiblical traditions on the Egyptian Darkness show the following picture: An extremly strong wind blew without interruption for some days. Throughout this time the country was enshrouded in a darkness of varying intensity. At the fourth, fifth, and sixth day the darkness was so intense t h a t the inhabitants of Egypt could hardly walk a few steps. The darkness was so intense t h a t it could not be penetrated by torches and lamps. The density of darkness made even speaking and hearing impossible. Nobody dared to touch food. They lay down in deep dizziness and waited for the end of the visitation. Because of the heavy air they could only breathe with an effort. The non-biblical testimonies agree with the biblical ones also in so far as the darkness was reported as being "not of a common, terrestrial kind". These traditions were obviously adopted by Joel 3, 4; Isaiah 13, 10 seq.; Amos 5, 20; Zephaniah 1,15—16; Hab. 3, 6 seq. etc. From historical times we have exact reports on darknesses at volcanic eruptions. Thus the cloud of ashes of the Krakatoa at August 27, 1883 darkened the air in a surrounding of 825,000 square-kilometres. I n Batavia it was deeply dark even during day-time. After the eruption of the Temboro at the Sunda Island of Sumbawa at April 10, 1815 a deep darkness fell over large territories. Even at a distance of 600 kilometres, at Gresik, darkness was more intense t h a n in a starfree night. After the eruption of the Katmai in Alaska in June 1912 an impenetrable darkness reigned within a radius of 350 kilometres for nearly four days, of which we have eye-witness reports from two shipcrews. The research in early history lags behind history proper because of its shortness of written reports. Only vague traditions and recollections in Old-Israelite literature as well as some notes in the Egyptian and the Mycenean resorts enlighten the darkness of the time of Exodus. The historian clings to his written sources which in this case are interesting but not necessarily compelling. The archaeologist sticks to the material of excavations. The research worker of early history, however, stands between the two and has to heed the literary as well as the archaeological facts and at the same time he has to observe all possible reflections of theological and philological scholarship. The difficulty of our task consists in working through all these materials according to the methodological standards of the respective specific disciplines and forming a verdict upon the sum total. No human effort is fully adequate to these demands but we are obliged to make serious endeavours and to reach approximations. Consequently philological researches on the subject cannot aim at opening new sources of giving compulsive proofs for natural historic events. For this the quality

Santorini and the Tradition of the Egyptian Plagues

275

of the traditions does not suffice. But now you can clearly make out a literary tradition which in context with archaeological and scientific results produces a "Wahrscheinlichkeitsbtindel" (bundle of probabilities) (Schachermeyr) which cannot be opposed today by any other solution with a similarly high grade of probability. Therefore the offered philological hints can no longer be ignored by literary criticism and the historic-critic exegesis because their connection with the following archaeologic-scientific problems can no longer be ruled out: 1. Could the numerous traditions in the Old Testament and other Israelite sources on natural catastrophes at the time of the Exodus have come into being accidentally and independently of the contemporary Santorini eruption ? 2. Could the Santorini eruption with its devastating repercussions for the coasts of Asia Minor have remained without influence on the pre-prophetic eschatological scheme of Israel? Where could we find a similar source of equal importance at that time ? 3. Could a volcanic eruption with outfall of ashes and flood waves which destroyed the flowering Minoan culture at Crete and which at a distance of 500 kilometres — off the Nile's delta — left layers of ashes still ascertainable today not be realized at all at a distance of 700 kilometres ? (We know that in the Pacific in the year 1960 flood waves destroyed even at a distance of 5,000 kilometres from the earthquake's centre in Chile 2,000 fishing vessels and numerous human lives). 4. Are the data in the Old Testament not of such a concrete nature that considering the Hebrews' distant place of observation from the catastrophe's origin that we cannot expect any better ones ? Thus today we can deduce the fact that the effects of the Santorini catastrophe found their reflection in the Israelite plagues tradition recollections.

George Campbell's Four Gospels, 1789 L. G.

KELLY,

Ottawa

During the eighteenth century, English-speaking Protestants made several attempts to shake the supremacy of the Authorised Version. Apart from the activity of Anglicans like Archbishop Newcome and B. Wakefield, whose versions appeared during the 1790s, there had been a constant stream of translations from non-conformists. The most interesting of these is a version of the Gospels by George Campbell, the principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen, from 1759 to 1792. I t first appeared in 1789 and was reprinted steadily on both sides of the Atlantic until about 1838. The edition used in preparing this paper is the Boston edition of 1811, held in the Houghton Library, Harvard. I n the original edition, the work consists of two large volumes, the first containing twelve dissertations (sic) on biblical theology, translation, Jewish society of the time of Christ, and New Testament Greek. The second volume is the actual translation with copious marginal notes, most of them dealing with linguistic, rather than religious points. His aim in translating was, unashamedly, to replace the Authorised Version, which he infers, was in use only because it had originally been prescribed by Royal Command. For him, the only just reason for the survival of a version of the Bible is its excellence. As proof for this statement he adduces St. Jerome's Vulgate which, according to him, supplanted the Latin translations in use in the early Church because it was better, rather than because of prescription by Pope Damasus. He is careful not to impugn the good faith of other translators or translations: though he is equally impartial in criticising Father Richard Simon, the author of a standard Catholic commentary, and Theodore de Bèze, one of the evangelicals who produced a Latin Bible, for a religious bias t h a t falsified their understanding of Scripture. At the same time in spite of admiration for the achievement of St. Jerome, Luther and the translators of the Authorised Version, he is not afraid to criticise defects in their scholarship. The breadth of his religious tolerance is shown by the catholicity of his sources, which range from the Protestant, Castalio, to the Catholic, Charles-François Houbigant, and by t h e dedication of his work to John Douglas, Lord Bishop of Carlisle. Campbell is in, what many historians of Bible translation have called, the "philological tradition", which stretches back through Port-Royal, Luther, Erasmus to St. Jerome. He justifies his attitude in the Preface to the whole work : In what concerns revelation, reason has a two-fold province; first to judge whether what is presented to us as a revelation from God, or, which is the same thing, as the divine testimony to the truth of the things therein contained, be really such or not: secondly, to judge what is the import of the testimony given . . . As to the second point, the meaning of the revelation given; if God has condescended to employ any human language in revealing his will to men, he has, by 19

Studia Evangélica VII

278

L. G. KELLY

employing such an instrument, given us reason to conclude that, by the established rules of interpretation in that language, his meaning must be interpreted. Otherwise the use of the language could answer no end, but either to confound or deceive. Campbell 1789 Preface

I t is a concept t h a t will be familiar to most modern translators: t h a t one can afford to treat the Bible like any other document and translate it relying on an apparatus of scholarship t h a t does not differ in kind from t h a t applicable to other documents in ancient languages. At the beginning of his Tenth Dissertation, Campbell derives three desiderata from the above principle: The first thing, without doubt, which claims his (i. e. the translator's) attention, is to give a just representation of the sense of the original. This, it must be acknowledged, is the most essential of all. The second thing is, to convey in his version, as much as possible, in a consistency with the genius of the language which he writes, the author's spirit and manner, and, if I may so express myself, the very character of his style. The third and last thing is, to take care, that the version have, at least, so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and easy, such as give no handle to the critic to charge the translator with applying words improperly, or in a meaning not warranted by use, or combining them in a way which renders the sense obscure, and the construction ungrammatical or even harsh. Campbell Diss. X—i 1

Let us see how he deals with each of these problems. On the first problem of giving the sense, Campbell starts from a uncompromising position: he states in his preface t h a t "a translator, if he do justice to his author and his subject, can lay no claim to originality." He amplifies this further by distinguishing between the task of the translator and the commentator (Diss. XII—1, 26). In support he cites de Beze "who was too violent a party-man to possess t h a t impartiality without which it is impossible to succeed as an interpreter of Holy W r i t " (Diss. XV 4), and Richard Simon, who in his view, was too bound by the tenets of Catholic theology to be impartial. His own version is copiously footnoted, but very few of these notes deal directly with religious doctrine: most are concerned with the social and historical background of the New Testament. Unlike most modern translators he did not engage in textual criticism, though he has a long discussion on it which sums up the state of the art as it was a t t h e end of the eighteenth century. He uses as his source text the New Testament of Jacob Wettstein, and corrects it occasionally by reference to t h a t of Mill and to Walton's polyglot. As he describes his method, he interleaved his Greek New Testament with comments, originally designed to facilitate preaching. I t was only after several years of this t h a t he decided to make an English translation. I t is probable, though he nowhere states it precisely, t h a t the large bulk of his dissertations were compiled from these comments. Campbell was well aware t h a t "the just sense" of his original could be determined only through two means: a close analysis of Biblical Greek and a comparative analysis of the way in which these resources could be expressed in the English of his time with its differing linguistic and social attitudes. On the first point, he is at pains to analyse the differences between Biblical and Classical Greek. Castalio and de Beze both fall foul of him as they tended to determine word meanings by classical, rather than hellenistic authority. At the same time, he tries to ward off

George Campbell's Four Gospels, 1789

279

the prejudice of inveterate classicists who despised Scripture for its unclassical style. Appeals to classical authority will inevitably falsify meaning and atmosphere, first, because we are dealing with a type of Greek t h a t was spoken some hundreds of years after the Classical period, second, because Biblical Greek, by reason of the nationality of the Evangelists, was strongly influenced by Hebrew. Campbell spends several of his "dissertations" speaking of what modern linguists call interference phenomena between Hebrew and Greek, and, to a certain extent, he anticipated the work of the American linguist, Uriel Weinreich, who developfed the concept of interference in his Languages in Contact (1953). From this develops a discussion of synonymy in Greek where English disposes of only one word to render three or four in Greek. The question of transference into English rises naturally out of these considerations. The first problem is t h a t of cognates and derivatives. The ancient idea t h a t words had an etymological sense from which all deviation was noxious was sufficiently alive in his time for him to fight i t : he cites words like algeaig, which can not be translated by heresy, as the English word had gained new overtones. This was a fairly simple case. The question of actual meaning transfer was more delicate. Campbell was one of the first translators to draw up a theory of what Nida and the American school of translators call dynamic equivalence, in other words translating according to function instead of exact equivalence of sense. Campbell divides words into three classes: those t h a t are exactly equivalent; those which have partial equivalence, and those t h a t have no dictionary equivalence, but equivalence of extralinguistic function (Diss. II—1, 2). The first class can be dismissed: they provide no problem. The second and third classes can be dealt with together. The overriding criterion of a translator's success is t h a t he should transmit the meaning of the text in a comprehensible manner, and, at the same time, avoid incongruity. At the same time, he did not treat his reader like a fool. For certain untranslateable details, like political institutions and clothing, he allows borrowing of the classical term, citing the evangelists themselves as his authority. For other terms, especially money terms, he requires the translator to ask what the point of their use is. In some cases, a mathematical conversion into contemporary terms will suffice; in others, the point of the passage lies in the relative size of the sum or in the physical shape of the coin. As is his custom, he labours this point with a multitude of illustrations, enjoying, it seems, the mounting absurdity of his examples. I shall quote only one of them, the passage at Matthew X X I I . 19, where Christ asks the Pharisees to show him the "coin of tribute". Campbell assessed the value of the coin at sevenpence halfpenny, and noted the absurdity of this "accurate" translation, as no English coin ever had this value. The point here is the function of the coin which bore the image of the Roman Emperor, as English coins bear the image of the sovereign. In this case too much information would render the point of Christ's action obscure and somewhat ridiculous. Other examples are the parable of the talents (Matt.XXV. 14—30) and the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt.XVIII. 22—35), where the magnitude of the sums in question is the point, rather than their exact mathematical equivalent. The point in assessing what aspect of word-meaning was t o be brought across was sociological: he saw very clearly t h a t word-meaning was far 19»

280

L . G. KELLY

from monolithic, and that it was the translator's duty to write sense, while walking the tightrope between imposing his own interpretation and being so literal as to be obscure. The second point in Campbell is the question of relating the characteristic style of the original to the possibilities of the target language. This aspect of his thought is very much in the eighteenth-century tradition of translation which derives ultimately from the French rhetoricians of the seventeenth century and was transmitted to England through the work of Richard Sherry. Campbell himself produced a handbook of rhetoric in this tradition in 1776. But Campbell added to this English stream direct recourse to French sources. He is heavily indebted to Charles le Cène's Projet d'une nouvelle version française de la Bible ( 1741 ), and Jean Leclerc's work on the interpretation of classical languages (ca. 1680—1720). He is careful not to be tainted by the Socianism of le Cène, using him only as a guide in translation technique. Likewise, he avoids the Catholic tinge of Houbigant's analysis of the Old Testament (1753), taking from it principles of philology and guide-lines on translation. Campbell's version was not the first English version of the eighteenth century to attempt to shake off the "Biblical" style of the Authorised Version ; but he does seem to be the first to explain himself by appeals to a long line of respected authorities. He admires Luther for his attempt to translate in a style consonant with the normal literary manner of German (Diss. VIII. iii. § 8), and from there goes on to condemn both literal and "loose" (the word is his own) translation. Beyond a few references to the necessity of writing in a "perspicuous" style, he has little to say about syntax. This is not untypical of the time. Where he discusses the matter of style is in his strictures on previous translators for not distinguishing between the characteristic styles of the evangelists : in this he is reminiscent of Dryden's attack on translators who gave Vergil, Ovid and Horace to the English public in the same verse-form. His own version does attempt to differentiate between the more polished Greek of Saint Luke, and the hebraic style of St. John. On the matter of vocabulary, he demands plain language : first, because it is readily understandable; and second, because it reflects the simple language of the Bible. Thus, he condemns the use of obsolete words, both because they are not readily understandable, and because they may have shifted in meaning. His attitude to words derived from Latin and Greek is neutral: A word is neither the better nor the worse for its being of Latin or Greek origin. But our first care ought to be, that it convey the same meaning with the original term; the second that it convey it as nearly as possible in the same manner, that is, with the same plainness, simplicity and perspicuity. Diss. XI. i. § 31

In a sense, this is a continuation of the sixteenth-century quarrel over "inkhorn terms" that split the world of translators, both religious and secular. Campbell's point in all this discussion is centred, not on the word itself, but on its meaning and implications in its context : if the English context is as clear and expressive as the Greek, the translator has done his job. The third norm is one of naturalness. While adhering to a style equivalent to that of the original, the English version must not recall the syntactic make-up of the Greek. Again this is an application of eighteenth-century doctrine, but his dictums are balanced by the new respect translators were beginning to feel for

George Campbell's Four Gospels, 1789

281

the rights of the original. He uses this principle as a flail with which to beat Castalio, for whom he seems to have a deep antipathy, and as a pin to prick the Authorised Version which, to him, had already outlived its usefulness. As a theorist of translation, Campbell can be ranked with figures like Alexander Tytler and Wilhelm von Humboldt. What is his interest in the Biblical context ? Firstly, he marks the beginning of the movement in Biblical translation that produced the Revised Version and culminated in the Jerusalem Bibles, both French and English, and the New English Bible. Like these translators, he treats the Bible as a classical text, and brings to it the apparatus of scholarship developed by eighteenth-century classicists. He allies to this an approach to translation perfected by such Augustans as Dryden and Cowley. His textual comment is studiously linguistic and ethnographic, and avoids expressing his own religious opinions. In his approach, he anticipates Eugene Nida and his colleagues in the United States; and his concern with making the Bible readable shows strong affinities with modern translators like Moffat, Ronald Knox, l'école biblique de Jérusalem, and the group that produced the New English Bible. His aim, though he nowhere states it, is to produce an ecumenical Bible. Secondly, he shows the logical conclusion of the Reformation conviction that the layman should have direct access to the Bible, and that he was capable of interpreting it as a rule of religion and life. He regards the translator as an instrument of transmission, not as an exegete. This is the point of his quarrel with Simon and de Bèze. The neutrality demanded of a translator, exemplified by his own care not to comment on religious issues, leaves it entirely up to the reader to draw doctrinal conclusions from the text. A t the same time, the translation had to be clear and easily readable, so that the reader would not be distracted from the meaning by extraneous problems with the language, or by a sense of conflict between the classical milieu and the eighteenth-century reality as we have in the Augustan secular translators. Thirdly, he summarises the New Testament criticism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Catholic and Protestant, from both English and French sources. His reporting is fair and straight to the point. As a linguist interested in translation, I regard Campbell as unjustly neglected: his tragedy was that he worked two hundred years too soon, thereby being denied the notice he deserves. Bibliography Campbell, George A Translation of the Four Gospels with Notes (1789), 4 vols., Wells & Wait, Boston, 1811 C'astellio, Sebastian Biblia sacra, Basle, 1551 de Bèze, Theodore Novum testamentum, Geneva, 1557 Houbigant, Charles-François Biblia hebraica cum notis criticis et versione latina, Briasson & Durand, Paris, 1753 Mills, John 'H xaivrj ôiaûrjxrj, Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, 1707 Nida, Eugene A . Towards a Science of Translating, Brill, Leiden, 1964 Simon, Richard Histoire critique des versions du nouveau testament (1689), Minerva GmbH, Frankfurt, 1967 Walton, Brian Biblia sacra polyglotta, Thomas Roy croft, London, 1651 Wettstein, Jacob Novum testamentum graecum, (1752) Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz, 1962

Anti-Christian Tendency in pre-Marcan Traditions of the Sanhédrin Trial

R. KEMPTHORNE, Lincoln

Traditions about Jesus are often suspect because they seem to derive from Christian sources; partisan evidence is specially open to question. This is one reason why many people dismiss the Gospels and the whole New Testament message. It is usually conceded on the Christian side that not only the Gospels themselves but also the traditions they use have nearly all been Christian material from the first. Now when criticism begins to point again towards the basic historicity of some event which none of Jesus' followers is likely to have witnessed, there is an obvious difficulty. Such a tradition in the present state of research is that of his appearance before the Sanhedrin. Individuals sympathetic to Jesus have been proposed as the informant, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, the disciple known to the high P r i e s t o r a priest or Pharisee converted later2, although none of them is actually connected with the tradition, at any rate in the Synoptic form. But instead of then rejecting the tradition as historically unfounded, we should consider the more natural explanation, that the tradition originated from the opponents of Jesus and Christianity. If we believe that the earliest tradition is best preserved within Mark 14, 55—64, its extent is still debatable. Here I can only state the result of my analysis, which could claim weighty support at each point if not perhaps as a whole. Jesus appeared before a full session of the Council. The testimony was generally inconclusive because uncorroborated, but one point was agreed, that he had threatened to destroy the Temple. In a probably separate tradition Jesus was asked if he were the Messiah, and he said he was. On the basis of this affirmation, or of the testimony that had been established, the high Priest tore his robes and Jesus was unanimously condemned to death for blasphemy. Finally the Council sent him to Pilate. Where Mark goes beyond or against this, there has been development in the Christian tradition or by Mark himself. My purpose now is to consider the likely viewpoint and "tendency" of the primitive tradition as postulated. That the Council would not accept uncorroborated evidence shows their concern for justice: this sounds more like Jewish than Christian apologetic.3 The charge that Jesus had threatened simply to destroy the Temple will not have attracted a Christian expansion referring to the Resurrection and the building of the Christian community4 if the charge was already recognised 1 Cf. W . Horbury, 'The Passion Narratives and Historical Criticism', Theology 75, 1972, 70. 2 C. E. B. Cranfield, Saint Mark, Cambridge 1959, 439. 3 Cf. C. K . Barrett, Jesus and the Gospel Tradition, London 1967, 57. 4 Cf. D. E. Nineham, Saint Mark, Harmondsworth 1963, 406 f.

284

R . KEMPTHORNE

to be false. I t must then have been reported as true. But the original tradition of a supposedly true charge t h a t Jesus had threatened the Temple cannot have been Christian, and was most probably derived from hostile Jewish reports of the trial. 5 What follows may originally have been a separate tradition, because a threat to destroy the Temple does not raise the question of Messiahship, but may well have been regarded as a blasphemy worthy of death. 6 Such a conclusion does not require t h a t to speak against the Temple was really a capital offence, but only t h a t it should popularly have been regarded as such. To the condemnation I shall return; but that Jesus was condemned for such a vain threat will not have been a Christian tradition. The same hostile tendency can be observed as in the tradition of the charge: the priest makes the proper gesture, no more witnesses are needed because the evidence given is conclusive, the condemnation is not in doubt but unanimous. The distinctively Marcan text of Jesus' reply to the question about the Messiah begins simply " I am". 7 The following prophecy about the Son of man seems to be due to Christian reflection. His implied identification with the Messiah is without contemporary parallel 8 , nor could he be identified as a matter of course with the "Son of the Blessed" 9 if this were originally mentioned in the question. Nor is the prophecy about the Son of man necessary for the subsequent condemnation for blasphemy 10 , for this would probably be no more blasphemous than the Messianic claim. The actual formulation of the prophecy appears less primitive than in the comparable Mark 13, 26 or Acts 7, 56. I n the early tradition then the affirmation of Messiahship may have led straight to the condemnation. Again this requires not t h a t it really constituted a capita] blasphemy, but that it could traditionally have been so regarded. A similar viewpoint is normally supposed for the primitive tradition as for the Marcan text, viz. t h a t of the Church. 11 There is indeed Jesus' plain assertion that he is the Messiah, and his unanimous rejection and condemnation as a blasphemer by the official representatives of Judaism. But while the latter point will have been of value to the Church from after the time of the Jewish War, when she was trying to establish her legitimacy in the Empire in complete dissociation from official Judaism, the earlier Palestinian Church will have had little cause to emphasise the total rejection of Jesus by the Council; indeed it conflicts with the traditions about Nicodemus and Joseph. Moreover certain Christian attitudes might be expected which are absent from the tradition and can only hypothetically be read out of it. If the rules of the Halachah obtained at this period 12 , the Church could have stressed the illegalities of the proceedings. But the tradition contains 5

Cf. R. Schnackenburg, Saint John I, New York 1968, 350. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Trial of Jesus, London 1953, 11—13. Also, that the Messiah was expected even to rebuild the Temple cannot be proved for the period before its destruction. 7 Cf. my 'The Marcan Text of Jesus' Answer to the High Priest', Nov. Test. 19, 1977, 197-208. 8 Cf. F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology, London 1969, 130. 9 This identification occurs quite accidentally at Mt 25, 31—34, Mk 8, 38, Rev 1, 13-15 and 2, 18. «> Cf. M. D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, London 1967, 172f. 11 Hahn, op. cit., 163. 12 E. Lohse, T. D. N. T. VII 868f. 6

Anti-Christian Tendency in pre-Marcan Traditions of the Sanhédrin Trial

285

several such infringements without t h e slightest hint t h a t t h e y are illegal. J u s t as t h e tradition a b o u t t h e witnesses shows t h e Council's concern for justice, so this one records t h e Priest's correct formality a n d t h e v o l u n t a r y u n a n i m i t y of t h e decision. If a Messianic claim was in f a c t no capital offence, this fact does not appear in t h e tradition. However J e s u s ' actual assertion is generally t h o u g h t inconceivable in a n y tradition other t h a n a Christian one. Certainly t h e claim t h a t J e s u s was Messiah (rather t h a n e. g. t h a t he was Son of man) was t h e chief point a t issue between t h e Church and J u d a i s m . B u t if t h e Church needed dominical a u t h o r i t y for this claim, her Jewish opponents equally needed t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e Council for its rejection; if Christians h a d t o insist t h a t the only ground for J e s u s ' condemnation h a d been his t r u e Messianic proclamation, Jews had no less to insist t h a t this very claim now being made on his behalf had been unanimously rejected b y their highest court. 1 3 I n t h e primitive tradition a consistent viewpoint can t h e n be found, viz. t h a t of t h e J u d a i s m which rejected both Jesus a n d t h e Christian proclamation of him. The evidence is t h a t t h e Church received t h e tradition not f r o m supposedly sympathetic councillors b u t in discussion a n d b y h e a r s a y : "as if it did n o t go r o u n d Jerusalem like wildfire . . ." (as Jeremias has recently remarked). 1 '' Since t h e likely occasion is not some delicate historical investigation by discreet interview, b u t t h e cut-and-thrust of bitter religious dispute, t h e accuracy of such tradition is a t least open to question. The story of t h e Messianic claim m a y possibly have been derived f r o m knowledge of t h e royal claim with which Jesus was charged before Pilate, a n d t h e whole account developed f r o m subsequent Jewish criticism of Jesus. 1 3 The tradition would be made plausible b u t not authenticated by a disproof of t h e Council's competence in capital cases. If Jesus is t h o u g h t unlikely to h a v e accepted Messianic status, P a n n e n b e r g is correct: " T h e reason for connecting Jesus with t h e Messianic title in spite of his own explicit refusal was probably offered b y t h e Jewish accusation t h a t he was a messianic p r e t e n d e r . . .". 1 6 The final Marcan reference to the Jewish proceedings a t 15, 1 m a y well represent t h e most primitive form of the tradition. E i t h e r t h e night session is a secondary explanation of this statement, or two originally independent forms of t h e tradition have been preserved. Although Christian interpretation is present (in Jesus' "delivery" to Pilate), t h e chief tendencies are t h e same as before. The elaborate and even tautologous enumeration of t h e councillors expresses t h e same Jewish insistence on their u n a n i m i t y ; this p r o p a g a n d a m a y have concealed a real lack of unanimity a t the time. 1 7 Perhaps t h e binding shows t h a t t h e y did all t h e y could to ensure t h e safe disposal of Jesus. B u t t h e main point here is t h a t he was t a k e n t o Pilate. The early Jewish polemic will have been t h a t although Jesus was undeniably executed by the imperial power, it was only a t t h e instigation of t h e Jewish authorities; he was no Jewish m a r t y r a t t h e h a n d s of t h e h a t e d R o m a n s . The problems of t h e Christian historian remain, b u t he can perhaps claim t h a t his evidence is ultimately independent of faith, a t one crucial point, a t least. 13

Cf. M. Gogucl, 'A Propos du Proces de Jesus', Z. X. W. 31, 1932, 294. J . Jeremias, New Testament Theology I, London 1971, 267 n. 7. « B. H. Branscomb, The Gospel of Mark, London 1937, 280. 16 W. Pannenberg, Jesus God and Man, London 1968, 366. 17 Besides the Joseph and Nicodemus traditions, cf. J n 12, 42, Ac 5, 34—39. 14

Einige Überlegungen zum Menschenbild bei Paulas in Verbindung mit dem Heilsereignis R . KIEFFER, L u n d

In einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit über einen Teilaspekt der paulinischen Theologie spielt die Formulierung des Titels eine gewisse Rolle. Zuerst dachte ich, den Zusammenhang zwischen paulinischer „Anthropologie" und „Soteriologie" zu untersuchen 1 . Diese beiden Begriffe könnte man ja als berechtigt ansehen, da bei Paulus ävÜQomoq und der Wortkomplex ocpCo—owTrjQia eine wichtige Rolle spielen 2 . Es ist jedoch fraglich, ob man mit solchen feierlichen Ausdrücken wie „Anthropologie" und „Soteriologie" den rechten Sachverhalt bezeichnet. Paulus ist weder „Anthropologe", im modernen Sinne, noch betreibt er „Soteriologie", wie es die heutigen Dogmatiker zu tun pflegen. Er besitzt aber eine große Menschenkenntnis und kann uns manches über das Heil des Menschen sagen. Wir wollen nicht nur das Menschenbild bei Paulus, um mit Conzelmann zu sprechen 3 , „neutral" sehen, sondern in seinem natürlichen „Sitz im Leben": nämlich in seinem Verhältnis zum Heilsereignis. Unsere Darstellung, die in diesem begrenzten Rahmen nur einige wichtige Probleme aufwerfen kann 4, gliedert sich daher bewußt in drei Teile: 1

Schon 1872 schrieb H . Lüdemann ein wichtiges Buch über Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus, Kiel 1872. Nach ihm h a t B. Weiss einen Abschnitt über „Die paulinische A n t h r o pologie" in seinem Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 1895 6 , 247—255 (1903 7 ) u n d H . J . Holtzmann in seinem Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, Tübingen 1911 2 , Bd. 2, 12—24. Nach W. Gutbrod, Die paulinische Anthropologie, S t u t t g a r t 1934 k a n n man das Kapitel „Die anthropologischen Begriffe" in R . B u l t m a n n , Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Die Theologie des Paulus), Tübingen 1953, 188-222 (1968 6 ), u n d im Anschluß an B u l t m a n n , das Kapitel „Die anthropologischen (neutralen) Begriffe" in H . Conzelm a n n , Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, München 1967, 195—205 finden. Vgl. auch R . J e w e t t , Paul's Anthropological Terms: A S t u d y of their Use in Conflicting Settings. Leiden 1971. Über paulinische „Soteriologie" schreiben u. a. S. Lyonnet, in Introduction à la Bible, t . 2, Paris 1959, 840—889 und J . A. Fitzmyer, in The J e r o m e Biblical Commentary, London 1968, vol. 2, 805—817. Dieser stellt die ganze paulinische Theologie unter drei H a u p t rubriken d a r : „Pauline Soteriology", „Pauline Anthropology", „Pauline Ecclesiology a n d Ethics". 2 Das Wort ÛV&QIOTIOÇ ist besonders wichtig in Kor. (30mal), Rom. (27mal) und Gal. (14mal). I n dem Wortkomplex owrriQ —amTTjQta — atofa) spielt aujrr'jo eine sehr unbedeutende Rolle bei P a u l u s (nur in Phil. 3, 20 u n d E p h . 5, 23 [=Paulus?], hingegen lOmal in den Pastoralbriefen). Das Substantiv aairrjoia findet m a n in den paulinischen Briefen (außerhalb der Pastoralbriefe) 16mal. das Verb acàÇco 22mal. 3 H . Conzelmann, Grundriß (1967), 195-205. 4 Vgl. unsere etwas ausführlichere Darstellung in T a n k a r kring människosyn och frälsning hos P a u l u s in dem Prof. H . Riesenfeld gewidmeten B a n d von Svensk Exegetisk Arsbok 37—38 (1972-1973), 284-295.

288

R . KIEFFER

1. Das Menschenbild bei Paulus. 2. Das Heilsereignis bei Paulus. 3. Das Menschenbild bei Paulus in Verbindung mit dem Heilsereignis.

1. Das Menschenbild bei Paulus Das Menschenbild bei Paulus ist tief verankert in dem, was Paulus als Mensch erlebt hat. Welche Möglichkeiten haben wir, dieses Grunderlebnis zu ermitteln? E s ist immer problematisch, die Psyche eines Menschen mit Hilfe von Texten zu erforschen. Überdies haben wir es hier mit zweierlei Texten zu t u n : selbstbiographischen in den Paulusbriefen, sowie Berichten eines Freundes in der Apostelgeschichte. In welchem Maße kann ein Außenstehender, sei es auch ein Freund, eines anderen Menschen Psyche erhellen ? Die moderne Psychologie verbietet es uns, sogar die selbstbiographischen Mitteilungen eines Paulus " n a i v " zu lesen. Was der Mensch in Worten mitteilt, k a n n vielerlei bedeuten; es braucht auf jeden Fall nicht immer das Resultat einer klaren Selbsterkenntnis zu sein. Wir spielen im Umgang miteinander eine gewisse Rolle, die wir hinter unseren Worten mehr oder weniger verstecken. Aufgrund der angeführten methodologischen Erwägungen können wir daher das Grunderlebnis des Paulus nicht mehr mit Sicherheit in allen Details beschreiben. Aber soll Paulus uns als Menschen ansprechen, so m u ß er in seinen Briefen für u n s fundamentale menschliche Fragen aufwerfen. F ü r moderne Psychologen, wie z. B. Antoine Vergote 5 , gibt bei Paulus besonders ein Text tief über die menschliche Psyche Aufschluß: Rom. 7. Die deutschen Neutestamentier haben, unter dem zu seiner Zeit nützlichen Einfluß der dialektischen Theologie eines Karl B a r t h oder der auf Transzendenz gerichteten Hermeneutik eines Rudolf B u l t m a n n , eine starke Abneigung gegen alle Psychologie gehabt 6 . Diese k o m m t in der Exegese unserer Stelle von K ü m m e l bis zu Conzelmann zum Ausdruck 7 . Paulus, meint man, spricht hier nicht persönlich; das eyo'j h a t nur eine

5 A. Vergote hat, auf dem Kongreß der französischen Exegeten in Chantilly, im Jahre 1969, Rom. 7 exegetisch und psychologisch kommentiert. Sein Vortrag ist jetzt erschienen in X . LéonDufour (éd.), Exégèse et Herméneutique, Paris 1971. 6 Vgl. G. Ebeling, Lebensangst und Glaubensanfechtung. Erwägungen zum Verhältnis von Psychotherapie und Theologie, Z. Th. K. 70 (1973), 7 7 - 1 0 0 (bes. 84-85). ? Ausschlaggebend war die Studie von W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus, Leipzig 1929. Vgl. dazu die gekünstelte Auslegung von H. Conzelmann, in Grundriß (1967), 252ff., wo gezeigt wird, daß Rom. 7 nichts Erlebtes bei Paulus wiedergibt. Es scheint mir in diesem Zusammenhang weniger wichtig zu fragen, ob Rom. 7 etwas mit dem Damaskusereignis zu tun hat, als prinzipiell die Frage aufzuwerfen, ob Paulus ein so tief menschliches Grunderlebnis beschreiben kann, ohne selbst etwas erlebt zu haben. Eine andere Sache ist es, sich zu fragen, ob man, in einem biographischen Zusammenhang, den Bericht von Phil. 3, 2ff. dem Römerbriefe vorziehen soll. Nach Phil. 3, 2ff. erscheint der dramatische Konflikt des Römerbriefes dem Pharisäer Paulus fremd zu sein. Aber ist die Darstellung des Philipperbriefes nicht eine schematische Vereinfachung einer psychologischen Einsicht, die wir besser in Rom. 7 finden? Wir haben jetzt in 1 QS X I 9ff. eine psychologisch interessante Parallelsteile zu Rom. 7; vgl. H. Braun, Römer 7, 7—25 und das Selbstverständnis des Qumran-Prommen, Z. Th. K. 65 (1959), 1 - 1 8 .

Einige Überlegungen zum Menschenbild bei Paulus

289

generelle Bedeutung. In demselben Sinn unterscheidet Rigaux8 in den paulinischen Briefen zwischen fünf „Ich"-Zusammenhängen: die einfache Selbstbiographie, die apostolische, die apologetische oder polemische, die mystische und das Ich als Typus. Rom. 7 reiht er in die letzte Gruppe ein. Ein Psychologe wird mit einer solchen Aufzählung wohl kaum zu befriedigen sein. Für ihn gilt es, hinter allen diesen Textzusammenhängen die psychologische Ich-Struktur zu finden. Die Diskussion der Exegeten über Rom. 7, wo gefragt wird, ob Paulus sich selbst bezeichnet oder den Menschen im allgemeinen, den Menschen vor oder unter dem Glauben, ob das „Ich" Stilform der kynischen oder der stoischen Diatribe ist9, erscheint einem Psychologen berechtigtermaßen als Haarspalterei: In jedem paulinischen Ich muß Paulus mitgemeint sein. Paulus kann den „Menschentypus" nicht beschreiben, wenn er selbst nicht als Mensch fungiert. Was zeigt uns Rom. 7? Paulus hat, als Mensch, einen tiefen Konflikt zwischen Vermögen und Unvermögen, zwischen Idealbild und Wirklichkeit, zwischen innerer Versklavung und Schrei nach Befreiung erlebt. Man kann psychologische Modelle anwenden, um dieses Grunderlebnis zu beschreiben, z. B. das von Freud erarbeitete Modell: Paulus erlebt in sich etwas Fremdartiges, ein „Es", ein Gesetz der Sünde, das in seinen Gliedern herrscht (vopog ev xolg peXsaiv, Rom. 7, 23). Dieses Gesetz widerspricht dem Gesetz, dem Überich, das sich die Vernunft angeeignet hat (vofiog TOV voog, Rom. 7, 23). Das „Ich" des Paulus gerät in Konflikt mit dem als „Es" und dem als „Überich" Erlebten. Man kann natürlich auch andere psychologische Deutungsmodelle anwenden. Für uns ist hier jedoch nur wichtig, daß Paulus einen Konflikt erlebt hat, der typisch für einen in der alttestamentliehen Tradition stehenden Menschen ist, in dem sich aber auch prinzipiell jeder Mensch erkennen kann. Das Grunderlebnis ist fundamental dichotomisch. Wir können es mit Hilfe anderer paulinischer Gegensatzpaare ausbauen: Fleisch und Geist, Sünde und Gnade, Gehorsam und Ungehorsam, Welt und Gott. Die Liste kann fortgesetzt werden. Das Wichtige für uns ist hier die Voraussetzung einer dichotomischen Struktur10. Sie ist bedingt durch eine Anthropologie, die den Menschen als auf dem Weg befindlich vorstellt. Das Menschenbild ist bei Paulus geprägt von einer Selbsterkenntnis über ein Vorher und ein Nachher, über ein dem Menschen Vorgegebenes und das ihm Erreichbare. „Ich unglücklicher Mensch! Wer wird mich befreien ( r i g jus Qvasrai; wortwörtlich: „wer wird mich herausreissen?") aus diesem Leib des Todes ? Dank sei Gott: durch Jesus Christus, unseren Herrn(Röm. 7, 24f.). Vom Christus-Erlebnis geht eine Dynamik aus, die die Entfremdung aufhebt: Das „Es" wird integriert in dem „Ich", sodaß das „Überich" nicht mehr als schmerzhafte Zersplitterung im eigenen „Ich" erscheint. 8

9

10

B. Rigaux, S. Paul et ses lettres, Paris-Bruges 1962, 171 (deutsch: Paulus und seine Briefe, München 1964, 173). Vgl. dazu den nuancierten Kommentar zu Rom. 7 von J. A . Fritzmyer, The Letter to the Romans, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968), vol. 2, 312. F. C. Baur, der den paulinischen jrveüjita-Begriff allzu sehr von Hegels „Geist"-Begriff aus interpretierte, hat eine tiefe Einsicht in diese „dichotomische Struktur" gehabt, als er in den paulinischen Antithesen Sünde-Geist, Sklaverei-Freiheit usw. „die Idee eines immanenten durch den Gegensatz gegenseitig sich bedingender Momente vermittelten Entwicklungsprozesses" sah (Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, Leipzig 1866—672, 233). Vgl. dazu die positive Bewertung von R . Bultmann, Zur Geschichte der Paulus-Forschung, Theol. Rundschau N . F . 1 (1929), 32.

290

R . KIEFFER

Der Psychologe mag hier fragen, ob diese Integrierung in der menschlichen Psyche nicht auch anders zustande kommen kann. Aber als Theologe m u ß man hier sagen, daß Paulus eine tiefere Dimension hinter den psychologischen voraussetzt. Der Mensch steht, als Geschöpf Gottes, in Konflikt mit Gott. 1 1 Sünde ist nicht nur psychologische Zerrissenheit, sondern auch, und in besonderer Weise, Trennung von Gott, Trennung von der Lebensquelle. 2. D a s Heilsereignis bei Paulus Der Wortkomplex „Heil" spielt bei Paulus eine wichtige Rolle, besonders in der verbalen F o r m £a>.12 E r leitet unsere Gedanken über in Richtung „Heilsreligionen", die zur Zeit Pauli so wichtig waren; aber er f ü h r t uns auch, in jüdisch-christlicher Perspektive, zu einem von Gott in Christus angeordneten „Heilsereignis". E s muß uns wieder bewußt werden, wie konkret die Bibel denkt. Das Heil ist f ü r den ganzen Menschen, „Körper u n d Seele", um unsere dualistische Anschauungswelt anzuwenden. Überdies ist es nicht nur individuell, sondern sozial gedacht: das Heil ist f ü r das ganze Volk, f ü r den Menschen als Glied einer Gemeinde. Paulus steht in einem lebendigen Verhältnis zu dieser Tradition. Wenn Gott in Christus das Heil wirkt, so ist damit der Mensch, Adam, grundsätzlich aus dem Tode befreit, seelisch u n d körperlich zugleich. Unsere Paulusanalyse ist also von jeher im voraus bestimmt durch eine in der christlichen Tradition verankerte Auffassung über „Soteriologie", nach welcher das Heil f ü r uns Heilsgeschichte ist, eine von Gott, dem Herrn der Vergangenheit, der Gegenwart u n d der Zukunft, geschaffene Heilsordnung, die in Christus ganz vollendet wird. Wie verhält sich eine so verstandene „Soteriologie" zu dem bei Paulus f u n d a mentalen Begriffe der ôixaioovvrjï Es ist mir klar, daß man, rein statistisch gesehen, die ôixaioavvf] bei Paulus der aontjoia vorziehen kann. 1 3 Die paulinischen 11

Vgl. die ausgezeichnete Fußnote in Trad. Oec. Bible (Nouveau Testament), Paris 1972, 4 6 7 ^ 6 8 , note c) : « Seule la foi révèle et manifeste, dans la vie de l'homme esclave du péché, certains aspects dont il ne pouvait lui-même découvrir le sens. La pensée de Paul se transcrirait assez exactement en termes d' 'aliénation' (au sens profond de ce mot, conforme à son étymologie : appartenir à un autre).» Diese tiefere Einsicht soll uns jedoch nicht davon abhalten, die psychologischen Voraussetzungen zu studieren, die diese „Aliénation" umgeben (dieses gegen Kümmel, Conzelmann und die T. O. B.). 12 Das Verbum ao/Qm ist, in der Septuaginta, eines der wichtigsten Wörter, um das hebräische SJEP im Niphal oder Hiphil wiederzugeben. Es steht auch für andere hebräische Wörter, die alle irgendwie ein Grunderlebnis wiederspiegeln : befreit werden von einer Gefahr, von einer Drangsal. Diese Befreiung ist, je nach der Art der Gefahr, „Schutz", „Rettung", „Heil", „Sieg", „Friede". Vgl. J. F. A. Sawyer, Semantics in Biblical Research. New Methods of Defining Hebrew Words for Salvation, London 1972. Im Neuen Testament bedeutet die aojrrjQÌa im Grunde auch eine Befreiung, eine Rettung, eine Hilfe aus der Gefahr. Im Alten Testament hat Gott die Initiative zur Befreiung Israels aus der Sklaverei in Ägypten (oder Babylon). Diese Befreiung fungiert in der ganzen Bibel als Paradigma. Für Paulus ist das Evangelium „eine Kraft Gottes zum Heil (=Befreiung) für einen jeden, der glaubt — für den Juden sowohl wie für den Hellenen" (Rom. 1, 16). 13 Das Substantiv òtxaioovvrj haben wir bei Paulus (außerhalb den Pastoralbriefen) 51mal (davon 32mal im Römerbrief). Das Verbum òixaióuj finden wir (außerhalb den Pastoralbriefen) lömal in Rom., 8mal in Gal. und 2mal in 1 Kor. Für aojrrjQÌa-aió^u) vgl. oben, Fußnote 2.

Einige Überlegungen zum Menschenbild bei P a u l u s

291

Theologien haben das ja oft getan, und damit ist der Römerbrief ins Zentrum gelangt (z. B. bei Weiss, teilweise bei Bultmann und Conzelmann 14 ). Andere hingegen, wie Büchsei oder Kümmel 15 , stellen das Heil (oder das Heilsereignis) ins Zentrum. Erhart Güttgemanns scheint mir, in seinem Aufsatz „Gottesgerechtigkeit" 16, mit Hilfe der modernen Linguistik, Günter Kleins Ansicht unterbaut zu haben, daß die dixaioovvr) §eov bei Paulus eine zunächst innerpaulinische Begriffsanalyse fordert. Sie kann darum, nach meiner Meinung, nicht den Hauptbegriff in einer paulinischen Theologie ausmachen, die versucht, uns Paulus nahezubringen. Sie wird jedoch das Einseitige einer nach der Soteriologie hin konzentrierten Darstellung korrigieren: Sie wird uns ermöglichen, das Besondere des christlichen Heils allen Heilsreligionen gegenüber hervorzuheben. Wir können unter diese fundamentalen Begriffe des „Heils" und der „Rechtfertigung" andere Begriffe subsumieren, die die „Befreiung" und die „Versöhnung" bezeichnen. 17 Wichtig für alle diese Begriffsbildungen ist der Übergang von einem Stadium ins andere: von der Sünde zur Gnade, von der Entfremdung zur Freundschaft, von der Finsternis zum Lichte. 18 Das Heil versetzt den Menschen in eine von Gott gewollte Dynamik. 3. Das Menschenbild bei Paulus in Verbindung mit dem Heilsereignis Bultmann sieht als Aufgabe der Theologie folgendes Anliegen: „das glaubende Selbstverständnis in seinem Bezüge auf das Kerygma deutlich zu machen" 19 . 14

B. Weiss, L e h r b u c h . . . (1903 7 ), 2 3 1 - 4 0 6 ; R . Bultmann, T h e o l o g i e . . . (1953), 2 6 6 - 2 8 3 ; H . Conzelmann, Grundriss . . (1967), 173-314. 15 F. Büchsei, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Geschichte des Wortes Gottes im Neuen Testam e n t , Gütersloh 1937 2 (Drei H a u p t r u b r i k e n lauten: „ D a s Unheil des Menschen"; „ d a s Heil des Menschen"; „ d a s Heil in der Welt"); W. G. K ü m m e l , Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments nach seinen Hauptzeugen, Göttingen 1969, 126—217 (Die H a u p t r u b r i k e n l a u t e n : „ D i e Gegenwart als Heilszeit"; „ d a s Christusgeschehen"; „ d a s Unheil des Menschen in der W e l t " ; „ d a s Heil in Jesus Christus"; „ G o t t e s Heilsgabe und die Aufgabe des Christen"). 16 E. Güttgemanns, „Gottesgerechtigkeit" u n d strukturale Semantik. Linguistische Analyse zu dixaioovvr) &eov, in Studia linguistica neotestamentica, München 1971, 59—98. 17 Die „ B e f r e i u n g " wird ausgedrückt besonders durch den Wortkomplex ¿kv&eQia-iÄev&eQOQ¿AEV&EQOCO und das Substantiv (btoXvTQOjaic, (das Yerbum anoXvm fehlt, aber an seiner Stelle jtehen qvo/mi u n d egaigeco, z. B. 2 Kor. 1, 10 und Gal. 1, 4). W e n n m a n den Begriff der „ B e freiung" etwas ausdehnt, k o m m t man zu Wörtern wie „ k a u f e n " , „ l o s k a u f e n " : äyofjd'Qo), i£ayogaCii) (manchmal, wie 1 Kor. 6, 20, ist der Preis angegeben). Die „Versöhnung" leitet unsere Aufmerksamkeit in eine andere R i c h t u n g : Der Mensch h a t keinen „ F r i e d e n " mit G o t t ; er will m i t ihm versöhnt werden. Dies geschieht durch ein Opfer (vgl. das Alte Testament). Paulus wendet hier xaraAkdoow, anoxazaXkdaao) und das Substantiv xaxaU.ayrj an. Gott selbst h a t die Initiative: „ G o t t war es, der in Christus die Welt mit sich versöhnte" (2 Kor. 5, 19). Den Opfergedanken finden wir wieder in iÄacnriQiov („Sühnopfer", Rom. 3, 25). Jesus gibt sein Leben f ü r uns (oder „ a n unserer Stelle"; vneg), als „leidender K n e c h t " . Natürlich k o m m t Paulus von einer Begriffswelt zur anderen: Die „Versöhnung" wird durch Jesu Blut b e w i r k t ; sie kostet also viel. Aber, prinzipiell bauen „ B e f r e i u n g " und „Versöhnung" auf verschiedenen Grunderlebnissen. Sie helfen uns, die Hauptbegriffe wie „ H e i l " und „ R e c h t f e r t i g u n g " mehr konkret auszumalen. 18 Einfach ausgedrückt: „Denn ihr alle seid Söhne des Lichtes u n d Söhne des Tages; weder der N a c h t gehören wir an noch der Finsternis" (1 Thess. 5 , 5 ) ; oder „Wo aber die Sünde sich mehrte, da strömte die Gnade über" (Rom. 5, 20) oder „Denn das Begehren des Fleisches ist gegen den Geist gerichtet, das des Geistes gegen das Fleisch" (Gal. 5, 17). 19 R . B u l t m a n n , Theologie . . . (1953), 591.

292

R . KIEFFER

Die paulinische Theologie wird bei ihm vorgestellt unter zwei Rubriken: „Der Mensch vor der Offenbarung der mang" und „der Mensch unter der mang". Bultmann stellt auf diese Weise die theologischen Gedanken Pauli in ihren Zusammenhang mit dem Lebensakt, mit dem glaubenden Selbstverständnis. Dieses Selbstverständnis setzt die dichotomische Struktur des Menschenbildes voraus, von der wir gesprochen haben. Eine Offenheit und ein Sichverschließen vor Gott sind mit dem Menschsein gegeben. Als Folge davon gibt es die Stellungnahme zum Heil, das in Christus geoffenbart wird. Das Menschenbild, vom Adamtypus aus geprägt, erscheint als ein dynamisches, schöpferisches Verhältnis zu sich selbst und zur Umwelt. Wir können natürlich, mit Hilfe der Bultmannschen Theologie oder anderer Exegeten, die Dynamik des Heilsereignisses bei Paulus näher beschreiben, indem wir wichtige Begriffe wie dixaioavvrjfteov,%aQiq, TILGT ig oder eXsv&egia studieren; wir können das Bild ausweiten mit Hilfe der alttestamentlichen Gestalten wie Adam, Abraham oder Moses, die Paulus in seiner Darstellung anwendet. Wir brauchen jedoch einen anderen Einfallswinkel, um das Menschenbild bei Paulus in seiner inneren Kohärenz darzustellen. Der Mensch als solcher muß so strukturiert sein, daß er in seinem Wesen eine grundsätzliche Offenheit für Gottes Handeln aufweist. Paulus selbst hat diese Offenheit sehr tief erlebt. Aber er will uns sagen, daß dieses prinzipiell für alle, für Juden oder Heiden, für jeden der „Mensch" ist, gilt. Nur wenn ich mir, als Mensch, selbst Fragen über mein „Menschsein" stelle, kann ich das Menschenbild bei Paulus, in seinem lebendigen Verhältnis zum Heilsereignis, verstehen. Paulus ist dann für mich mehr als ein bloßer Text, den ich studiere: Er wird zu einem Menschen, der mir etwas über den Menschen in seinem Verhältnis zu Gott und zu sich selbst zu sgigen hat. Mit seiner Hilfe verstehe ich, wie in jedem Menschen wesentlich eine innere Dynamik waltet, die einen Spielraum offen läßt für den Entschluß zur Befreiung oder zur Versklavung. Heil und Menschenbild sind also bei Paulus grundsätzlich miteinander verbunden.

Fashionable Sports: Hymn-Hunting in I Peter C. J. A. LASH, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Writing in 1925, Dom Leclercq remarked that «les Epîtres de St Paul nous ont conservé quelques fragments poétiques d'allure franchement lyrique et qui peuvent avoir été des formules tirées de l'euchologie apostolique, ce qu'on n'a aucun moyen de prouver» Modem critics are more optimistic and in recent years quite a hymn-hunting industry has developed in some exegetical circles. The object of the following remarks is to ask a number of methodological questions about the procedures adopted by the hymn-hunters and to suggest a simpler way of explaining the phenomenon of most, if not of all, the "fragments poétiques d'allure franchement lyrique" in the Epistles. My point of departure is the work of Father Boismard who devoted a whole book to the subject of alleged Baptismal Hymns in First Peter in 1961 and he repeated his main arguments in his article on First Peter in the Supplément to the Dictionnaire de la Bible in 1966 2 . The assumption has to made from the outset that "ces cantiques et ces hymnes se fixèrent assez tôt en des formules plus rigides, que chantait la communauté tout entière" 3 . The evidence for this assertion would seem to be slight, if not non-existent, and Father Boismard does not see fit to produce any. Since we are dealing with alleged quotations, it will be as well to ask first of all what are the criteria for recognising a quotation. There would seem to be two certain ones : either the writer announces the fact that he is quoting, or the reader, because he has met the passage elsewhere, recognises the quotation. In the latter case the relative dates of composition of the two documents must also be known. With regard to the New Testament Epistles, inEphesians 5. 14 the writer suggests that he is quoting, though it will be noted that he does not say from what, and in the Pastorals the expression marot; ô Xôyoç, which occurs a number of times, may, though this seems to me doubtful, indicate the presence of a citation, but again the nature of the work quoted is left wholly unspecified 4 . With regard to First Peter neither of these two criteria apply and the Hymn-hunter is obliged to fall back upon internal evidence. As Boismard writes, these fragments of hymns « se laissent reconnaître, soit par les formules qui les introduisent — which is not 1

H. Leclercq, Hymnes, DACL 6, Paris 1925, col. 2830. M.-E. Boismard, Quatre Hymnes Baptismales dans la Première Epître de Pierre, coll. Lectio Divina 30, Paris 1961, and: Première Epître de Pierre, DBS 7, Paris 1966, coll. 1415-1455. 3 Boismard, Quatre Hymnes p. 8. 4 Apart from the commentaries on the Pastorals, see the note by C. F. D. Moule, printed as Appendix III to his Birth of the New Testament, London 1962. See too the highly apposite remarks on the question of "hymns" in chapter 1, especially p. 27, and his article in NTS 3,1956. 2

20

Studia Evangelica VII

294

C. J . A . LASH

t h e case with First Peter — soit par leur structure rythmée» 5 . This "structure r y t h m é e " is the characteristic literary form which will enable t h e searcher to unearth, like fossils in a chalk quarry, t h e disjecta membra of t h e apostolic hymnary. I t is worth noting t h a t t h e passages alleged from the Pauline epistles are reasonably coherent blocks of material, whereas those from First Peter are scarcely more t h a n isolated words and phrases, scattered here and there, and t h a t t o reduce t h e m to the "characteristic literary form of t h e h y m n " t h e hunter must have recourse to t h a t most versatile of exegetical ghillies — t h e Redactor, who has, of course rendered t h e original t e x t almost unrecognisable — except to t h e trained eye of the hunter — to suit t h e needs of his preaching or letter-writing. The argument here seems to be becoming dangerously circular, since we first of all assume a characteristic literary form for t h e primitive christian h y m n , because we have encountered rhythmical passages in t h e Epistles. W e then rewrite the Epistles in order to^ produce this characteristic literary form. Space precludes giving more t h a n one example of t h e technique a t work : in First Peter 3. 18-22. For Christ too died for sins once, the just for the unjust, that he might lead us into the presence of God; put to death in the flesh, brought to life in the spirit, 19 in which also having gone he made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 2 0 once disobedient when God's longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was building, in which a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water. 2 1 Whose antitype, baptism, also saves you now, not the removal of fleshly pollution but the appeal to God of a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 2 2 who is at the right hand of God, having gone to heaven, angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.

W e first remove " p u t to death in t h e flesh, brought to life in the spirit", to which we add "having gone t o heaven", because t h e y all contain an aorist participle of passive form followed b y a modifying phrase. Then, following a suggestion of Bultmann's we unearth f r o m chapter 1. 20 "predestined before t h e foundation of t h e world, made manifest in t h e last period of t i m e " . I t is a p i t y t h a t in Greek 'predestined' is not passive — b u t one can't have everything. W e now observe t h a t we have two and a half couplets, t h a t 'having gone to heaven' is missing its companion verse. After a few false trails we finally hit upon chapter 4. 6, which contains a two-membered phrase with a passive verb: 'for this reason it was evangelised to t h e dead'. This is not a participle unfortunately, b u t what Boismard calls « une légère retouche »6 will soon see to t h a t . We now add 3. 22b to form a splendid doxological conclusion. The h u n t has t h u s enabled us t o retrieve a complete christian hymn, dating from t h e middle of t h e first century, which runs as follows : Christ, Predestined before the foundation of the world, Manifested in the last period of time, Put to death in the flesh, Brought to life in the spirit, Evangelised to the dead, Departed to heaven, Submitted to him being angels and authorities and powers. 5 Op. cit. p. 13. Op. cit. p. 14 «les termes en sont fidèlement conservées (sauf une légère retouche) ». For the details see pp. 64—66.

6

Fashionable Sports: Hymn-Hunting in I Peter

295

Since the descent into hell follows the resurrection, we are told t h a t this order is "theological" and not chronological; though quite why this particular order is "theological" is left to the reader's ingenuity to discover. 7 More seriously, since Christ has now become the subject of the participle "evangelised", it is not clear who does the preaching in Hades, and Boismard is reduced to a series of more or less improbable hypotheses: he finally opts for John the Baptist 8 . H e then concludes t h a t the primitive hymn made no mention of Christ's preaching in Hades. All this seems to me to be methodologically most unsound, since one is scarcely justified in drawing exegetical, still less theological, conclusions about primitive christian beliefs from imaginatively reconstructed texts. But what would count as internal evidence t h a t we are in the presence of a citation ? I n the first place it would seem t h a t we must be able, using tests of vocabulary and style, to produce convincing evidence t h a t the passage in question was not written by the same hand as t h a t which wrote the rest of the text. Here however a word of warning is necessary. The First Epistle of Peter is a very small sample statistically speaking: it would, I suppose, occupy some half dozen pages of an Oxford Classical Text: and how many of us would want to pronounce on questions of Thucydides' vocabulary and style on the strength of half a dozen pages? To give one example only: Bigg, in the I. C. C., notes t h a t the word av does not occur in the Epistle and he concludes: "This fact alone is sufficient to show t h a t the writer is not a Greek". Following a suggestion of Selwyn's, I have examined the opening of Dionysios of Halikarnassos and in Book I, chapters 4—20 — a passage which is at least twice the length of First Peter — the word does not occur either. Moreover a careful examination of both the vocabulary and style of First Peter, comparing the so-called "hymn fragments" with the surrounding text, does not enable one to say "Here is a sentence, a phrase, which could not have been written by the author of the Epistle". As Prof. Leaney has written in a similar connection: "The burden of proof lies on those who insist, for example, t h a t Phil. 2. 5—11 is an hymn, not on those who think t h a t Paul wrote i t " 9. I n the last analysis all we are left with is the "rhythmical structure" of the alleged hymns 1 0 and the question must therefore be asked is there a simpler, a more satisfactory way of accounting for these passages. I believe there is and I would like in conclusion briefly to outline what I believe to t h e correct line of approach. 7

Ibid. p. 64 note 2. Ibid. pp. 79—81. Since for Boismard we have here a trace of the tradition found in Hippolytus that John the Baptist went and preached to the dead after his execution by Herod, and thus some time before the death of Christ, the "theological" displacement becomes even harder to explain, and there is no longer any question even of Christ's Descent into Hell. One might add that the passive of eóayyeÁí£eiv is only used in the New Testament either with the vague sense of people 'being evangelised' (Matt. 11. 5, Lk. 7. 22, Heb. 4. 2, 6) or, once, of the gospel (Gal. 1. 11), or, finally, once in St Luke, of the kingdom of God (Lk. 16. 16). In our passage the sense is simply the 'good news was announced', as the NEB, Osty, the French ecumenical version, Luther, Sigge etc. take it. 9 NTS 10, pp. 238-51. 10 Selwyn writes: "A hymnodic origin for these passages seems to rest on little evidence beyond their rythmical character". 8

20*

296

C. J . A . LASH

I n his remarkable book, L'Histoire de l'Education dans VAntiquité, HenriIrenée Marrou writes (he is speaking of France, b u t his remarks apply a fortiori t o England) : «Depuis 1885, date où la rhétorique a disparu des programmes de notre enseignement sécondaire, nous avons si bien oublié ce que pouvait être cette codification des procédés oratoires que nous avons peine à imaginer jusqu'où l'esprit d'analyse, cher au génie grec, avait étendu ses conquêtes en ce domaine . . . beaucoup de choses, chez les auteurs grecs ou latins, nous échappent ou nous étonnent, qui s'expliquent par cet arrière plan scolaire » l l . The Peri Pascha of Melito of Sardis is a classic example of asiatic rhetoric, of t h e style which Marrou describes as "brillant, affecté, boursouflé et t a p a g e u r " t 2 , b u t by Boismard's methods it could be shown t o be no more t h a n a catena of liturgical fragments — a sort of anthology of the preacher's favourite passages f r o m some second century English Hymnal. I t is interesting to compare the following passage, chosen almost a t random, with t h e so-called hymn in First Peter: This is he who who who who who

was was was was was

enfleshed in the virgin hung upon the wood buried in the earth raised from the dead lifted up to the heights of heaven

The sermons and commentaries of the Fathers abound in similar " r h y t h m i c a l " passages. Here is Augustine on Easter night: Vigilat Vigilat Vigilat Vigilat Vigilat

ergo ista nocte et mundus inimicus et mundus reconciliatus : iste, ut laudet medicum liberatus; ille, ut blasphemet iudicem condemnatus ; iste, mentibus piis feruens et luescens; ille, dentibus suis frendens et tabescens.14

Finally an example t a k e n f r o m a letter, in which not even the most intrepid h u n t e r would look for fragments of hymns : Ille meus in petendis honoribus suffragator et testis, Ille in incohandis deductor et comes, Ille denique in omnibus officiis nostris, quamquam et imbecillus et senior, quasi iuuenis et ualidus conspiciebatur15.

T h e author, of course, is the younger Pliny. To return, by way of inclusio, to the Epistles of t h e New Testament, the following passage has not, to t h e best of m y knowledge, been claimed as a f r a g m e n t of an early christian hymn : I write to you, children : Your sins are forgiven through his name ; I write to you, fathers : You have known him from the beginning ; " Op. cit. p. 272. u Peri Pascha 70. is Epp. IV. 17. 6.

12 Ibid. p. 294. 14 Sermo 219 (PL 38.1088).

Fashionable Sports: Hymn-Hunting in I Peter

297

I •write to you, young men: You have conquered the evil one; I wrote to you, children: You have known the father; I wrote to you, fathers: You have known him from the beginning; I wrote to you, young men: You are strong and the word of God dwells in you and you have conquered the evil one 16 .

I n conclusion, I believe t h a t most, if not all, the "rhythmical passages" in the New Testament Epistles can be more simply explained as the result of the prevailing influence of formal rhetoric, and t h a t those who wish to go hunting for hymns in First Peter will have to follow a clearer spoor than t h a t provided by the tricks of school-boy (or perhaps undergraduate) rhetoric 17 , if t h e y hope to flush their quarry. « I John 2. 12-14. « Cf. Marrou, op. cit. pp. 275-277.

The Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of James SOPHIE LAWS, L o n d o n

I t is generally accepted by writers oil biblical ethics t h a t what is distinctive about these ethics is the way t h a t they are related to, or derived from, the biblical expression of faith in God. Parallels to the content of individual precepts may be found in non-biblical material: the justification for considering biblical ethics as a subject in itself comes from the way t h a t the precepts are, in the biblical context, seen as consequent upon the data of biblical belief: as in Deuteronomy the giving of the laws is preceded by a rehearsal of the saving acts of God for Israel and as in his epistles Paul turns from his expounding of the work of Christ t o advice about personal conduct with a decisive ofiv (Rom. 1 2 : 1 ; Col. 3 : 5 ) I t is similarly generally accepted t h a t the epistle of James, while containing a proportionately greater amount of ethical material t h a n any other document in the New Testament, is doctrinally the most attenuated: the faith would seem to have insufficient content to characterize the ethics. Not even the characteristically Christian motive of ayanri appears to underlie and unify this collection of seemingly unrelated maxims, diatribes and set-piece situations 2 . I t is the purpose of this paper to examine whether this is yet another way in which the character of James as odd-man-out in the New Testament may be demonstrated, or whether in fact there is some assumed link between what little James says about God, and his analysis of the good and ill in human conduct. The simple answer to the question of the character of James's ethics would seem to be t h a t they are the ethics of obedience. Leaving aside the not undisputed question of the identity of this law 3 , James does point to a law which is t h e "mirror" of human action (1: 23—25), which must not be judged (4: 11), b u t which must be kept in full (2 : 10—11). However, he himself does not use t h e mere existence of the law as a sufficient sanction for his advice, b u t stresses t h e character of the law as reXeiot; (1 : 25), and directs attention to the giver of it, "One is the lawgiver and judge" (4: 12), and "he t h a t said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill" (2 : ll)'*. The character of the one who gave the Law, it would seem, is relevant to the exhortation of obedience to it. 1 Cf. C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law, 1951, pp. 5 - 1 2 . The noun nowhere appears in the epistle. The verb is used only of love for God (1:12, 2:5), and little can be argued from James's familiar address to his readers as adeX0 jntirìv . . . l a ) £ » 0

(f. 2 6 a ) ( " a n d h e d i d n o t f i n d S a b a , a n d

he sought him, and did not find him"). 6 Pernot, Etudes sur la langue des Evangiles, Paris, 1927, passim, surveys developments in t h e use of Iva. 7 Cf. Latin gestio. 8 Burney also clears u p an intolerable difficulty a t 20. 18. (Note how m a n y of the examples quoted in my paper could scarcely have arisen through oral tradition. They depend on documents). 9 Unless (as I suggested Expository Times 76, 254) t h e Latin translator remembered t h a t qui is more idiomatic t h a n ut in final clauses after an antecedent. B u t Mr C. H . Roberts reminded me, in a letter, t h a t the Latin translator was not likely t o have conceived this stylistic embellishment. 10 There is an interesting parallel in an Ethiopic variant, which Vòòbus believes t o be of Syriac origin, a t Matthew 23. 13: OI (hA for t h e usual ON) KAEIETE XTX. (Ullendorff, Ethiopia and t h e Bible, 54). 11 B u t in 1. 13 Burney's suggestion — rather more difficult b u t likewise enjoying Latin support — affects so controversial a subject as the Virgin Birth (cf. Hoskyns, who is rather out of his element, however, in philological and textual matters). »2 Idiom Book, 121. 13 I suggested, Novum Testamentum 1967, 41, t h a t there may be such a thing as "transferred emphasis", but there is evidence elsewhere for mistranslation of t h e anticipatory suffix (Howard, 431). (In t h a t article I ought to have said t h a t Modern Greek IStog has " c h a n g e d " — not "lost"— its emphasis.)

Translation Greek in the New Testament

319

The better1'1 reading at 12. 9 O 6%XOQ TIOXVQ 15 is highly irregular for its placing of the epithet.16 I t must be due to heedless following of the Aramaic order. The writer shows elsewhere that he knew the orthodox procedure perfectly well. Burney perhaps lays undue stress on various syntactical features — parataxis,17 the historic present, the imperfect for vivid narrative, the periphrastic imperfect,18 the verb at the beginning of the sentence, the otiose agxo/iai, etc. The frequency of these is probably due to translation, but we should allow for the possible influence of the vernacular (a concession to Deissmannism) and for the alleged process of "thinking in Aramaic and writing in Greek", about which I shall speak later.19 Asyndeton is a different matter. This is characteristic of much Aramaic writing, but it is most uncharacteristic of Hebrew and consequently of the L X X , which might have been expected to influence our author against it. If it were found in John alone, it might pass for an idiosyncrasy; but it is common also in Mark, though not in the other evangelists.20 This I find extremely significant. Burney calculates that &7zexQi&rj(oav) in asyndeton — with or without xal eljiev(-ov) — comes 65 times in John; the corresponding expression is frequent in the Aramaic portions of Daniel, but found only twice in the whole of the Hebrew Bible; moreover, the "answered" is said by Dalman to be unknown in later Jewish Aramaic, except in the Targums where it is taken over (not in asyndeton) from the Hebrew. If Dalman's assertion still holds, the conclusion is irresistible: John would not naturally have "thought" in the antique Aramaic of Daniel, but he might very well have imitated it in writing. I t would be an extraordinary coincidence if he had picked up his formula from the tiny part of the L X X which happens to be translated from Aramaic. I must counter, in passing, an argument that word-plays in the Greek — e. g. 15. 2 alqei. . . xadaiqei — tell against translation. Four verses lower down the Sinaitic Syriac, which we know to be a translation, has an apparent wordplay, more extensive if less musical: izk. j^y k*soo J&uoa.21 I dare say it is accidental; but so m a y be aiqei.

. . xaftaioei.22

On the basis of Burney's findings T. W. Manson acts as spokesman for the conclusion that the Fourth Gospel comprises 29 "blocks" distinguished by Ara-

Bernard disagrees. Not mentioned by Burney. A predicative sense for noAvç, "in great numbers", would be unnatural. 16 Among the extremely few instances I have noticed are Hdt. 1. 78 rwv ê^rfyrjtécov TeÀ/trjaaétov (debatable) and Luc. Navig. 5 to nagdoeiov Tivçavyéç. Another possible claimant is navrû.Tjç r\ xaxdnrcaaiç in a Life of Constantine, ed. Halkin (Anal. Boll. 78, 14). 17 Valuable study by Sophie Trenkner, Le style xai dans le récit attique oral, Assen, 1960. 18 G. Bjorck, rHv ôtôdaxcov, Uppsala, 1940 (in German). 19 A tendency which goes against popular usage is of course important. John has some partiality for the pluperfect, a tense far commoner in Aramaic than in Greek. 20 Black remarks on the frequency of asyndeton in the Shepherd of Hermas. But this work may have been influenced by Johannine usage. Parallels to the N. T . from Christian Greek have to be drawn with great caution. 21 coç to xXfjfia ô ÇtjQaiveTai. (Note the v. 1.) 22 One page of the Gospel of Thomas yields: Log. 69b ecytune m n t h t n tlH IN [THY] 2N and 74 o y f i 2A2 MflKCDTe NTXCDTe.

14 15

320

G. M. LEE

maisms and 23 which are without them. 2 3 The inference is that there are two alternating sources, one Aramaic or Aramaic-inspired, the other Greek. This appears to be a cruel blow struck at the thesis I am defending. Let us see whether there is ground for alarm. 24 First, there seems to be some internal contradiction in this theory. Manson endorses E. Schweizer's careful judgment t h a t "the style is in essentials one throughout the book". 2 5 Why then did the author pass the Aramaisms in the first group? (There is no reason for thinking t h a t he delighted in them.) Or was the second group more diligently revised? If so, how do we know that it did not originally contain Aramaisms? But is it in fact so free from Aramaisms? I gave warning t h a t Burney was not complete. At 20. 16 Black has produced what I might call a mistranslation of genius. The innocuous-looking oTçaqieïoa is unintelligible. Mary had turned already in verse 14: she would now have turned her back. 26 mnON, under the influence of 14, is a misreading of VDDOK, "recognised him", and this is confirmed by the equivalent 0)b\oISQD)o of the Sinaitic Syriac. I t is conceivable of course — theoretically — t h a t the opposite happened, and t h a t the Sinaitic Syriac reading is a scribal error which gloriously transforms nonsense into sense. If so, it must be the most inspired textual corruption in the world. Earlier in the same chapter, verse 10, ICQÔÇ OVTOVÇ 27 might on sufferance pass as "chez eux", b u t (here again I follow Black) it almost certainly represents the pleonastic ethic dative with cuifjMov : "went their way". L a t e r , v e r s e 18, eq^sxai Magià/i rj Mayôafyvij

àyyélXovoa

( p r e s e n t ) rolç

fia&rjraïç...

She did not announce it t o the disciples as she went, because they were in a house with the doors locked. I take àyyéXhovaa to be the Aramaic continuative participle: it should have been translated xaì àyyèXXei. AU these appear in the last of Manson's "non-Aramaizing blocks". Without having combed the rest minutely, I suspect t h a t his attempt at "apartheid" will not work and t h a t these blocks will be found t o house many Aramaic squatters. 2 8 The evidence is cumulative ; yet, however much it accumulates, it may never be possible to prove to everyone's satisfaction t h a t J o h n or Mark is a translation. B u t can there be any proof t h a t it is not a translation? I do not think so. A translator's hand need not betray itself. 29 However, suspicion may justly fall on a mannerism for which the other language does not readily account. John has an exceeding love for ovv, and Abel 30 finely says t h a t it "vient probablement de sa manière de voir les choses surgir dans sa mémoire comme si elles sortaient 23

Listed, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, 115. Manson was writing in 1947, but Kummel, Introd. N. T., rev. ed. 1965, Eng. tr. 154, treats his view as still in the field. 25 The sources "cannot be analysed out". 26 I find Bernard's explanation far-fetched. Anyhow, John ought surely to have added nahv the second time. 27 In P. Flor. 176 TIQOQ avrovg is "between ourselves". 28 A third of them have anexQiih) (or other parts of this verb) in asyndeton. 29 Language alone would not tell us that Catullus' Coma Berenices was more than a stilted essay in Alexandrianism. To say that the Penguin versions "read like translations" would be almost libel — though a cynical critic might question whether some of them are translations! »> Grec Biblique, 351. 24

Translation Greek in the N e w Testament

321

l'une apres l'autre". The aged disciple (if it was he that wrote the Gospel) has poured a wealth of feeling into that simple conjunction! But in the Palestinian Aramaic fragments John's otiv is often, disappointingly, rendered by the Greek loan-word No). This is embarrassing at first sight; but, on reflexion, there is no reason why the copula 1, which serves a multitude of purposes in the Semitic languages,31 should not express the idea equally well. And if the translator varies the monotony of xai now with ovv and now with ds (more classical in such contexts) we need not build theories on the fluctuation of his choice. Our problem is not one to be settled by computer. When we turn to Mark we are confronted by evidence, perhaps not more striking, but more abundant, especially in the world of syntax.32 Probable mistranslations of T can be looked up in Black :33 I have time to discuss only one of them. 8. 24 fjXenoi rovg av&QOjjiovq on cog dsvdga ogco negmarovvragM

Some have found

a bewildered vividness in this utterance; but I think we must at least accept either Allen's explanation or Black's of the earlier part. Even then there still seems to be something wrong: the masculine nsQmarovvrag would suggest that trees are in the habit of walking. I suggest that a second T has been overlooked — "trees which (1) (are) walking".* D 35 at 1. 34 has some very awkward syntax: xai e&EQanevaev avrovg xai rovg daifiovia e%ovrag efe/S afev air a an avr&v. This may be taken as an over-literal reproduction of Aramaic with rovg . . . as casus pendens36 (unless the translator understood this accusative to be co-ordinate with avrovg, el-efiakev being in asyndeton). I imagine this to be the original draft, but obviously it was intolerable and the prevalent reading was substituted. There could be few clearer indications of a translator at work. I am puzzled by the pregnant aheZofiai xa&dig (15. 8). Has 3 Tin ("as") been misread in place of 1 Kin ("that which")? This, though not too easy palaeographically, might throw light on the Sinaitic Syriac ^ o ^ . which apparently testifies to the meaningless Iva noifj avroig, but perhaps really testifies to S enoiei (corrected to noifj by a scribe who took the 7 to be final) avroig. There seems to have been a conspiracy to defraud one or the other verb of its object.* 31

32

33

35

36

One example out of a myriad: Gen. Apocr., X X I 15, matt fllK nVlKl, " S o I, Abram, set o u t . . ." (Fitzmyer). Here I want to give notice of a question which I cannot at present answer myself. May the 3rd person plural with unexpressed indefinite subject (to which Mark is addicted) be primarily an archaic or literary Aramaism? N o w Plutarch uses it at the beginning of his De capienda ex inimicis utilitate, 86 c, iatoQovat — it is not uncommon in ordinary Greek, though only with verbs of saying or the like — but the Syriac version of this work, ed. Nestle, Stud. Sin. I V , 1894, supplies a subject, "writers", as if the construction already seemed unnatural to the Syriac translator (not later than cent. 6—7, the date of the MS.). I wonder whether the popularity of words meaning " m e n " might have driven it out of common use? What he says about 4. 41 is of special interest. Although on in this sense is common enough — e. g. L X X Job 7. 12 and 17 (Hebr. 11 and 16) — the Old Latin variant suggests a translator's 34 Black, 36-7. alternative. G. Zuntz, Opuscula Selecta, Manchester, 1972, 207f., has revived Bishop Chase's paradoxical theory of re-translations from Syriac. An accusative pendens is a great rarity, but I think TQUM 6' 'AXAAROQIDRJV (Homer II. 20. 463) is to be taken in this way. The great length of the sentence, however, puts it in a different category from D's reading.

322

G. M. L E E

14. 65 gama/iaaiv amov eAafiov?1 Blass calls the expression a "vulgarism". (We must draw a line between the vernacular and vulgarisms).38 Has there been confusion of Vpff, "take", and Ipff, "strike"?* 3 3 A palmary mistranslation has been detected by Black in Codex Bezae at 14. 15 avayaiov olxov . . . ¡usyav. (We are entitled to take Western variants into account.) The translator at first mistook NrP3"T, fisyav, for NrYH, otxov. He would have immediately marked olxov for excision, but it passed into D's hospitable keeping nevertheless. I t has not escaped notice that Aramaisms and mistranslations are more plentiful in the Sayings than in the narratives; but we should not hasten to draw the obvious conclusion, because the translator would naturally feel it his duty to be more literal in rendering the words of the Master: in narrative passages the sense could often look after itself. The absence of demonstrable translation Greek even for considerable stretches at a time would not prove that the writer is no longer translating. I know from my own long experience of the craft that a translator's methods vary with the mood or exigencies of the moment. But in fact you will never go far in St. Mark's Gospel without encountering Aramaisms. You cannot divide it up into Aramaizing and non-Aramaizing sections, except by reducing it to ribbons. We remember Manson's partitioning of the Fourth Gospel. Taylor (653f.) makes a similar attempt on the Passion narrative in Mark. I do not exclude the possibility of occasional extraneous elements, and it must be said that his "nonAramaizing" sections fit together into a presentable C/r-Passion/*0 This would be impressive if they were really devoid of Aramaisms, but Taylor has to admit the presence of several possible ones and to explain the verses containing them as "insertions". I will venture to throw in a mistranslation. Against all probability Mark (15. 36) makes the man who offered the vinegar to our Lord the speaker of the taunt about Elias, and Matthew contradicts him. I am tempted to think that a plural V1»N was read as the singular "ION by an oversight akin to haplography before the 1 of the succeeding jussive.* I cannot honestly speak of Mywv as "translation Greek" (in the sense in which I defined the word), but I hope it may be called "mistranslation" Greek. This is in one of the verses where Taylor says that there are no Semitisms. Now let me dispel the phantom of "thinking in Aramaic and writing in Greek" as a general explanation of the Aramaisms in Mark (and likewise in John). This presupposes a notable lack of expertise in the writer. Yet it is remarkable that The v. 1. epalov is too facile. Though it might possibly be an inadequate translation of some verb implying "take over (from a previous adversary)" — vnoAa/xfidvco (LSJ cite Thuc. 8. 105). Could *73p bear this sense? 3 0 Palest. Aram. Matthew 26. 31 Tiardga) xov noifiha — if this verb is not too strong for QajiiojMTa. As an alternative I suggest that *?pv should have been understood as "take away", cf. Sin. Syr. Luke 23. 18 (alo£ rovrov): for the servants to remove or hustle Him away iv or avv gamo/xaoiv would fit the sense admirably. 4 0 These sections are "written in better Greek". "Classical words as Latinisms are not infrequent". There is an "internal contradiction" here, because the devotees of good Greek, in Roman as in Byzantine times, had a rather absurd aversion to Latinisms. (The Latinisms, xevrvQioyv and the like, arise from the context; they would be significant only if exarovraQxoQ, etc. had been used in the other sections.)

37

38

Translation Greek in t h e New Testament

323

the Aramaisms constantly result in unidiomatic, but never in absolutely impossible, Greek. A parallel from some corner of classical literature or from the papyri is almost always at hand. How does the writer know where to stop ? Aramaic syntax differs so widely from Greek that in every sentence there were pitfalls 41 for one whose Greek was not under full control. How is it that there are (within the usage of the vernacular) no wrong inflexions, wrong cases after prepositions, and similar barbarisms or solecisms, such as we find in the more illiterate inscriptions and papyri ? 42 I think that every Semitism in the two Gospels with which I am concerned has its classical parallel somewhere.43 Luke, oddly enough, gives us an occasional Semitism which appears to be utterly un-Greek; and his competence in Greek is unquestioned. A foreigner's mistakes are by no means limited to those that can be traced back to his native speech.44 He tends to make mistakes of vocabulary ("malapropisms", catachresis), to misuse or overdo the clichés of his acquired language, to lapse into pedantry, to oscillate between bombast and slang. 45 Now if, on the traditional view, the Gospel was written in Greek by John Mark about 65 A. D., what standard should we expect of the author? Apparently of a well-to-do family, with opportunities for education, a cousin of the Cyprian levite Barnabas 46 , and perhaps himself formerly of the Diaspora, he may be supposed to have had a fair knowledge of Greek47 before being taken on a missionary journey in Asia Minor: he presumably did not go as a groom or a valet. At any rate, by 65 he had long been associating with Jews and Gentiles whose only language was Greek, and had acted — so we are told, but I do not believe it — as Peter's inter-

41

E. g. " w i t h " before an object, " t o " for " o f " , " a n d " in apodosi. W h y is I never mistranslated when t h e result would have been a solecism? There are also t h e countless Aramaic pleonasms. 42 If I am right in saying t h a t every irregularity of syntax in both Mark a n d J o h n can be readily explained as an Aramaism, this is negative evidence of considerable weight. 43 For classical parallels to näg ov or ov näg see my n o t e E T 63, 156. To Blass's examples of t h e pleonastic pronoun inside a relative clause add Orph. Arg. 731 ov drj KaXkixooov ¡xiv imovv/xov oi xaMouaiv. Aesch. Pers. 436 (jv/irpogri Tzd&ovq is only one reminder of t h e Semitic adjectival genitive (though Broadhead's citations from Soph, are surely different). (The predicative use with elg finds a Latin counterpart in Avian. Fab. 40. 6 solus in exemplum nobilitatis erat.) 44 There is an u n c o u t h Greek inscription of a Nubian p o t e n t a t e which Revillout described as "plein de copticite", b u t t h e influence of specific Coptic idioms did n o t seem t o me obvious. Copticisms have been looked for in the p a p y r i : T h u m b (Hellenismus, 124) comments „wie verblüffend gering ist diese Wirkung gerade bei den Griechen Aegyptens". 45 True colloquialisms in t h e Gospels arise, I think, from ingenious translation (or mistranslation); cf. my remarks on Qaniofiaoiv avrov eXaßov and imßakmv exkaiev. 46 Mark's family might have only recently settled in Palestine. K . Niederwimmer, Z N T W , 58, 172f., finds him inaccurate in matters of Palestinian geography and custom; e. g. (184. 5) "Der Konsequenz könnte man sich nur entziehen, wenn m a n V. 3f. als spätere Glosse ansieht. Aber V. 3f. entspricht dem Stil des Evangelisten . . .". (It could, however, be a translator's note?) 47 I t m a y be asked " W h y did he not make his own Greek version of his Aramaic Gospel?" (thus avoiding mistranslations). I would ask " W h y did Oscar Wilde get Lord A. Douglas to translate 'Salome' into English?" (I am content with Torrey's dating of t h e Aramaic to t h e winter of 40—1; the date of t h e translation and its place of writing are indeterminable.)

324

G. M. L E E

preter in Greek.48 He must have been a very poor linguist if he had not emerged from the stage of "thinking in Aramaic".49 But indeed the Greek of St. Mark's Gospel speaks for itself — if only we will accept wholeheartedly the vernacular, or rather the vernacular seasoned with literary elements, in which it is written; the direct ancestor of the demotic, the rightful language of Modern Greek literature. It is illogical to pay tribute to the language of the Nobel prizewinner Seferis and to damn it in its origins. The scholars laugh at Phrynichus — and apply his canons. Let our stand on this matter be unambiguous. We should give up thinking of the vernacular as the degenerate descendant of classical Greek or as the poor cousin of the literary Koine, and welcome it as a language in its own right, with, to a large extent, its own accidence and syntax and rhythms. It is in essence the language of Pallis, the superb translator of the Iliad as well as of the New Testament. Looked at in this light, Mark's Gospel is no longer "rough and barbarous", but fresh and vigorous, crisp sometimes to abruptness, varied in construction, supple in movement, shot through with neat turns of phrase and vocabulary. 50 Though classical distinctions are not ignored, the translator is working freely in a new medium.51 He is, linguistically, a master of rj&og, he brings his characters and the world around them to life as no prose-writer had done since the classical age of Greece. Apart from, or in spite of, his Aramaisms 52 (many of which on further revision53 he would probably have removed) he is the Lysias of the vernacular. In the "Little Apocalypse" (which, whatever its history, is not to be attributed to a separate hand) I find ait elevated style, with majestic prose-rhythms appropriate to the occasion. They may not all be consciously sought, but their presence is undeniable.54 Mark's Gospel is a true work of art. Its lucidity, its economy, its dramatic force are not the accidental achievements of a naive hand. Auerbach 55 has singled out 48

Perhaps "répétiteur"? 49 Why is the Greek of Josephus (when left to his own devices) or of St. Paul, who spent some of his formative years in Jerusalem, or of Lucian, who learnt the language in adult life, not riddled with Aramaisms? 80 On his subtle variety of tenses see Swete, xliii. — I will select from among the incidental felicities of the Gospel the ellipse of the objects to nQooevéyxai and ¿fopvfavreç in 2. 4, noUà I)JI6QEI (with its internal accusative), 6. 20, the perfect picture of a divided mind, the choice of the word àvrdXXayfia in 8. 37, the paronomasia daek&elv . . . rbteA&elv at 9. 43, the pathetic effect of the periphrastic tense in rjv YÀO ÊYMV xrij/xara nokXd, 10. 22, the terseness of ovx ëariv ûeoç VÉXQCOV âU.à Ç(ôvt(ov noli) ji?xivàa&e, 12. 27, and at 14. 68 the unexpected hyperbaton otite olôa ovre èniarafiai av ri Aéyeiç (whether or not ri is a mistranslation — cf. Torrey). 51 "A master of Greek, dealing with a sure hand and conscious of his authority" — Torrey, Four 52 Gospels, 243. They are not so much blemishes as the scars of honest labour. 53 The version may have been needed within a week or two for missionary purposes. 54 Since Greek prose-rhythm is a complex and controversial study, I will apply a simple objective test. Risking the old cry of "Roman influence" I will choose the favourite Ciceronian clausulae (all of them popular in Greek) and count the occurrences, before stops, in Mark C. 13: — w w 4, — w ~ ~ 7, — — — w 9, — --'ww — w 2, a total of 22. In addition, the 1st and 4th paeons recommended respectively for beginnings and endings by Aristotle, occur in these positions at verses 11 and 28. Observe also the two balancing double choriambiin 1—2, and the impressive metrical correspondence of vfiïv Xiyw and ndaiv Xiyoj in 37. (My calculations are by quantity, without regard for accent.) 55 Mimesis, c. 2.

Translation Greek in the New Testament

325

for his brilliant analysis the wonderful story of the Denial of Peter. Such concentration of effect argues a talent which would not have been unequal to mastering the language in which he chose to write. I will not a t t em p t to characterize the Greek of the Fourth Gospel; but I find it almost equally difficult to believe t h a t the writer had an imperfect command of the language he used with such care and discrimination. I do not mind admitting that the most accomplished Greek-speaking Jew might, in an occasional word or phrase, voluntarily or involuntarily echo his native idiom. 56 What I cannot allow is t h a t he should frame a complicated expression in Aramaic, laboriously translate it word for word into Greek, and finally trim it in accordance with the minimum requirements of Greek grammar. Wellhausen pointed out t h e Aramaism in 1. 19 elder 'laxcofiov . . . xai 'Icodwrjv... xai avrovg EV TOJ nXoiut xaraoriCovTag (circumstantial participle, more naturally a relative or co-ordinate clause with indicative in Greek) r a dixrvap7 adding t h a t xai avrol. . . xaTagriCovteg should have been written. But this, as Black says, "would not have been Greek". The writer has left us with a participial phrase which few would have thought of using in free narrative, but he has dovetailed it carefully into t h e Greek construction 58 — very selective "thinking in Aramaic". I will mention two places where, paradoxically, t h e Greek seems "too good t o be t r u e " without some prompting from Aramaic. At 9. 41 Heitmiiller 59 calls the reading ev ovo/xdu on "durchaus griechisch". 60 I t is a beautiful touch, with "overtones", if I am not being fanciful, of t h e inevitable variant tu> ovofian /iov. But I see in it an adaptation, and elaboration, of "IQWD, "weil" (Dalman, Orammatik, 236, with references to t h e Babylonian Talmud and t h e Targums). I hope I have shown elsewhere, 61 with t h e help of parallels, 62 t h a t enifiaXaiv exXaiev (14. 72) is good colloquial Greek for "he set to and wept", t h u s confirming Moulton's interpretation. But why the colloquialism? Why not simply ijQ^aro xXaieivl I think t h a t behind eiufiaXow there must lie an Aramaic verb which t h e writer translated or more probably mistranslated. Torrey has offered one excellent conjecture, and Black two more. I t is hard to choose between them. In fine, the idea t h a t Mark thought in Aramaic and wrote in Greek seems to me a wild delusion, springing from inability to appreciate his mastery of the vernacular and from the incubus of linguistic prejudice. As I said at the outset, it is from the Greek side t h a t the main issue must ultimately be judged. The Aramaist supplies the evidence, but the Hellenist who has the freedom of the Greek language from its origins to the present day can 56 57 68

59

There are said to be Latinisms in M. Aurelius. But did he regularly converse, as well as write, in Greek? Perhaps 5. 40 xXaiavxag xai akahiQovrai; 710AM is similar (this time with indefinite subject)*. Other examples in Black. A sentence in Plato, Politicus, 281 E, has a faintly similar turn at the end: . . . ravrag fièv

gwaniovg, ràg óè avrò rò ngàyfia omegya^oftevag ahiag. (The accusatives depend on the distant verb •freaawfie&a).

Quoted by Taylor. I discussed a slightly different use of nomine (with Greek parallels) in my short article on Tacitus, Germania 36. 1, Classical Quarterly, 1968, 382-3. 61 Biblica, 1972, 411-2. 62 A likely papyrus parallel was known already, but Lagrange had found a slight ambiguity in it. 60

22 Studia Evangelica VII

326

G. M. LEE

alone deliver the verdict. It is bound to be a subjective judgment. Statistics count for less than the flair for language, cultivated by loving familiarity with its lifehistory. Perhaps there can never be a judge — only advocates; and it is as an advocate, inadequately briefed but passionate in conviction, that I have been speaking. If, as I hope, the Aramaic theory one day prevails, many will have contributed to this result; but the highest credit will be due to Charles Fox Burney, Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the University of Oxford.

Paul and the Jerusalem Decree: A Reappraisal J.

I.

H . MCDONALD,

Edinburgh

The decree which emerges in Acts 15 from a council or assembly 1 at Jerusalem is but one item in a problematic panorama that has proved intractible even to exhaustive study. No wide-angled view is possible within the scope of this brief paper, and if major aspects of the problem appear to be passed by or barely suggested in unfocused sweeps, let it not be thought that the writer has dismissed them capriciously or presumptiously but rather that he has bowed perforce before the exigencies of time and space in a strictly limited and narrowly focused study. 2 By zooming in upon the centre of the modern debate, so to speak, and viewing it through a close-up lens, we locate the feature that provides a starting-point for our study. Many years have passed since J. B. Lightfoot, following Irenaeus (3. 13. 3), identified the visit in Gal. 2 with that in Acts 15 and in support of this thesis spelled out the cumulative weight of geographical, chronological, personal, disputational and consequential factors, while recognising certain residual difficulties in the proposed solution: the apparent discrepancies in the two accounts, Paul's silence on his second visit (Acts 11:30) and his omission of the apostolic decree itself. 3 Modern scholars frequently combine their acceptance of the Gal. 2 = Acts 15 equation with marked scepticism concerning Luke's handling of the apostolic decree. O. Cullmann transferred the passing of the decree to a later time; the author of Acts erred in connecting the decree with this particular council at Jerusalem. 4 E. Haenchen found the source of the four requirements not in an apostolic decree but in a later document falsely ascribed to the apostles and utilised by Luke. 5 G. Bornkamm writes: "Paul's account makes it quite certain 1

Cf. G. Bornkamm, Paul, Eng. tr. 1971, pp. 35ff. Against the background of Qumranio and rabbinic practice, B. Gerhardsson argues that Luke represents the occasion as a formal "general session": Memory and Manuscript, Eng. tr. 1961, pp. 245—261. 2 Among important issues not discussed fully here, the following may be mentioned: the general credibility of the Acts narrative (cf. G. Bornkamm, op. cit. pp. xvii ff.) or for that matter of Galatians (cf. J. C. O'Neill, The Recovery of Paul's Letter to the Galatians, 1972); the possibility of identifying Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 2 with that in Acts 11: 30 (the view of Calvin and many British scholars in particular: cf. G. S. Duncan, Galatians (Moffatt NT Com.), 1934, pp. xxiiff.; F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 1954, p. 300f.), or some other visit not mentioned specifically in Acts (cf. T. W. Manson, The Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians, BJRL 24, 1940, pp. 59ff.); the propriety of identifying the visits of Act 11: 30 and Acts 15 (cf. A. D. Nock, St. Paul, 1938, p. 116); and problems of chronology (cf. G. Ogg, Chronology of the Life of St. Paul, 1968, pp. 73-88). 3 J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, 1890, pp. 123-28. 4 Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Eng. tr. 1953, p. 51. 5 Die Apostelgeschichte, 1959, pp. 410ff. Cf. also W. Schmithals, Paul and James, Eng. tr. 1965, pp. 97-102. 22*

328

J . I . H . MCDONALD

t h a t the 'apostolic decree' can never have been part of the resolutions of the assembly" 6 ; and his reasons for this somewhat dogmatic assertion include the fact that, in Paul's own words, the apostles "added nothing to him" — i. e., they imposed no further requirement on him (Gal. 2:6); and t h a t Paul makes no mention of the decree in his Corinthian correspondence when one might have expected him to do so. Further, if the decree had been passed in the form in which Luke gives it, the subsequent quarrel at Antioch is difficult to account for. All of which seems to add up to a very cogent case! But is it correct ? Does this radical criticism in effect take an easy way out of the difficulties presented by the New Testament evidence and in so doing miss some of the nuances of the central, religious debate? The thesis presented briefly here is t h a t a critical but less cavalier treatment of the sources can afford deeper insight into the structural peculiarities of the situation and the ambivalences of the protagonists — not least, Paul. The issue in question arose from the Gentile mission, an extension of the "Hellenists'" mission. How far were uncircumcised Gentiles (cf. Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:3) who followed a way of life alien to the Jews to be accepted into full membership of the Church without condition (other than confession of faith in Christ and baptism in his Name)? Alarm was felt not merely at the prospect of the Church being overrun by people alien to the Jews in race and way of life but at the effect this kind of procedure would have — perhaps was already having — on the Christian community in Jerusalem. As Schmithals has suggested, the hellenisation of the Church was seen by the rest of the Jews as subverting their political and national uniqueness and identity, which were essential to the privileges the Jewish nation and faith enjoyed within the Roman Empire. 7 Although a member of a deputation from Antioch (Acts 15:2; cf. Gal. 2:1) 8 , Paul went to Jerusalem primarily because he was moved to do so ("I went up by revelation"), for he thought it essential to get assurances from the leading apostles t h a t the Gentile mission would not be undermined, whatever formula might be necessary in face of the political situation in Jerusalem. 9 This assurance he won from "those of repute" in private conference (2:2, 9), with the additional suggestion — though, one difficult in practice — that the missions to Jew and Gentile should as far as possible be treated separately. I n the wider community there was much heated debate (Acts 15:7) 10 , possibly reflected in Gal. 2 in the demand t h a t Titus be 6 Op. cit. p. 42. i Op. cit. p. 37. 8 The Western text states that "those who came from Jerusalem" commanded that a delegation including Paul and Barnabas be sent up: a specific summons. Even if this unlikely step had been taken, it would still be consistent with the sophistication of Paul's thinking for him to claim he went up "by relevation". 9 The question was not about the validity of Paul's apostleship or mission but about whether uncircumcised Christians were to be accepted into full embership of the Church and enjoy equal status with the circumcised Christians. If a negative answer was given, Paul would consider he had "run in vain", although doubtless he would continue to run. Cf. J. C. O'Neill, op. cit. p. 29. 10 ZrjTTjOig can mean "strife", "dispute", but also "doctrinal debate": cf. B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 250f. 11 This is not absolutely certain. In part, the solution depends on the nuance one finds in "compelled". Cf. F. C. Burkitt: "Who can doubt that it was the knife that really did circumcise Titus that has cut the syntax of Gal. 2 : 3—5 to pieces?", Christian Beginnings, 1924, p. 118.

Paul and the Jerusalem Decree: A Reappraisal

329

circumcised: a demand which Paul may well have resisted with success (2:5). 11 B u t it is clear from his manner of writing t h a t Paul was concerned with his private conference with t h e apostles rather t h a n with t h e public debate. 1 2 Several important perspectives are to be distinguished : (i) Luke, who had no knowledge of or interest in Paul's private discussions, viewed t h e debate from an apologetic, ecclesiastical standpoint. H e was not particularly-concerned with t h e central question of circumcision (cf. Acts 15:1, 5) since it was no longer relevant to his generation of Christians b u t he was anxious t o exploit fully t h e apologetic value of a not unimportant occasion, his contention being t h a t Christianity deserved no less t h a n Judaism t o rank as a religio licita. Tendentious elements in his account m a y be seen not only in his formalizing of early Church procedures 1 3 b u t also in his theologizing of Jerusalem itself 1 4 , and in t h e fact t h a t he plays down t h e main findings of t h e conference and plays up t h è four requirements to the extent of repeating them in full in t h e space of a few sentences. 15 Also, he gives no adequate account of the admitted split between P a u l on t h e one hand and Barnabas a n d J o h n Mark on t h e other (15:37—40). (ii) J a m e s can be seen as fulfilling a dual role. The kinsman of Jesus, he is head of t h e prestigious church a t Jerusalem, and he is president of an assembly a t which not only t h e Jerusalem congregation b u t also other apostles and delegates f r o m Antioch are present. I n t h e latter capacity, it falls to him t o sum up t h e findings of t h e assembly and give t h e official judgment 1 6 , which falls far short of t h e demand t h a t Gentile Christians be circumcised : t h e y are not to be troubled in this way. B u t as an astute leader well aware of the importance of t h e issue for his own church in Jerusalem, he was bound t o a t t e m p t to save t h e day by putting forward safeguards against any antinomian interpretation of t h e decision, which would have been offensive to Jewish and Jewish Christian sentiment. On t h e basis of Luke's evidence, he did this by issuing a four-fold halachah consisting of t h e minimum requirements t h a t could be laid upon Gentile converts 1 7 and circulated by letter in t h e appropriate areas. (iii) Peter, t h e leader of Jesus' disciple group and t h e safeguarder of dominical In part, it depends on one's view of the integrity of the passage: T. W. Manson held that vv. 4 and 5 describe an incident that occurred later: op. cit. p. 67. 12 The word avroig in Gal. 2:2 may refer to the large assembly, but the verse is admittedly difficult: cf. O'Neill, p. 27 f. 13 Cf. B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. pp. 245—53. 14 Cf. H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Luke, Eng. tr. 1960, pp. 7 3 - 9 4 . « Cf. also Acts 21 : 25. 16 Cf. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 252. 17 The four provisions of the decree figure among the seven "Noachite precepts". There is some evidence in favour of a three-fold formula, involving the omission of "things strangled" (Western text) or of "unchastity" (P 45 ), but this can hardly be held conclusive (despite P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism, 1940, p. 14f., and E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter, 1946, p. 372). The regulations were open to reinterpretation in the church, and subsequent Christian catechesis is the obvious Sitz im Leben of moralizing tendencies which took "blood" to mean not the blood of animals but "murder", and which appended a version of the "golden rule". The regulations, which might well have existed in Christian circles before James lent them his authority, are directly derived from Jewish practice (cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism II, p. 74f.), the sanctity of which had been underlined in the Maccabean struggle (1 Macc. 1: 47 ff., 62ff.; 2 Macc. 6 : 1 8 - 7 : 41; cf. T. W. Manson, op. cit. p. 71f.).

330

J . I . H . MCDONALD

tradition 1 8 , reflected his master's openness to outsiders. Peter's original position vis à vis the Gentiles, therefore was not one of careless laxity but of deliberate policy. In the messianic age, the barriers between Jew and Gentile are broken down: a point developed at some length in relation to Peter by the writer of Acts. 19 The clash with Paul at Antioch arose because Peter reverted to the more traditional Jewish position of separation from Gentiles at table. This reversion, which was supported on the whole by the hellenistic Jewish Christians among whom were noted Paulinists ("even Barnabas"), can only be explained by some exceedingly weighty considerations. 20 (iv) Paul was satisfied t h a t the demand for the circumcision of Gentile Christians had been resisted and t h a t he had been given carte blanche by the apostles to pursue a virtually independent Gentile mission. The important occasion for Paul was his tête à tête with the leading apostles ; he gives no clear evidence of concern for or involvement in the general session. Indeed he can exercise a certain detachment from James' halachah as essentially the resolution of the Jerusalem congregation and as pertaining to the treatment of the Gentile problem outwith his own sphere of influence. In any case it would have been improper for him to have attempted to interfere with it. In the situation of Jerusalem and Judaea such regulations were understandable and necessary, and Paul himself no doubt regulated his practice in appropriate ways when in the holy land or when circumstances rendered it necessary. 21 If our interpretation is correct, the official emissaries dispatched from Jerusalem to Antioch had a double duty : to report the actual decision of the assembly concerning the circumcision issue, and to deliver the Jerusalem letter concerning appropriate Gentile practice. 22 The former, we may deduce, was received with acclamation ; the latter was noted. I t goes without saying t h a t Luke, whether deliberately or because of the sources available to him 23 , has effectively eliminated any such distinction. The subsequent development of the plot at Antioch is virtually ignored by Luke b u t treated fully by Paul (Gal. 2:11 ff. ). The traumatic event is triggered off by the arrival of certain men from James (2:12) 2/ ', who deliver a message of such authority concerning the observance of the Jewish food laws t h a t a leading apostle such as Peter and "even" such a Pauline sympathiser as Barnabas alter their practice in relation to table fellowship and presumably therefore inter-communion (2:12f.) ; and it is clear from Paul's account t h a t the Jewish Christians of Antioch agreed with their action. Up to this point, regulations concerning Jewish food laws were 18

Cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, Galatians 1:18 'Iarogrjaac Krjrpäv, in: N. T. Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, ed. A. J. B. Higgins, 1959, pp. 144-49. 19 Cf. Acts 10 passim; 11 : 1 - 1 8 ; 15 : 7-11. 20 Cf. G. Ogg, op. cit. pp. 89-98. 21 Cf. Acts 21 : 26; 1 Cor. 9 : 19-23. 22 The version of the letter given in Acts 21: 25 contains no reference to the circumcision question. 23 On the question of sources, cf. R. Bultmann, Zur Frage nach den Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, in: N. T. Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, pp. 68ff.; E. Haenchen, Quellenanalyse und Kompositionsanalyse in Acta 15, ZNW 26, 1960, pp. 153ff.; and the comments of B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 260, esp. n. 3. 24 The text is difficult: cf. O'Neill, op. cit. pp. 37ff. I think the usually accepted readings can stand, but cf. Manson, op. cit. p. 70.

Paul and the Jerusalem Decree: A Reappraisal

331

clearly not observed at Antioch, at any rate by Peter and his associates; a position consonant with either the non-existence of the so-called apostolic decree or of its limited scope as a Jerusalem halachah. The case for the latter alternative becomes overwhelming when the reaction of Peter and the others to James' message is given due weight, for if it had been an entirely new set of regulations issued on James' authority alone such instant compliance could not have been expected. But if James, in desperate straits because of political pressure in Jerusalem from "the circumcision party" 25 now writes to underline the fact that this halachah was given in the context of an apostolic assembly and had therefore the force of an apostolic decree for all churches, the dramatic turn-about at Antioch becomes comprehensible. 26 The chairman of the assembly has clarified part of the proceedings, and the majority at Antioch accept his authoritative ruling and probably sympathise also on grounds of expediency. This left Paul very much on his own, for the new development represented an important imposition. He steadfastly refuses to countenance the regulations now that they have acquired this unacceptable interpretation nor will he compromise his radical obedience to first principles — the gospel of justification by faith in Christ alone, not by works (2:16): a basic concept about which Barnabas and Peter hardly needed to be instructed. He will not, he insists, build up again those things he has already torn down (2:18). And he argues his case directly with Peter: "opposed him to his face" (2:11). It was not for this that Paul had agreed to separate missions to Jew and Gentile. He had no intention of allowing Gentile Christians to be second class citizens (Christian oefiofievoi, as it were) within the Christian fellowship; for it was cardinal to Paul's understanding of the faith that "Christ is not divided" (1 Cor. 1:13). Much of Paul's trouble in Galatia, Corinth and elsewhere may be directly related to the unfortunate and, we suggest, secondary interpretation given to the Jerusalem halachah by perhaps all the churches except those under the direct oversight of Paul — and even they were constantly threatened by it. Incidentally, this same interpretation shows why Paul, faced with demands for circumcision by Judaizers in Galatia, could not simply in G. H. C. Macgregor's words, "quote the decision of the council to the Galatians in order to clinch his argument with the local Judaizers"27, for if the decision saved him from the Scylla of circumcision it broke him on the Charvbdis of the food laws. Hence he must base his argument wholly on the gospel. More immediately, the tensions engendered by the Antioch situation are well illustrated by the withdrawal of Barnabas and Mark from the Gentile mission. The men from James who precipitated the Antioch crisis brought a message 25

I. e., the Jewish authorities: cf. Schmithals, op. cit. p. 66f. T. W. Manson supposed that James' message was something like this: "News has come to Jerusalem that you are eating Gentile food at Gentile tables, and this is causing great scandal to many devout brethren besides laying us open to serious criticism from the Scribes and Pharisees. Pray discontinue this practice, which will surely do great harm to our work among our fellow-countrymen", (op. cit. p. 72). But this is altogether too weak. The normal practice of Peter must have been well-known, nor was such conduct as his unheard of in the Diaspora even among Jews who had no messianic beliefs. Such a mild letter could hardly have produced a dramatic change. There was positive danger to James and the brethren in Jerusalem from outraged, politically-conscious Jews — that was one factor. A clarification of the apostolic nature of the requirements was, we suggest, another. 27 The Acts of the Apostles, Interpreter's Bible IX, 1954, p. 199. 26

332

J . I. H . MCDONALD

concerning food laws, not concerning circumcision (2:12). But the decision of the apostolic assembly did not put an end to the demand for the circumcision of Gentile Christians in certain circles, possibly reflecting a Pharisaic — in particular a Shammaite — background. 28 Their activities persisted in Galatia, and Paul has this situation in the forefront of his thinking when he writes his letter (cf. 5:2—12). Since they represent a challenge to his apostleship and his gospel, he gives a recital of his calling and his relevant contacts with the apostles including the crucial visit t o Jerusalem and its disturbing aftermath. Of course he must select from the totality of his experiences: he cannot give a wholly comprehensive view in such a concise form. Much has been written about his omission, on our view, of any reference to his second visit to Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). Here let it suffice to point out that it is characteristic of Paul to discount or ignore what seems to him irrelevant at the time of writing. Thus in 1 Cor. 1:14 he discounts the irrelevance of who baptized whom and only partly corrects his sweeping statement in an afterthought (v. 16).*) Our whole argument serves to indicate and illustrate the complexities of language and its infinite capacity for tendentiousness. A statement is truly meaningful only when placed in its proper context and related both to the intention of the speaker and his audience's capacity to interpret the words he uses. Appropriate clues to these factors may be found in the structure of the situation in which he speaks and which he addresses. Our reconstruction can appeal to no higher criterion than t h a t of possibility or perhaps probablity — though some may call it tendentious ! At least it may serve to some extent to prize the lid from the boiling cauldron of early church debate and offer a corrective to modern tendencies to oversimplify the workings of apostolic authority. This was probably neither t h e first nor the last time t h a t Paul found himself constrained to adopt the posture of "Here stand I : I can do no other" ; but it was certainly the most dramatic and possibly the most important for the Christian church. 30 28

29

30

Cf. B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 249; H. J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, 1949, p. 259. I n fact in Galatians 1—2, Paul is concerned (i) with the initial contacts with the apostles, so that he can make it clear that his commission did not come from them; and (ii) with his contacts after fourteen years, when his apostleship and message were under scrutiny because the very success of the Gentile mission had rendered more acute the problem of circumcision. For modern scholars t o agonize over literal inconsistencies is unimportant; what is vital is to detect the characteristics of Paul's thinking processes. Regrettably, it is not possible to discuss here more recent work such G. Howard, Paul : Crisis in Galatia, 1979.

Citations bibliques dans l'épigraphie grecque LEOKADIA MAEUNOWICZ F

C'est un fait connu que la Sainte Ecriture jouait un grand rôle dans le christianisme primitif. Même de simples fidèles étaient assez familiarisés avec elle. Une preuve de plus nous est fournie par des lettres privées conservées dans les papyrus. On y décèle facilement des allusions et des réminiscences bibliques. 1 Car on vivait, pour ainsi dire, dans l'atmosphère impregnée par la Parole inspirée. Le grec et le latin chrétiens ont fait beaucoup d'emprunts à la langue de la Bible. Les gens cultivés et les demi-lettrés se réferaient bien souvent aux sentences faits connus par la Sainte Ecriture. Les monuments littéraires et archéologiques paléochrétiens en donnent des preuves abondantes. Il n'existe, autant que je le sache, aucune étude consacrée aux citations et aux allusions bibliques dans l'epigraphie grecque. L. Jalabert avait abordé ce sujet, il y a déjà soixante ans, dans le Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie. 2 C'est une liste des inscriptions avec des brefs renseignements bibliographiques et des conclusions générales basées sur ce matériel épigraphique. L'auteur n'a pu donner la statistique à peu près précise que pour la Syrie, la Palestine et l'Egypte; pour les autres régions il se contente de chiffres très approximatifs. La situation se présente mieux dans le domaine de l'épigraphie latine. Joachim Gensichen a publiée en 1910 une étude: De scripturae sacrae vestigiis in inscriptionibus Latinis christianis. 3 H. Leclercq a donné un bref aperçu : Citations bibliques dans l'épigraphie latine. 4 Comme de nouvelles découvertes archéologiques ont notablement accru le domaine de l'épigraphie chrétienne, il m'a paru utile pour les études bibliques de mettre à jour l'inventaire dressé par L. Jalabert en dépouillant plusieurs recueils d'inscriptions grecques et de différentes revues. Il ne suffisait pas de reprendre les recherches heuristiques à partir de l'an 1913, car l'éminent épigraphiste d'un côté a omis beaucoup d'inscriptions déjà publiées et d'autre côté il a ajouté à sa liste celles qui se trouvaient dans les fiches du Corpus général des inscriptions de la Syrie et dont les volumes ont été publiés plus tard. Notre inventaire des inscriptions n'a pas la prétention d'être complet. Il est très probable que malgré nos efforts quelques inscriptions y font défaut à cause 1

Cf. M. Naldini, Il cristianesimo in Egitto. Lettere private nei papiri dei secoli II—IV, Firenze, p. 54. 2 «Citations bibliques dans l'épigraphie grecque», t. III (a. 1913), col. 1731—56. 3 Gryphiae; pp. 61. 4 DACL, t. III col. 1756—1579. Un des élèves du prof. G. Sanders à Gant est en train de finir sa thèse pour compléter et ajourner ces deux études par les inscriptions publiées entre-temps.

334

LEOKADIA MALUNOWICZ

d'une grande dispersion du matériel épigraphique et à cause des difficultés que j'ai éprouvées à trouver toutes les revues et publications qui pourraient apporter quelque information utile et enrichir notre base de recherches. Notre inventaire embrasse 45 inscriptions, celui de Jalabert — 250. I. L'Ancien Testament A. Psaumes 1. Ps. 25(24)18; V/VI s.; Chypre. - T. B. Mitford, New Inscriptions from early Christian Cyprus: Byzantion 20 (1950) p. 160 s., dalle de marbre. 2. Ps. 27(26)1; V. s.; Palestine; l'inscription sur le rocher au fond du tombeau. — P. Thomsen, Die lateinischen und griechischen Inschriften der Stadt Jerusalem u. ihrer nächsten Umgebung: Zeitschrift d. deutschen Palästina-Vereins 44 (1921) p. 107, n. 170. 3. Ps. 29 (28) 2; Vs., ib., l'inscription sur une cisterne. — P. Thomsen, 1. c., p. 8, n. 12. 4. Ps. 29(28)3; Césarée (Palestine). - B. Lifshitz, ib. 78 (1962) p. 82, n. 5. 5. Ps. 35(34)4, probablement du V I s. ; Chypre. - Mitford, 1. c. n. 9. 6. Ps. 42(41)4; Antioche de Pisidie; la mosaïque du pavement dans la basilique. — SEG 5, n. 582. 7. Ps. 50(51)21 ; Palestine (?) (mont Nebo); mosaïque. - SEG 8 (1937) n. 321. 8. Ps. 50(51)21 (avec une acclamation à la fin); V I I s.; El-Mechajjet; ib. n. 338. 9. Ps. 71(70)1; V s.; Jérusalemme; sur le couvercle d'un tombeau. — Thomsen, 1. c., p. 107, n. 169. 10. Ps. 86(85)1-3; Gerasis; mosaïque. - SEG 7, n. 875. 11. Ps. 91(90)1 ; V s. ; Jérusalemme; au dessus de la porte du tombeau. — Thomsen, 1. c. p. 107, n. 168. 12. Ps. 101(100)2; V/V Is.; Nesebar (Thrace); corniche à l'intérieur de l'église. V. Besevliev, Spätgriechische u. spätlateinische Inschriften aus Bulgarien, Berlin 1964, n. 166. 13. Ps. 118(117)19-20. Bétléem; mosaïque. - S E G 8 (1937) n. 235. 14. Ps. 118(117)20 (au lieu de KVQÎOV il y a OEOW) ; in tabula ansata ; Arabie. — SEG 7 (1934) n.1167. 15. Ps. 118(117); ib. sur l'epistyle; ib. n. 1186. 16. Ps. 118(117) (seulement la fin du verset); le début de l'époque byzantine; Crète; sur la pierre en forme de la croix. — Inscriptiones Creticae, t. IV, ed. M. Guarducci, Roma 1950, n. 473. 17. Ps. 118(117)20 et Ps, 121(120)8; V s.; Jérusalemme, mosaïque. - Thomsen, 1. c., p. 12, n. 24. 18. Ps. 121(120)5-8; sur le linteau d'une maison; Asie Mineure (?). - W. M. Calder, Inscriptions of Southern Galatia: Amer. Jour, of Arch. 36(1932) p. 463, n. 25. 19. Ps. 121(120)8; VII/IX s.; Jérusalemme; mosaïque en forme de la tabula ansata.

Citations bibliques dans l'épigraphie grecque

335

B, Autres livres de l'Ancien Testament 20. Gén. 2, 11—14, l'an 539; Cyrénaïque; la mosaïque du pavement de l'église. — SEG 18 (1962) n. 768. 21. Ex. 19, 16—18; VI s. ; Sinaï; gravée sur la croix. — K. Weitzmann, I. Sevcenko, The Moses Cross at Sinai: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17(1963) p. 385-98. Cf. J . et L. Robert, Bull, épigr. dans REG 80 (1967) n. 67. 22. Num. 6, 22—26; I V s. ou postérieure; la dalle de marbre de la synagogue des Samaritains à Thessalonique. Au commencement quelques mots en caractère hébraïque. — Insc. Graecae X , I I , 1 : Inscr. Thessalonicae et vicinae, ed. C. Edson, Berlin 1972 n. 789. Cf. B. Lifshitz, Revue bibl. 75 (1968) p. 370-4. 23. I Reg. 16, 4; Antioche; mosaïque du triclinium. — IGLS n. 770. II. Nouveau Testament 24. Matth. 1, 23. VI s. ; Jérusalemme; sur les ampulles d'or de l'huile. — Thomsen, 1. c. p. 125 s., n. 215 a.c.d.k.l/J, ma, nß, oß. 25. Matth. 1,23 (avec: ¡ue&'rjfiwv ó êedjç); VI/VIIs; Huarte (Apamene), sur l'architrave. — P. Canivet, Due inscrizioni greche a Çûarte nell'Apamene: Epigraphica 33 (1971) p. 95 ss. 26. Matth. 6, 9, le texte mal conservé du Pater, avec une acclamation à la fin ; Syrie ; sur un linteau. — IGLS n. 2546. 27. Matth. 11, 28; fragments de l'inscription provenant de l'église aux environs d'Hébron. - B. Lifshitz, Rev. bibl. 77 (1970) p. 77, n. 15. 28. Matth. 11, 28; Syrie; encolpium en bois sculpté. — IGLS n. 2541. 29. Matth. 26, 26 et I Cor. 11, 24 ; Syrie ; «moule à marquer le pain qui sert comme hostie à consacrer, suivant le rite grec»; une autre inscription avec une acclamation Irjoovç XQMTTÔÇ vixä. — IGLS n. 2461. 30. Matth. 26, 50, sur la coupe de verre d'origine syriaque. - SEG 7 (1934) n. 811. 31. Joa. 1,29; IV/Vs., l'Egypte; l'inscription mise au dessous de l'image de St. Jean Baptiste dans le sanctuaire d'Ammon à Carnaque changé en église par les Coptes. 32. Joa. 5, 24; l'inscription provenant de l'Eglise aux environs d'Hébron. — B. Lifshitz, Rev. bibl. 77 (1970) p. 78 s., n. 16. 33. Joa. 8, 12; Lycie; H. Grégoire, Recueil des Inscriptions grecques chrétiennes d'Asie Mineure, fsc. 1, Amsterdam 1968, n. 297. 34. Joa. 19,26—27; Antioche; croix de bronze (moitié de reliquaire). — IGLS n. 1084. 35. Joa. 19,26—27; région d'Alep; plaque de reliquaire en forme de croix. — I G L S n . 214. 36. Joa. 20, 28; Vis.; Jérusalemme; sur ampulle d'or de l'huile. Thomsen, 1. c. p. 127, n. 215 iß. 37. Joa. 20, 28; Vis. ; ib. ; sur l'ampulle d'or de l'huile. Thomsen, ib. n. 217. 38. Joa. Apoc. 1 , 7 ; peut-être du VI s. ; Corinthe ; la dalle de marbre. — N. A. Bees, Die griechisch-christlichen Inschriften des Peloponnes, Athen 1941, n. 7. 39. Joa. Appc. 1, 7; Vis., Zapara (Bulgarie). — Besevlev 1. c. n. 241 v. 5.

336

LEOKADIA MALUNOWICZ

40. Joa. 1, 4; 8, 12; I Joa. 1, 5; Joa. Apoc. 1, 8; l'inscription de l'église aux environs d'Hébron. - Lifshitz, Rev. bibl. 77 (1970) p. 78s.; n. 17. C'est un exemple de citations, où sont juxtaposés des mots ou versets empruntés aux différents passages de l'Ecriture. Ici sont rapprochés divers versets de sens très voisin. — Cf. supra n. 17, 28 et n. 39, 40. 41. Rom. 8, 31 ; Syrie ; gravée sur le linteau. — IGLS, n. 1784 avec un commentaire. 42. Rom. 13, 3; peut être du V s.; Palestine; mosaïque du pavement dans une petite chambre d'un édifice chrétien public. — A. Negev, Rev. bibl. 78 (1971), p. 256s. n. 30. 43. Rom. 15, 1 ; V I - V I I I s . ; Crète ; épitaphe. - Inscr. Cret. I n. 6. 44. Rom. 16, 1; V I s.; Jérusalemme; épitaphe. La citation devient plutôt une allusion (f/ ôevréga &oiflrj). — Thomsen 1. c. p. 94 n. 130.

45. I I Cor. 1, 3-cf. n. 38. Une première constatation qui s'impose, même si les deux statistiques ne renferment que chiffres très approximatifs, c'est la prédominance des citations empruntées aux différents psaumes, dans la liste de Jalabert 147 (presque 60%), dans la nôtre—19 (environ 44%). Les nouvelles inscriptions renferment les citations tirées des Psaumes 25, 18 (nr 1); 35, 4 (n. 5); 42, 4 (n. 6), 50, 21 (n. 7 et 8), 71, 1 (n. 9), 86, 1—3 (n. 10), 101, 2 (n. 12) qui ne figuraient pas dans le relevé précèdent. La place privilégiée de ce livre inspiré s'explique, il me semble, par le caractère des psaumes: c'est qu'ils expriment des sentiments très différents et des mouvements très divers de l'âme humaine et qu'ils se rapportent aux diverses situations de vie. Dans l'antiquité le Psautier était commenté très souvent et oralement (homélie) et par écrit (commentaires). Il occupait aussi une place priviligiée dans la prière liturgique et privée. Il jouissait d'une grande popularité dans le milieu des ascètes, et bien souvent on l'apprenait par cœur. A côté du contenu la structure même des psaumes peu compacte facilitait aux graveurs la tâche d'y trouver des invocations, des prières ou des acclamations. Les autres livres de l'Ancien Testament ne sont représentés que par 4 citations: par un numéro Gen. 2, 11—14; Ex. 19, 16—18; Num. 6, 22—26; I Reg. 16, 4. Ce sont des extraits bibliques nouveaux dans l'épigraphie grecque. En total les citations de l'Ancien Testament constituent presque la moitié de notre enquête ; l'autre moitié est formée par les citations néo-testamentaires. Les évangiles ont fourni 13 citations ( St Matthieu 5, St Jean 8) ; l'Apocalypse 1, 7 reparaît deux fois. La correspondance de Saint Paul a trouvé 5 attestations : 4 de l'êpitre aux Romains, 1 de I I aux Corinthiens; les nouvelles citations sont: Matth. 11, 28; 26, 26. 50; Joa. 1, 4. 29; 5, 24; 8, 12, 20, 28; Apocal. 1, 7. 8; I Joa. 1, 5. La moitié (23 citations) apparaît pour la première fois dans les sources épigraphiques. Cette répartition des citations entre les livres de la Bible tient moins peutêtre à des raisons de préférence des graveurs qu'au hasard des découvertes. Les monuments épigraphiques proviennent de diverses régions ; la plupart ( 19) de Palestine; 12 de l'Asie Mineure, 9 de la Grèce et des îles, 4 de l'Afrique. La répartition géographique des inscriptions relevées par Jalabert est la suivante: Syrie — 47; Egypte — 67; Asie Mineure — 12; Grèce et îles — 3; Europe — 18. La majorité des monuments (26) ne sont pas datés ; la plupart (15) ont été gravés entre le V e s. et le VI e s. Une inscription provient du I V e s. et une autre appartient déjà au moyen-âge (VIII/IX s.). Le but et le caractère de l'inscription ne sont pas toujours clairs. Généralement les citations bibliques sont assez courtes. La plus longue

Citations bibliques dans l'épigraphie grecque

337

compte 5 versets (nr 21). Jamais le graveur ne situe les mots empruntés. Cette manière de citer était justement en usage chez les Anciens grecs et romains. Quelquefois on donnait le nom de l'auteur, en le nommant directement ou en le désignant par une périphrase ou une métonymie. De la même manière sont introduites d'ordinaire les citations de l'Ancien Testament par les hagiographes du Nouveau Testament (p. ex. Act. 4, 25). Une inscription seulement (nr 43) signale l'emprunt. C'est l'épitaphe d'un sous-diacre, F 'EV&ÔÔE xatámre 'Avaarâmoç ó rr¡v êeoq>iÀij ¡Á,vr¡nr¡v ysvàfievoç vTioôiàxo(voç) TÔV /j,ovr¡Qr¡ 18iov èÇr)Aa>ï]xà>ç êv ëxeaiv Xç', amoç rà àaÛEvrjfiara rœv âôvvàrtov fiaoráÇ(ov, xa&o)ç yèyqanxE. ( R o m . X V 1.)

Dans les autres inscriptions les citations ne sont distinguées du texte d'aucune manière. Considérations générales Les citations bibliques transmises par les monuments épigraphiques couvrent un secteur très étroit de l'ensemble du texte sacré et ne sont pas aussi nombreuses que le laisseraient croire les expressions vraiment exagérées même des grands épigraphistes. Mais malgré leur fragmentation elles possèdent une grande autorité : elles sont strictement localisées et parfois exactement datées (p. ex. n. 20). Elles n'ont pas souffert de toutes les corruptions inhérentes à une longue transmission des manuscrits; elles pouvaient subir seulement des altérations du premier dégré (faute du lapicide), elles n'ont pas été remaniées. La critique textuelle donc de la Bible peut gagner à l'examen des citations épigraphiques. L'exactitude littérale des extraits fournis par les inscriptions doit être envisagée selon la coûtume des anciens qui se montraient moins scrupuleux que nous sur ce point-là. On citait souvent de mémoire, on adaptait les expressions des autres au contexte. L'examen détaillé des emprunts à la Bible transmis par les inscriptions pourrait apporter aussi d'utiles indications pour l'histoire du texte sacré et des différentes recensions et traductions qui étaient en usage dans telle ou telle Église ou région. L'ensemble de ces attestations monumentales classées par provenances fournirait des renseignements : a) sur la place qu'occupait la Sainte Ecriture dans la piété des simples fidèles, b) sur la popularité de certains livres et sentences, mais ici l'historien doit être prudent, car dans plus d'un cas les citations bibliques sont indirectes, elles étaient empruntées directement aux textes liturgiques 5 (exemple très instructif: les épitaphes). L'apport de l'épigraphie aux études bibliques est plus modeste que celui de la papyrologie, mais on ne peut quand même le négliger. La collaboration des épigraphistes et des biblistes dans ce domaine devient indispensable.* 5

Cf. Jalabert, 1. c., col. 1755 n. 1; il renvoi à W. K. Prentice, Greek and Latin Inscriptions, New York 1908, p. 9—116. — Voir aussi IGLS v. n. 525 avec le commentaire. * Thanks are due to Mrs. Geoffrey Wainwright, who kindly corrected the proofs.

Melehizedek in Hebrews, Philo and Justin Martyr J. L.

MARSHALL,

Retford

It is the purpose of this short paper to examine the place given to Melehizedek in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, and to compare this with Hebrews and Philo, suggesting some reasons for the points of similarity and of difference. Justin mentions Melehizedek ten times in the Dialogue, on all occasions but one using the phrase "after the order of Melehizedek", which is quoted six times in the context of Ps. 110: 4 "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melehizedek". This is one of the Old Testament passages quoted by Justin in support of his assertion that Christ is called "priest" and "high-priest" in the Old Testament. In Dial. 115 he takes the L X X text xai edei^e fioi'Irjoovv rov legea rov fieyav as a reference to Christ: "the revelation made among your people in Babylon in the days of Jesus the priest was a prediction of what was to be done by our priest and God and Christ, the Son of the Universal Father" Christ, then, is foreshadowed in the Old Testament as a priest. He is superior to the levitical priesthood as Justin demonstrates in a curious passage in Dial. 86: "By the blossoming of his rod, Aaron was proved to be high-priest. Isaiah indeed foretold that Christ would come forth as a rod from the root of Jesse." The suggestion seems to be that Aaron's priesthood is dependent on that of Christ, in a form of middle Platonist participation relationship, just as Aaron's rod is a foreshadowing of the blossoming rod which is Christ2. If then, Aaron participates in Christ as shadow in reality, the priesthood of Christ is an eternal priesthood. This is confirmed for Justin by the testimony of Ps. 110 : 4. Several times he contends that Christ is an eternal priest 3 , and argues that this is applicable to no-one else, rejecting a Jewish interpretation of the verse, unattested elsewhere, which applies it to king Hezekiah, who "neither was nor is an everlasting priest of God" 4 . Furthermore, he notes that Melehizedek was one of the uncircumcised, and was priest of the uncircumcised, and in this too he finds a parallel with Christ5. As the priest of the uncircumcised, Melehizedek blessed the circumcised Abraham, so Christ, the priest of the uncircumcised Gentiles, will bless and welcome all those of the circumcision who approach him in faith. The context of this argument is an allegation by Justin that the Jews misinterpret the scriptures. Ps. 110 foretells the priesthood of Christ rather than that of Hezekiah. This 1

Dial. 115 : 4. Qafidoq, rod, is given a messianic interpretation in Test. Jud. 24: 5—6. 3 42: 1; 96: 1; 113: 5. 4 33: 1. 5 Ibid. 2

340

J . L . MARSHALL

argument is repeated in Dial. 83, where the point at issue is the correct application of prophecy, rather than its misinterpretation; Justin argues that in Christ it is fulfilled completely, as it is not in Hezekiah. Justin also quotes the passage in the context of an argument about circumcision6, and in support of the eternity of Christ7. Justin asserts, then, that Ps. 110: 4 is only truly fulfilled in Christ, who is the eternal priest — a point which he reinforces by reference to Zech. 3 : 1 f (LXX). He claims that this priesthood avails regardless of circumcision. He does not cite Melchizedek in any argument about the levitical priesthood, and he always refers the term "priest" to Christ, and never to the Logos. Hebrews quotes Ps. 1 1 0 : 4 five times, and constructs around Melchizedek an argument which has two stages. First, he argues the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood to the levitical priesthood, by showing Melchizedek's superiority to Abraham, and hence to his descendants 8 . Second, he puts together the prophecy of Ps. 110 : 4 and the conclusion just reached to show that the levitical priesthood is not capable of bringing perfection, a greater priesthood being prophesied9. This priesthood belongs to Christ. There are several points at which the teachings of Hebrews and Justin differ. First, Hebrews accepts a priori that Ps. 110: 4 refers to Christ. He is priest, not of the levitical priesthood but superior to it, and so must be priest "after the order of Melchizedek". Justin, too, quotes the verse before any other mention is made of the priesthood of Christ, but first in the context of an argument about circumcision 10 , and then in a further argument about the fulfilment of prophecies11. Later, on the basis of other texts from the Old Testament, Justin claims that Christ is a priest, as foretold in Ps. 110 : 4. Second, Melchizedek is a central figure in Hebrews' argument that the priesthood of Christ is superior to that of the levitical priesthood. In Justin's Dialogue, he does not feature in this argument at all, which is dependent on the curious passage about Aaron's rod. Third, Melchizedek is not mentioned in connexion with circumcision in Hebrews, as he is twice in Justin's Dialogue 12 . It may be that circumcision is not relevant to the purpose of Hebrews, but at any rate, it marks a difference between the points of view of the two writers. Fourth, the treatment of Melchizedek reflects a distinct difference of purpose between the two works. Hebrews is concerned with Christ as the unique mediator between God and man, Justin to prove that the Old Testament looks forward to Christ. Melchizedek is important in both arguments, but in each in a different way. In Hebrews, his chief importance lies in his superiority to the levitical priesthood; in Justin, he is the foreshadowing of Christ, the high-priest to whom Jew and Gentile pay honour. 6

19: 4. i 63: 3. 8 Heb. 7 : 7-10. 9 7 : 11, 22-28. to Dial. 19 : 4. 11 33 : 1-3. 12 19: 4; 33: 2.

Melchizedek in Hebrews, Philo and Justin Martyr

341

For both Justin and Hebrews, Ps. 110 provides the basis for introducing Melchizedek. Philo, however, never quotes nor alludes to this Psalm. His references to Melchizedek are based on Gen. 14 : 18 rather than on Ps. 110 : 4. Some of the epithets applied to Melchizedek in Hebrews occur also in Philo, but not in reference to Melchizedek. Both Hebrews and Philo interpret "King of Salem" as "King of Peace". But Philo allegorises Melchizedek: "for he is a priest, even Logos" 13 ; this leads inevitably to a comparison between Philo and Justin. Goodenough, for example, notes that Justin calls Christ both "priest" and "king", and also that he quotes Ps. 110 frequently. He remarks that Philo does not quote this verse, but "finds in Melchizedek a figure both of the kingly and priestly character of the logos"1'1. These remarks are repeated by L. W. Barnard 15 . But, as we have already commented, Justin never refers to Logos as "priest", nor yet as "king"; these titles are referred to Christ, who is also called Logos. No similarity consequently exists between Justin and Philo at this point. Philo, finding the figure of Melchizedek in Genesis, is obliged to give him some place in his allegorical treatment of the pentateuch. His motive for discussing Melchizedek is quite simply that he is there, and must in consequence be explained. Both Hebrews and Justin, however, consciously introduce Melchizedek to make a particular point, and thus again differ from Philo. Thus, Philo cannot provide any real basis for understanding either Hebrews or Justin. In Christian apologetics after Justin, Melchizedek became a standard weapon in the anti-Jewish armoury, and is used by Tertullian and Athanasius among others. His appearance in somewhat exalted form as an angel in the Qumran literature suggests that this anti-Jewish polemic may also have had a pre-history as anti-Jerusalem polemic 16 . There is possibly a hint of this in both Philo and Hebrews in the interpretation of "King of Salem" as "King of Peace". There is also later evidence, in Epiphanius 17 Eusebius, Jerome 18 , and the Pilgrimage of Egeria 19 , suggesting that a Samaritan tradition, Christianised by Egeria's time, located Salem near Sychem, and showed what Jerome describes as "a magnificent old ruin" as Melchizedek's palace. It seems conceiveable that Melchizedek also found a place in Samaritan apologetic against the Jerusalemite cultus. Justin, we may recall, was born at Flavia Neapolis, Samaria. Examples have been found in his works of Samaritanisms 20 , and it may be that in Melchizedek we have another. It may also account for the interpretation of Ps. 110: 4 ascribed by Justin to the Jews, but known in no other source, that it refers to Hezekiah 21 , as a Jewish riposte to Samaritan claims, intended to show that a Jerusalemite king is the true successor of Melchizedek. There clearly seems to have been some embarrassment in Jewish circles about "king of Salem", interpreted « Leg. All. I l l 82. 14 E. R. Goodenough: The Theology of Justin Martyr, p. 172. 15 L. W. Barnard: Justin Martyr, his Life and Thought, p. 95. 16 Jerome (Ep. 73) notes that Melchizedek is called 'angel' by Origen in his homilies on Genesis. 17 Epiphanius: Haereses 55 : 2 469c. 18 Jerome: Ep. 73. 19 Egeria's Pilgrimage 13-15. 20 P. R. Weis: Some Samaritanisms of Justin Martyr. JTS 45 (1944), pp. 199-205. 21 Dial. 33: 1; 83 : 1 - 3 . 23

Studia Evangelica VII

342

J . L . MARSHALL

as we have seen as "king of peace". Later, in a Jewish answer to Christian claims that Melchizedek was uncircumcised, the title is interpreted "king of salem, king of wholeness", with the comment "this implies that he was born circumcised" 22 . In conclusion we may note the following points. There is no evidence to suggest that Philo had any influence on either Hebrews or Justin, so far as Melchizedek is concerned. Further, Hebrews and Justin use Melchizedek in quite different ways, to support quite different claims. Their common text, Ps. 110 : 4 is referred to Christ, in one case to establish his superiority to the levitical priesthood, and in the other to show that he is priest of the Gentiles. There is some evidence that this verse, used against the Jews, may have been used in anti-Jerusalem polemic by the Qumran sect, who laid stress on the need of a Zadokite priesthood, and who glorified Melchizedek; or that the figure of Melchizedek may have been used by the Samaritans who claimed, in later years at any rate, to possess the original Salem, and this latter point is reinforced by persistent Jewish reinterpretation of the name Salem, as we have already noticed, and other Jewish reinterpretations of the psalm-verse 23. But whether Melchizedek is to be equated with Elijah, John the Baptist, an angel, the Holy Spirit, or Christ himself, in Hebrews and in Justin's Dialogue, he is taken up as a hammer to crush the Jews — a strange role for a king of peace. 22 Gen. R. 43 : 6 on 14 : 18. See M. Simon: Melchizedech dans la polémique entre juifs et chrétiens et dans la légende. RHPR (1937), esp. p. 69. For the Samaritan attitude to the Zadokite priesthood, see J. Macdonald: The Theology of the Samaritans, p. 310f.

23

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV R . A. MASON, Oxford

Cc. ix—xiv of the Book of Zechariah have long been recognised as presenting a formidable number of problems for the commentator. A bewildering variety of historical allusions have been identified within them, giving rise to datings ranging between the seventh and the second centuries B. C. Even among comparatively recent works, Otzen dates cc. ixf. to the time of Josiah, cc. xi and xii 1—xiii 6 to the Judean exile, while c. xiv reflects a later, apocalyptic outlook. 1 D. R. Jones attributes cc. ix—xi to a prophet who exercised a pastoral ministry in or near Damascus among exiles of the former northern kingdom in the fifth cent u r y B. C. 2 Eisenbeis, however, can date ix 9f. at about 150 B. C. 3 Alexander the Great marches again across the pages of commentaries and learned articles, the Ptolemies and Seleucids renew their enmities, the ruling priestly families their internecine rivalries, the Samaritans their secession. Nor is there any kind of consensus about the unity of these chapters or t h e exact nature of their relation to each other. Lamarche has found a tightly-knit chiastic structure within them which argues for their unity/* but such a scheme appears too rigid and artificial when confronted by the careful form-critical analysis of Saeb0. 5 Robert, however, could speak of a "succession of passages with no progression". 6 I t is with some justification t h a t Ackroyd has said, "The variety of datings to which sections of these chapters have been assigned does not inspire great confidence in any of those proposed." 7

Milos Bic is even more emphatic: "Will man historische Kriterien machen, fiihrt der Text selbst zu keiner eindeutigen Auffassung." 8

All this may suggest t h a t the traditional questions of date, historical context and authorship are not the most helpful ones to ask first of these chapters. Two

1

Studien über Deuterosacharja, Copenhagen 1964, passim, but especially the Danish conclusion, pp. 273 ff. 2 Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, Torch Bible Commentaries, London 1962; A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah I X - X I , Vetus Testamentum 12, 1962, pp. 241-259. 3 Die Wurzel B^» im Alten Testament, BZAW 13, 1969, pp. 215-221. « Zacharie I X - X I V , Paris 1961. 5 Sacharja 9—14, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 34, Neukirchen 1969. e Révue Biblique 44, 1935, p. 515. 7 Peake's Commentary On the Bible, London 1962, p. 651. 8 Das Buch Sacharja, Berlin 1962, p. 108 n. 23»

344

R . A . MASON

pleas for a different approach have appeared in recent studies. Saebo, speaking of c. xiv particularly, has said t h a t what is required is not only a literary and form critical investigation, but also "milieugeschichtliche Fragestellung". 9 Similarly Otzen has said t h a t there needs to be an "ideengeschichtliche Ansetzung des Textes ..."«> One possible line of approach to such an examination of these chapters was long ago noted by Stade who paid particular attention to the dependence on earlier biblical passages to be found within them. 1 1 That such dependence exists has been almost universally accepted and many of his suggestions recur time and again in succeeding commentaries. Stade's main aim was to establish their post-exilic date but it is to his credit t h a t he recognised the value of such treatment of earlier sacred literature, not only for the political history of post-exilic Judaism, but also for the history of what he called the "inner" development of its outlook and ideas. 12 The writer has sought to examine the use made of earlier biblical material by deutero-Zechariah 13 (if, for convenience, t h a t code name may be adopted for convenient reference to the material in these chapters), to see whether any general principles of exegesis emerge, and whether any identifiable viewpoint or outlook can be observed to lie behind such exegesis. This will certainly not, of itself, answer all the questions of date, authorship and unity which we shall still wish to put concerning these chapters. But such a line of enquiry may prove a useful prolegomenon to such further study. Any light, from whatever angle it shines, can only be welcome in the obscurity of these chapters. Any conclusions which may result from such a method of approach depend to a considerable extent on the cumulative study of these chapters as a whole. Where, therefore, as in the present paper, only one or two instances of such exegesis can be isolated and illustrated, deductions drawn can be only partial and tentative. We shall, however, select three passages which do seem to be particularly significant for an attempt to detect any special viewpoint represented by 'deutero-Zechariah'. The first is the relatively simple one of x I f . ; the second views one or two aspects of the very difficult 'shepherd-allegory' of xi 4—17; and the third, the much discussed "smiting of the shepherd" in xiii 7—9. C. x If. appears to be a somewhat isolated oracle in cc. ix f. These consist of a number of eschatological oracles promising final salvation which give indications of varied origin, yet which also show signs of editorial linking and of having been modified from within one circle of tradition. C. x 3—12, it has often been recognised, shows close affinities with ix 11—17.14 This makes the different nature of x I f . the more remarkable, although even here some editorial linking may be observed in the relationship of the promise of fertility in ix 16b to the mention of rain in x 1 which produces the vegetation of the field; the image of the people 9 Op. cit. p. 309. M Op. cit. p. 199. 11 Deuterosacharja. Eine kritische Studie, ZAW 1, 1881, pp. 1 - 9 6 ; 2, 1882, pp. 151-172, 275-309. « Op. cit. 1, pp. 13, 96; 2, pp. 152ff. 13 In a thesis submitted to the University of London, The Use Of Earlier Biblical Material In Zechariah IX—XIV: A Study In Inner Biblical Exegesis, June 1973. 14 E. g. Ellinger, "Die Verse bilden in jeder Beziehung ein Gegenstück zu ix 11—17." A. T. D. 25, Göttingen 1964, pp. 156f.

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

345

wandering like "sheep" ()KS~i»3) in x 2b matches the reference to them in ix 16b as "the flock of his people" (ia5?"]kS3); while the mention of the shepherds in x 2b is taken up again in the attack on the shepherds in v. 3a and the promise of Yahweh's care for his flock in v. 3b. But in spite of such links the note of promise is absent, and this oracle bears the characteristics of what Horst describes as "Mahnspruch", that is, it appears to strike the note of pastoral entreaty. 15 The form in which the entreaty is worded, however, recalls strongly a passage in the Book of Jeremiah comprising a collection of oracles under the general heading, "Concerning the Drought", to be found in c. xiv. (C. xv 1—4 appears to be closely connected with this by virtue of the theme of the prophetic intercession introduced in xiv 11 f.). The whole bears the characteristics of a prophetic liturgy. It opens with a communal lament in vv. 1—9, portraying the distress of the whole community of Jerusalem and Judah at a time when the rains have failed; vv. 7—9 acknowledge their sin as the cause; v. 10 is an oracular response in which God rejects their supplication; vv. 11—16 give a prose account of a private oracle vouchsafed to Jeremiah in which Yahweh forbids him to intercede for the people and in which the false prophets are denounced in terms closely echoed in Zech. x 2 a, the terms ptn and DBj? being common to both; vv. 17f. comprise a poem which, like vv. 11—16 may well have been of independent origin since both seem to refer more to invasion and famine than to drought, but this again culminates in an attack on the misdirection of the false prophets and priests; vv. 19—22 constitute a renewed cry of communal lament by the people again acknowledging their sin, culminating in an affirmation, by way of a question, of the very faith which is the central theme of Zech. x 1: "Are there any among the false gods of the nations that can bring rain?" The tragic finality of Jeremiah's message of rejection becomes plain in xv 1—4 where the divine repudiation of the prophet's intercession is renewed and reemphasised. Not even the intercession of Moses and Samuel (the prophets par excellence) could turn the heart of Yahweh back to his people. Thus, the merging of the two ideas, of Yahweh as the sole supplier of rain with that of the falsity of Israel's shepherds, together with some coincidence of vocabulary describing sources of worship alternative to Yahweh, do seem to suggest a conscious allusion to the Jeremiah passage in Zech. x If., and, if this is so, certain observations concerning the methods and purpose of exegesis may be made. The first is, that in bidding his hearers to remember the words spoken by an earlier prophet and to learn from them, this prophet is in line with the practice of proto-Zechariah. For the oracles of proto-Zechariah, as we now have them, open with a call to return to Yahweh and so avoid the sins of their fathers who ignored the words of the prophets by whom he spoke to them, and so called down on themselves the very judgment of which those prophets had warned (Zech. i 2—6). Thus in proto-Zechariah there occurs the same juxtaposition of eschatological promise, the announcement that the new age of Yahweh is about to dawn, alongside a call to the community to prepare for that age by the proper 15

H. A. T. 14, Tubingen 1964, p. 249.

346

R . A . MASON

ethical and religious response, as we have with the appearance of Zech. x 1 f. in the middle of cc. ix f. If now, however, a particular passage in one of the major prophetic collections is being expounded rather than a general allusion to the words of the prophets in general as in Zech. i 4, this might well indicate a later stage when the written collections were well on their way towards achieving a known and fixed form, and when they had begun to acquire that kind of veneration which would ultimately endow them with canonical authority. It is such a process which we should expect to have led to the more detailed exposition and application to new historical situations which we have here. This last consideration gives rise to another observation on the use of such an earlier prophetic passage here. Terms and phrases from an earlier passage may be used in a different historical context in a modified way. The references to "diviners", "dreamers" and "teraphim" may be a case in point. The reference to "teraphim" has been taken to indicate a pre-exilic origin for this oracle 16 or to represent a conscious archaism.17 If, however, earlier prophetic material is being reinterpreted in the light of a later situation, the terminology may not be a reliable guide to that later situation itself. It may be taken over from the earlier material and given a generalised, even a stylised application. Thus it may be doubted how far diviners and visionaries still functioned well on into the postexilic period. But they are mentioned in the Jeremiah passage and that may explain the use of the terms here. Similarly, it is equally dubious how far teraphim were put to active use as a means of oracular consultation. They are not mentioned in the Jeremiah passage, it is true. That passage is, however, strongly Deuteronomistic in tone and outlook and the Deuteronomistic aversion to teraphim is well attested. There is, in Jer. xv 4, a reference to the sins of Manasseh which certainly were thought to include the introduction of teraphim into the temple, for it is the Deuteronomistic historian who tells us how they had to be removed by Josiah (II Ki. xxiii 24). If, then, in the earlier literature which is being expounded, these represented sources of worship and oracular guidance alternative to Yahweh, so, in the their later expositions, they may be taken as 'typical' of all such alternative sources of worship in the contemporary situation. This is not of the greatest moment in this instance, since we might have deduced some such generalised concept for "teraphim" anyway. Elliger maintains that in the Hellenistic period "soothsayers" came to be equated with "false prophets" and "teraphim" with "false gods" in general.18 But it may have farreaching consequences in our assessment of other alleged 'historical' references in these chapters, for example to Tyre and the Philistian cities in ix 1—8, or even such a reference as that to the "sons of Jawan" in ix 13. In the same way, the "rain" here may not mean that this oracle related specifically to a time of drought, but the rain was also seen as the sign of Yahweh's presence and lifegiving activity which is a mark of the last time as so often in the prophetic writings, 19 the manifestation of his universal kingship as it is later in Zech. xiv 16ff., and is thus fittingly described by Elliger as "Heilsregen". In which case the 1« Horst, op. cit. p. 249. 47 R. C. Dentan, Interpreter's Bible, VI, Í956, p. 1099. is Op. cit. p. 155. i» E. g. Is. xxx 23ff., Mai. iii 10ff., etc.

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

347

prophet is saying in effect, "Let the people seek Yahweh and worship him alone in accordance with the teaching of the prophets, and, in this case, in accordance with an earlier word of Jeremiah in particular, if they wish to experience the fertility and blessing promised in the time of salvation." But we may still ask whether there is any more specific way in which the Jeremiah passage is being expounded here, for there can be little doubt t h a t the main thrust of Jer. xiv 1—xv 4 is not concerned with drought and rain as such, but t h a t it is concerned with the conflict between true and false prophecy, a point noticed by E. W. Nicholson, who says of the passage, ". . . it seems clear that xiv—xv 4 must be regarded as having assumed its present form at the hands of the Deuteronomists. If this is accepted we may conclude that the prose passage xiv il—16 ' is to be taken together with xxvii—xxix as giving expression to the concern of the Deuteronomists with the problem of false prophecy."20

Something of this spirit of controversy appears to come to expression in Zech. x 2b. Unfortunately there is an interpretative difficulty which makes it hard to be sure exactly how it is being applied. Many commentators take this to be historical retrospect. "The people erred in the past because, as the prophets showed, they lacked worthy leadership encouraging them to listen to God's word." On the other hand, is it this prophet's comment on the contemporary state of affairs, and so an attack on the leadership of the community of his own day in terms similar to those of Jeremiah's attack in Jer. xiv 1—xv 4, as the R . S. V. suggests in its rendering? The tenses of the Hebrew verbs can support either reading. 21 I t is possible that v. 3 offers us a clue. (We cannot be sure of the relationship of the two oracles. V. 3 a might even possibly be the conclusion of x If., but probably belongs to what follows). For this opens with an attack on the "shepherds" and the "he-goats" (D^liriV), followed by the assurance t h a t Yahweh will "visit" his flock and the promise of the provision of adequate leadership (v. 4). But the use of the term D'TIBS? inevitably recalls its use in Ezk. xxxiv with its bitter attack on Israel's leadership as false shepherds and "he-goats" (D*"nfW v. 17) and the promise t h a t Yahweh will himself shepherd his flock. Is such an evocation deliberately made to express the same teaching now in the prophet's own later situation? We cannot be sure, but it is certainly possible that Zech. x If. is to be seen as an application of Jer. xiv 1—xv 4, not only in a general way as an appeal to his contemporaries, to remain true to a pure and exclusive worship of Yahweh, but also to express an attack on the spiritual and political leadership of the prophet's own time similar to those of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. We turn next to glance at one or two aspects of the much more obscure and complex "shepherd allegory" in xi 4—17. Part of the notorious difficulty of 2» Preaching To The Exiles, Oxford 1970, p. 102. In v. 2 a a(l, and Itn are simple perfects, but in v. 2 a yd we have two simple imperfects, n a n * and fian?^. In v. 2b a the tense is perfect W01, and in v. 2b imperfect 11 B\ This by itself is not determinative, since the perfect tense can be used specifically of past events which are still of constant recurrence and "hence are matters of common experience", (G. K. § 106 k), while the imperfect may be used to express actions "which continued in the past through a longer or shorter period" (G. K. § 107 b).

21

348

R . A. MASON

interpretation of this section almost certainly stems from the fact that the text, as we have it now, is the result of a long process of development, the final deposit of that which has been subject to continuing interpretation and application to later historical events. One such addition appears to be v. 8a with its reference to the three shepherds slain in one month. Even in 1930 Kremer could list no fewer than thirty different identifications of these three and even so had to admit that his list was far from comprehensive.22 This must reflect some historical episode which can hardly become known to us now. Further, the shepherd allegory is strange in that it appears to introduce a pessimistic, even a hostile note whereas, apart from the warning implicit in x If., cc. ixf. have been hopeful and joyful in tone, even if, as we believe, they are marked by some signs of hostility to the official leadership of the Judaism of their day. I t is true that some have wondered whether the gloomy note of v. 6 may be intrusive23 but, as we shall show, it is our view that if it is interpretative, it interprets in line with the spirit and theme of the original acts of prophetic symbolism, whether those acts were literally carried out in the manner of the older prophets, or, as many think, now merely figure as written allegory. The whole pericope, further, appears to us to have been complicated by the intrusion, in vv. 11—13, of a second act of prophetic symbolism (or written allegory), which interrupts the account of the breaking of the staves which begins in vv. 7 b—10 and culminates in v. 14. This action, we believe, did involve the casting of silver into the foundry, not the treasury as it is often emended following Peshitta and Targum, and that this was a symbolic act which probably originally spoke of refining by ordeal as in Ezk. xxii 17—22, a significance still hinted at in the L X X . However, we can glance here only at the phrase "the flock doomed for slaughter" and at one aspect of the action of the breaking of the two staves. The prophet is called to act as shepherd (nsn) to HTinri |NS TIN. This is an unusual description of the community. Indeed the noun ¡"Ipn occurs only five times in the Old Testament, three times in Jeremiah and twice here. This makes its near parallel in Jer. xii 3 the more striking, in one of the so-called "Confessions" of Jeremiah. The Prophet has been complaining to God that the wicked prosper; yet he is convinced of the Tightness of Yahweh (xii 1) and continues : " B u t Thou, O Lord, knowest me; thou seest me, and triest my mind toward thee. Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, nnatJ1? )NS3 and set them apart for the day of slaughter." HITH ni'1?

I t would seem very possible that this passage is being evoked by the striking phrase HSinn in Zech. xi 4. But if so, this appears to be the use of yet another Jeremiah passage set in the context of controversy. For several commentators have suggested that Jer. xi 18—20 is closely related to this passage in Jer. xii, and that xii 6, in fact, should be read between xi 18 and 19.24 Then Die Hirtenallegorie im Buch Zacharias, Münster 1930, p. 83. 23 E. g., P. R. Ackroyd, op. cit. p. 653. 24 So Cunliffe-Jones, Jeremiah, Torch Bible Commentaries, 2nd. ed., London 1966, p. 107; J. Bright follows Peake and Cornill in placing all xii 1—6 before xi 18—23, Jeremiah, The Anchor Bible, 22

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

349

Jeremiah is denouncing the wicked within the community, particularly those who have rejected the prophet and his message, the men of Anathoth, who may well have represented the interests of the priestly circles. 25 So t h a t , once more, we appear to have allusion to a Jeremiah passage in these chapters in a spirit of controversy against those who reject the true prophet and his message, suggesting t h a t the main thrust of xi 4ff. is one of condemnation of the community, perhaps particularly its leaders (xi 5f., cf. x 3) but the whole community as led into error by them. Whether they are so referred to here in the account of the prophet's call proleptically as subsequent rejection of his ministry was to prove them to be, or whether, perhaps like Isaiah, the terms of his call were apparently without hope from the first, is not clear from this section alone. The action of the breaking of the two staves inevitably recalls t h a t of Ezekiel, recorded in Ezk. xxxvii 15—28. There are certain obvious differences. The terminology is different, D'SS7 in Ezekiel, rri^pJH in the Zechariah passage; the names are different — one of Ezekiel's sticks is to be inscribed "Belonging to J u d a h " , the other "Belonging to Joseph"; Zechariah's have different names (with no specific reference to writing on them) — D5?i and D,17Dn; above all, Ezekiel's two sticks are to be joined in symbolic action, while both those of Zechariah are to be further broken. In Ezekiel, the significance of t h e action is to portend the future act of Yahweh in reuniting the formerly disrupted kingdoms and their restoration to the land. They shall be cleansed from all their sin, and the old covenant formula is to be renewed, "They shall be my people and I will be their God" (v. 23). Thus, in this section, the ideas of reunion of the kingdoms, restoration to the land, renewed relationship with Yahweh and reaffirmation of the old Sinaitic covenant are expressed. How much of this is elaboration of the original act is not clear. Zimmerli sees three sections in Ezk. xxxvii 15—28; vv. 15—19 forming the original unit, while vv. 20—23 are an elaboration linking the prophetic action with the theme of the preceding chapters with their idea of 'covenant', but this elaboration, Zimmerli believes, derived from Ezekiel himself; vv. 24—28 form yet a third extension which has nothing to do with the original action and is not the work of Ezekiel himself. 26 I t is of the greatest interest t h a t these very elements are present in Zech. xi, but by way of reversal, of repudiation. One staff is named DV3, t h a t quality of beauty, grace or favour, which so often stands for the presence and favour of Yahweh encountered by the community which stands in the right cultic relationship to him, as in Ps. xc 17 and in Ps. xxvii 4. I t signifies the very covenant grace of Yahweh, the renewal of which Ezekiel promised, but which is New York 1965, pp. 89f.; V. also J. P. Hyatt, Interpreter's Bible, 5, p. 912; and H. H. Rowley, The Text and Interpretation of Jer. xi 18-xii 6, A J S L 42, 1925/6, pp. 217-227. 25 J. P. Hyatt (op. cit. pp. 912 f.) rejects the view that Jer. xi refers to the reaction of Jeremiah's own priestly family against his support for the reform of Josiah. He follows Volz in believing that it was the Jerusalem priesthood, working through their colleagues at Anathoth, who were behind this, incited by the attacks of Jeremiah against the Temple, the prophets and the priests at a later stage of his ministry. Such a view has much to commend it although it must be allowed that this interpretation of xi 18—20 turns on the literal sense of xii 6. If the latter is seen as metaphorical, the relevance to it of xi 18—20 is less obvious. 26 Ezechiel, BKAT, Neukirchen 1969, pp. 906ff.

350

E . A . MASON

now to be withdrawn. This would suggest that the "covenant with all the peoples" of v. 10 is in fact a reference to Yahweh's covenant with Israel, which one strain of tradition at least saw as aimed at the enlightenment of all the Gentile peoples. This may well be what is referred to here in the first person divine speech spoken through the prophet, cast into the solemn direct speech of Yahweh since he who formed the covenant relationship alone can annul it. Such an understanding of the universal consequences of the covenant would be in line with the universalist tendency already in Zech. ix 7, ix 10 and xiv 16ff. — itself a continuation of the universalism of proto-Zechariah (e. g. viii 20ff.). The other staff D,1?3n (the / *?an having the basic meaning of a "pledge" and hence that which is joined or united by pledge) refers to the reunion between Judah and Israel, but again this is to be broken. It is as though the prophet is taking Ezekiel's great promise and announcing its reversal to a people who had shown themselves unworthy to enter into it by their rejection of the divine word spoken by the prophet. So here, as in the Ezekiel passage, the ideas of the reunion of the two kingdoms and of the covenant relationship are brought together. We may here, perhaps, permit ourselves a little speculation concerning the significance of the breach of this relationship for this prophet and his hearers, when in fact Judah and Israel had already been sundered for so long in their history. Many commentators have suggested that it is a reference to the Samaritan schism.27 However it does seem as though the Samaritan basket is constantly being made to a carry a great number of eggs. R. J . Coggins, in an important article, has suggested that too facile a view of the real situation in postexilic Judaism is obtained by seeing only one sectarian group, the Samaritans. On the one hand he sees a much stronger link between the Samaritans and official Judaism than has often been thought, and on the other, the final break between them coming much later than has sometimes been suggested. 28 While, then, the reference to this breach in Zech. xi may have been at one time or another applied to the Samaritans, this may neither have been the original application nor the only one made in the history of its interpretation. There is a curious variant reading in some L X X MSS., 29 which substitutes Jerusalem for Israel, thus making the tension appear to be between Judah and Jerusalem. This may reflect one understanding of xii 2 b and xiv 14, or it may represent one stage of interpretation of this text at a time of some tension between the capital city and its surrounding district. However, it is also possible that the breach originally referred to was that between the prophet and his circle and the official Judaism of his day which seems to have been the target of the bitter judgment of these symbolic acts in c. xi. Elliger spoke of this passage as a religious confession, a piece of self-justification by the Jewish cult community which showed that in the continuing rift with the Samaritans, neither God nor the Jewish community bore the guilt.30 It is at least as likely to have been such a piece of selfjustification on the part of the prophet and his circle over against the Jewish community itself — but certainty on this point is hard to come by. 27 E . g. Elliger, op. cit. pp. 163f.; Saeba, op. cit. pp. 250f. 28 The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins, A S T I 6, 1968, pp. 38—48.

29 (J62 (J147.

3« Op. cit. p. 164.

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

351

We must pass over the third symbolic act of xi 15ff. in which the prophet appears to speak of the worthless leadership of the community as an instrument of God's judgment on that community in a kind of reversal of the promises of Ezk. xxxiv, but which the additional 'Wehe-ruf' of v. 17 announces will itself become the object of judgment, and so we must turn, finally, to xiii 7—9. This passage has again been the subject of widely differing interpretations. Some have argued t h a t the shepherd is the good shepherd, or he would not be described as 'ST (or possibly and 'rPOÏ *13S by Yahweh; 3 1 or t h a t this passage relates to the "pierced one" of xii 10 whose sufferings and death, it is held, are instrumental in the salvation of the flock. 3 2 I n the light of Mk. xiv 27 (Mt. xxvi 31) this passage was traditionally interpreted Messianically. Even Elliger can find here an outlook which sees the suffering of the Messiah and his people as part of the final convulsions which accompany the ending of the old and the ushering in of the new age. 33 Difference of interpretation has led also to disagreement over the relation of this oracle to its context, some, like the panel of translators of the N. E. B. seeing it as a continuation of xi 15—17, others seeing it as more directly related to xii 1—xiii 6. Traditio-critical considerations here seem to suggest, however, a continuation of the note of judgment against the worthless leadership of xi 15—17 and consequent judgment of the community as a whole. Amost uniformly in the prophetic writings, references to the sword of Yahweh speak of it as an instument of vengeance and judgment against that which is evil.3'* The image of the sheep being scattered is also one associated with judgment. 3 5 Again, the phrase " I will turn my hand against . . . "(Vi? "TQlPiTI) is also used uniformly in a hostile sense in the Old Testament. 3 6 Further, there are close links between xiii 7—9 and xi 4—17 which suggest t h a t they are related in theme: both use the "shepherd" imagery ; both refer to the sword in the smiting of the shepherd ; in both are allusions to smelting ; in both the covenant concept figures ; while xiii 7 continues the metrical structure of xi 17. Yet a further note is introduced in xiii 7—9 which means that it is not inappropriately placed after xii 1—xiii 6, namely t h a t of the emergence of a refined remnant the other side of judgment. And this brings us to the use of earlier biblical material in this pericope. The sudden switch from judgment to that of redemption of a purified remnant is dramatic but it has precedent; and precedence first in an Isaianic oracle in which the same phrase " I will turn my hand against (you)" occurs, namely, in Is. i 21—26. This Isaianic oracle is also remarkable for just such an instance of internal reversal. I t has begun in vv. 21 ff. with the ground of judgment in the accusation against the community of Jerusalem. The people and the leaders are corrupt. The f?1? of v. 24 introduces the announcement of judgment, introduced by the messenger formula which is followed by t h e "in of the direct divine 31

E. g. R. C. Dentan, op. cit. p. 1109. E. g. G. Gaide, Jérusalem, voici ton roi (Commentaire de Zacharie 9—14), Lectio Divina 49, Paris 1968, p. 137. 33 Op. cit. pp. 175-177. 34 E. g. Is. xxxiv 5f., Jer. ix 16, xxiv 10, Ezk. xxi, etc. 35 E. g. I Ki. xxii 17, Jer. xxiii 2f., Ezk. xxxiv 5 etc. 3 » E. g. Am. i 8, Ps. lxxxi 15 (14), Is. i 25. 32

352

R . A . MASON

speech specifying the nature of judgment. But it is at this point t h a t there occurs a dramatic switch, for what is to happen is a smelting process as in Zech. xiii 9, aimed at purification and renewal of the community. J u s t as dramatically, the prophet of Zech. xiii 7—9 announces t h a t Yahweh has a purpose for his people beyond judgment drawing on the prophetic theme of the process of refining gold through fire which Isaiah had made use of in a similar context. A further prophetic theme also appears to be alluded to in the division of the community for judgment into three thirds, and here again it is an action of Ezekiel's which is being recalled, recorded in Ezk. v 1—12. Here Ezekiel is directed to take a sword by which he shaves off his hair which is then to be weighed into three equal parts. The first was to be burned signifying t h a t some of the population would die during the fighting for the city; the second was to be struck with the sword round the city, indicating t h a t some would be slain attempting to escape; and the third part was to be scattered to the wind where, in a change to the first person divine speech, Yahweh announces. " I will unsheathe the sword after them." This seems to indicate t h a t even those who are taken away as captives will yet be the target to Yahweh's own immediate punishment. In other words, the picture of the original action appears to have been one of total judgment. Yet there are signs in Ezk. v 3, 4a which suggest t h a t this original symbolic act was early subjected to reinterpretation by some who believed t h a t from this third group of exiles in Babylon, the nucleus of a new people of God, a new 'remnant' would emerge. The action of taking a small number from this third part and binding them within the prophet's garment from which a still further "small number" is to be burned, would seem clearly to be secondary. I t is an extremely difficult procedure to envisage being actually carried out, and contradicts the totality of judgment in vv. If., and 12. But it is of interest and importance in showing t h a t within the exile there existed those who believed t h a t they themselves would be separated from their fellow-exiles through some further catastrophe, but from which they would emerge inviolate. 37 Such a reversal of Ezekiel's original action appears to have been followed and taken further in Zech. xiii 7—9. Such a miraculously delivered remnant will again inherit the full blessings of the covenant, a t r u t h expressed in words strikingly reminiscent of Hos. ii 25 (23). But such an idea of the need for cleansing and refining would again be in line with the teaching of proto-Zechariah which shows, in c. iii, Joshua as High Priest undergoing just such a process on behalf of the community, while in c. v we see further how only a cleansed community could be fitted for the new age which was about to dawn. Now, in xiii 7—9, in contrast to proto-Zechariah, t h e community as a whole appears to be despaired of. Only, it seems, a remnant, 37

The secondary nature of these verses is recognised by Zimmerli who leaves open the issue of whether they stem from Ezekiel himself later in the period of the exile, or from a circle of his disciples (op. cit. pp. 130f., 137). So also Stalker, Ezekiel, Torch Bible Commentaries, London 1968, p. 70. V. 4 b is notoriously difficult to interpret in this context and is usually regarded as yet further elaboration of vv. 3, 4 a. It should be noted, however, that against Zimmerli, who finds a 'remnant' concept in this elaboration of the original text, Eichrodt says that it is "more probably aimed at the destruction of all hope of surviving the judgment with a whole skin." (Ezekiel, E. T., C. Quin, London 1970, p. 87).

Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zech. IX—XIV

353

perhaps to be equated with those who receive the words of this prophet and his circle, can hope to survive the refining fires of judgment. From the one or two instances of use of earlier biblical material glanced at here, few hard and fast indications can be held to have emerged, let alone to have been established, which would point us towards that "Ideengeschichte" or "Milieugeschichte" the call for which was mentioned at the beginning of this paper. In very general terms, three observations may be made. We seem to have here the work of a prophet or traditio-circle who revered the words of the great prophets, and who saw in them predictions which were to be fulfilled in the later events of their own day. This suggests a time which must account for the continuing process of the collection of the prophets' words into the books which now bear their names, although it is impossible to be sure what stage that process for each would have reached by this time. We did notice, however, that the treatment of Ezk. v may have shown a knowledge of it after the process of elaboration and re-interpretation revealed by vv. 3, 4a had begun. In the instances we have seen, "quotation" is allusive, a certain eclectic freedom being exercised from more than one prophetic source at a time, and a freedom in adaptation of vocabulary. In one instance at least, that of the breaking of the two staves, freedom is exercised to the point where a complete reversal of the original prophetic prediction is expressed. There is certainly no kind of "verbal infallibility" reverence demonstrated here. Yet, broadly speaking, the treatment of earlier prophetic material is faithful to the larger context of the whole in which it is set. There appears to be little of what might be termed the more fanciful type of later Rabbinic exegesis. In particular, it is the eschatological outlook of these prophets which is being emphasised, reaffirmed and reinterpreted. In the second place, in the passages at which we have looked, a strongly negative, even hostile, attitude to the Judaism of its day, its leadership and those seen as having been corrupted by its leadership is evinced. This would seem to suggest some sectarian group with the kind of eschatological, as opposed to theocratic outlook, depicted by Ploger. 38 Finally, there appears to be some continuity with the teaching, spirit and outlook of proto-Zechariah. This is by no means impossible when we take into account Beuken's 39 important treatment of Haggai and Zechariah I—VIII in which he argues that, in the form in which we have them now, they have taken shape within a traditio-context closely akin to that of the Chronicler's. It would not be altogether surprising if such a stream of tradition should continue after the fixation of the text of Haggai and Zechariah i—viii, and adopt more and more the distinctive viewpoints we have suggested are found, in places at least, in these chapters, in response to growing disillusionment and disappointment and subsequent historical circumstances. One of the great problems of these chapters is the apparent disparity of the material within them. Even in the passages we have looked at there seem to be alternating hope, half-despair and total despair. Yet the same attitude to earlier scripture and the same basic points of outlook we have found here, can, we be38 39

In his book, Theocracy and Eschatology, E. T., S. Rudman, Oxford 1968. Haggai-Sacharja 1—8, Assen 1967.

354

R . A . MASON

lieve, be found throughout them. A very brief concluding survey of a possible view of their structure may be of interest. I t is possible t h a t in cc. ix f. we have a number of eschatological pieces of diverse, some even perhaps of pre-exilic origin, nevertheless taken over and modified by this group according to their distinctive viewpoint, which may have served as a kind of 'hymnbook' by which their future hopes were expressed and fed. C. x If. would represent an early stage in the prophet's ministry when he still had some hopes of his words being heeded. C. xi 4—17, however, shows his total rejection of the Judaism of his day when it failed to respond to his ministry, but xiii 7—9 expresses his hope t h a t the other side of judgment the faithful remnant of his circle of adherents would emerge as the nucleus of a new covenant community. From this continuing circle of tradition xii 1—xiii 6 with its more (but by no means total) apocalyptic outlook may have later emerged, with just possibly a reference in xii 10 to the rejection of their founder and his circle. C. xiv may be a still later expression of such a group when their despair over the official Judaism of their day had become even more total and their concept of the nature of its judgment more radical still. Such speculations take us far beyond foundations established within the narrow confines of this paper, however. What is not in doubt is that these strange and obscure chapters testify to t h e fact that the Word of God which they believed had once spoken in living tones through the great prophets of Israel's history, did not fall silent and inactive for men of later times when the era of the written word began to replace the living voice of prophecy. As men collected the words of the prophets and pondered the Word which had spoken through them, it proved to have continuing vitality and relevance to address them in their new situation. Not the least noble expression of such an encounter is to be found in Zechariah cc. ix—xiv. They are testimony to the fact t h a t during dark times in the later history of Judaism, the vital pulse of Israel's faith continued to throb.

The Text of Colossiaus in Minuscule Manuscripts Housed in Great Britain Some Preliminary Comments

I. A. MOIB, E d i n b u r g h

The general contempt for the minuscule MSS is well known and can be summed up in the comment of Lagrange in introducing his chapter on the B-type text in the Pauline Epistles 1 , or in the words of F. G. Kenyon 2 , 'it may be doubted whether they can contain anything which will add substantially to our knowledge '; after which pronouncement he urges that we should rather interest ourselves in the possibility of the discovery of early copies on papyrus in Egypt — an interest which has been fully justified by many recent finds. But it seemed worth taking another look at the minuscules and for this purpose I decided to retrace a road which may be described as known but little used. Ephesians and Colossians are not without interest for other reasons to-day and some six years ago I decided to look more closely at the later manuscripts of Colossians. Early study suggested that, since there is so much harmonistic influence between the two books, one could not go far without doing Ephesians as well 3 .1 am not primarily concerned with questions of authorship but would agree with the opinion that the two came out of the same stable which was not that which gave rise to Romans and Galatians. Methodology was not easy to establish as I wanted to try an independent look at the material. As a result, most of the work up to now has been confined to the actual task of collating the manuscripts of Ephesians and Colossians. By examination of the originals, with the help of microfilms (which are notoriously slow in delivery), and with the aid of several visits to Miinster/Westf.4, I have collated quite a number of manuscripts housed in Europe and elsewhere — including all the available papyri and uncials. As the time had come for some form of stock-taking, numbers suggested that a selection was necessary in order to overcome the time factor and I therefore de1

2

3

4

M.-J. Lagrange, Introduction à l'étude du nouveau testament, deuxième partie: critique textuelle, II — la critique rationelle, 2 e edn., Gabalda, Paris, 1935, p. 466. Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament — 2nd. edition, MacMillan, London 1926, p. 142. For Ephesians see now Studies in New Testament Language and Text : Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. J. K. Elliott, Brill, Leiden, 1976, pp. 3 1 3 - 8 . I have to acknowledge much help from Professor K. Aland and the staff of the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität, Münster/Westf. for their unfailing kindness during frequent visits when I have had assistance in the form of access to microfilms, libraries and archives and the opportunity of valuable discussions.

356

I . A . MOIB

cided to concentrate, in t h e first instance, on t h e manuscripts housed in Britain. While their being in Britain is to some extent accidental, t h e y m a y be found, in some ways, a representative selection of t h e total material available. After collating some 30 minuscules from various parts of Europe with 5JJ/,G a n d t h e uncials, I made up a list of some 50 test readings for Colossians on t h e basis of which some evidence could be gathered about the n a t u r e of t h e variants. The selection was based on t h e following: a) The 'Notes on Select Readings' in the Appendix to Westcott & H o r t . b) The 'Delectus Lectionum N o t a t u Dignissimarum' compiled by W. Sanday as an appendix to the 1889 Oxford reprint of Lloyd (but also available separately). c) A discussion with Professor Aland and his assistants. d) A scrutiny of existing critical apparatuses. While the selection was inevitably to some extent subjective it was aimed a t finding (a) how far the later minuscules reflected notable known deviations from t h e T R on t h e p a r t of t h e old uncials; (b) how far there was a group of readings characteristic of t h e minuscules and t h e later forms of t h e t e x t ; and (c) how far there was further evidence to be uncovered for unusual readings found in individual manuscripts. On t h e whole it could be said t h a t t h e first (a) group produced largely negative results. There is little or n o evidence for such readings as t h e omission of ev Etpsoco in Ephesians 1, 1 or for emgaxacnjeojoaxav in Col. '3, 2. rovroiq for avroig found in aA.fjg avrov, ov ftsra rd>v o&ovimv xei/xevov akAd ymqig evzervXiy/xevov elg sva TOTIOV,

Tradition and Redaction in John X X , 1—18 8. xai elder xal

361

(edav/iaaev).

9. ovôéna> yàç ijòeiaav rrjv yQav of I Clem, xxxvi 1 29 . But we must surely see an intended contrast between these sins of ignorance in v 2 and the voluntary sin of x 26 30. Our second point is that in a race one sees the goal. The text for us is here the famous statement on faith in xi 1 : "Ean ôè JIÎOTIÇ èhmÇo/iévwv vnôaraaiç, nqay/iàrœv

ëAey%oç ov (iï.eno/uévcov. T h e d e b a t e o n t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of vnoaraaiç

has

been carried to the point where Héring could remark "La foi, au fond, n'est rien d'autre que l'anticipation de ce qu'on espère".31 'Confident hope' would be a 26

The Latin never commits itself: O. L., "secundum similitudinem sine peccato"; Vulgate, "pro similitudine absque peccato". Luther refers to the verse neither in the glosses nor in the scholia of his lectures on Hebrews, 1517—18. His German Bible has "gleichwie wir, doch ohne Siinde", though he is here, of course, following a long tradition of exegesis. Moreover, I cannot see any contrast implied in the second appearance of xmAç â/iaQTÎaç, in ix 28. To get one, we must translate "without any context of sin, even its putting away" ; but the parallel in 27 implies that the second appearance will be in a context of sin, i. e., its judgement. It is surely better to take the phrase as qualified by ix ôevréoov, i. e., Christ, when he finally comes, will come a second time without sin, for the essential thing to remember about him is that he is Y.EY_UJQIAFIHOQ CITIO TOW â/iaoxaj?.ân>, vii 26. 27 "We ought not to choose just some of the commandments of good at our own inclination, but to fulfil them all as a whole . . . like proud and worthless servants we shout in God's face and say. I t is hard, It is difficult, We cannot, We are but men, encompassed by the frailty of the flesh. What blind folly, what rash profanity: we make the God of knowledge guilty of twofold ignorance, of not knowing what he has made, of not knowing what he has commanded". Pelagius Ad Demetriam 16. In imitation of God, the sabbath follows on work, though not of course earned by works, iv 10: cf. I Clem, xxxiii, where the creative works of God are the pattern for the Christian works of righteousness. 29 Cf. Heb. vi 16, tva M[JO)/J.EV ÈXEOÇ, xai xctgiv evQw/iev e'iç eîixaioovfiorj&eiav; ii 18, roïç xeiQaÇofiévotç ^orjûrjaat. 30 Compare Tertullian's distinction between the tria capitalia and the peccata cotidianae incursionis of De Pud. xix 23. 31 J . Héring, L'Epître aux Hébreux, Neuchâtel 1954.

Christ as High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews

395

reasonable description of faith in xi 7ff. I t can hardly apply to xi 3, which Paul in Rom. i would hardly have recognised as 'faith' at all; and does it apply to xii 2, acpoornvreq sig TOV . . . 'Irjoovv, which is 'fixing our eyes upon Jesus' rather than 'looking in the direction where we hope he is' ? I t is very close t o I Clem vii 4, "fixing our gaze upon the precious blood", "contemplating God with our mind, gazing with the eyes of our soul", xix 3. I n vi 4 we taste the heavenly gift and t h e powers of the age to come, as Christ tasted death, ii 9: and tasting is more than anticipation and hope. Since Jesus is not only the author but also the perfecter of our faith, xii 2, we could surely allow that the definition of xii 1 applies in its fulness neither to the beginnings of faith in xi 3, nor to its development in the rest of xi, but to its perfecting in those who have been sprinkled. As such, it is more than the anticipation of the hoped-for; it could reasonably be understood as a kind of gnosis, the yvcoaig mJavaroq which according to I Clem, xxxvi 2 the Master willed t h a t we should taste through Jesus Christ the High priest of our offerings, the defender and helper of our weakness. Westcott was surely right, t h a t vnoaraaig in xi 1 must mean more than confidence. No doubt William Manson was also right, that Hebrews could not have supposed that faith conferred reality on things which have no substance in themselves: but Hebrews would not be alone if it failed to distinguish adequately between "making real" simpliciter and "making real to me" 32. But if the element of gnosis in Hebrews is not to be under-estimated and we are already come to Mount Zion, the city of the living God and the heavenly Jerusalem (xii 22—24), nevertheless there remains in the eagerly-awaited future a shaking not only of the earth but also of the heaven, a second appearance of Christ, and a sabbatismos for the people of God. That the eschatology should be neither purely future nor purely realised should hardly surprise us, since this is the common stuff of the Christian eschatological hope. I n this present time "we are at the point of intersection of two worlds" 33 . Moreover (or perhaps 'Therefore'), although Hebrews deals with the axia and the ebccuv, we cannot attach too much importance to the Platonism. There is no suggestion that the phenomenal world as such is the shadow of a timeless world of Ideas, and the axia. — eixcbv comparison is confined not merely to revelation, but to the cultus. The world is a real world of real suffering and real chastisement , and Christians form 32

W. Manson held that vnoaraaig must be translated 'confidence', since "it cannot by any stretch of imagination be supposed that the writer understands faith to confer reality on things which have no substance or existence in themselves" (The Epistle to the Hebrews, London 1951). Westcott, on the other hand (op. cit. p. 350), argued that while vnoaraaig could mean a state of assurance "it is difficult to suppose that eXeyxog can express a state". Since "the two words . . . must be co-ordinatc . . . if then eXeyxog must be understood of the proof, the test, by which the reality of the unseen is established, it seems to follow necessarily that the parallel meaning must be given to VNOOTAOIQ 'that which gives true existence to an object'". Surely the imagination can be stretched further than either writer will allow? Moberley, in an article on "The Protestant Doctrine of Sacrament and Atonement", Journ. Theol. Stud. 1901, found it necessary to argue that "faith is not a cause of existence" against a considerable body of Anglican theology which implied that it was — precisely because it had not adequately distinguished between "makes real" and "makes real to me". I doubt whether Heb. meant more (or less) than "faith enables us to grasp the very substance of what is hoped for".

33

J. Hering's translation of I Cor, x 11: el; aux Corinthiens, Xeuchatel 1949, p. 81.)

odg

TO. RI'/.Q TWV

akbvcov xarj'jvrrjuer

(Le Premier Epitre

396

D. L.

POWELL

no mere fellowship of minds, x 25. On the other hand, heaven is not "kept firmly in its place on the other side of death"3'1; since the blood of Christ is there, and with that blood we are sprinkled, we also are in some sense already within the veil. The point which I now wish to canvass is whether, according to Hebrews, to the intersection of two worlds there does not correspond the intersection of two covenants — that the second covenant has not yet done away with the first, but for the time now present is superimposed upon it: moreover, that while the first still awaits its final eschatological shaking, it has still, like the flesh, an ordained function to perform. What is specifically disannulled in vii 18 is the commandment which confined the priesthood to the tribe of Levi; what is taken away in x 8—9 is propitiatory animal sacrifice, that there may be established the will by which we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ. The superseding of the Old Covenant is thus assured, but it does not yet disappear; so in viii 13 " I n saying xaivrj he makes the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away". Does this mean "The Old Covenant is no further use to God or man, but it refuses to go away. Like the old soldier, it will not die but, ignoring the will of God, insists on fading away"? Or does it mean rather that the Old Covenant, being concerned with aagg and external observances, bears the sentence of approaching death which it shares with all flesh ? When he comes a second time to shake not only earth but also heaven, it will disappear with the flesh; but in the time now present, while we are still in the flesh, has it still a limited function to perform? It does not and cannot produce reXslmaiQ, vii 11, and in that sense is weak and unprofitable, vii 18: but it is never attacked, as St. Paul attacks circumcision, as a negation of faith in Christ. There is no suggestion in the epistle that the Old Israel has rejected Christ, or has ceased to be Israel: such conceptions simply do not come within the writer's purview. More particularly, what is the status of the bixauhfiaxa aaqxoQ of ix 10? To translate this as "carnal ordinances" rather than "external ordinances" is to misrepresent Hebrews, which attaches no sinful connotation to Cf. Jonah, Isaiah Cf. 45. 22; 60. 1 ff. 31 Op. cit. p. 363. 32 Op. cit. p. 112.

The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel

433

contrast to the scribes who 'say and do not' (23. 3) Jesus both proclaims and practises the law. I t is interesting to note t h a t in this section (Chs 8—9) where Matthew groups ten miracles together, the three put first have some common links. The leper and the centurion are excluded for different reasons from the congregation while Simon's mother-in-law as a woman occupies an inferior position (8. 1—17). Yet the leper is healed, the centurion's faith superior to any in Israel and the woman's fever abated. Is Matthew suggesting that the new community is formed on the basis of grace and mercy? 3 3 Yet by way of contrast, Matthew follows Q in including the saying about the 'sons of the kingdom' being rejected (Matt. 8. 11, 12; Luke 13. 28—29) which Luke has in another context. Jesus' words, addressed to the Judaism of his time, 3 ' 1 become valid for Israel as well as for the Jewish-Christian church. Jesus, like John the Baptist, attacks complacent J u daism in fulfilment of his mission to his own people. Klausner again deals with the saying about offering a gift at the altar (Matt. 5. 23, 24). He claims t h a t Jesus' enjoins t h a t a man should bring the offering due from him, but t h a t if he have first offended his fellow, he may not offer his gift until he first becomes reconciled. 35 Jesus of course in spite of Klausner does not 'enjoin' but merely assumes the act of sacrifice in the Temple. The verses are awkward in the context and may have been inserted by Matthew. 3 6 The emphasis is on reconciliation which is a matter of such urgency t h a t it must interrupt the sacrificial ritual. In this, Jesus 3 7 is one with the scribes who taught t h a t any offence against one's neighbour could not be taken away by a sacrifice unless repentance and reconciliation had taken place. 38 Jesus however goes beyond the Rabbinate who knew of no interruption of the sacrifice for the sake of reconciliation. 39 The emphasis here is Matthaean where love is the essence of the law (7. 12; 22. 40) and God demands mercy not sacrifice (9. 13; 12. 7). The great Jewish prophets denounced ritual without inner intention. 4 0 Matthew thus addresses a message which would appeal to Jew and Jewish-Christian alike who were familiar with the prophetic tradition. I t is Matthew also who presents Jesus to us 4 1 as one who accepts and directs his disciples' practice of the typically Jewish expressions of piety ie almsgiving, prayer and fasting (6. Iff). Reality in these is required also over against the hypocrites (almsgiving, fasting) or the Gentiles (prayer). The disciples are charged elsewhere with not fasting in a passage which belongs to the Synoptic tradition (Matt. 9. 14-17 and pars). I t is possible to explain the difficulty by suggesting either that the disciples did not fast strictly like the Pharisees or the followers 33

Cf. Grundmann, op. cit. p. 247. Bultmann, op. cit. p. 128 is uncertain of its genuineness which is supported by Jeremias (cf. Grundmann, op. cit. p. 250) op. cit. p. 62. 33 Op. cit. p. 363. 36 Bultmann, op. cit. p. 132; also Bonnard, op. cit. ad Ioc. 37 Bultmann however thinks it a Christian construction (op. cit. p. 147). 38 For the discussion cf. Hummel, op. cit. p. 80f., and literature cited. 39 Cf. Grundmann, op. cit. p. 157. 4 ° Cf. Isa. 1. 12ff.; Amos 5. 21 ff.; Psalm40. 6 - 8 . 41 So Grundmann, op. cit. p. 190 who is uncertain whether it is from Jesus or the church.

34

434

E . A . RUSSELL

of the Baptist ; 42 or t h a t the fast was associated with special circumstances eg a time of drought. 43 Whatever the explanation, Jesus here insists on reality even in the exercises t h a t , according to Bornhauser, were not required by the law but could be called 'supererogatory'. 44 The sayings here can be taken as Jesus' own 4 5 and reveal Jesus' own personal and typically Jewish piety. One of the most Jewish sayings of Jesus is t h a t to the Syrophenician woman, taken over by Matthew from Mark (15. 26; Mark 7. 27): ' I t is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs'. Klausner describes them as 'such harsh words t h a t the ears of the most chauvinistic Jew must burn at them'. 4 6 Luke prefers to omit the whole account. The decision about the relation of the Marcan account to t h a t of Matthew has given rise to considerable discussion. 47 If the section is to be seen in Matthew in the light of Jewish-Christian debates on the question of the admission of Gentiles into the church, then we suggest the following interpretation. In the account in Mark, the healing of the daughter of the Syrophenician woman is done without much ado by Jesus. Indeed we get the impression t h a t the woman is quite a shrewd person, skilful at reparti and t h a t it is this skilfulness that brings about the cure (faith is not mentioned). 48 There is an openness to the Gentile woman that contrasts sharply with Jesus' attitude in Matthew. Matthew sets out the contrast in strict Jewish terms. To the first entreaty of the woman Jesus is silent . She turns to the disciples and they ask Jesus to send her away (They*'begged' Jesus). Jesus answers them in Jewish terms: ' I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'. To the woman's next entreaty, Jesus then quotes the saying about the "children's bread" and, on the woman's reply acknowledging the priority of Israel, Jesus responds. Jesus' reluctance then can be seen as t h a t of the stricter type of Jew as Matthew presents him. I t is only in response to repeated appeals of an urgent kind eg 'Have mercy on me' (22) 'Help me' (25). I t has all the appearance of a confession of faith: Jesus is addressed on three occasions as 'Lord' (even in the vocative it takes on a more Christological note; 22, 25, 27) where Mark has it on only one occasion (7. 28). She uses the Jewish phrase 'Son of David' (Was she linked with Judaism in some way?). I t is made quite explicit t h a t she has great faith. Matthew then indicates t h a t Jesus does not throw open the door easily to Gentiles but it presupposes the mercy of God and the persistent faith of the one seeking help. To Matthew alone among the Gospel writers we owe the use of the word sdvixog (5. 47; 6. 7; 18. 17) ie 'Gentile' or 'heathen'. The disciple is taught how he ought to behave by making a contrast with the 'Heathen', whether in greeting (5. 47) or in prayer 'Heaping up empty phrases' (6. 7). The most difficult of these sayings is the last: 'If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile « D. Hill, Matthew, London 1972, ad loc. 43 Cf. McNeile, op. cit. ad loc. 44 K. Bornhäuser, Die Bergpredigt, Gütersloh 1927, pp. 132-3. 45 Bultmann, op. cit. p. 133 n. 1. 46 Op. cit. p. 364. 47 G. Bornkamm, G. Barth, H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, London 1963, p. 168. 48 Bornkamm, op. cit. p. 199.

The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel

435

and a tax collector' (18. 17). Kilpatrick says of this verse: ' I t has a derogatory suggestion and lacks nothing of the Rabbinic reserve toward the pagans'. 49 Trilling attributes the saying as it stands, not to Jesus or Matthew but to t h e Jewish-Christian community where the church has not broken away from J u daism. 50 Both terms are to be taken as applying to those outside the church. I t is possible t h a t Matthew has eased the harshness of the verses by the context into which he has put them ie taking vss 15—17 as a unit. Taken by themselves they are rules for the discipline of the congregation in which every effort is made to bring the offender to his senses. After every effort has failed, he is to be excommunicated, 51 and the terms in which the excommunication is expressed are typically Jewish terms. If however they are taken in the context where God does not want the lost sheep to perish (18. 10—14) or where forgiveness is without limit (18. 21—35) and entrusted to the church (vss 18—20), then what is being said here is t h a t the 'Gentile and taxgatherer' are to be treated as lost sheep ie to be sought after in love. 52 This is in keeping with the Matthaean emphasis on love and mercy. Matthew does not alter the saying but puts it in a context where it can be seen in the light of the commandment of love. If the saying is attributed to Jesus as being in accord with the uses of ¿{hixog elsewhere in the Gospel, then it uses the Jewish formula of excommunication as an expression of judgement on the impenitent and is not unsuited to the strong expressions of judgment to be found in Matthew's Gospel. The Jesus of Matthew speaks more often of dixaioovvr] (righteousness) or dixaioq (righteous) than the other Synoptics. 53 He alone of the Synoptics speaks of the 'will of the Father in heaven' 5 4 . Both emphases may arise from the antinomian situation of Matthew's time reflected in reference to the 'false prophets' (7. 15; 24. 11, 24) 55 . Parallel t o this emphasis on righteousness and the doing of God's will, is the emphasis on judgment. 56 Judgment is expressed more frequently and more strongly than in the other Synoptics, and in terms that recall Jewish apocalyptic. 57 Alongside all these typically Jewish emphases, we find in the Jesus of Matthew mercy also emphasised, in addition to 'righteousness'. The union of righteousness and mercy is found in the Jewish synagogue 58 . Matthew takes 49

Kilpatrick, op. cit. p. 117. Op. cit. p. 116; cf. also T. W. Manson, Sayings of Jesus, London 1954 4 , p. 210; Haenchen, op. cit. p. 303 where he states it is Jewish-Christian praxis uninfluenced by Jesus' love for taxgatherers or the Gentile mission. 51 Strecker, op. cit. p. 224. 52 Bornkamm, op. cit. pp. 84—5. 63 Atxatoavvrj, a term always on the lips of Jesus in Matthew, occurs in the Gospels: 7/0/1/2 (in Matt. 3. 15; 5. 6, 10, 20; 6. 1, 33; 21. 32); ôtxaioç: 17/2/11/3 of which only four (1. 19, 27; 4. 19, 24) are not the words of Jesus. 64 Matt. 7.21; 12. 50; 18. 14; 21. 31 ; cf. 6. 10; 26. 42. 55 Cf. Strecker, op. cit. p. 137 n. 4 who argues against the idea of antinomians. 66 Cf. Bornkamm etc., op. cit. p. 58f. where we have t h e following information: xçiotç (judgment) 12/0/4, rj/uéga XQÎOEÎDÇ (day of judgment) 4/0/0, fuofîôç (reward) 10/1/3, eîç TO OXOTOQ TO ¿SWTBQOV 3/0/0, èxeï ëarai ô xÀav&fièç xai O ß^VYFIOG TWV ôôôvrœv (There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth) 6/0/1. 6 ? Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N. T., Munich 1922, vol. 1, p. 478. Cf. Enoch 103. 8; 108. 14; Ps. Sol. 14. 9; Enoch 108. 3, 5; Secrets of Enoch 40. 12; Ps. 112. 10. » Cf. Schrenk, T D N T , vol. 2, p. 197. 50

436

E. A.

RUSSELL

over the references to Jesus' compassion in Mark 5 9 , but has additional references of his own, 60 including t h a t in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt. 18. 23—35). I t is the Jesus of Matthew who alone uses the prophetic words: ' I will have mercy and not sacrifice' (9. 13; 12. 7) and significantly they occur in conflict stories where the Pharisees are the opposition. The only other use of the word ekeoQ (mercy) is in one of the sevenfold woes of Ch. 23, again contrasting with the Pharisees. 61 Again it is only in Matthew that we find the 'merciful' mentioned as those who will obtain mercy (Matt. 5. 7). In all of these emphases on righteousness, judgment and mercy we can see Jesus related to the best Jewish thought of his time. His debt to Judaism is also apparent in the Matthaean form of the Lord's prayer in a way it is not in Luke. 62 Even in the radical teaching on the commands, Jesus' inward emphasis can be paralleled in the teaching of the school of Shammai where 'the evil intention alone rendered man guilty' 6 3 . To sum up our attempt to piece together the image of the Jew 6 4 in the Jesus of Matthew. The attempt is complicated by the fact t h a t this Jesus is now the accepted Messiah and Lord worshipped in the church and, further, that in the Jewish-Christian milieu of Matthew's Gospel rigorist emphases tend to emerge. 65 We find a Jesus of Jewish lineage, whose Messiahship secures solidarity with his race, of orthodox praxis. His loyalty to the law continues into his ministry of teaching (5. 17—19; 23. 2f) and healing (Cf 8. 1—4). He insists on reality, on the doing of God's will, and the production of fruits — an emphasis partly to be explained perhaps by the rise of 'false prophets', enthusiasts who claimed freedom from the law. H e practises and lays down the principles for the exercise of piety to his disciples. The emphasis on law which tends to be that of the rigorist Jew such as a Shammaite, is associated with the emphasis on righteousness and judgment. Yet judgment is linked with mercy as in Judaism, indeed his Jewish heritage emerges at various points whether in the phrases of the Lord's prayer or in his teaching on the inwardness of law. To him the essence of the law and the prophets is love (Matt. 7. 12; 22. 40). We turn to look at the image of the hostile Jew especially as he is revealed in the authorities including the Pharisees. 66 I t is proposed to concentrate on the leaders as a united hostile front for three reasons: (1) Matthew makes little difference between the various authorities. 67 They are all shown as hostile. (2) This hostility is not an intermittent thing but continues throughout the whole Gospel 59

i. e. Mark 6. 34 = M a t t . 14. 14; Mark 8. 2 = M a t t . 15. 32; Mark 9. 22 cf. Matt. 17. 15. 60 Matt. 9. 36; 18. 27; 20. 34. « Ch. 23. 23. 62 Cf. S - B , op. cit. vol. 1, p. 408ff. 63 W. Förster, Palestinian Judaism in N. T. times, Edinburgh 1964 3 , p. 210f. 64 On Jesus' attitude to purificatory laws cf. Bonnard, op. cit. p. 130 (on 9. 12) n. 1; on divorce cf. Strecker, op. cit. p. 17f. who suggests Jewish elements are not typical of the redactor (p. 18); also p. 30 ff. where he argues that Matthew is at a distance from Judaism, and that he is a Gentile-Christian. (So also S. Schulz, Die Stunde der Botschaft, Zürich 1966 2 , p. 161; Tilborg, op. cit. p. 1 7 1 - 2 ) . 65 Cf. Matt. 15. 2 1 - 2 8 ; Mark 7. 2 4 - 3 0 ; Matt. 18. 17. 66 The occurrences of the word (PaQioaiog in the Synoptics are: 29/12/27. I n Mark and Matthew and, generally, in Luke, it occurs in a hostile context. 67 Cf. Tilborg, op. cit. p. 1; Trilling, op. cit. p. 91; Kilpatrick, op. cit. pp. 120—1.

The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel

437

(3) The terms in which they are addressed are the most controversial in the Gospel especially in the area of Jewish and Christian relations, eg in a conference arranged to discuss the subject of 'Anti-Judaism' in the New Testament, no less than five papers out of fourteen concentrated on Matthew. 68 The charge that Matthew has distorted the image of the Jew especially in the descriptions of the Pharisaic scribes is no new one. 69 Haenchen, for example, declares of the polemic against the scribes and Pharisees in Ch. 23: 'To ascribe their words' (ie of the Jewish-Christian community) 'to Jesus is to reduce him to a teacher of that point of view against which he struggles with all his power'.70 Kiimmel asks whether such polemic is not an erroneous distortion of reality, a betrayal of Jesus' command to love one's enemies, and an abandonment of faith. 71 Dr Legasse expresses his repugnance in the strongest terms when he speaks of 'these violent invectives, these insults, this merciless condemnation rampant in Matthew's work' 'Have we not here' he goes on to ask' an example of mean religious polemic which we know is necessarily partial, unjust and in any case full of exaggerations'. 72 Such criticisms are evoked mainly by the sayings in Matt. Ch. 23 and it is from this centre that the discussion will proceed. It should be pointed out, to begin with, that the Pharisees are the opposition even in the earliest layers of the tradition. 73 At the Trial there is no mention of them7/* in any of the Synoptics. It would not have been difficult to push in Pharisees at the scene of the Cross. Matthew does not do this. If he exercises restraint here, we are encouraged to believe that he would exercise it in the rest of his Gospel, eg if Pharisees are pushecl in he must have some reason for it. The Pharisees then with their great influence appear to have been hostile to Jesus from very early on in his ministry (Cf Mark. 3. 6). In Matthew alone they appear as coming along with the Sadducees to John's baptism (3. 7) (Luke here has 'crowds'). It is not inherently improbable that at an early stage before any official pronouncement was made on the Baptist, both Sadducees and Pharisees came though probably on different occasions. Matthew may bring them together here to indicate the authorities as a common front 75 . On the other hand if the message of John coincides in Matthew with that of Jesus (3. 2; 4. 17) and implied here is that the authorities were not baptized, he may be calling our attention to the fact that both John as well as Jesus received the same hostile treatment. The ill-treatment of the prophets by the scribes later finds mention in one of the sevenfold woes (23. 34). Again the sharp polemic of Ch. 23 is not purely a Matthaean construction. It has its basis in Q and, to a lesser extent, in Mark (12. 37b—40; Luke 11. 37—52 68

W. Eckert etc., Antijudaismus im N. T., Munich 1967, pp. 105-156. Cf. Tilborg, op. cit. p. 25, n. 1 for some Jewish charges. TO Op. cit. p. 432. 71 Kümmel, in: Antijudaismus im N. T., op. cit. p. 146. 72 In M. Didier etc., L'Evangile selon Matthieu, Gembloux 1972, p. 418. 73 See above n. 64. 74 The Pharisees reappear after the Crucifixion in a passage peculiar to Matt., i. e. 27. 62 where they are associated with the chief priests. 75 See above n. 65.

69

29 ütudia Evangelica VII

438

E . A . RUSSELL

and 20. 45—47),76 in addition to Matthew's special source. Matthew or his school construct from the material the sevenfold woes. He brings together the Pharisees of Luke to whom are addressed three woes (Luke 11. 42—44) and the scribes, similarly addressed (Luke 11.46—52) so that we have 'scribes and Pharisees'. He heightens the charges by adding on 'hypocrites' and we have the stylised introduction to the woes (except in 23. 16): 'Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites'. The description 'scribes and Pharisees' and the charge of 'hypocrites' belongs also the Marcan tradition (7. 5, 6) based on a Scriptural quotation almost identical with t h a t in Matthew (15. 8—9; Mark 7. 6). The quotation could be the basis of Matthew's description of the typical hypocrite. 77 I t should be clear then that Matthew shows great respect for his Mark or Q source, though expanding or clarifying them. The implication is t h a t he would do this with his own source. We may regard Matthew's work on the one hand as clarifying the point of what he has to say and, as a result, sharpening the polemic. The Pharisee becomes what the Christian ought not to be and if it is true his Gospel is a 'manual of teaching and administration' — Stendahl's words — then the disciple is left in no doubt as to his responsibility in conduct and life. On the other hand, it may be his main aim is to sharpen the polemic and the instruction becomes a lesser issue. If the Pharisees are remote from Matthew's situation, then instruction would probably be the main motive and the 'Pharisee' becomes a description of the antitype of the believer. 78 Whatever the explanation, it should be clear t h a t a proper assessment of the polemic in Matthew is only one which takes into account the sources Matthew uses and the overall purpose of his work. 79 The terms in which Matthew describes the Pharisees in this chapter are severe and remind us of the stern expressions of judgment of the prophets. The Pharisaic scribes 80 are hypocrites (23. 3, 13f), oppressive and callous (23. 4), vain and exhibitionist (23. 5—7), children of hell (23. 15), blind and foolish, hair-splitting legalists (23. 16—24), extortionate and rapacious (23. 25), iniquitous (lawless) (23. 28), serpents, broods of vipers (23. 33), ruthless murderers (23. 34-36). The list reads like a catena of sins. Yet all the commandments are not broken. There is no charge of idolatry, Sabbath-breaking or adultery ie there is a sense of historic reality. A number of the charges are based in tradition ie hypocrisy (Mark 7. 6), oppressive and callous (Luke 11. 46), vain and exhibitionist (Mark 12. 38, 39; Luke 20. 46, 47), hair-splitting legalists (Luke 11. 42), extortionate and rapacious (Mark 12. 40; Luke 20. 47; 11. 39), brood of vipers (Luke 3. 7) 81 , ruthless 76 77

78 79

80 81

For a good discussion cf. Kümmel, op. cit. p. 135f. The importance of Mark for Matthew is stressed by K. Stendahl, The School of Matthew, Philadelphia 1968, p. 21 where he declares rightly that 'Matthew is an enlarged edition of Mark'. For the O. T. quotation cf. Stendahl p. 56ff.; also R. H. Gundry, The Use of the O. T. in Matthew's Gospel, Leiden 1967, p. 14ff. Cf. Trilling, op. cit. p. 221—2 who sees two motives, apologetic-polemic and didactic. Tilborg, op. cit. p. 7 ignores this overall purpose by claiming that an anti-Jewish tendency gave rise to the Gospel. See n. 62 above. We take the 'and Pharisees' as epexegetic; 'scribes i. e. Pharisees'. In Matthew Jesus is linked with the Baptist in applying the term to the Pharisees (3. 7; 12. 34; 23. 33). The Pharisees are linked with Sadducees (3. 7) and with scribes (23. 33). So we have Jesus and the Baptist over against the authorities!

The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel

439

murderers (Luke 11. 47—51). Matthew—or his source—gives an expanded form eg 23. 4 compared with Luke 11. 46 (on burdens); or the addition of 23. 24 (on tithing) ofthewords: 'You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel' (Cf Luke 11. 24); or the expansions in the sixth and seventh woes (vss 27—31 and Luke 11. 44, 47, 48) — all of these give an added sternness to what is said. Matthew then shows himself dependent on his sources Mark and Q in much of what is said in Ch. 23. There are however three charges peculiar to Matthew which we have put for convenience in brief form as 'children of Hell' (23. 15); blind and foolish (vss 16ff) and iniquitous (lawless) (vs. 28). The phrase 'sons of hell' stands in contrast to the phrase 'sons of the kingdom', ie the Pharisees are excluded from the Kingdom. They reject Jesus ie they refuse to enter the kingdom. They cause others to reject Jesus — they shut up the kingdom to them. If we have an echo here of the strenuous efforts of the Pharisees to win over believers eg Jewish-Christians back to Judaism, and if such efforts are a real threat to the existence of the church, then the woe can be more fully understood. At all events, the cardinal fact of the rejection by the Pharisees of Jesus stands as the first of the seven woes and may help to explain some of the content of the others. Matthew also is the only one to speak of them as 'blind' and 'foolish' (vss 16—22). This is a well-constructed section, 82 probably the work of Matthew or his school. I t has to do with Rabbinic casuistry on the matter of oaths. Matthew, seizing on a verse in Q (Matt. 15. 14; Luke 6. 39) 83 , repeats the word 'Blind' to give emphasis to the address of Jesus: 'blind guides' (vs. 16); 'blind fools' (17); 'blind men' (19). I t reverses the claim of the Pharisee to be a 'guide to the blind' (Romans 2. 17), which he based on a Servant Passage in Deutero-Isaiah ie 'to open the eyes of the blind' (Isa. 49. 6) 84 . The passage can represent the words of Jesus and while it presupposes the use of oaths, it can help to throw light on Matthew Ch. 5. 33—37. There according to Bonnard, Jesus does not forbid swearing b u t merely insists t h a t the subtle differences in the objects a man swears by do not matter. The important thing is rather t h a t they are done in the presence of God. 85 The Pharisaic hair-splitting casuistry is only evidence of their blindness, a blindness itself related to their rejection of Jesus. A third emphasis peculiar to Matthew here is the charge of 'iniquity' (RSV) or 'lawlessness'. The word dvo/uia (lawlessness) is only found in Matthew among the Synoptics. 86 The scribal Pharisees are ' f u l l . . . of lawlessness' (23. 28). The term—it should be noted—is not reserved only for Pharisees in the Gospel. Professed members of the church are said to 'work lawlessness' (7. 23), to be liable to stern judgment viz 'flung into the furnace of fire', to 'weep and gnash their teeth' (13. 41, 42). This may reflect the lawlessness of Matthew's church where the love of many had grown cold (24. 12).87 I t is clear t h a t there are similarities between the Pharisees and these professed Christians. They are guilty of 'anomia'. 82

Cf. Bonnard, op. cit. p. 339 who says it presupposes 'a whole thematic and redactional elaboration'. So Grundmann, op. cit. p. 491. 84 Cf. 0 . Michel, Der Brief an die Börner, Göttingen 1955, p. 73, n. 2. 85 Cf. Bonnard, op. cit. p. 339. Haenchen, op. cit. p. 431 speaks of a contradiction. 86 i. e. Matthew 7. 23; 13. 41; 23. 28; 24. 12. The adjective avo/iog is not used by Matthew. Mark (15. 28) and Luke (22. 37) only have it once in a quotation. 87 Cf. Grundmann, op. cit. p. 1 who applies this to the situation of Matthew's church. 83

29*

440

E . A . RUSSELL

While the Pharisee neglects mercy, the Christian's love has grown cold. Matthew's view of the law is that it is summed up in love (7. 12; 22. 40). If this is so, to be 'love-less', is to be 'law-less'. Note further that 'lawlessness' is linked with 'hypocrisy'. The scribal Pharisees are 'full of hypocrisy and lawlessness'. It may be that the two terms are to be linked in meaning. It is quite clear that in all these charges against the Pharisees, they hardly fit any definition of V T Z Ô X Q M J I Ç as the contradiction of what appears outside with the inner heart of a man. The scribal Pharisees are 'hypocrites' as hindering people from entering the kingdom (23. 13) or as proselytising (23. 14); or as tithing but neglecting love (23. 23). The wide range of meaning applied to v i w x Q i o i ç derives from the L X X where the adjective, V J I O X Q I T T I Q is used on two occasions (Job 34. 30; 36. 13) to translate the Hebrew word *]3n. The latter means profane' or 'godless'. There is in Jewish thought with its close association of 'God' and His 'law', the link thus between the 'Godless' and the 'lawless'.88 The words derived from the Hebrew stem 'Hanef, have never the sense of 'dissembling' or 'hypocrisy'89. In the L X X the 'hypocrite' is the ungodly man, the ungodly man is the hypocrite. The word then in Matthew can have its usual sense of dissembling but it can also have the wider sense of 'godless' or 'profane'. If then the scribal Pharisees reject Jesus who does the 'will of his Father', then they reject God, for it is only Jesus who can reveal the Father to those whom He will (11. 27). In rejecting Jesus, they reject the possibility of knowing God. Our brief look at Ch. 23 appears to show that what Matthew presents, he has justification for it in his sources. He feels free to present his material in a form suitable to his catechetical or preaching or liturgical purpose. He not merely restructures but he expands ideas in his sources, eg repetition of 'hypocrites', or 'blind'. If Matthew is stern, such sternness is to be found to a lesser extent in Mark but in a not dissimilar vein in Luke. Indeed the severity of Matthew may reflect that of the original Q source which, more fully than Luke, Matthew has retained. The retention of such expressions of judgment along with Matthew's emphasis on mercy and love are to be related to his concern for the well-being of the church of his time. The form in which the 'woes' are presented is intended not merely to give it clear expression but to give impact to this concern, ie the woes to the Pharisees mirror this concern. Are the Pharisees or the people whose representatives they are 90 to be excluded from this concern? Probably not. The task of the church is still to preach the good news to Israel (Ch. 10. Iff). Even if Judaism, led by the Pharisees is still unrepentant as a whole and has brought judgment on itself the church of Matthew is still tied to it, inwardly and outwardly. 91 It still proclaims its message to Israel and if it uses the stern words of judgment it is only using the language of the prophets. Baum points out rightly that the terrifying threats of the prophets were not intended to bring about the break-up of the Covenant but only the purification of the people. This is the spiritual tradition in which Matthew writes his Gospel.92 The terms in which Matthew expresses the judgment are 88 Cf. TJ. Wilckens, TDNT, vol. 8,1972, p. 564; Tilborg, op. cit. p. 22; Légasse, op. cit. p. 423. 89 90 Wilckens, op. cit. p. 564. Cf. Kümmel, op. cit. p. 135f. ; Légasse, op. cit. p. 420. si Cf. F. Hahn, Mission in the N. T., London 1965, p. 125. 92 G. Baum, Les juifs et l'évangile, Paris 1965, p. 60.

The Image of the Jew in Matthew's Gofipel

441

corporate terms whether in the woes on the Galilaean cities (11. 20—24) or on the scribes and Pharisees (23. 13ff). Matthew does not mean that within this group judgment, there are no exceptions to it. I t may be that he uses this method to bring about the conversion of individuals, as Baum suggests.93 On the other hand, there is an emphasis on the rejection of Israel in the Gospel (15. 12-14; 21. 43; 23. 38). This however can be related to the fall of Jerusalem. I t appears to be the view of the Jesus of Matthew that if Jerusalem had consented to come to him, it would not have been destroyed. The destruction of Jerusalem thus appears as a judgment on Israel for rejecting Jesus. Yet while recognising this inescapable fact, the emphasis of the evangelist on mercy in relation to taxgatherers, has wider implications. The evangelist can still stress the mission to Israel. Does this suggest mercy still is ready to be extended ? Even the 'Woes' addressed to the cities of Galilee or to the Jewish leaders, may be woes of lamentation.9'« Alongside them in Ch. 15 we have the invitation appended of Jesus, 'Come to me, all who labour and are heavy-laden'. Alongside the woes in Ch. 23 we have the lament over Jerusalem. Finally what are we to make of the sentence addressed to the whole people at the end of Ch. 23: 'You will not see me again until you say: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord' (23. 39)? Is there a hint here of the possible conversion of Israel in the future ? It appears to leave open the possibility.95 Is Matthew as fierce a polemicist as some make out here? 96 Then we would expect a sustained attack without relief. Yet there are strange periods of relief. There is the claim for the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees. They sit 'in Moses' seat' and their instruction is to be heard and obeyed.97 So the Rabbinate as such is not attacked. Even if it is a saying from his source and appears to conflict with 16. 11, Matthew has pushed it 9 8 in whether as a 'konzedierende Einleitung' 99 or as a 'taktische Anweisung' 10°. Note, too, that the whole discourse is not given over to the attack on the Pharisees but counsels the disciples directly (vss 8—11), thus affording some relief. I t is interesting that Matthew prefers to speak of 'extortion and rapacity' (23. 25) but leaves out the emotive charge of devouring widows' houses found in Mark and in Luke (Mark 12. 40; Luke 20. 47). The leaders have done something they ought to do ie tithe (23. 23)—a saying dependent on Q but which Matthew did not omit as he might well have done. There is then the lament over Jerusalem, the headquarters of the Rabbinate inserted from Q and the hint at a possible future conversion of the Jews (23. 39). Before we attempt to conclude the section, there is one thing more that might be worth pointing out. Attention has been drawn to the fact that throughout the Gospel the Pharisees are mentioned in a hostile context ie they are always »3 Op. cit. p. 60. 94 So J.-Cl. Margot, The Bible Translator 19,1968, pp. 26ff. 95 Cf. Trilling, op. cit. p. 87; Hummel, op. cit. p. 141 f. ; Bonnard, op. cit. p. 344; Hill, op. cit. p. 316. 9 6 Cf. Légasse, op. cit. p. 422 'le mouvement chrétien . . . fait sous la plume de Matthieu, figure d'accusateur impitoyable'. For the problems raised by the verse cf. Hummel, op. cit. p. 31; Kilpatrick, op. cit. p. 121; 98 Cf. Strecker, op. cit. p. 13, n. 1. Haenchen, op. cit. p. 418. 99 Klostermann, op. cit. p. 181. 100 Hummel, op. cit. p. 31.

442

E . A . RUSSELL

set over against Jesus. No account is taken of any Pharisees that might be sympathetic. 101 This is not confined to Matthew. I t is found in his sources, yet Matthew expands and intensifies it. Is there here a 'Verteufelung' of the opposition as Kummel puts it? 102 Are the Pharisees in other words associated with Satan as the instruments of demonic activity? Israel and its leaders are viewed as rejecting Jesus and all that he stood for and as such rejected and accepting such rejection (Cf Matt. 27. 25).103 In the course of the development of tradition, the opposition tends to be simplified and the qualifications within it obscured. Corresponding to the 'devilising' of the Pharisees, there can be the tendency to divinise the earthly Jesus. Strecker, for example, suggests t h a t for Matthew the time of Jesus is taken out of the area of historic categories, t h a t for him the earthly Jesus makes the claim to be the eschatological Lord. 104 Nor must it be forgotten that at the time of the writing of the Gospel, the Pharisees were the real spearhead of those who oppose the church. 105 To sum up: the image of the hostile Jew emerges in Matthew's Gospel especially in the leaders who are presented as a united hostile front. I t emerges in its most severe expression in the denunciations of Jesus in Ch. 23 against the scribes and Pharisees. The prominence given by Matthew to the Pharisees may reflect their dominant position in his own time. The image is not necessarily a Matthaean distortion. He depends throughout on the tradition represented by Mark, Q or his own special source where the Pharisees appear consistently hostile. Matthew expands this tradition but the motive is often if not always instruction or apologetic. If he clarifies, it may mean sharpening the polemic but the motive can still be instruction. The terms of judgment with which the Pharisees are addressed are similar to those addressed to the disciples, and recall the style of the Old Testament prophets. I t underlines the concern of Matthew for the church and for the Judaism of his time. 106 The central fact to be borne in mind is the rejection of Jesus by the leaders representing the people and, as a result, their own rejection. I t is emphasized in the first of sevenfold woes which is pivotal for the understanding of the total indictment. Such vehement expression presupposes a judgment already visited in the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet for all the darkness of the portrait, Matthew still has a concern and therefore hope for Israel, even if the image of the historic opposition does undergo what Kummel calls a 'Verteufelung'. This has been an attempt to give a rounded picture of the Jew in Matthew's Gospel. There are more positive elements in it than are sometimes conceded and it may be t h a t if all the circumstances t h a t have been put forward are taken into account, the effect should be to mitigate some of the misunderstandings about Matthew's so-called Antijudaism. 101 Cf. John ch. 3.1 ff.; also Luke 7. 36; 11. 27; 14. Iff.; Acts 15. 5. 102 Op. cit. p. 97. 103 Cf. K. H. Schelkle, Die 'Selbstverfluchung' Israels nach Matthaus, in: Antijudaismus im N. T. pp. 148—156. Matthew too seems to have a particular concern to clear the Romans of responsibility (27. 19, 24-26). Op. cit. p. 123. i°5 Cf. Kingsbury, op. cit. p. 100. 106 Kummel, op. cit. p. 31 f. who suggests Matthew's concern to avoid a break with Judaism by his insertion of Ch. 23.2.

Die makrosyntaktische Signalfunktion, des l u k a n i s c h e n T e x t e m s

vnootQÉq>£iv

W. SCHENK, G ö t t i n g e n

Im siebenten Band des „Theologischen Wörterbuches zum Neuen Testament" behandelt G. Bertram S. 714—729 das Lexem atQetpeiv und sechs seiner Komposita. Dabei verzichtet der Artikel leider schon im Ansatz auf die Behandlung des Kompositums inoorgecpeiv. Ob diese Entscheidung zu Lasten des Herausgebers oder des Bearbeiters geht, mag dahingestellt bleiben. Sie spiegelt auf jeden Fall nur die verbreitete Meinung von der literarischen und theologischen Unwichtigkeit des Wortes, wie sie sich auch in den Kommentaren findet: Die Lukas-Kommentare begnügen sich in der Regel mit dem allgemeinen Hinweis auf die lukanische Häufigkeit. 1 Eine semantische Besonderheit scheint nicht vorzuliegen, sodaß eine theologische Besonderheit gar nicht erfragt zu werden braucht. Wir stellen in diesem Experiment die Frage, ob das Wort diese stiefmütterliche Behandlung verdient, oder ob diese Art der Behandlung nur die Folge einer Arbeitsweise in der Exegese ist, die sich primär am Einzelwort orientiert und so die semantische Bedeutung nur lexematisch erarbeiten kann, statt sich primär an der syntaktischen Struktur zu orientieren und dafür offen zu sein, daß eine semantische Bedeutung auch textematisch aus der Makrosyntax abgeleitet werden kann. Wir folgen damit einer Fragestellung, der sich seit J. Barr eine linguistisch bestimmte Exegese zu stellen hat. 2 1. Bestandsaufnahme Unser Lexem begegnet in den Schriften des Neuen Testamentes außerhalb des lukanischen Schrifttums nur sporadisch dreimal: Gal 1, 17 und Hebr 7, 1 erscheint es in seiner räumlichen Bedeutung in itinerärischen Bemerkungen 3 und in der ursprünglichen Lesart von 2 Petr 2, 21 zur Bezeichnimg eines geistigen Aktes: „abfallen" (die verschiedenen Textänderungen im Reichstext wie bei anderen Zeugen markieren die Singularität und das Unspezifische dieser Verwendung). 4 Nicht als ursprünglich anzusehen ist dagegen die Verwendung im Reichstext bei Mark 14, 40, wo es sich deutlich um eine sprachliche Aufbesserung 1

2

3

4

Vgl. z. B. J. Weiß K E K 1/2 (18928), 424; B. Weiß K E K 1/2 (19019), 288; E. Klostermann HNT 5 (1929 2 ), 21; F. Hauck ThHK3 (1934'), 29; W. Grundmann ThHK 3 (19612), 24. J. Barr, Bibelexegese und moderne Semantik (1965 — englisch 1961); E. Güttgemanns, studia lingüistica neotestamentica (1971); W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft (1971). G. Bertram ThWbNT 7, 725 Anm. 15 — die einzige Stelle, an der der Autor auf unser Lexem anmerkungsweise eingeht. Die Kommentare von H. Windisch HNT 15 (19302) und K. H. Schelke HThK XIII/2 (19662) z. St. gehen auf die textkritische Frage nicht ein.

444

W . SCHENK

handelt; auch der Matth 8, 13 mit unserem Lexem eingeleitete Zusatz ist deutlich eine sekundäre Angleichung an die lukanische Parallele: Der Kurztext ohne vnoaxQEyeiv ist für Matthäus als ursprünglich anzusehen, da Matthäus das Wort sonst an keiner Stelle hat. 5 Der Autor ad Theophilum hingegen verwendet das Lexem 33mal, wovon genau zwei Drittel der Stellen (22mal) e auf sein Jesusbuch entfallen. Diese Stellen dürfen nicht nur wegen der Verwendung dieses lukanischen Vorzugswortes, sondern auch aus anderen Gründen als redaktionell anzusehen sein: In Positionen, die am ehesten redaktionelle Gestaltung vermuten lassen, stehen 18 von 22 Belegen: In Perikopeneinleitungen (PE) steht es 6mal ( + Apg 3mal: 8, 28; 12, 25; 13, 13), in Perikopenschlüssen ist es (einschließlich der Doppelungen Luk 8, 37. 40 und 17, 15. 18) 12mal zu zählen ( + Apg 3mal: 1, 12; 8, 25; 21, 6). Ein anderes Merkmal ist der Zusatz zu erkennbaren Vorlagen: Das Wort steht 9mal in Abänderungen oder Zusätzen zur Markusvorlage und 3mal im gleichen Verhältnis zur Spruchquelle wohl ebenfalls, da Matthäus es nie hat. An 10 Stellen treffen dabei beide Merkmale der Redaktion zusammen, so daß von hier aus auch auf andere Stellen hin die Annahme redaktionellen Ursprungs extrapoliert werden darf. Eines von diesen beiden Merkmalen liegt an 10 Stellen vor. Ohne diese Merkmale sind also nur 2 Stellen (Luk 2, 43. 45), jedoch können hier wie an den meisten Stellen noch weitere Redaktionsmerkmale sprachlicher und stilistischer Art aus dem engeren Kontext beigebracht werden (z. B. Luk 2, 43 iv rqj + Infinitiv 7 ). Die im 3. Evangelium häufigste syntaktische Verwendung ist der absolute Gebrauch ohne Präposition und Ortsangabe (llmal; in der Apg. nur 8, 28 und wohl 12, 25). Von den zugeordneten Präpositionen 8 überwiegt eig mit Akkusativ des Ortes, das im Evangelium 9mal und in der Apostelgeschichte 8mal steht. 5

E. Klostermann H N T 4 (1927 2 ), 74f. läßt erkennen, daß er so entscheidet, während W. Grundm a n n T h H K 1 (1968), 249f., 254 unklar bleibt. 6 R . Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes (1958), 152, 181 zählt wie W. Grundmann T h H K 3 , 2 4 (nach K . Grobel) nur 21mal, was wie bei W. F . Moulton-A. S. Geden, A Concordance to t h e Greek Testament (1970 4 ), 981 darauf zurückzuführen ist, daß L u k 2, 39 nicht mitgezählt ist. An dieser Stelle ist aber mit der überwiegenden Mehrzahl der H a n d schriften vnéarQEipav zu lesen; ein ¿Tieargeipav bieten hier n u r die Zeugen 01 (ursprüngliche Lesart), 03, 032, 040, 579, 1241 - also lauter Vertreter der alexandrinischen Textfamilie (vgl. B. M. Metzger, Der Text des Neuen Testamentes [1966], 57, 59, 64f.) —, die von einem einzigen Archet y p abhängig sein werden, was um so wahrscheinlicher ist, als auch andere Zeugen der gleichen wertvollen Textfamilie dagegen stehen. Die Differenz betrifft auch n u r einen einzigen Buchs t a b e n : Eine Verlesung von Y und E ist leicht möglich. F ü r die Ursprünglichkeit des Y spricht der sonstige Sprachgebrauch des Lukas, der nicht nur eine besondere Vorliebe f ü r das räumliche vnooTQEipeiv zeigt, während er imcrtgéipeiv n u r 7 + l l m a l verwendet, sondern bei dem auch der sonst hervortretende räumliche Bezug von éjitarnéipeiv zugunsten der geistigen Bedeutung ,,bek e h r e n " deutlich zurücktritt; die Stelle Luk 17, 31 mit räumlichem Sinn ist typischerweise von Mark 13,16 übernommen; andererseits zeigt der Reichstext von Luk 2, 20, wie eine Ersetzung des lukanischen vnoargétpeiv durch das geläufigere imargetpeiv (die L X X bietet es etwa 18mal so häufig: R. Morgenthaler, Statistik: S/2:9 S) leicht möglich war. Darum haben wir uns auch vom lukanischen Sprachgebrauch her bei Luk 2, 39 f ü r vTiéazQeqxiv zu entscheiden (mit F. H a u c k . T h H K 3, 44 gegen Th. Zahn K N T 3 (19203/4), 163 Anm. 98; B. Weiß K E K 1/2, 314 Anm. 2 und auch T h e Greek New Testament [1968 2 ] 210) 7 J . C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (1968 = 1909 2 ), 40. 8 W . Bauer, Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (1963 = 1958 5 ), 1676.

Die Signalfunktion des lukanischen vnoaTQecpeiv

445

Das dazu reziproke ano mit dem Genitiv des Ortes findet sich im Evangelium nur zweimal und in der Apostelgeschichte nur an der ersten Belegstelle 1, 12 in Ergänzung zu der Zielangabe mit sig. Singular ist Apg 20, 30 mit diä + Genitiv des Ortes für den Durchzug; Apg 12, 25 ist strittig, ob als ursprünglicher Text ex (so H. Conzelmann z. St.) oder wohl eher elg (so E. Haenchen z. St., das er nach H. Wendt zum folgenden Partizip zieht, so daß dann ein weiterer Beleg für die absolute Verwendung unseres Lexems vorläge) zu lesen ist. Aus diesem syntaktischen Gesichtspunkt geht hervor, daß das Lexem seiner Hauptbedeutung nach einen Ortswechsel beschreibt, der „den Aufbruch zur Rückkehr an den früheren Aufenthaltsort" oder „die Ankunft am Ziel der Rückreise bezeichnet".9 Soweit wäre — abgesehen von dem etwas häufigen präpositionslosen Gebrauch — an sich nichts besonderes an der lukanischen Verwendung des Lexems zu vermerken und darum ist es wohl auch noch nicht Gegenstand weiterer Untersuchung gewesen. 2. Distributionsanalyse Jedoch droht man spätestens an der Stelle von der Rückkehr der Siebzig, Luk. 10,17, an der bloßen Verwendung des Wortes in seiner geläufigen lokalen Bedeutung irre zu werden, wenn man sie im Zusammenhang des Kontextes der Sendung der Siebzig im Reisebericht zu verstehen sucht: Diese Sendung war gemäß dem lukanischen Reisebericht in 10, 1 klar als eine Vor-Sendung (ngo ngoaconov avrov) bestimmt. Was soll dann aber eine Rückkehr? Die Möglichkeit, diese Spannung traditionsgeschichtlich aufzulösen, ist nicht gegeben, da beide Stellen klar redaktionell geformt sind. Diese Spannung ist (soweit ich sehe) bisher nur von B. Weiß (und seinem Sohn J. Weiß) empfunden worden: Die Verwendung unseres Lexems an dieser Stelle „setzt sichtlich voraus, daß alle zusammen zurückkehrten . . ., was natürlich den nach V. 1 angenommenen Zweck ihrer Aussendung ebenso ausschließt, wie daß sie nicht über die zu erwartende Aufnahme Jesu berichten, sondern von ihrer Wirksamkeit erzählen".10 Ein durch die Tradition bedingter Zwang zu dieser seltsamen Formulierung, wie er etwa bei Luk 9, lOf. von Mark 6, 30 her vorlag, ist nicht gegeben und auch ein bloßer Zugzwang von dieser Stelle der Rückkehr der Zwölf her scheint gerade bei der lukanischen Tendenz zur Dublettenmeidung nicht zu veranschlagen zu sein. Darum liegt es von der linguistischen Einsicht in die Verschiedenheit der Sprachfunktionen her nahe, anzunehmen, daß Lukas mit dem Lexem nur vordergründig eine lokale Rückkehr andeutet, im Grunde aber damit doppelbödig eine persönliche sachliche Rückwendung für den Leser anschaulich machen will.11 Diese Annahme besagt, daß Lukas sich mit dieser Wortverwendung stärker als literarischer Gestalter denn als Berichter verstanden wissen will. Er zeigt sich damit stärker als Erzähler, der auf seine Leser einwirken will (konative, empfängerorientierte Sprachfunktion), denn als ein mehr von Fakten bestimmter Berichterstatter (referentiale, gegenstandsorientierte Sprachfunktion).12 « Th. Zahn K N T 3, 356 Anm. 41. '0 B. Weiß K E K 1/2, 447; vgl. J. Weiß in der vorangehenden 8. Auflage S. 454. 11 Auf ähnliche Züge in der komplementären Darstellungsweise des Lukas hat H. Flender, Heil und Geschichte in der Theologie des Lukas (1968 2), 14ff. hingewiesen. 12 Vgl. E. Güttgemanns, studia linguistica, 225ff. nach R. Jakobson. Unter anderer Terminologie

446

W.

SCHENK

Diese Annahme wird dann erhärtet und einer weiteren Klärung zugeführt, wenn man sieht, daß es bei Lukas eine besondere Gruppe von neun vnoarQeyeivStellen gibt, die dem Lexem ein oder mehrere Verben des Sagens zufügen: 8.39 wird dem vom Dämon befreiten Gerasener befohlen, in sein Haus „zurückzukehren" und zu erzählen, was Gott ihm getan hat. 9, 10 erzählen die „rückkehrenden" Zwölf, was sie getan haben. A n beiden Stellen ist der lokutionäre Terminus bvr\yEla&ai redaktionell (2 + 3 : 2/0; fünf von acht neutestamentlichen Stellen sind lukanisch). 13 24, 9 erzählen die vom Grabe „rückkehrenden" Frauen im redaktionellen Gegensatz zur Markusvorlage „das alles". Auch der an dieser Stelle verwendete lokutionäre Terminus änayyeXXsiv ist für Lukas typisch (11+16 : 5/8; 27 von 46 neutestamentlichen Stellen sind lukanisch). 24, 33 kommen die nach Jerusalem „zurückkehrenden" Emmausjünger in Anbetracht der Wichtigkeit des Grundkerygmas, das ihnen die Jerusalemer zu sagen haben, erst Vers 35 dazu, zu erzählen, was ihnen auf dem Wege begegnet war. Doch auch hier ist der Zusammenhang unseres Lexems mit einem Verb des Sagens noch deutlich genug und darüber hinaus ist gerade durch die Nachholung des lokutionären Verbs nach der speziellen Zwischenschaltung die Doppelung als „geprägte Wendung" 1 4 des Lukas handgreiflich erkennbar.15 Der dabei gewählte lokutionäre Terminus e^rjysla'&ai ist wiederum charakteristisch lukanisch (1 + 4 : 0/0; fünf von sechs neutestamentlichen Stellen sind lukanisch). Der Inhalt der nachfolgenden Rede an den fünf genannten Stellen betraf immer ein von Gott gewirktes Handeln, so daß es nicht verwunderlich erscheint, wenn in einer Untergruppe dieses Ausdrucksmusters weitere viermal anstelle eines allgemeinen lokutionären Terminus speziell ein doxologisches Verb verwendet wird. Daß beide Gruppen tatsächlich zu identifizieren sind, zeigt 24, 52, wo wie in unserer Ausgangsstelle 10, 17 vnoarQev TOLOVTMV naidiwv). Moreover, it occurs in Q (Mt 25, 8 give us some of your oil). Prolepsis of the subject of a subordinate clause is another exclusive Hebraism occurring, moreover, only in the teaching of Jesus. Mt 10, 25 is an example from M (it is enough for the disciple that he should be as his master), and Mt 25, 24 is an example from Q (I knew you that you were). I t may be that two series of early documents of the teaching of Jesus were in existence, one in Hebrew and one in Aramaic, but against this there is the consideration that sometimes even within one verse the double linguistic evidence is seen: e. g. Mk. 4, 41, where there is the influence of the infinitive absolute {¿(poPtfdvjoav tpofiov fieyav) alongside the expansion of on into a relative pronoun through the influence of the Aramaic particle de ("whom even the wind and sea obey"). Another brief passage in which a Hebraism and an Aramaism dwell together is Mk 12, 2f. (where the Hebraism is an and — partitive phrase as object, and the Aramaism is nahv, which Wellhausen and Black claim is inspired by tubh14. Let us turn briefly from the Greek of the Gospels to that of some other New Testament writings. Exclusive Aramaisms appear in the language of the Epistle of St. James, for instance, for, to be sure, it may be too much of a coincidence that the epistle, reputed to be fairly good Hellenistic Greek, uses both abnormally frequent asyndeton and the adverbial noXXa (3, 2), which Howard agreed to be Aramaic in Mark, as noted above; and if in Mark, why not also in James ? Nevertheless, despite the presence of other Aramaisms which happen also to be Hebraisms, giving his Greek a pronounced Jewish quality, the author cannot have E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd. ed. (English) by A. E. Cowley, Oxford 1910, § 141 n. K Black3 112. 13

Biblical Greek — the Peculiar Language of a Peculiar People

509

used an Aramaic documentary source, for his speech contains many exclusive Hebraisms, too, such as the use of the anarthrous participle as a substitute for the nominal subject or object (4, 17), signs of the Hebrew construct state (1, 18. 20; 2, 12) and of the Hebrew genitive of quality (especially in the difficult phrase in 1, 17, which thus means a "moving shadow")15, of the Hebrew infinitive absolute16 (5, 12), and Hebrew word-order with respect to the position of nag17. One other clear reason why the epistle is unlikely to be a translation of Semitic documents is the presence of paronomasiae (e. g. /atpetr . . . yaqav at the beginning) and very frequent alliterations on various sounds (especially n: TieiQaa/uolg neqiarjre itoixiXoig 1, 2; and there are eight jr-sounds in 1, 17). This is not to mention the parechesis in 1,24: "he goes away and forgets" ajieArjAv&a . . . ejzeMdero . . . It is very improbable that a translator would reproduce all these free-Greek features18. The Epistle of St. James, then, is an original Greek document, the diction of which contains exclusive Hebraisms and exclusive Aramaisms lying side by side, together with many Semitisms besides. The phenomena lend credibility to the belief that the author was an apostolic personality, perhaps even our Lord's Brother, as in the very old Church tradition, who would doubtless have command of a Galilean Greek derived from local Hellenistic centres founded by Herod the Great and Antipas, such as Tiberias and the rebuilt Sepphoris. Upon this type of Greek, Semitic idioms might well have exercised a formative influence, and one cannot exclude the possibility that the Greek of St. James was a dialect which was even more fundamentally Jewish than a Semitized Galilean form of Koine, for the Semitic influence in it is extensive. Much of what we have attributed to St. James applies to the Johannine epistolary style, too, where exclusive Hebraisms like the phrase 'asd 'emeth and the imperatival fva (2, 19), lie side by side with the exclusive Aramaisms of asyndeton and excessive use of JVa-clauses. The presence of patent Aramaic influence encourages the conjecture that the author was bilingual and that his mothertongue had modulated his Greek, insofar as his mind was thinking in Aramaic constructions. However, the exclusive Hebraisms must incline us rather to accept the presupposition that the author used a native Jewish Greek, blended from the ingredients of spoken Aramaic, written Hebrew by way of synagogue influence and Greek Old Testament diction, and maybe spoken Hebrew, too. The odds against the use of Semitic documents in the Johannine epistles must be very high indeed. One might multiply examples, but instead I will simply refer to the recent fourth volume of Moulton's Grammar, which in the same way that volume I I I deals with Syntax, concentrates on the Style of individual New Testament authors, and where there is fairly full documentation of Aramaisms, Hebraisms, and Semitisms in the New Testament. The existence of the Hebrew and Aramaic evidence lying side by side, and The vague phrase in Jas 1,17, rgonrjs rbioaxiaaua (shadow of turning), if understood as Hebrew genitive of quality, becomes a turning (or moving) shadow. 16 J. B. Mayor, The Epistle of James, London, 3rd. ed. 1913, ccxlii; N . Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I l l , Edinburgh 1963, 241 f. 17 Ibid., 202-205. 18 For details of this, N. Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. I V , Edinburgh 1976. 15

510

N . TURNER

not confined to the Gospels, but characteristic, in some degree, of every New Testament author, indicates, especially where there is no claim that any sources are involved, that the generality of Semitic traces in this kind of Greek owe their origin to something other than the translation of documents: I suggest that they arise from the nature of the Greek itself, which though it is not translation-Greek yet resembles the style of the Old Testament very closely. This Greek arose partly from the bilingual condition of the Palestinian population in the last centuries B. C. — bilingual, and perhaps even trilingual, if we may include Hebrew among contemporary living languages. Greek had been in use in Palestine at least from the time of Antiochus IV. Josephus himself affords evidence that in the first century the learning of Greek was achieved by Palestinian Jews, certainly under official discouragement and with difficulty, and they tended not to speak it very well. But speak it they did, even freedmen and slaves 19 , probably saturating it with Hebraisms, Aramaisms and Semitisms. Unhappily, we have very few specimens of the Greek used by unlettered Jews of Palestine in the first century, apart from the New Testament itself and similar religious writings. We do have official and semi-official inscriptions in Greek and some papyrus correspondence between the rebel Bar Kochba and his officers, indicating that Greek was in frequent use among even nationalist Jews in Palestine 20 . The Bar Kochba letters provide meagre opportunity for assessing their abrupt, soldierly Greek, which seems to identify itself closely with the crude, ill-spelt letter-style of the Egyptian papyri. If it was characteristic of untutored Jewish Greek in Palestine, then none of the New Testament writers used it, or if they did they had the services of thorough revisers afterwards. If these letters are any guide, then we may be doubly sure that the written language of Christians stood well apart from that of the unlettered Koine of Palestine. The Greek discoveries, however, make it probable that Galilee at least was bilingual in the time of Jesus, whatever may have been the case further south. There is no reason why Jesus may not often have spoken Greek, and then the Semitisms in his teaching will be due not to a translator, but will be there because he was speaking in this kind of Greek. There is no a priori reason, therefore, why we may not have in the Gospel record, many of his ipsissima verba. Doubtless other formative factors contributed to the Greek of the earliest Christians, besides their need of being bilingual. One cannot overstate the powerful influence of the Greek Bible, of which the syntax was distinct from both the lower and the higher Koine and which would have sounded strange in the ears of a Greek unfamiliar with the Jewish Scriptures. New Christian conceptions, too, needed the coinage of a fresh vocabulary and the revolutionizing of the meaning of old words. The adherents of a peculiar faith required a distinctive dialect in which to express themselves. To advocate such a proposition may seem like retracing one's steps for half a century, like looking back to the sophistry of a Holy Ghost language behind the backs of Deissmann, Thumb and Moulton. But it is gratifying to see that 19 20

Josephus, Antiqu. l u d . (Niese, vol. IV xx 263 f.) B. Lifshitz, " P a p y r u s grecs du desert de Juda'", Aegyptus 42 (1962) 240-256.

Biblical Greek — the Peculiar Language of a Peculiar People

511

some scholars, far from viewing the matter in this light, are taking the hypothesis seriously. Writing on the nature of the New Testament language, Dr. Matthew Black in the recent volume of the Cambridge History of the Bible 21 , observes that, "among the more important contributions which have been made in recent years are those of Nigel Turner, H. S. Gehman and K. Beyer." It is significant that all three of us, and also Dr. Black himself, have emphasized the Jewish character of New Testament Greek, and that thus he does not dismiss out of hand the hypothesis of a special Jewish Greek, in which original literature might be composed, although he still reaffirms his own conviction "that an Aramaic tradition (oral or written) lies behind the sayings of Jesus (in the Fourth Gospel as well as in the Synoptics), and possibly in the tradition of the words of the Baptist, and the speeches of Acts." 22 One cannot deny that Aramaic, and possibly Hebrew, sources may have been used here and there in the New Testament. Nevertheless, it is heartening that so learned an authority on Semitic and New Testament matters should regard with sympathy the insistence that New Testament Greek was "Jews' Greek," whatever Semitic sources may have existed besides, and that he should have used the very phrase which I borrow from his pen as the title of this paper: "biblical Greek is a peculiar language, the language of a peculiar people." 23 Nor does he actually shudder with disapproval at the tentative suggestion that we ponder afresh the old question of a "Holy Ghost language." I cannot pretend that all critics are so well inclined. Edgar V. McKnight in a thorough-going and perceptive critique in the Bible Translator, entitled, "Is the New Testament written in 'Holy Ghost' Greek?"2''', expresses some dismay that I seem to carry him back to the pre-Deissmann period, and that my conclusions are too extreme in the opposite direction to Deissmann. Nevertheless, this critic generously acknowledges "a positive value for New Testament studies, in the obviously significant grammatical conclusions of Turner." 25 The opinion of so fair and modest a critic as McKnight is surely worth serious pondering, but it should be noted that I do not actually say that Biblical Greek is "comparatively unrelated to the previous development of Greek." I think that is a gloss on the critic's part. However, he is undoubtedly right in complaining that Paul's letters should be more closely compared with Epictetus and contemporary writers, than with classical prose, and I hope to have rectified this in the recent fourth volume of Moulton's Grammar, at any rate as far as style is concerned. In any event, my chief contention is not so much that the New Testament language differs, let us say, from Epictetus, but that the key to its sufficient understanding lies in the Scripture which was reverenced by the early Church, the Greek Old Testament. And I am particularly happy to see that McKnight at any rate, among critics, does appreciate the virtue of that contention, and by 21

Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1 From the Beginnings to Jerome, edd. P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, Cambridge 1970,1-11. Ibid., 10. 23 Ibid., 11. 2 « Bible Translator, 16 (1965) 87-93. » Ibid., 91. 22

512

N. Tubnee

a queer twist of irony is able to find corroboration for my conclusions in some words of Deissmann himself, from whose views in most respects I seem to have deviated a long way. That is where Deissmann declared that to understand Paul we must know the spirit of the Septuagint; that the presupposition of Paul's religious life was not the Hebrew Old Testament nor what we would call Old Testament theology, "but the faith contained in the Greek Old Testament;" 26 further, that in order to reconstruct the Jewish background of St. Paul's Christianity we must take the Septuagint as a basis, conceivable as a complete and uniform Bible. As long ago as 1912 Deissmann made the complaint that such a task had scarcely been recognized by scholars, let alone solved. McKnight acknowledges that Moulton, volume I I I , contributes well towards the task. I confess that although Deissmann correctly indicated the importance of the Septuagint, nevertheless the conclusions arrived at from my own grammatical labours tend rather to point in the opposite direction from those of Deissmann: namely, to the conclusion that although New Testament Greek is superficially part of the contemporary Koine, literary and semi-literary, yet in every respect which is really significant for spiritual understanding, it shares with the Greek Old Testament the distinction of being the peculiar language of a peculiar people, the People of God, barely intelligible, except in a superficial way, to any man who is not already immersed in the diction of the Greek Old Testament. 26 Ibid., 93.

Was heißt deuteropaulinisch? W. ULLMANN, Berlin

1. Erläuterung der Frage Warum muß diese Frage überhaupt aufgeworfen werden? Eingeführte Terminologien anzufechten, das kann der wissenschaftlichen Forschung zu erheblichem Nachteil ausschlagen, Scheinprobleme produzieren, Gespräche und Verständigung erschweren. Aber um eine solche Infragestellung eines gebräuchlichen Terminus soll es sich hier auch gar nicht handeln. Es geht auch nicht um das Phänomen der Pseudepigraphie als solches 1 oder gar um eine Neuaufnahme der literarischen Echtheitsfrage, obwohl der Konsens hinsichtlich der Unechtheit manche Probleme offen läßt 2 . Diesen Fragen will ich hier nicht nachgehen. Vielmehr soll auf folgendes aufmerksam gemacht werden. Das Bild des sogenannten Frühkatholizismus, jener Zone am Rande des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters, mit der man gern die eigentliche Kirchengeschichte beginnen läßt, pflegt aufs stärkste von der Meinung abhängig zu sein, die man sich über das Verhältnis des Paulus zu seinen Nachfolgern, Nachahmern und Epigonen gebildet hat. Man kann das Vorhandensein oder Nichtvorhandensein von Naherwartung als Kriterium für die Unterscheidung von Urchristentum und Frühkatholizismus ansehen 3 , ist dann freilich genötigt, schon in Paulus einen Wegbereiter des letzteren zu sehen 4 . Aber gerade deswegen erscheint es um so dringlicher, das Verhältnis von Wegbereiter und Fortbildnern zu bestimmen. Man kann auch aus berechtigter Sorge, Einseitigkeiten zu verfallen, mehr die Stellung zur Parusieerwartung als diese selber ins Auge fassen 5 . Auch in diesem Falle bleibt die Zusammengehörigkeit bestimmter neutestamentlicher oder außerneutestamentlicher Schriften mit Paulus ein entscheidender Faktor der Urteilsbildung 6 . Man kann endlich an der Brauchbarkeit des Epochenbegriffes „Frühkatholizismus" für die Erfassung der Geschichte des Urchristentums überhaupt zwei1

Die entscheidenden Gesichtspunkte zur Beurteilung dieser Frage stehen wohl schon bei P. Wendland, Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, Tübingen 1912, S. 358ff. Cf. jetzt auch H. Hegermann, Der geschichtliche Ort der Pastoralbriefe = Theol. Versuche II, Berlin 1970, S. 48ff. 2 Cf. die Schilderung der Forschungslage im Bibellexikon von H. Haag, Leipzig 1969, Sp. 1316 bis 1324. 3 So etwa sehr entschieden E. Käsemann, Paulus und der Frühkatholizismus, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Bd. 2, Göttingen 1964, S. 240. 4 Käsemann a. a. O. S. 241. 5 So L. Goppelt, in: Die apostol. u. nachapostol. Zeit, Göttingen 1962, S. A 93ff. = Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte hrsgg. von K. D. Schmidt u. E. Wolf, Bd. IA. 6 Cf. Goppelt a. a. O. S. A 97.

514

W . UlxLMANN

fein 7 . Wird dann die Entstehung einer festen Ämterverfassung zum ausschlaggebenden Unterscheidungsmerkmal 8 , dann muß das die urkundliche Bedeutung der deuteropaulinischen Pastoralbriefe eher verstärken. Allen drei Auffassungen aber ist eines gemeinsam: sie schauen vom paulinischen Ursprung zur Weiterführung und Abwandlung des Paulinismus. Wie schnell sich bei dieser Art der Betrachtung ein Unterton der Abwertung einschleicht, ist schon oft bemerkt worden 9 . Solche Abwertungen können leicht zu Mißdeutungen der geschichtlichen Realität führen. Aber auch wo man diese Gefahr zu vermeiden weiß, erliegt man einer anderen. Es werden Probleme zugedeckt, deren Erörterung im Interesse der geschichtlichen Forschung liegt. Darum soll hier eine Blickrichtung vorgeschlagen werden, die das genaue Gegenteil der eben geschilderten ist. E s soll von der Ableitung, dem Weiterwirken, zum Ursprung zurückgefragt werden. Wenn der Epheserbrief, die Pastoralbriefe von ihren Verfassern unter die Autorität des Paulus gestellt werden, wenn die Paulusakten ihrem Helden einen dritten Korintherbrief in den Mund legen 10 , die Epistula Apostolorum den Auferstandenen über das Schicksal des Paulus weissagen läßt 1 1 , so ist das — wie disparat, vermittelt, gebrochen auch immer — als eine Form der Wirkung des Paulus und seiner Schriften anzusehen. Wer diese Wirkungen nicht als tendenziöse und beliebige Erfindungen abtun will, wird nach ihrem historischen Inhalt und ihrem Zustandekommen fragen müssen. Eben dies wollen die folgenden Überlegungen versuchen. 2. Bemerkungen zur Forschungsgeschichte Als Schleiermacher 1807 das Instrumentarium der stilkritischen Philologie, das er sich in der Schule Fr. A. Wolfs angeeignet hatte, auf den 1. Timotheusbrief anwandte, bereitete er damit den Fragen, die hier zur Debatte stehen, den Boden 12. Ob er aber diese selbst schon in Erwägung gezogen hat, kann füglich bezweifelt werden. Denn wenn man die in der Fülle und Subtilität des philologischen Details noch heute bewundernswerte Abhandlung am Ende doch unbefriedigt aus der Hand legt, so darum, weil die schlechte Figur, die in ihr der Verfasser des 1. Pastoralbriefes macht, wenn er von Schleiermacher an dem „antiken Charakterkopf" (E. Schwartz) des Paulus gemessen wird, uns auch als eine Folge der Optik erscheint, in die sie mit unverkennbarer Einseitigkeit gestellt worden ist. Wenn man sieht, wie unlustig, ja unwirsch Schleiermacher theologische Schwerpunkte wie die hymnischen Verse aus dem dritten Kapitel des 1. Timotheusbriefes beiseiteschiebt 13 , so verstärkt sich die Überzeugung, daß der lite7

So H. Conzelmann, Geschichte des Urchristentums, Göttingen 1969, S. 8. Conzelmann, a. a. 0 . S. 8f. 9 Z. B. Conzelmann, ebenda. w Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT-liche Apokryphen, Bd. 2, Tübingen 1964, S. 259f. 11 Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT-liche Apokryphen, Bd. 1, Tübingen 1959, S. 144. 12 Schleiermacher, Über den sog. 1. Brief des Paulus an den Timotheos = Werke, Berlin 1836, 1. Abt., 1. Bd., S. 223ff. 13 Schleiermacher, a. a. 0 . S. 305. 8

Was heißt deuteropauiinisch?

515

rarisch-ästhetische Maßstab, wie sachgemäß seine Anwendung zur Klärung der Verfasserfrage sein mochte, dem Inhalt des Schriftstückes gegenüber wohl kaum der ausschlaggebende sein dürfte. Schon deswegen nicht, weil niemand Lust verspürt, nach der historischen Einordnung eines stümperhaften Nachahmers zu fragen. Aber eben um diese Frage ist es hier uns zu tun, und darum muß F. Chr. Baur als derjenige genannt werden, dem das Verdienst ihrer präzisen Formulierung zukommt. Er vermag den Deuteropaulinen einen genauen historischen Ort anzuweisen, indem er sie in die Dialektik der urchristlichen Parteien hineinstellt, und zwar als Dokumente einer Vermittlung von Seiten der gnostisierend-paulinischen Partei in Richtung auf die ursprünglich judaistischen Tendenzen zur Institutionalisierung der Kirche 1 4 . Eine ganze Reihe von Voraussetzungen, auf denen Baur baute (sein Bild von der Gnosis, die Spätdatierung der Ignatianen, seine allzu phantasievolle Interpretation der Ps. Clementinen), haben sich als unhaltbar erwiesen. Dennoch möchte ich behaupten, daß seine Zuordnung von Paulus und Deuteropaulinischem auch heute noch die Auffassungen zumal der deutschen Gelehrten bestimmt. So wird wie bei Baur das Simon-Bild der Ps. Clementinen als antipaulinische Karikatur interpretiert 1 5 . Die Pastoralbriefe kommen ebenso wie bei dem großen Tübinger zwischen einen gnosisverdächtigen Paulus und eine werdende kirchliche Orthodoxie zu stehen 16 . Aber anders als bei Baur sollen es jetzt die großkirchlich-orthodoxen Gruppen sein, die mit Hilfe der Deuteropaulinen, speziell der Pastoralbriefe, eine Rettungsaktion unternehmen gegen gnostische Versuche, Paulus f ü r sich auszubeuten. Zweifellos hat die erstaunliche Wirkungskraft dieses Geschichtsbildes nicht nur theologiegeschichtliche 17 Wurzeln, sondern ist ebenso in der Sache selbst begründet. Baur wird immer das Verdienst bleiben, uns klargemacht zu haben, daß wir spätere Vorstellungen von kirchlicher Einheit nicht in die Anfänge der Christenheit zurückprojizieren dürfen. Um so wichtiger wird es sein, die t a t sächlich vorhandenen Gegensätze historisch zutreffender zu bestimmen, als es dem Hegelianer des vorigen Jahrhunderts gelingen konnte.

3. Offengebliebene Fragen In große Schwierigkeiten gerät man, wenn man auf Grund der eben geschilderten Position die Frage zu beantworten versucht, warum die Heiden und Juden vereinigende Kirche des Epheserbriefes, die Ämterverfassung der Pastoralbriefe, 14

15

16 17

F. Chr. Baur, Gesch. der christl. Kirche, Bd. 1, Tübingen 1863 (Neudruck Leipzig 1969), S. 121, hier auf Grund von Baurs älterer Schrift „Die sogen. Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulos", 1835. W. Schneemelcher, Paulus in der griechischen Kirche des 2. Jahrhunderts = ZKG, 75, 1964, S. 9 ff. Cf. aber die abweichende Interpretation der Grundschrift der Pseudoclementinen durch Irmscher in: Hennecke-Schneemelcher, NT-liche Apokryphen, Bd. 2, s. 373f. H . von Campenhausen, Die Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Tübingen 1968, S. 212 f. Zu ihnen gehört die seit Hegel und Schleiermacher latente und oft manifeste Nähe zahlreicher protestantischer Theologen zur Gnosis, zu der sich Baur in seinem zu Unrecht wenig bekannten Gnosisbuch von 1835 ebenso offen bekannte wie Harnack 1920 zu Marcion.

516

W. Ullmann

die antignostische Polemik der Paulusakten und der Epistula Apoatolorum in gleicher Weise unter die Autorität des Paulus gestellt werden. E s fällt schwer, sich eine taktische Raffinesse vorzustellen, die ausgerechnet den Lieblingsapostel der Gnostiker zum Bannerträger kirchlicher Ordnungstendenzen umfunktioniert. Ein solches Unternehmen h ä t t e sich in eine noch aussichtslosere Lage begeben als Marcion, der wenigstens auf Teile der schriftlichen Hinterlassenschaft des Paulus zu seinen Gunsten verweisen konnte, aber trotz eindrucksvoller Erfolge schließlich doch auch daran scheiterte, daß man ihm den unredigierten Paulustext entgegenhalten konnte. Welche Gefahr aber lief man erst, wenn man nicht nur gar keinen Anhalt an Paulus h a t t e und sich obendrein auf einen Mann mit derart belastetem Ruf zu stützen suchte. U m dieser Schwierigkeit zu begegnen, verweist man gern auf das Unverständnis f ü r zentrale Gehalte der paulinischen Theologie, die z. B. schon aus der Apostelgeschichte spreche. Wie nahe liegen dann Unverständnis und Mißverständnis erst dort, wo man historisch so weit von Paulus entfernt war, wie es die meisten Deuteropaulinen sein müssen. Das alles soll hier gar nicht bestritten werden. Dennoch bleibt die Frage: Lassen sich aus Unverständnis und Mißverständnis die sachlichen Inhalte erklären, f ü r deren Sanktionierung die Autorität des Paulus bemüht wird? Warum wurde gerade an ihn angeknüpft? Das Gewicht dieser Fragen scheinen alle die Autoren verspürt zu haben, die vom „abgeschwächten Paulinismus" etwa der Pastoralbriefe sprechen 1 8 : eine Formel, deren Kompromißhaftigkeit mir freilich allzu nichtssagend erscheint. Man hat ferner die Vermutung geäußert, die Wirkungslosigkeit des Paulus sei seiner Beschlagnahme durch die Gnosis geschuldet 1 9 . Aber gesetzt den Fall, diese Vermutung träfe zu, dann wäre, wie schon gesagt, u m so schwieriger zu erklären, wieso dieses Motiv mitten in der Hauptblütezeit der christlichen Gnosis, nämlich in der ersten H ä l f t e des 2. Jahrhunderts, plötzlich aufhörte zu wirken und Paulus wieder zum Träger genau entgegengesetzter Intentionen werden konnte. Alle derartigen Aufstellungen scheinen mir daran zu kranken, daß sie es versäumen, zwei Fragen zu stellen, deren Beantwortung doch f ü r die Klärung der hier zur Debatte stehenden Sachverhalte unerläßlich ist. 1. Wenn man die Wirkung des Paulus feststellen will, darf man sich dann auf die Beobachtung der literarischen Wirkungen, etwa der Häufigkeit und Ausführlichkeit von Zitaten beschränken? U n d zweitens: K a n n die abschreckende Wirkung gnostischer Paulusinterpretationen auf antignostische Kreise richtig beurteilt werden, ehe wir uns über die Wirkung des Paulus auf die Gnosis Rechenschaft gegeben haben ? Die erste Frage muß auf jeden Fall negativ beantwortet werden. Denn bis zu Justin hin hat das AT einen solchen Vorrang als kanonischer Text, daß aus der Häufigkeit von neutestamentlichen Zitaten nur höchst unsichere Schlüsse gezogen werden können. Genügt doch ein Blick in den Apparat einer Ausgabe der Apostolischen Väter, um der aus diesem Vorrang resultierenden Schwierigkeit, 18 19

Cf. Bultmann, Theologie des NT, Berlin 1959, S. 536 „ . . . ein etwas verblaßter Paulinismus". Schneemelcher, a. a. 0 . S. 9.

Was heißt deuteropaulinisch?

517

neutestamentliche Zitate zu identifizieren und abzugrenzen, ansichtig zu werden20. Andererseits: Vom lukanischen Geschichtswerk über den 1. Clemensbrief 21 , Ignatius 22 , die Pastoralbriefe bis zum Philipperbrief des Polykarp 2 ? reichen die Zeugnisse, die Paulus einen einzigartigen Rang als historische Gestalt zusprechen. Sollte es den Tatsachen nicht näher kommen, wenn wir die literarische Wirkung des Paulus als Folge seiner Wirkung als historische Gestalt verstehen, statt umgekehrt seine Wirkung als historische Gestalt hinter seiner literarischen Wirkung zurücktreten zu lassen oder gar diese letztere als einzig relevante Form seines Wirkens zu verstehen ? Die Art und Weise, in der Paulus als historische Gestalt gewirkt hat, verdiente eine detailliertere Schilderung, als sie hier möglich ist. Wenigstens andeuten will ich, in welcher Richtung dabei vorgegangen werden müßte. Drei Momente scheinen ein besonderes Gewicht zu haben. An erster Stelle verdient die von Paulus selber in Gal. 1, 12—16 und 1. Kor. 15, 8—10 betonte Stellung als des letzten Auferstehungszeugen genannt zu werden. Wenn man sieht, welchen breiten Raum diese Tatsache in der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung einnimmt, wie schwach demgegenüber der Niederschlag der von Paulus selber doch 1. Kor. 15, 4 als grundlegend genannten Ostererfahrung des Petrus in den übrigen neutestamentlichen Texten ist, dann ermißt man, welch überwältigenden Eindruck das Auferstehungszeugnis des Paulus hinterlassen haben muß. Ist es Zufall, wenn die Areopagrede der Apostelgeschichte, Irenaus 24 , Tertullianus 25 und Origenes26 sich in der Frage der Auferstehung in gleicher Weise auf Paulus berufen ? Als nicht weniger umwälzend ist zweifellos Paulus' Gedanke einer Völkermission empfunden worden, wie er Gal. 2, 7 und Rom. 1, 1—5 ausgesprochen wird. Umwälzend darum, weil er sich von allem Proselytismus ebenso unterschied wie vom revolutionären Zelotismus des antirömischen Judentums 2 7 . Hieraus folgt drittens, was dem damaligen Zeitgenossen am meisten in die Augen fallen mußte: Ein ganz neues Verhältnis von Heidentum und Judentum wird angekündigt, nicht durch die universalistische Einebnung aller Unterschiede, sondern durch die Entritualisierung des Gesetzes 28 und durch die Entsakralisierung des Heidentums in der Liquidation seines Kultes 29 , politisch und 20

Auch Schneemelcher a. a. O. S. 19 weist hierauf hin, aber ohne zu bemerken, daß damit den Behauptungen im ersten Teil seines Aufsatzes großenteils der Boden entzogen wird. » 1. Clem. V 6. 22 Eph. 12, 2; Rom. 4, 3. Polykarp-Brief 3, 2. M Adv. haer. V 9 ff. 25 Adv. Marc. V 9. 26 Contra Celsum II 63, V 18ff. 27 Offenkundig fällt es uns schwer, uns die historische Tragweite des paulinischen Programms einer ökumenischen Völkermission zu vergegenwärtigen. Ist nicht das lukanische Geschichtswerk ein schwer zu entkräftendes Zeugnis dafür, daß den Zeitgenossen an Paulus ganz andere Seiten wichtig waren als uns, die wir mit sehr zweifelhaftem Recht in ihm so etwas wie den ersten protestantischen Theologen sehen möchten? 28 Rom. 2, 25—29. Hier von Spiritualisierung zu sprechen, wie es häufig geschieht, scheint mir sehr weit von der Meinung des Paulus wegzuführen. 28 1. Kor. 8, 4 und 10, 20-22. 2

34 Studia Evangelica VII

518

W . ULLMANN

sozial einschneidende Wendungen, deren Konsequenzen wir bis in die Martyrien des 2. Jahrhunderts verfolgen können 30 . Eine vielsagende Gegenprobe auf das eben Ausgeführte wird es sein, wenn wir uns nun, wie beabsichtigt, der zweiten Frage, nämlich der nach der Wirkung des Paulus auf die Gnosis, zuwenden. Hier müssen wir, der Natur unserer Quellen folgend, freilich von literarischen Berührungen und Einflüssen ausgehen, und so wäre es an sich nicht verwunderlich, wenn sich von da aus die Notwendigkeit einer ergänzenden Korrektur des soeben Behaupteten ergäbe. Soweit uns Pauluszitate in gnostischen Quellen über Kirchenväterreferate erreichbar sind, zeigt sich folgendes Bild. Weitaus am häufigsten ist das, was ich Bestätigungszitate nennen möchte. Paulus wird angeführt als Beleg für Lehren, die die paulinische Schilderung des Götzendienstes und seiner Folgen Rom. 1, 20—26 als Bestätigung ihrer Geheimlehre über das Verhältnis von Fortpflanzung und Gnosis zitieren 31 , wenn die Sethianer sich für die Schlangengestalt ihres Erlösers auf Phil. 2, 7 berufen 32 , die Valentinianer die Torheit aus 1. Kor. 2, 14 als Kraft des Demiurgen interpretieren33. Das Belegmaterial dieser Art ließe sich vermehren. An zweiter Stelle sei ein anderer Typ von Pauluszitaten angeführt, der vielleicht noch deutlicher als der erste zeigt, in welchem Ausmaß hier Paulus einer Neuinterpretation unterworfen wird. Es sind Allegorisierungen des Paulustextes, die diesen den gnostischen Sonderlehren dienstbar machen sollen, so wenn die Naassenenpredigt etymologisierend diejenigen, über die nach 1. Kor. 10, 11 das Telos der Äonen gekommen ist, als Zöllner {telonai) bezeichnet 34 , die Unterscheidung einer himmlischen von einer irdischen Hochzeit mit der paulinischen Rede vom oberen Jerusalem im Galaterbrief in Verbindung bringt 35 . Das Bild rundet sich, wenn man sieht, wie die Gnostiker mit Vorliebe solche Paulusstellen zitieren, die den Apostel als Überlieferer von Geheimlehren erscheinen lassen. Besonders 1. Kor. 2, 9 scheint sich aus diesem Grunde besonderer Beliebtheit erfreut zu haben. Das Baruchbuch des Gnostikers Justin beruft sich gleich drei Mal auf diese Stelle 36 . Ebenso nahe lag es, 2. Kor. 12, 2—4 in diesem Sinne auszulegen 37. Unter den Schriften von Codex V aus Nag Hammadi befindet sich eine ganze Paulusapokalypse, die aus dieser Stelle herausgesponnen ist und Paulus bis in den 10. Himmel aufsteigen läßt 38 . so Der politischen und sozialen Seite dieser Entwicklung wird m. E. von den Neutestamentlern zu wenig Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet. Um so wichtiger ein Aufsatz wie der von E. Peterson, Das Problem des Nationalismus im alten Christentum = Frühkirche, Judentum und Gnosis. Rom/Freiburg/Wien 1959, S. 51 ff. 31 Hippolyt, Ref. V 7. 32 Hippolyt, Ref. V 19. 33 Hippolyt, Ref. VI 34. Hippolyt, Ref. V 8. 35 Hippolyt, ebenda. 3« Hippolyt, Ref. V 24. 3' Wie Anm. 34. 38 Kopt.-Gnost. Apokalypsen aus Cod. 5 von Nag Hammadi. Wissensch. Zeitschrift der MartinLuther-Universität Halle/Wittenberg, Sonderband 1963, S. 15—26. Das aus dem Berolinensis Gnosticus 8502 und den bis jetzt zugänglichen Originalquellen von Nag Hammadi zu gewinnende Material ist so dürftig, daß ich glaube, es hier vernachlässigen zu dürfen.

Was beißt deuteropaulinisch?

519

Diese Beobachtungen lassen m. E . nur einen Schluß zu: Paulus ist ein den Gnostikern vorliegender, durch besondere Autorität ausgezeichneter Text, auf den in dem Maße zurückgegriffen wird, wie das Interesse an der Verchristlichung bzw. Verkirchlichung der Gnosis wächst. Erst am Endpunkt dieses Vorganges steht der Versuch, nicht nur einzelne dicta probantia, sondern die Lehre des Apostels selbst in den Dienst der verkirchlichten gnostischen Verkündigung zu stellen, wie wir das am valentinianischen Ptolemaiosbrief besonders schön beobachten können 3 9 . Auch Marcion fügt sich in dieses Bild ein. Er unterscheidet sich von den anderen Gnostikern nur durch die Entschlossenheit, mit der er den gesamten Paulustext f ü r seine Zwei-Götterlehre zu beanspruchen versucht hat. Eine Gewaltsamkeit, die sich nur mit Hilfe jener auffallenden Retuschierung der Paulusbriefe verwirklichen ließ, die uns Tertullianus so genau beschrieben hat 4 0 . Also auch im Falle der Gnostiker gilt der eben aufgestellte Satz: Die literarischen Wirkungen des Paulus sind abhängig und folgen der Autorität, die er als historische Gestalt gewonnen hat. Denn eben mit Hilfe dieser Autorität versuchen die Gnostiker sich innerkirchlich zu legitimieren und zu empfehlen. 4. Der historische Sinn der Berufung auf Paulus E s sei erlaubt, wieder auf das schon oben herangezogene Beispiel des 1. Timotheusbriefes zurückzugreifen. Seine besondere Bedeutung liegt nicht nur in der Berufung auf Paulus, dem der ganze Brief zugeschrieben wird, sondern ebensosehr darin, daß wir in ihm das älteste Schriftstück vor uns haben, das sich selber thematisch durch Über- und Unterschrift als Kampfmanifest gegen die Gnosis versteht 4 1 . Schon immer hat man sich gewundert, wie ungeschickt und nach unseren Begriffen wenig überzeugend der Verfasser seine Aufgabe anfaßt. Kein klares Bild der bekämpften Lehren, keine Argumente, sondern lediglich Verdammungsurteile — all das klingt nicht gerade sehr überzeugend. Aber ob wir mit solchen Urteilen diesem Brief gerecht werden? Wenn man beginnt, historische Überlegungen anzustellen, wird einem das sehr zweifelhaft. Denn daß der Verfasser nicht f ü r die doxographischen Interessen moderner Gnosisforscher geschrieben hat, wird man ihm kaum verübeln können. E r h a t t e offenbar Leser vor Augen, die sich bei seinen Andeutungen denken konnten, wovon die Rede war. Aber auch uns gibt er Fingerzeige, die wir mit Hilfe anderer Quellen verfolgen können. Die 1. Tim. 4, 3 erwähnte Ablehnung der Ehe, die 2. Tim. 2, 18 bekämpfte Lehre von der schon geschehenen Auferstehung sind uns aus Gnostiker referaten der Kirchenväter wohl bekannt. Von dem zur Zeit Hadrians in Anti39

Epiphanius, Panar. 33, 5,13 und 33, 6, 6. « Adv. Marc. V 2ff. Cf. Harnack, Marcion, Berlin 1960, S. 45ff. 41 Die Frage, inwieweit andere Schriften des NT, z. B. Act. 8 oder der 1. Joh. Brief, auch autognostische Polemik treiben, will ich damit ausdrücklich offen gelassen haben, ganz zu schweigen von der seit Käsemann und Schmithals durch einen Wildwuchs von Hypothesen belasteten Debatte über das Verhältnis des Paulus zur Gnosis. 34*

520

W . ULLMANN

ochien wirkenden Satornil hören wir 42, daß er die Ehe als Satanawerk bezeichnet hat, weil sie das den Menschen versklavende Schöpfungswerk fortsetzt. Und es paßt sehr gut zu dem 1. Tim. 1, 4 perhorreszierten Unwesen der Genealogien, wenn uns Irenaus an der gleichen Stelle über die Rolle der Engelhierarchien in dem Werk des Demiurgen erzählt. Die Hintergründe der oben erwähnten Auferstehungsdoktrin können uns solche Angaben erläutern wie die über Menander, der der von ihm gelehrten und praktizierten Taufe Unsterblichkeit verleihende Kraft zuschrieb 43 oder über Dositheos, den Samaritaner, von dem seine Anhänger behaupteten, daß er nicht sterbe und auch nicht gestorben sei 44 . Wenn aber solch detailliert ausgearbeitete Lehren dem Verfasser des l.-Tim.Briefes gegenüberstanden, warum verzichtet er dann so weitgehend auf eine wirklich argumentierende Antwort ? Verständnislos wäre es wohl doch, ihn kurzerhand der Unfähigkeit zu bezichtigen. Vielmehr scheint hier der Moment einzutreten, in dem die Berufung auf Paulus wichtig wird. Offenbar ist dieser Verweis auf eine allseits anerkannte Autorität das, was die Diskussion mit den Häretikern überflüssig macht. Das wiederum aber setzt eine historische Situation voraus, in der wir noch weit von jenem Grad der Verkirchlichung von Gnosis entfernt sind, wie ihn Valentin oder Marcion repräsentieren 45. Denn eben darum genügt es, auf die historische Gestalt des Paulus zu verweisen, um allen Ansprüchen der Gnosis den Boden zu entziehen. Erst der gnostisch exegesierte Paulus macht solche Erörterungen nötig, wie wir sie bei Irenäus und Tertullianus nachlesen können, und ebenfalls bei Philipp von Gortyna, Modestus, Rhodon, Meliton 46 und Justin nachlesen könnten, wenn ihre Werke nicht verloren wären. Freilich sind es Gemeindeglieder wie Hymenaios und Alexander, die als Vertreter der Irrlehre genannt werden, und insofern ist die „pseudonyme Gnosis" auch eine innerkirchliche Erscheinung. Aber sie tritt noch nicht in erster Linie als Interpretation des Evangeliums auf, sondern vielmehr als Programm einer bestimmten Weltorientierung, als Haltung gegenüber Gesetz 47 und Kult 48 . Eben hier konnte Paulus als orientierende Gestalt wirksam werden, besonders, wenn man sich das vergegenwärtigt, was oben über ihn und die Neubestimmung des Verhältnisses von Heidentum und Judentum gesagt wurde. Lag es nicht nahe genug, sich an ihm die unvergleichliche Stellung der Christusoffenbarung49 wie die uneingeschränkte Schöpfungszuwendung 50 zu verdeutlichen? « Irenaus, Adv. Haer. I 26, 2. 43 Euseb, HE III 26, abhängig von Justin, Apol. I 26. 44 Origenes, In Joh XIII 27. Im übrigen cf. zu Menander und Satornil R. M. Grant, The earliest christian Gnosticism = Church History, vol. XXII/1953, S. 81 ff. und W. Foerster, Die ersten Gnostiker Simon und Menander = U. Bianchi (Hrsg.), Le origini dello Gnosticismo, Leiden 1967, S. 190ff. 45 Aus diesem Grund wie von der kirchlichen Verfassungsgeschichte her scheint mir von Campenhausens Versuch, die Pastoralbriefe dem Polykarp von Smyrna zuzuschreiben, undurchführbar. Cf. H. von Campenhausen, Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe = Aus der Frühzeit des Christentums, Tübingen 1963, S. 197ff. « Cf. Euseb, HE IV 25. « 1. Tim. 1, 7 - 9 . « 1. Tim. 4, 3. « 1. Tim. 3,16. so i. Tim. 4, 4.

Was heißt deuteropaulinisch?

521

Das was man seit Martin Dibelius gern (lobend) das „Bürgerliche" an den Pastoralbriefen genannt hat, zeigt sich hier als eine Art der Welt- und Menschheitsorientierung, die über diese neuprotestantische Interpretation weit hinausweist, denn gegen welche Fronten mußte man sich dabei abgrenzen. Die oben angeführten gnostischen Belege für Eheverwerfung und Chiliasmus decken uns eine höchst unbürgerliche Landschaft weittragender historischer Auseinandersetzungen auf. Auf der einen Seite eine Gnosis von mehr revolutionär-chiliastischem Typ, die wie Menander durch Taufe eine irdische Unsterblichkeit zu vermitteln verspricht 51 oder wie Kerinth die große Wende zum neuen Äon als festliche Verklärung des irdischen Jerusalem 52 ankündigt oder wie die Elkasaiten für die Zeit nach dem dritten Jahr der Herrschaft Trajans die große messianische Erhebung vorhersagt 53 . Kann die Absage an diesen apokalyptisch-politischen Utopismus deutlicher erfolgen als in jener Aufforderung zur Fürbitte für alle Regierungen, wie sie 1. Tim. 2, l f f . steht? Übersehen wir auch nicht die andere Front, die eines religionsphilosophischen Synkretismus, der, sich über alle Religionen erhaben wähnend, ebensogut asketische wie libertinistische Konsequenzen ziehen kann, weil beides ein gleich angemessener Ausdruck für eine Überlegenheit sein kann, die alle Mächte durchschaut zu haben überzeugt ist. Die Herkunft aus der apokalyptischen Aufregung des Kampfes zwischen Rom und dem Judentum in den Jahren von 66 bis 135, der Zeit der drei großen jüdischen Kriege unter Vespasian/Titus, Trajan und Hadrian, steht freilich auch noch deutlich lesbar in jenen gnostischen Überlieferungen, deren Hauptthema die Absage des Gnostikers an die den Menschen versklavenden Weltmächte ist. So heißt es im Simonianer-Referat des Irenäus 54 , daß der Erlöser habe herabkommen müssen, da die demiurgischen Engel im Kampf um die Weltmacht den Menschen seiner Freiheit beraubt hätten. Ganz ähnlich lehren die Pseudoclementinen 55, wenn sie den Judengott als den obersten aller Völkergesetzgeber entlarven, und im Basilides-Referat des Irenäus 56 schließlich werden alle Weltkämpfe auf den Ehrgeiz dieses Judengottes zurückgeführt, seinem Volk die anderen Völker zu unterwerfen. Dieses Referat ist auch deswegen interessant, weil hier die indifferente Teilnahme an allen Kulten als Konsequenz des aufgedeckten Weltkampfes der Mächte gelehrt wird. Ich glaube doch, man wird die unter Berufung auf Paulus nach beiden Seiten vollzogene Abgrenzung, wie sie besonders 1. Tim. 4, l f f . zu lesen steht, in ihrer kirchengeschichtlichen Bedeutung nicht unterschätzen dürfen. Diese Bedeutung erläutern heißt zugleich, die Antwort auf die Frage geben, was deuteropaulinisch heißt. Die Berufung auf Paulus hat den Sinn, unter den Bedingungen der Situation nach 70, da die Christen von Juden 57 wie Heiden 5 8 als abgefallene Juden und damit als verächtliches genus tertium betrachtet werden, gerade dies nicht zu akzeptieren und am Alten Testament als am wichtigsten Dokument einer vorethnischen Menschheitseinheit festzuhalten. Das in der heutigen Durchschnittsm Euseb, HE III 26, 2. » Adv. Haer. I 23, 3. 67 Schmone Esre, 12. Bitte.

52 55

33 Euseb, HE III 28, 2. Hippolyt, Ref. 9, 16. Horn. 18, 4. 5« Adv. Haer. I 24, 4. 58 Celsus bei Orígenes, Contra Celsum III 5.

522

W . ULLMANN

bildung weitverbreitete Bild vom weltflüchtigen Christentum der Antike dürfte auch dadurch zustande gekommen sein, daß schon die Kirchenhistoriker nicht recht das Maß der Weltzuwendung gesehen haben, das in diesem Festhalten wirksam gewesen ist. Das Nein zu einem bestimmten Weltzustand kann in einer tiefen und umfassenden Weltzuwendung begründet sein. 59 Mit der hier geschilderten Abgrenzung einher geht dogmatisch die christologische Konzentration, die sich z. B. 1. Tim. 3, 16 mit so starkem Nachdruck ausspricht. Freilich ist auch hier von Engeln und vom Kosmos die Rede, aber alle religiös-politische Apokalyptik ist abgestreift. Die Gnostiker dagegen, so sehr sie sich in Aktionen zur Entlarvung der Engelmächte gefallen, bleiben ihr verhaftet. F ü r sie sind gleichsam jene Mächte noch immer so blind wie vor der Erscheinung Christi. Demgegenüber erscheint es bedeutsam, daß das Romanum, die älteste Form unseres Apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses, sprachlich und theologisch sehr stark an die Pastoralbriefe anklingt 6 0 und somit ebenfalls in der deuteropaulinischen Sphäre beheimatet zu sein scheint. Das wirft ein Schlaglicht auf die Rolle der Ämterverfassung, in deren Geschichte den Pastoralbriefen zweifellos eine epochemachende Stellung zukommt. Sollte nicht der Textzusammenhang von 1. Tim. 3, 1—16 darauf deuten, daß die Verfassung der Kirche etwas mit der Art ihrer Lehre zu tun hat ? Ihre Lehre ist derart, daß es sv navxi X6TIO/a Bischöfe und Diakone geben kann. Denn diese Lehre ist an keine besonderen Offenbarungsträger oder Kultorte mehr gebunden. Letzteres mußte schwerwiegende Folgen haben. Dort, wo die gnostische Indifferenz gegenüber dem heidnischen Kult nicht akzeptiert wurde 6 2 , brach jener Kampf zwischen heidnischem Kult und christlichem Bekenntnis aus, dessen Zeugnisse die Martyrien sind. Die Römer sahen in diesem Kampf weiter nichts als ein Attentat auf den öffentlich bedeutsamen und wirksamen K u l t 6 3 und ließen sich durch Gelehrte wie Celsus aus gnostischen Quellen über die götterfeindlichen Geheimlehren der Christen informieren 64 . Sie blieben eben damit im Bannkreis jener Messianismen, in deren Anfängen zur Zeit des Kaisers Claudius ohne Zweifel auch die Anfänge der Gnosis liegen 65 . Die Christen konnten demgegenüber wie Meliton von Sardes 66 mit dem Bewußtsein auftreten, an jenes Verhältnis zwischen Rom und den Juden anzuknüpfen, das der weitsichtigen Duldungspolitik Cäsars entsprach und zugleich auf eine neue Epoche vorauswies. Man kann darum sagen, das Deuteropaulinische sei wohl früh-katholisch, aber gerade darin Epoche auf dem Weg einer christologischen Konzentration wie einer ökumenischen Ausweitung des kirchlichen Bekenntnisses. 59

Cf. dazu Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung . . . Bd. 1, Leipzig 1915, S. 260f. 1. Tim. 1, 12; 1, 16; 3, 16; 6, 12; 6, 13; 2. Tim. 4, 1. M. E. zwingt diese Beobachtung zu einer erneuten Prüfung der von Kattenbusch, Das Apostolische Symbol. Bd. 2, Hildesheim 1962, S. 328, aufgestellten Theorie über die Entstehung dieses Symbols gegen die heute allgemein verbreitete Auffassung, wie sie J. N. D. Kelly, Altchristliche Glaubensbekenntnisse, Berlin 1972, S. 133ff., vorträgt. 61 1. Tim. 2, 8. 62 Zur Haltung der Gnostiker gegenüber dem Martyrium cf. J. Moreau, Die Christenverfolgung im röm. Reich, Berlin 1961. 63 64 Acta Scilitanorum 5. Contra Celsum VI 27ff. 65 Cf. Justin, Apol. I 26 und Suetonius, Divus Claudius 25; ferner vom Verf., Gnost. und polit. Häresie bei Celsus = Theol. Versuche II, Berlin 1970, S. 153ff. 6« Euseb, HE IV 26, 5 ff. 60

The "emunah/

niartg D. H.

of Habakkuk 2. 4 and R o m a n s 1 . 1 7

VAN

DAALEN,

Harrington

Few people would dispute t h a t Paul's Epistle to the Romans has been a major influence in the formation of Christian doctrine. As the main argument of this letter is governed by chapter 1. 17, it is natural t h a t this verse should have received much attention not only from biblical scholars and theologians b u t also from others. However, there has always been an inclination to start the interpretation of the verse from the wrong end. I t tends to be taken for granted t h a t we know more or less what 'faith' means, we then interpret marig by our understanding of 'faith', and some have even gone as far as to apply that same interpretation to'emunah. The first thing we note about Romans 1. 17 is t h a t Paul, in his quotation from Habakkuk 2 . 4 b omits the pronoun. He thus follows neither the L X X , EX NIOREMQ fiov, nor the Hebrew text as we know it, beemunato, and he had already done the same in Galatians 3. 11. We therefore ought to inquire whether Paul was familiar with the L X X or with a Hebrew text similar to the later Masoretic text, or with both. The Epistle to the Romans contains 72 recognisable quotations from the Old Testament. 26 of those are the same as in the L X X , while 32 others are sufficiently similar to be compatible with his having quoted from the L X X from memory. Even allowing for a certain amount of editing the proportion of identical and similar quotations, 58 out of 71 (not counting the verse under discussion), seems far too large to be attributed to mere chance, and the evidence suggests t h a t Paul was familiar with the L X X . However, only in one instance does this agreement with the L X X go against the Hebrew text 1 , whilst in 12 cases Paul seems to agree with the Hebrew against the LXX. 2 There remain two verses where he does not seem to follow either the L X X or the Hebrew. 3 That seems to suggest that Paul was also familiar with a Hebrew text not very different from the Masoretic text. Galatians contains few quotations, and those in the Corinthian correspondence tend to be rather loose, but they too suggest that Paul was familiar with both versions. We shall therefore have to examine the use both of'emunah and mang in the two versions. The root 'MN is found in a number of words connected with the notion of 1 Rom 15. 12 = Is 11. 10. 2 Rom 1. 23 = Ps 106. 20; 2. 24 = Ez 36. 20; 3. 10 = Ecc 7. 20; 3. 15 = Is 59. 7 = Pro 1. 16; 3. 20 = Ps 143. 2; 5. 5 = Ps 22. 6; 8. 33 = Is 50. 8; 9.32 = Is 8. 14; 9. 33 = Is 28. 16; 11. 36 = Job 41. 11; 12. 19 = Dt 32. 35. 3 Rom 1. 17 = Hab 2. 4 and 10. 11 = Is 28. 16.

524

D. H. VAN Daalen

something solid, firm, stable, steady, dependable, reliable. The hiphil he'emin is used frequently in the sense of 'believe', 'trust'. Of the nouns ' emun, 'omen, 'amanah and 'amun are comparatively rare, but ' emunah is used 47 times. In 21 instances it is used of Y H V H , 18 times in the Psalms; in nine cases it is used parallel with hesed, in four with sedaqajsedeq. The reference seems to be to Y H V H ' s stability and reliability; the L X X seems to think particularly of his honesty and frequently translates afaffteia. At a n y rate, it is Y H V H ' s ' emunah that makes him Someone who can be relied on. Of the remaining passages 9 contain be emunah in the meaning of 'faithfully', 'honestly'. Here too ' emunah is a quality of someone who can be relied on. B u t in I Chronicles 9 be'emunah is used three times of people being in charge of something. The meaning here seems to gravitate towards the trust put in someone. In E x o d u s 17. 12 we are told that Moses's hands were 'emunah till sunset: they were kept firmly in position. Similarly it seems likely that in I s 25. 1, where Y H V H ' s plans, formed of old, are called 'emunah 'omen, the prophet wants to say t h a t they are firmly established. In P s 37. 3, to see 'emunah will mean, 'to enjoy security'. In nine cases 'emunah is used of human conduct or of a human quality. In most of these 'honesty' seems the most reasonable translation; these include the passage on the Root of J e s s e : sedeq will be the girdle of his waist, 'emunah the girdle of his loins: as in some passages mentioned earlier 'emunah is put side by side with sedeq; this is also the case in I Sam 26. 23: Y H V H rewards every man for his sedaqa and 'emunah. The only passages remaining are Ps 119. 30 and H a b 2. 4. In Ps 119. 30 the translation, ' I have chosen the way of faith', is perhaps just possible, but the whole tenor of the Psalm suggests that the Psalmist is speaking of his faithfulness in obeying God's commandments. Consequently, unless we assume that Habakkuk 2. 4 is the only exception, the 'emunah of that verse can only be connected with the object, not with the subject of trust. I t could mean, stability, reliability, fidelity, faithfulness or honesty, the one thing it could not mean is faith in the sense in which t h a t is usually understood. The question then is, whose reliability is the prophet referring to ? I t is usually assumed that it must be the saddiq's. I f Y H V H ' s 'emunah was meant, surely the text would read, be'emunatil The L X X , indeed, interprets the text in this sense, and translates ex nicriecos fiov. Kittel therefore conjectures a variant reading be'emunati. However, I suggest that no such variant reading need be assumed. Throughout the Old Testament changes from direct to indirect speech are exceedingly common, and we can therefore not take it for granted that, as Y H V H was introduced speaking in v s 2, he must be referred to in the first person. The first part of the verse is not clear and has been the subject of much conjecture. Elliger's suggestion that it should be read, 'Behold, my soul does not approve of the evildoer' 4 , seems attractive but is based on two conjectures. I f it is right it seems to me (though not to him) that 'The righteous will live b y his (YHVH's) faithfulness' would be a suitable rendering of the second half. In the context as a whole it seems more likely that the emphasis is on the Y H V H ' s fidelity than on the believer's. Habakkuk has first been prophesying 4

Karl Elliger, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten (ATD), II, Göttingen, 1950, p. 37.

Habakkuk 2. 4 and Romans 1.17

525

against Assur, and it has fallen. He later prophesied against Babel, and nothing happened. Writing t h a t down (chapter 1) amounts to a complaint before God. He now waits for what Y H V H is going to do about his complaint. The answer is that the vision, t h a t is to say, the carrying out of the prophecy, awaits its time, but is moving towards the end: it will not lie. In t h a t context a reference to God's faithfulness seems more relevant than anything t h a t could be said about human faith or human fidelity. I am well aware t h a t most interpreters prefer to think of the righteous man's loyalty 5 , but I feel t h a t the emphasis in this verse is on the certainty t h a t Y H V H will be faithful to his promises. Of course, the author did not think in terms of our interpretations.'emunah to him meant nothing other than 'emunah. What we should be looking for is not merely a suitable translation but the associations which the word had for the author, and they seem to be connected particularly with what the righteous can expect of YHVH. The saddiq, the man who walks according to the Covenant, will live by God's promises, for Y H V H is a God who can be relied on. The L X X has translated ix marewg fiov. 17ions is used 20 times as a translation of 'emunah, moros is used once, and so is a£i6moros- Also in 20 instances'emunah is translated by aXrjdeia and twice by aArj&ivog. The difference seems to indicate different translators rather than different shades of meaning, and t h e fact t h a t God's 'emunah is so often rendered äfoq&eia is simply due to most of the relevant places being in the Psalms. At any rate, maris does cover the whole range of meaning of 'emunah. I n addition maris is used in one instance each as a translation of 'emun, 'amnah, and mar iv eyeiv of he'emin; and five times of 'emet. I n two cases there is no equivalent in t h e Hebrew. Outside the books of the Hebrew Canon maris is used once in t h e Sophia Salomonos, ten times in the Sophia Sirach and four times in I Maccabees. I n the majority of cases fidelity, loyalty, honesty are the only possible renderings, but 'trust' is required in Sirach 22. 23; 27. 16; 37. 26 and I Macc. 10.- 37. The three Sirach passages are interesting inasmuch as the 'trust', the 'faith' is regarded almost as an objective quantity, belonging to t h e object of t h a t faith: win your neighbour's trust when he is poor; he who betrays secrets loses faith; a wise man will earn faith among his people. The usage is similar to the manner in which the word 'honour' was once used in the West: strictly speaking honour is an opinion which other people have of us, but in fact one could have honour even if nobody thought so. Similarly 'faith,' 'trust,' is here a reputation of trustworthiness which is almost, though not quite, independent of whether or not t h a t reputation is supported by other people's opinion. I n t h e L X X mans is either used as referring to the object of the act of mareveiv or, if it is used of the subject of mareveiv, it still emphasises the trustworthiness of its object. 5

Cf the translations and commentaries; also Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des alten Testaments, II, München, «1965, pp. 197,275, Eng. tr. Old Testament Theology, II, Edinburgh, 1965, pp. 190, 267; Walther Eichrodt, Theologie des alten Testaments, III, Leipzig, 1939, p. 27, Eng. tr. Theology of the Old Testament, II, London, 1967, p. 285; George A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, London, 1959, p. 334.

526

D . H . VAN D A A L E N

That is in accordance with common Greek usage. Whether one agrees with Bultmann that the primary meaning is the trust or faith which one has in someone or something 6 , or with Bauer that marig is primarily that which calls forth trust or faith 7 , it is more frequently used in connexion with the object than with the subject of mareveiv. Indeed, even when it is used in the sense of trust or faith, it is commonly assumed that the object of that trust is worthy of being trusted. Marig is not just any belief: it is a well-founded trust in someone or something reliable. The emphasis is on the trustworthiness of the object. In any case, there can be little doubt that the L X X wants to say that the righteous will live by God's faith. And what about Paul? First a word on the construction. It has now become fashionable to connect ex nioremg with o dixaioq rather than with £r\oerai: he who is righteous through faith will live 8 . However, Paul may sometimes have interpreted Old Testament passages in a way that seems strange to us, there is no reason to assume that he did not understand the grammar of the Habakkuk verse 9 . 'Ex morewg must be connected with the verb. We must bear in mind that Paul, as Habakkuk, did not think in terms of faith = fidelity. Moris to him was niorig and nothing else. What we should be looking for is not a fresh translation but an understanding of the associations which the word had for him. That is to a large extent determined by the manner in which it had been used before him — not by later Christian usage. The earlier usage, both in secular Greek and the L X X suggests that marig called to mind the reliability of the object of mareveiv. The phrase, o de dixaiog ex marecog itfaerai, must therefore not be interpreted in terms of psychology. What Paul wants to stress is not so much the importance of our faith as the faithfulness of God. It would perhaps be correct to translate, 'the righteous will live by (God's) faithfulness' 10 , but that would probably be misleading inasmuch as it might suggest that the act of believing did not come into it at all. On the other hand, if we retain the translation, 'by faith', meaning the believer's faith, we must remember that the emphasis remains on God's faithfulness. Faith is not a psychological condition, it is not even a religious phenomenon 11 : without God's act of salvation it simply does not exist 12 . Throughout the New Testament morig is used regularly of the act of believing 13 . 6

Rudolf Bultmann in Gerhard Kittel, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum neuen Testament, VI, Stuttgart, 1959, pp. 175ff., Eng. tr. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VI, Grand Rapids, 1968, pp. 174ff. 7 Walter Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Berlin 3 1937. 8 Anders Nygren, Der Römerbrief, Göttingen, '"1965, p. 67, Eng. tr. Commentary on Romans, London, 1952, p. 84, and others; also R S V and NEB. 9 Adolf Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, Stuttgart, ) t h a t the idea of holiness has something to do with t h e mysterium tremendum and with the strong feeling of dependency of man to God, the feeling he calls " K r e a t u r g e f u h l " 7 (feeling t h a t one is a creature). This was the feeling of Isaiah and therefore, having seen the vision a n d having heard the voices of t h e seraphim he cried: "Woe is me! I am lost, for I a m a man of unclean lips a n d I dwell among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen t h e King, t h e Lord of Hosts" (Is vi. 5). 5. I t is only n a t u r a l t h a t man worships t h e holy God. F r o m this point of view it is symbolic t h a t t h e " L a w of Holiness" (Lev xvii—xxvi) begins with a law on sacrifices, whether this is intentional or not. Much has been written on t h e idea and the meaning of sacrifice. The Old Testament knows several kinds of sacrifices and it is doubtful whether they can all be brought to a common denominator. The "holocaust" or "whole-offering" may have been considered as completely different (in its meaning) from the zebah selamim or "peace-offering" ("communion"offering?). I n spite of this all sacrifices of t h e Old Testament have something in common: they are public acts of worship, performed b y a priest on behalf of the community or of an individual, to honour God. There is even more: in t h e sacrifice God is also propitiated, his sovereignty is recognized by oblations, gifts, man wishes to be "in peace" with God, i. e. in communion with him, a communion symbolized — and established — in a sacred meal in which t h e worshipper consumes parts of an animal offered to God. I t is not t h e place to enter upon the most difficult question of " t h e meaning of 7

35

o. c., p. 10. Studia Evangelica VII

534

J . P . M . VAN D E B P L O E G

sacrifice", or rather of the meanings of the various sacrifices. One thing they have in common : their aspect of worship. In the Old Testament they can only be offered to Yahwe, the one true God of Israel. Offering them to other Gods is idolatry, offering them to man is unthinkable. Lev xxvii. 1 states that the Israelites had to slaughter all their animals at the entrance of the tabernacle ; the blood belonged to God and was not to be shed to the ée'lrîm, a kind of hairy demons (Lev xvii. 7). The custom of the offering of the blood of animals to demons and spirits was very ancient in Palestine and may still exist at this moment. In 1947 I was at Taybeh (Ephrem), north of Jerusalem, the place where Jesus stayed with his disciples (John xi. 54). I happened to be in a company of students of the École Biblique of St. Stephen's. In the evening one of us asked the parish priest whose guests we were, whether his parishioners still offered hens and cocks to St. George, as we had heard they did. He was ashamed and denied it vigorously, but the next morning we found traces of fresh blood on the threshold of the ruins of an ancient basilica which had been dedicated to the saint. The Old Testament in its present form reserves sacrifices for God. The cultic meaning of this is clear. In his time St. Thomas Aquinas conceded that certain forms of "adoration" could be offered to a creature, but sacrifice only to God; it was for him a signum debitae subjectionis et honoris which is to be offered only to God: soli Deo offertur.8 In a sacrifice man yields something to God; in the levitical law, therefore, the first and most important sacrifice was the 'ôlâh, holocaust, the "whole-offering". It was offered daily and at very solemn occasions. It has a propitiatory meaning and effect : it reconciles man with God, his Lord and supreme Master. But because it can only be offered to God it is an act of worship of the God of Israel, the God of the covenant, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Holy One, the only God to be worshipped. In the laws concerning sacrifices no mention is made of special acts of adoration : prostration, etc. But that they were combined with them is clear from a very beautiful description by Jesus Sirach of the cult of his days ( ± 180 B. C.). It tells that when the high priest Simon son of Onias was officiating, completing the ceremonies at the altar and pouring out wine at its foot : the sons of Aaron shouted and blew their trumpets of beaten silver . . . instantly the people as one man fell on their faces, to worship the Lord their God, the Almighty, the Most High (Sir 1. 16-17).

One should read the whole passage (Sir 1. 5—21) to feel something of the impression the cult of the temple, of which sacrifice was the central part, made upon the son of Onias and the awe he felt when present. Reading it there is no doubt that the idea that man should be the centre of the liturgy or that it should be "humanistic" is far from the mind of the author; God and God alone is to be honoured by man, He alone can be praised, to Him petitions are to be made, He blesses his people through the words and hands of his priests. When blessing the congregation, the priests took the name of God on their lips (Sir 1. 20), pronouncing Numbers vi. 24-26: The Lord bless thee and keep thee, the Lord make his face to shine upon thee and to be gracious unto thee, the Lord lift his countenance upon thee and give thee peace. 8 Summa Theologica, II a II ae, Q 85, art. 1.

Adoration and Praise of God in the Old Testament

535

6. When we speak of "God", the word itself is a nomen commune; though acknowledging only one God, we can speak of "gods" in the plural. In Israel God had a personal name. According to Ex iii. 14 the divine name was revealed to Moses when God appeared to him in the flame of the burning bush. The more one is a personality, the more one has a name, or names. The gods of the surrounding peoples often had several names and so also had Pharao. The God of Israel had only one (besides, of course, the adjectives which were expressing his qualities, like the Just, the Merciful, etc.). This name was the tetragrammaton YHWH, most probably pronounced as Yahwe. In the story of the revelation of this name to Moses its meaning is explained. According to Gen iv. 26 Enosh began to invoke the name of Yahwe (before the flood), whereas Ex vi. 3 states that God was not known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by this name. In Ex iii its meaning is explained, at least the meaning it had for Israel. This meaning is very simple: HE IS. God says: " I am that I am" (Ex iii. 13) and therefore Israel had to say: HE IS, i. e. Yahwe. I t seems to me that Ex iii. 13 is giving an explanation of a name known before to some people, explaining it as a most mysterious one. For what is the meaning of " I am that I am" ? The different answers given by modern interpreters and theologians are known. But still the name remains mysterious and I venture to say that the scriptural interpretation tends to accentuate the highly mysterious, impenetrable and inscrutable character of God. In this connection you can only say "He is", that is all, for God includes everything. God has a name because he is a person; between man and God there is an I-Thou relation. The name had to be mentioned in the cult; in olden times it was mentioned so often in the holy places that it seemed to "dwell" there and thus became a substitute for God. Many psalms, especially prayers and psalms of lamentation begin with the name of God or mention it in their first verse. As soon as this name was revealed, the Israelites were ordered to go into the desert to offer sacrifices to the Lord (Ex iii. 18). In Psalm lxvi. 4 it is said: "For all the world shall worship Thee: sing unto Thee and praise thy Name". The East-Syriac liturgy speaks of the "Adorable Name and worthy of praise of the Holy Trinity". The name of God was intimately connected with his worship and was thought to express his incommunicable nature. Yahwe was, according to the famous word of Deut vi. 4 'ehad "One" and had to be served and worshipped for this reason. 7. Besides honouring God because he is the principle of man whom he created from the dust, yea "out of nothing", the Israelite honoured God because of his eminent qualities. These qualities are divine and therefore the honour paid to God because of them cannot be completely separated from the honour paid to him because he is the Creator, the principle of our existence. In worship both are combined, as we see e. g. in the Psalms. 8. That God is the Master, the Lord of Israel, Adonay, has already been mentioned. It is a direct consequence of his creative activity in the course of which he created man. Connected with the name of Adonay is Melek, "King". It is now generally recognized that the idea that God, Yahwe, was considered as Israel's king is very old. The meaning of kingship was not always and everywhere the same in the Near East, not even in Israel. Saul was asked by the tribes to defend the people against the arch-enemy: the Philistines. His power was far from absolute, though Samuel's well known warning had to be taken seriously (1 Sam viii. 11 ss.). Things 35*

536

J . P . M. VAN DER PLOEG

changed very much under Salomon when the social and economic conditions of the kingdom were assimilated to those prevailing in other kingdoms of the Near East. The power of the king became more and more absolute, his will was law, his word life or death. I t is with this meaning that God was called "King", but in the superlative. His kingdom is celebrated in a number of Psalms, where the much discussed words Yahwe malak do not mean (at least as it seems to me): Yahwe became king, but Yahwe is king, his kingship being an inherent quality. Royal honour was paid to Yahwe, the Lord of the universe, by giving presents to him, by prostrating oneself before his throne, by doing his will, by serving him. From the verb 'abad the word 'abodah is derived which in later times meant the service of God ('abodah zarah meaning: idolatry). The kingship of God is associated with creation in Psalm xciii. 1: The Lord is King, he is apparelled with majesty, the Lord is apparelled, he has girded himself with strength. H e established the world that it cannot be moved.

A king asks loyalty from his subjects; therefore the worship of the King of heaven and earth was also a means of expressing loyalty. To the loyalty of the subjects corresponds the fidelity of the King and this fidelity is often praised in the Psalms. I t is the 'omunah of God and also his '»met (or strict conformity to truth). Among the ideas of the Old Testament, t h a t of ,emet: truth, fidelity, loyalty, trustfulness, etc. is one of the most difficult to grasp. In Ps. xxxvi. 6 we read: Thy mercy, o Lord, reaches unto heavens: and t h y faithfulness unto the clouds.

Ps lxxxix. 3:

My song shall be always of t h y loving-kindness o Lord: with m y mouth will I ever be shewing t h y faithfulness, from one generation to another.

Ps cxliii. 1: 0 Lord hear m y prayer: in t h y faithfulness consider m y petitions and answer me in t h y righteousness.

In the texts just quoted, faithfulness is combined with other qualities of God: his hesed or loving-kindness and his justice or sedaqah. 9. Many authors cannot think of hesed without thinking of the covenant which God concluded with Israel. This is exaggerated: the old Israelites often but not always thought of the covenant when they were commemorating and praising God's hesed. The hesed appears to be the loving-kindness one has for those who are his, especially for his children, his family, those he loves. Now it is clear t h a t there is no covenant between the members of a family: the ties of blood or kinship are more than a covenant. There is no normal covenant with slaves, because they are the possession of their master. There is no mention of a covenant of YahweGod with the first human couple in paradise, because having been created by him, they lived in closest relationship with God. I t was only after sin t h a t a covenant became necessary, because sin created a state of enmity between man and God. According to the ideas of the desert there is no "peace" but potential enmity between tribes who have no relation to one another; a covenant does away with this situation. A covenant is also concluded by a fugitive who asks the protection of somebody else, preferably a mighty person, capable to protect him. This was the kind of covenant God offered to Israel and Israel concluded with God.

Adoration and Praise of God in the Old Testament

537

10. B u t between Yah we and his people there was not only a covenant relation: there was also "love". We read in Deuteronomy: " I t was not because you were more numerous than any other nation t h a t the Lord cared for you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all nations; it was because the Lord loved you and stood by his oath to your forefathers . . . Know then t h a t the Lord your God is God, the faithful God, who keeps the covenant and the loving-kindness (hesed) to those who love him and keep his commands . . ." (Deut vii. 7—9). I t is because of God's love for Israel he concluded a covenant with the people; this in turn had to love him and when it does, God shows his hesed: his loving-kindness, or rather his goodness full of love. This hesed is praised in the Psalms (I already quoted some verses) where it occurs more than ninety times, or even more if we include the repetition of the refrain in Psalms cxviii and cxxxvi: O praise the Lord, for he is gracious: for his loving-kindness endureth for ever. O praise the God of all gods: for his loving-kindness endureth for ever. 0 praise the Lord of the lords: for his loving-kindness endureth for ever. Who alone does great wonders: for his loving-kindness endureth for ever. Who by his wisdom made the heaven: for his loving-kindness endureth for ever (Psalm cxxxvi. 1—5).

11. Besides the hesed, there is the sedaqah of God, his "justice" or "righteousness". Books and articles have been written on the meaning of this word. I t has something to do with the "right order"; this order asks from God t h a t he punishes and rewards but also t h a t he shows his loving-kindness and his mercy to his people and to the pious ones; this applies also to men amongst themselves and therefore in later Judaism sedaqah meant also "alms". The giving of alms to the poor belonged to the right order of human relations. I t is used with the same meaning in Arabic and almsgiving has become one of the pillars of Islam. S'daqah is also the righteous act of God, and because his acts are many it may be used in the plural. Sedaqah is one of the key words of Psalm lxxi: In thee O Lord have I put my trust: let me never be put to confusion. Deliver me and set me free according to thy righteousness: incline thine ear unto me and save me. (vs 1—2) My mouth shall tell thy righteousness and thy salvation all day long . . . (vs 15) 1 will declare the mighty acts of the Lord Yahwe, I will remember thy righteousness, thine alone (vs 16) Thy righteousness O God reaches unto heaven, thou who hast done great things. O God, who is like thee? (vs 19)

In the Revised Psalter of 1963 s'daqah is translated in Ps lxxi by "victories" (plural: t h y victories), not taken over by the New English Bible. The a u t h o r of the former translation (D. Winton Thomas?) evidently considered that the right order of God and world requires t h a t God always is victorious. Psalm xxxvi. 6—7 runs as follows:

538

J . P . M . VAN DER PLOEG

Thy mercy O Lord reaches unto heaven: and t h y faithfulness unto the clouds. T h y righteousness stands like t h e strong mountains, t h y judgments are like the great deep: Thou Lord dost save both m a n a n d beast.

In his "righteousness" and his "loving-kindness" God guided Israel, he wrought miracles for it, he punished its enemies. For all these things God is praised in the Psalms and therefore in the cult of Israel. 12. In later times there is one more item for which God is praised: he gave Israel its wonderful Torah, the Law. For the pious Israelite the Law of Moses was not a burden which he was unwilling to bear, but a privilege. The object of the Law was the divine order established by God for his people; the Law itself was an instruction how to live according to God's will and order. Outside the divine order there is no life but only death, no real and lasting happiness, but misfortune. What a privilege even in detail to know the Law, this perennial source of happiness, and to study it always! How h a p p y is t h e m a n who did not walk according to t h e counsel of the wicked, nor stood on the way of t h e sinners, nor took his seat among t h e scournful. B u t his delight is in t h e law of t h e Lord, and on his law he ponders day and night. H e is like a tree planted b y the water-side: which yields its f r u i t in season. (Psalm i. 1—3).

This quotation is from the beginning of the book of Psalms. The longest of all the Psalms of the Psalter (Ps cxix) consists of 22 X 8 verses, in each of which is found a synonym for "law". I t is a continuous praise of the Law and it tells the happiness of the man who lives according to it: How h a p p y are those who are blameless in their lives: a n d walk in t h e law of t h e Lord (Ps cxix. 1).

The psalm continues in endless variations of this and similar ideas. The praise of God is often accompanied by prayer and also the reverse is true: prayer and even lamentation are often accompanied by the praise of God. There was a time when praise, lamentation, prayer were considered as completely different literary genres; if they were found together in one psalm, the unity of its composition had to be investigated and was often denied. Owing to the work of some modern exegetes we now see better. I t has rightly been stressed by them t h a t the two fundamental attitudes of man towards God are prayer (or lamentation, which is mostly also a prayer for deliverance from evil) and praise (or adoration). They are often combined and quite naturally so. A man in need asks the help of God and tells him t h a t God can easily help him: he is so mighty, so strong, so good, so kind, so faithful. From the other hand, if a man praises God for the work of his creation, his mighty deeds, his miracles, his justice, loving-kindness, salvation, he may easily add a prayer: great God think also of t h y poor servant and help him, for he is in need! Here we come to the point where the praise of God does not seem to be completely unselfish. But this is so human that we cannot blame the psalmists who expressed themselves in this way. How many people, even nowadays, pray only when they are in great need and forget all about God as soon as they obtain

Adoration and Praise of God in the Old Testament

539

what they asked! I t is an old desire of man to be served by God or by gods. In th'e Old Testament it is quite clear that God is to be served, and therefore also to be worshipped, to be praised for his own sake. I t has been said sometimes t h a t the morality of the Old Testament is a "morality of reward", the Israelite being told to serve God in order to be rewarded by him. This is untrue. The examples of Jeremiah, J o b and so many others are proofs of the contrary. God is to be served because he is God; he is to be praised for the same reason. Therefore his service is absolute, not conditional and his worship also. We read at the end of the book of Habakkuk: Although the fig-tree does not burgeon, the vines bear no fruit, the olive-crop fails, the orchards yield no food, the fold is bereft of its flock and there are no cattle in the stalls, yet I will exult in the Lord and rejoice in the God of my salvation. The Lord God is my strength, who makes my feet nimble as a hind's and sets me to range the heights (Hab iii. 17—19).

This is true Old Testament piety and in its time there was no other. We find the same idea in the gospel of St. Luke: " I s he (a master) grateful to the servant for carrying out his orders? So with you: when you have carried out all your orders, you should say: We are servants and deserve no credit; we have only done our d u t y " (Luke xvii. 9—10). Besides this it belongs to the nature of God and its inherent justice t h a t he punishes evil deeds and rewards good ones. I t belongs to his nature to be good, merciful, full of loving-kindness for the people of his covenant. Therefore the Israelite when praising God may ask his help, he may even praise him to be more sure of this help. God is a God of salvation. But this does not mean at all that the needs of man should be in the centre of worship, or even t h a t this should be centred on man, being "humanistic". I t can only become so when man ceases to believe or to think that he is a creature. Israel never forgot this, nor does the Christian Church. Israel's past is our own; we must never forget its lessons.

The Origin and Place of Presbyters in the New Testament Church F. E. YOKES, Lancaster

This brief paper arises from nagging doubts concerning what seem to be common assumptions about the place of elders in Judaism and about the development of the presbyterate in the three-fold ministry in the early church. The word nQea^vreQOS has its etymological meaning — "older" — in Luke 15. 25, the story of the Prodigal Son, in Acts 2. 17, the prophecy of Joel, and in the story of the woman taken in adultery, John 8. 9. The word nowhere occurs in the Fourth Gospel proper. The word occurs twice in the New Testament in a Jewish context referring to the ancients or to tradition (Hebrews 11. 2, Mark 7. 3, 5 with a parallel in Matthew 15. 2). I t refers only once to a Jewish community outside Jerusalem (Luke 7. 3) when the centurion at Capernaum sent Jewish elders t o Jesus, who tell him t h a t he had built a synagogue for them. This does not necessarily imply t h a t they were officials of the community, nor, if they were, t h a t they had an official position in that synagogue. The other references to Jewish elders in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are all concerned with Jerusalem. In the Gospels the contexts are the prophecies and the accounts of the trials, death and resurrection of Jesus, in Acts the trials of Peter and John, of Stephen and of Paul. The references therefore all concern judicial or quasi-judicial matters. There are considerable variations in the groups associated with the elders. In Luke the number of references to elders is considerably less than t h a t in the other Synoptics. In the Gospels, in Matthew 16. 21, Mark 8. 31, Luke 9. 21 the elders are associated with chief priests and scribes. Matthew 21. 23 has "chief priests with elders of the people", to which the parallel Mark 11. 27 adds scribes, while Luke 20. 1 has "priests and scribes with the elders". Matthew 26. 3 refers to chief priests and elders of the people, Mark 14. 1, and Luke 22. 2 to chief priests and scribes. There is no Lukan parallel to Matthew 26. 47, where Matthew has chief priests and elders of the people, Mark 14. 43 chief priests, scribes and elders. In Matthew 26. 57, to which again there is no Lukan parallel, Jesus is led to the High Priest where the scribes and elders are gathered, but Mark 14. 53 adds "chief priests". In Matthew 26. 59 some MSS add "presbyters" to "chief priests and all the council". Luke 22. 66 speaks of a meeting of the presbytery of the people (the only use of ngeofivTrjQiov in the Gospels), chief priests and scribes, in place of which Matthew 27. 1 has "all the chief priests and elders of the people", Mark 15. 1 "chief priests with the elders and scribes and all the council". Matthew 27. 3, 12, 20, 28. 12, refer to chief priests and elders. Elders do not occur in the Markan parallels to 27. 12 and 20, nor in the Lukan parallel to 27. 20. In the

542

F . E . YOKES

story of the mocking of Jesus on the cross, Matthew 27. 41, Mark 15. 31, Luke 23. 35, only Matthew may have "elders with the chief priests and scribes", but some MSS have Pharisees instead of elders, some Pharisees and elders. I n the Acts of the Apostles in 4. 5 the grouping is rulers, elders, scribes, in 4. 8, Peter's speech, rulers of the people and elders, to which some MSS add "of Israel", in 4. 23 chief priests and elders. In 6. 12 the opponents of Stephen stir up "the people and the elders and the scribes". In Acts 22. 5 there is a second reference to "all the presbyterate" along with the High Priest. 23. 14 refers to the chief priests and elders, 24. 1 to the High Priest with certain elders, 25. 15 to the chief priests and elders of the Jews. Though it would be unwise to claim too great historical accuracy for the Gospels and Acts it is interesting to see (i) the threefold grouping, priests, elders, scribes, (2) the close association with Jerusalem, (3) the judicial associations. When one turns to Christian contexts in the New Testament the word NQEOfivregog has its etymological meaning in 1 Peter 5. 5, as the association with VSMTSQOI shows, and in 1 Timothy 5. 1, as is shown by the sequence vecoregovg, 7iQ£cr{}vTeQas and vecoregag. I t should however be noticed t h a t in 1 Peter 5. 5 the younger men are to be subject to their elders. In Revelation there are twelve references to the elders in heaven, 4. 4, 4. 10, 5. 5, 6, 11, 14, 7. 11, 13, 11. 16, 14. 3, 19. 4. I would suggest that perhaps elders are referred to here because of the parallel between Jerusalem and heaven. I t seems to me unlikely t h a t the number twenty four has any connection with the heads of the twenty four sections of priests as von Campenhausen suggests (Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power, London, 1969, p. 84, n. 29), when one considers the distinction between priests and elders elsewhere. I t is difficult to decide with what meaning the author of 2 and 3 John describes himself as "the elder". Von Campenhausen (op. cit. p. 122f.) suggests t h a t it means father, prophet or teacher, implying seniority of standing, though it could be the title of an office or dignity. I n James 5. 14 the elders of the exxkrjaia are to be called if anyone is sick to anoint him. I t is curious if elders are associated with the synagogue t h a t here exxhqaia is used, synagogue used in 2. 2. I n chapter 5 t h e verse as a whole fits oddly into the sequence of thought, which is that of the power of mutual prayer and intercession. The references to elders and to sacramental (?) anointing are discordant. When the writer goes on to talk of mutual confession and forgiveness there is no mention of officers, though von Campenhausen (op. cit. p. 82) thinks the reference is continued. In 2. 2ff. there seems to me the implication t h a t the rich are given the privileged places, perhaps of elders, without any reference to office. One is often given the impression that the Pastoral Epistles have a great deal to say about elders, but the word is used only in 1 Timothy 5. 1, meaning "older man", 5. 17, 19 and Titus 1. 5. Only in Titus 1. 5 are elder and episcopus associated. 2 Timothy 2. 2 may refer to handing on the teaching to faithful men, which seems to parallel Titus 1. 9 where there is a reference to wholesome teaching, and 1 Timothy 5.17, where labouring at preaching and teaching are mentioned, but 2 Timothy nowhere uses "presbyter". To translate 1 Timothy 5. 17 as "the elders who have presided (i. e. exercised their eldership)" with A. M. Farrer

Presbyters in the New Testament Church

543

(The Apostolic Ministry, ed. K. E. Kirk, London, 1946, p. 158) is tendentious in the extreme. The presiding may well be additional to, rather than synonymous with, eldership. The Pastorals do not speak of elders ordaining or being ordained by the laying on of hands, except in 1 Timothy 4. 14, where Timothy is reminded of the yifiqiafxa he has received through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery. In 1 Timothy 5. 22 where the laying on of hands occurs in the context of sins, of judgement and of sharing in sins, the reference must be to the reconciliation of penitents rather than to ordination. In 1 Peter 5. 1 the writer calls himself a "fellow elder" and exhorts the elders to supervise and tend the flock as pastors. This seems to refer to the duties of elders as officers, though the passage in 5. 5 makes one wonder if the authority is only that of seniority. In the Acts of the Apostles in 11. 30, 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16. 4, 21. 18 there are references to the elders of the church of Jerusalem. In 11. 30 elders occur alone, in 21. 18 in connection with James, in chapters 15 and 16 "apostles and elders". In 15. 23 is the curious phrase "the apostles and elder brethren", which caused difficulties for copyists, so that some MSS add "and" before "brethren", some omit "brethren". In 15. 12 the nkfj&og, the congregation, is mentioned. That it kept silence does not rule out that it played an active part in the meeting. In 14. 23 Paul and Barnabas are said to have appointed elders in the churches they had recently founded in Asia Minor. The word %eiQorovr)aavxe