Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study 3161488776, 9783161488771

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie • Judith Gundry-Volf Martin Hengel • Otfried Hofiiis • Hans-Josef Klauck

193

William Horbury

Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study

Mohr Siebeck

William Horbury, born 1942; Professor of Jewish and Early Christian Studies in the University of Cambridge from 1998.

ISBN 3-16-148877-6 ISBN-13 978-3-16-148877-1 978-3-16-157303-3 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.

©2006 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applied particulary to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Computersatz Staiger in Rottenburg, printed by Guide-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier.

Preface The Herodian age exhibited a new form of the old Jewish pattern of priestly and royal government. More broadly, the politics and publicity of the Herodian kings contributed to a new connection between Jewish, Greek and Roman culture and piety. In study of Jewish history and the N e w Testament the term 'Herodian' can none the less recede from view. It is apt to disappear behind such headings as the early Roman period, the Second Temple period, early Judaism, or the age of Christian origins. Jewish and Christian piety in the time of the Herodian kings was indeed continuous with the religion of earlier and later times, but it had its own character and deserves special notice. O n its Christian side, it fostered the rise of the cult of Christ within the cult of the one God. Considered as a whole, it formed the setting of a series of apocalyptic writings, of many oracles of the Jewish Sibyl, of early stages in rabbinic tradition, of Philo, Josephus, and the N e w Testament. Herodian Judaism and the N e w Testament are studied in this collection in two groups of essays. Part I treats aspects of Jewish and Christian piety. Then Part II reviews trends in modern N e w Testament study, including a range of approaches to the Judaism contemporary with the N e w Testament books. O n e general aim in Part I has been to trace, within a Greek and Roman setting, the profile of Herodian Jewish piety and its reflection and reshaping in Christianity. Monotheism, mysticism, and perceptions of Moses and the temple are all considered in this way. Two further studies of this kind suggest a Jewish context for two focal points in N e w Testament religion, the 'gospel' and the 'Lord's Supper'. In Part II modern New Testament study is itself the subject under consideration, but the convergence of Judaism and Christianity with Roman Hellenism remains central. The links of N e w Testament work with study of the classical and Jewish traditions, respectively, form two major themes. In the final essay, on rabbinic literature in N e w Testament interpretation, the stress falls on continuities between the religion of the Herodian age and later Judaism and Christianity. Throughout I have sought to read the New Testament as Jewish, Greek and Roman literature, and to view Christian origins in their broader setting, without losing sight of distinctive Christian characteristics. I am most grateful to Professor Jorg Frey for his kind invitation to bring these essays together, and to Professor Martin Hengel for long-term encouragement. Chapter 8 is new; chapter 4 first appeared in 1999, the rest during the

VI

Preface

years 2003-5. The material published hitherto has received small corrections and revisions; the most substantial additions are two paragraphs of summary at the end of chapter 2, and and an expansion of the English summary of chapter 4. The indexes were compiled by Mr Jonathan Moo, of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, to w h o m warm thanks are due. As usual I am deeply indebted to my wife, Katharine. W.H.

Acknowledgements I am most grateful for permission from the following publishers to reproduce material: Cambridge University Press (chapter 5), T. & T. Clark International (chapter 1), Mohr Siebeck (chapter 4), Oxford University Press (chapters 2 and 7), SCM Press (chapter 3), and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (chapter 6).

Contents Preface

V

Acknowledgements

VII

Abbreviations

XI Parti

Jewish and Christian

Piety

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age

2

2. Moses and the Covenant in the Assumption of Moses and the Pentateuch

34

3. The Books of Solomon in Ancient Mysticism

47

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen Judentum

59

5. ' G o s p e l ' i n Herodian Judaea

80

6. Cena Pura and Lord's Supper

104 Part II

Modern New Testament

Study

7. British N e w Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

142

8. Rabbinic Literature in N e w Testament Interpretation

221

Particulars of First Publication

237

Index of References

239

Index of Authors

256

Index of Subjects

265

Abbreviations AGJU

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums

BT

Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Babli)

CIJ

Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum

CP

Classical Philology

DJD

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

EB

Encyclopaedia Biblica

ET

Expository Times

E.T.

English Translation

FRLANT

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GCS

Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

IEJ IG

Israel Exploration Journal Inscriptiones Graecae

JAC

Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JQR JSJ JSNT JSP

Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the N e w Testament Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

LXX

Septuagint

MGWJ

Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums

NRSV

N e w Revised Standard Version

NTS

N e w Testament Studies

XII PBA PEQ

Abbreviations

PG PT

Proceedings of the British Academy Palestine Exploration Quarterly Patrologia Graeca Palestinian Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi)

RB REB RGG RV

Revue biblique Revised English Bible Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart Revised Version

SJLA

Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Supplements to the Journal for the Study ofJudaism Scottish Journal of Theology Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum

sjsj SJT STAC SVT SVTP

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha

TDNT TSAJ TU TWNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW

Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

ZTK

Parti

Jewish and Christian

Piety

1. Jewish and Christian in the Herodian

Monotheism Age

Loyalty to one God among Jews in the Greek and early Roman periods has an almost Protean image in current study. It can appear as strict anti-polytheistic monotheism, or as acknowledgement of a supreme deity with a subordinate mediator amid other angel-divinities, or as an anticipation of Christian Trinitarianism, or simply as showing some polytheistic features, despite its tenacious adherence to the One. 1 The earliest Christian monotheism, likewise, can seem primarily remarkable either for its anti-idolatrous zeal, or on the other hand for its gentilizing tendencies. 2 These divisions in contemporary opinion of course in part continue long-standing differences in biblical interpretation which reflect theological debate between Jews and Christians and within Christianity. 3 All these faces of Jewish and Christian monotheism had already emerged, however, as is noted below, in Jewish and Christian apologetic in the ancient world. This polymorphic image then probably reflects not merely the variation in modern opinion, but also something of the complex character of Jewish and Christian monotheism in antiquity. Thus the importance of differentiating between various types of monotheism attested in Jewish literature of the Hellenis-

1 See for example P. M. Casey, 'Monotheism, Worship and Christological Development in the Pauline Churches', in C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila & G. S. Lewis (edd.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (JSJ Supplement series 63, Leiden, 1999), pp. 214-33 (214-18) and Bauckham, 'The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus', ibid., pp. 43-69 (43-8) (strict monotheism); C. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London, 1982), pp. 94-113 (supreme deity and exalted angel); J. C. O'Neill, Who did Jesus think he was? (Leiden, 1995), pp. 94-114 (Trinitarianism anticipated); E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE (London, 1992), pp. 242-7 (monotheism with some acknowledgement of other divine beings in theory and practice). 2 For examples see. respectively, Y. Kaufmann, Christianity and Judaism: Two Covenants (Jerusalem, 1988), E.T. by C. W. Efroymson of Y. Kaufmann, Golah we-Nekhar (Tel-Aviv, 1929-30), i, chapters 7-9, pp. 12-16 and O. Skarsaune, 'Is Christianity Monotheistic? Patristic Perspectives on a Jewish/Christian Debate', Studia Patristica xxix (1997), pp. 340-63 (35961); H. Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism (London, 1991), pp. 59-63. 3 An influential early modern instance of Trinitarian interpretation, worked out with an eye to both inner-Christian and Christian-Jewish debate, is P. Allix, Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church against Unitarians (1699), on the Old Testament Apocrypha, Philo, and the Targums.

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

3

tic age has been underlined by M. Mach. 4 Hence it remains necessary to ask what features stood out in a given period, not least in the time of Christian origins. In what follows attention is concentrated on a period delimited by special political conditions, the Herodian age. Elsewhere I have tried to show that the conditions of this age helped to keep in being, within loyalty to the one G o d , a messianism and a remembrance of the righteous which echoed Greek and R o man ruler-cult and hero-cult. 5 T h e present study explores some indications of Herodian monotheism which arise from the prominence of monotheism as a topic in ancient biblical interpretation and in Jewish and early Christian apologetic. These sources have perhaps been less to the fore recently in this discussion than the Old Testament Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. It is argued overall that the interpretation of Judaism as a rigorous monotheism, 'exclusive' in the sense that the existence of other divine beings is denied, does less than justice to the importance of mystical and messianic tendencies in the Herodian age - for these were often bound up with an 'inclusive' monotheism, whereby the supreme deity was envisaged above but in association with other spirits and powers. Christianity would then have perpetuated some features of Jewish monotheism which were characteristically Herodian, but became less obvious in much rabbinic teaching - although they by no means completely disappeared.

1. The Herodian Age and Herodian

Monotheism

The Herodian age is taken in what follows to comprise the period of nearly two centuries during which the house of Herod was dominant or influential in Jewish public life at home and abroad. Antipater and his son Herod were already eminent in the last years of the Hasmonaeans, but the Herodian age can best be said to begin when the Roman senate designated Herod the Great as king of the Jews in 40 B . C . T h e end of the Herodian age came at least in principle with the death of Herod's great-grandson Agrippa II, probably in A . D . 100. 6 Judaism bearing what may be called a Herodian stamp will not, however, have vanished overnight in 100. Perhaps then the revolts against Roman rule 4 M. Mach, 'Concepts of Jewish Monotheism during the Hellenistic Period', in Newman, Davila & Lewis (edd.), Christological Monotheism, pp. 2 1 - 4 2 (21-4). 5 W. Horbury, 'Herod's Temple and "Herod's D a y s ' " , in id. (ed.), Templum Amicitiae (Sheffield, 1991), pp. 103-49, revised version in id., Messianism among Jews and Christians (London & New York, 2003), pp. 83-122; id., 'The Cult of Christ and the Cult of the Saints', NTS xliv (1998), pp. 4 4 4 - 6 9 , revised version in id., Messianism among Jews and Christians, pp. 351-80. 6 N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty (London, 1998), pp. 396-9.

4

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

which broke out in the diaspora in 115 and in Judaea in 132, and issued ultimately in the pre-eminence of the house of Judah ha-Nasi, can be taken to signal the final departure of the Herodian age. Geographically, the Herodian heartland is Syrian, running from Idumaea in the south to the region of Damascus and the southern Lebanon in the north, where the kingdom of Chalcis remained in the hand of Agrippa II. From this Syro-Palestinian base Herodian influence extended throughout the Roman diaspora, as is vividly shown by the acclamation accorded to real or supposed Herodian princes by the Jews of Alexandria and Rome. The Herodian heartland also, however, overlapped with the heartland of the Aramaic language. Herodian Judaism and Christianity are now known predominantly through Greek and some Hebrew literature, but their expression through Aramaic will have stood out in the Herodian age itself. Hints of its former prominence are given by the Aramaic renderings of Leviticus and Job attested in the Qumran discoveries, with the Aramaic texts of such books as Enoch and the Genesis Apocryphon, and by the importance in the LXX, Philo, Josephus and the N e w Testament of transliteration from Aramaic when Jewish institutions and groups are named. The specifically Herodian and Judaean importance of both Greek and Aramaic is confirmed by Murabba'at papyri relating to the Jewish villages of Judaea, as F. Millar has shown. 7 The joint Jewish-gentile participation in Aramaic and Greek recalls an aspect of the Herodian Jewish community which was of importance in interpretation of loyalty to one God, the communal penumbra in the form of a 'mixed multitude' (Exod. 12:28, Neh. 13:3) consisting of people of mixed Jewish-gentile descent, and of non-Jewish adherents and sympathizers. These classes are named together by Philo (V.M. i 147) in his description of the 'mixed multitude' which accompanied the exodus. Josephus, similarly, when noting (B.J. ii 463) that the gentile cities of Syria at the outbreak of revolt against Rome in 66 included not only Jews but gentile Judaizers (iouScci^ovtEc;), also mentions people of mixed Jewish-gentile descent (nejuy^ievog). Thus the convergence of conflicting ancestral traditions of religion was to some extent an inner-Jewish concern as well as an aspect of Jewish-gentile relations. From the literature, inscriptions, art and architecture of the Herodian age an impression can be gained of a characteristically Herodian version of the ancestral Jewish culture. However it should be more closely defined, it was at once both Jewish and Greek and Roman. Writings which breathe a Herodian atmosphere include the works of Philo, in which Agrippa I is a hero; the Assumption 7 J. T. Milik, in P. Benoit, O.P., J. T. Milik, & R. de Vaux, O.P., Les Grottes de Murabba'at (DJD ii, Oxford, 1961), nos. 18 and 115 (an Aramaic acknowledgement of debt dated 55-6, and a Greek contract of re-marriage dated 124, respectively), discussed in a review of communal self-representation in Herodian Judaea by F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, 1993), pp. 351-74.

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age

5

o f M o s e s , in which H e r o d the G r e a t is viewed with detachment as the staff o f G o d ' s anger; and L u k e - A c t s , interested especially in Antipas, Agrippa I and II, and Berenice. Similarly J o s e p h u s , although he insists on his o w n Hasmonaean descent and loyalty, is also a Herodian author; he submits his literary w o r k to Agrippa II, he takes over writings by H e r o d the Great's court historian N i c h o las of Damascus, and he carries on the history o f the Herodian house. T h e r e is a case f o r H e r o d i a n c o n n e c t i o n in other influential texts which circulated in the H e r o d i a n diaspora in G r e e k . T h u s the Pauline corpus p r o b a b l y alludes to Aristobulus, brother or son of H e r o d of Chalcis, at R o m . 16:10, and at the same time discloses a relative of Paul with the name H e r o d i o n . In the Q u m r a n texts, b y contrast, the historical personages mentioned b y name are strikingly concentrated in the Hasmonaean period, down to the 50's o f the first century B . C . Similarly, the Q u m r a n discoveries seem not to include any of the m a j o r apocalypses or other literary w o r k s o f the H e r o d i a n period, such as the A s s u m p t i o n of Moses, the apocalypses of E z r a and B a r u c h , and the Parables o f E n o c h . Q u m r a n material thus seems m o r e particularly relevant to late H a s monaean times. Nevertheless, like the late H a s m o n a e a n Psalms of S o l o m o n , the writings attested by the Q u m r a n finds p r o b a b l y often represent circumstances or o u t l o o k s which continued at the beginning of the Herodian age. Last but not least, although the O l d G r e e k ( L X X ) translation o f H e b r e w scripture goes back in the Pentateuch to the third century B . C . , and in other b o o k s t o o is mainly p r e - H e r o d i a n , it remains o f first-rate importance as a formative influence on H e r o d i a n Judaism. T h e H e r o d i a n age indeed saw early J e w i s h revision o f the L X X , as shown especially b y the G r e e k M i n o r Prophets scroll from Nahal H e v e r (Wadi H a b r a ) and the T h e o d o t i o n - l i k e O l d Testament quotations in the N e w Testament. It was also, however, the age o f Philo's encomium on the L X X Pentateuch as an inspired sister-writing rather than a translation, and of Josephus's reproduction o f the compliments to the Septuagint translators in the Letter of Aristeas - although, here differing in emphasis from the L e t t e r o f Aristeas, he significantly allows for correction of corrupt texts (Philo, V.M. ii 40; J o s . Ant. xii 1 0 7 - 1 1 0 ) . Against this literary background, note should be taken first of the clear expressions o f an inclusive m o n o t h e i s m in p r e - H e r o d i a n biblical and p o s t - b i b l i cal texts which continued to be influential in the H e r o d i a n age in G r e e k as well as H e b r e w : D e u t . 3 2 : 8 - 9 (discussed further in section 4, below), D a n . 1 0 : 1 3 - 2 1 , Ecclus. 17:17, and J u b . 15:31. All these envisage Israel as the Lord's portion (with the celestial prince Michael as the Lord's representative in Daniel), but the gentiles as allotted to lesser sons o f G o d , princes, spirits or angels. T h e pattern is that of the divine council depicted in Ps. 82, the b o o k o f J o b , and elsewhere. T h e n , in the H e r o d i a n age itself, some J e w i s h expressions of loyalty to one G o d appear to reflect H e r o d i a n conditions in ways which a rigorous m o n o theist might avoid. First, expressions of m o n o t h e i s m b y gentiles in this period,

6

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

in the sense of recognition of one deity as supreme, can sometimes be closely paralleled in the modes of describing Judaism employed by their Jewish contemporaries. An influential instance of gentile monotheistic tendency, at the end of the first century B.C., is formed by Virgil's depiction of Jupiter in the closest connection with fate; both are mentioned together in the Aeneid, in such a way as to suggest that destiny is effectively identical with the divine will and providence. 8 Somewhat comparably, the Stoic-like Pharisees in Josephus 'attribute everything to fate (Ei[xaQ[ievr)) and to God' (B.J. ii 162). Both writers use a conjunction over which a strict monotheist might hesitate, but Josephus will intend, as it appears that Virgil also does, to save the significance of the highest deity, and to hint at a philosophical theism. Secondly, there is a case for interpreting the conceptions of an exalted messiah current in this period against the background of contemporary monarchy. Thus the apocalypses of the later Herodian age - notably the Parables of Enoch, the apocalypses of Baruch (II [Syriac] Baruch) and Ezra (II Esdras 3-14), and the Fifth Sibylline book - characteristically depict a godlike and spiritual messiah in association with the one God; and an often comparable depiction is found in the New Testament. This godlike messianic figure arises from the mingling of human and divine traits in Old Testament royal texts, and the perpetuation of this mingling especially in the LXX; but it also seems to reflect contemporary ruler-cult, in specifically Herodian as well as Ptolemaic and Roman form. 9 Thus the appearances of the Son of man in the Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 46:1, 48:5, 62:9) recall the brilliance of imperial and Herodian epiphanies, and a famous echo of Herodian ruler-cult preserved by Philo also resembles contemporary Christian messianism; for the Alexandrian mob satirize Jewish acclamation of the Herodian king Agrippa I by hailing a beggar in Aramaic as Marin (Philo, Flacc. 39). This royal title '(our) lord' appears in Herodian inscriptions in both Aramaic and Greek. 1 0 Christians in Corinth, however, are familiar with the comparable Aramaic acclamation and prayer Maranatha (I Cor. 16:22), addressed to Christ, and with the Greek Kyrios as a title of Christ (I Cor. 12:3). 8 C. Bailey, Religion in Virgil (Oxford, 1935), pp. 141-3, 2 0 4 - 3 4 , quoting lines such as Aen. viii 398 'neither the almighty father nor the fates forbade Troy to stand' for longer, nec Pater omnipotens nec fata vetahant I stare. A Stoic view such as appears to influence Virgil's presentation should be recognized as genuine belief in one God, according to M. Frede, 'Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity', in P. Athanassiadi & M. Frede (edd.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 1999), pp. 41-61 (55); but Bailey, p. 141, perhaps with exclusivity more strongly in view as a criterion, calls it 'almost monotheistic'. 9 W. ¥iorhuvy, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998), pp. 102-8,126— 7, 134-6. 10 Examples from Sia in the Hauran (Philip, marana) and Sanamayn in Batanaea (Agrippa II, kyrios) are cited by Millar, Roman Near East, p. 62.

1. Jewish and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

7

Once again a rigorous monotheism might balk at the association of a godlike king-messiah with the supreme deity, despite the biblical link between the Lord and his anointed (Ps. 2:2). At the end of the H e r o d i a n period, accordingly, negative reaction to association of an exalted messiah w i t h God seems to be perceptible in the opposition which is said to have been aroused b y Akiba's suggestion that the plural 'thrones' of Dan. 7:9 are for God and for ' D a v i d ' - a suggestion w h i c h seems to perpetuate w h a t m a y be called, in the light of the texts cited above, a typically H e r o d i a n outlook (baraitha in B a b y l o n i a n Talmud, H a g . 14a, Sanh. 38b). Thirdly, some titles reflecting an inclusive monotheism and given to the one God b y writers of the H e r o d i a n age were biblically based and of long standing; but they can be judged characteristic of this age inasmuch as, despite their biblical basis, they were no longer favoured in rabbinic literature, and are noticeably curtailed in the later of the ancient biblical versions. The examples in question here associate the one God with other divine beings, spirits or p o w e r s in a w a y which further attests the inclusive monotheism picked out above. Thus the Deuteronomic title ' G o d of gods' (Deut. 10:17), w h i c h w a s taken up in the rolling corpus of biblical writings d o w n to Maccabaean times (Ps. 136:2; Dan. 2:47, 11:36; Ps. 50 [49]: 1, LXX), is developed in H e b r e w h y m n o d y attested at Q u m ran, and connected w i t h Ps. 95:3 'a great king above all gods', in such titles as 'king of gods' (4Q 400 2, 5) or 'prince of gods and king of the glorious ones' ( l Q H a x v i i i [x] 8). This H e b r e w usage finds correspondence in 'king of gods' in Greek (Esther's p r a y e r in Rest of Esther 14:12), including H e r o d i a n literature (Philo Conf. 173, Paaileiig xwv dewv, in a paraphrase of Deut. 10:17 to show that the astral deities of the gentiles are beneath the supreme deity). C o m p a r a b l y , the similar divine title 'God of spirits' flourished and w a s adapted f r o m the time of the LXX Pentateuch d o w n to and including the H e r o dian period. In the LXX Pentateuch it is found in the phrase ' G o d of the spirits and of all flesh' at LXX N u m . 16:22, 27: 16 (where the H e b r e w consonantal text of M T corresponds rather to 'God of the spirits of all flesh'); compare 'ruler of the spirits' (II Macc. 3:24, in Hasmonaean times; I C l e m . 64:1, towards the end of the H e r o d i a n age); 'lord of spirits and all flesh' (Rheneia inscription, c. 100 B.C.); 'lord of every spirit and ruler of every w o r k ' ( l Q H a xviii [x] 8, immediately after the title 'prince of gods and king of the glorious ones' quoted above f r o m this line); 'father of spirits' (Heb. 12:9); and 'lord of spirits', used repeatedly in a H e r o d i a n apocalypse, the Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 37:2, etc.). 1 1 11 O n the further c o m p a r a b l e title ' G o d of the p o w e r s ' see H o r b u r y , Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, pp. 120-1; on the pre-exilic p a n t h e o n as part of a g r o u p of N e a r Eastern traditions w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d the depiction of a similar Greek p a n t h e o n in H o m e r and H e s i o d see M . L. West, ' T o w a r d s M o n o t h e i s m ' , in Athanassiadi & Frede, Pagan Monotheism, pp. 4 1 - 6 7 (42-9). O n the i m p o r t a n c e of the angels in the address to the all-seeing Lord and the angels of God in the R h e n e i a text see L.T. S t u c k e n b r u c k , ' " A n g e l s " and " G o d " : Exploring the

8

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

The 'gods' and 'spirits' saluted in these titles can be interpreted as angels, but they continue the biblical conception of a pantheon or divine council presided over by a supreme deity, and retain the majesty of lesser gods to an extent which 'angel' may not always convey. 12 Thus in the prayer of Esther and in Philo, as quoted above, the 'gods' of whom the Lord is king include the gods of the gentiles (cf. Rest of Esther 14:7); and in hymnody known from Qumran texts the group of greater ones among the gods are themselves honoured by the lesser, 'honoured in all the camps of the gods and feared by the companies of men' (4Q 400 2,2). On the other hand, the rabbinic titles of God surveyed by A. Marmorstein strikingly avoid the biblically-based 'God of gods' or 'God of spirits', and eschew any presentation of the deity as ruler of lesser divinities or angels.13 Similarly, 'the Holy One, blessed be he' supersedes older titles such as 'the holy one of Israel' in Isaiah or the later 'great holy one' of the Genesis Apocryphon (xii 17 and elsewhere), for these suggest one who is singled out among other divinities ('holy ones'). The rabbinic titles tend instead to present what M. Pesce called 'a God without mediators', and this presentation, famous from the Passover Haggadah on 'not by the hand of an angel and not by the hand of a seraph and not by the hand of a legate', likewise has pre-rabbinic antecedents at least from the time of the LXX Isaiah, 'not an envoy or a messenger, but the Lord himself saved them' (Isa. 63:9 LXX). 1 4 It is characteristic of the concurrence of this tendency with a more 'inclusive' monotheism that both figure in the longer Greek text of Ecclesiasticus, where wisdom's mediation is expressed in the title 'mother of fair love and fear and knowledge and holy hope', but soon afterwards comes the slogan 'the Lord almighty is God alone, and beside him is no other saviour' (Ecclus. 24:18; 24). Although the most widely-attested rabbinic objection is to 'two powers in heaven', minim are also envisaged in the Mishnah (Sanh. iv 5) as ready to say 'there are many powers in heaven' - and it is suggested that a reason for the creation of one man only was to rule out this view.15 This

Limits of Early Jewish Monotheism', in L.T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. North (edd.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT Supplement Series 263, London & New York, 2004), pp. 1 6 - 4 4 ( 5 3 - 4 ) ; he envisages a 'resilient' Jewish monotheistic framework which would tolerate prayer and praise addressed to angels. 12 Thus the 'gods' are treated with almost exclusive stress on their ministerial role as 'angels' in H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (E.T. 1963, repr. New York, 1995), pp. 82-4 (including comment on l Q H a xviii [x] 8). 13 A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, i. The Names and Attributes of God (London, 1927), pp. 54-107. 14 M. Pesce, Dio senza mediatori (Brescia, 1979), pp. 203-5, discussed in connection with messianism by Worhurf, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, pp. 78, 81. 15 The saying would have strengthened reserve about language associating the one God with other powers, whatever group was primarily in view here; A. F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven (SJLA xxv, Leiden, 1977), pp. 109-115 thinks of Gnostics and Jewish Christians, and

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

9

Mishnaic wariness has a precedent with regard to ' G o d of gods' in particular at Jos. 22:22 L X X , which like M T here excludes any rendering of the Hebrew el e

lohim

in this sense; but contrast Ps. 50:1, where the same Hebrew is rendered

' G o d of gods' in L X X , as noted above. Similarly, the Targums of Numbers avoid any understanding of N u m . 16:22, 27:16 which would lead to the title ' G o d of spirits'. 1 6 Avoidance of these particular titles is indeed part of a more general caution over depicting the one G o d in connection with many gods, in accord with the soli Deo gloria tendency already exemplified through the slogans on unmediated divine help and the Mishnaic objection to 'many powers'. This caution appears in revision of the L X X and in other later biblical versions, for instance with regard to the questions ' W h o is like unto thee among the gods? W h o is like unto thee, glorified in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?' (Exod. 15:11).

In this verse L X X may be translated: ' W h o is like unto thee among the gods, O Lord? W h o is like unto thee, glorified in the holies (or, among the holy ones [EV ayioig]), wonderful in glories (EV So^AIG), working marvels?'

Here 'gods', 'holy ones' and 'glories' can all be taken as terms for the celestial host; compare 'glorious ones' in l Q H a xviii [x] 8, quoted above, and an interpretation of 'fearful in praises' by Ps. 89:8 'a G o d greatly to be dreaded in the council of the holy ones', which is preserved in the Mekhilta. 1 7 Many later versions, however, either restrict any such reference to the initial 'gods', or exclude it altogether (Peshitta), most stridently in Targum Onkelos 'There is none but thee; thou art G o d , O Lord'. 1 8 T h e extent to which rabbinic caution in this area is shared and anticipated in the ancient biblical versions was brought out especially by A. Geiger, and emphasis on it can aid depiction of ancient Jewish monotheism as characteristically rigorous and 'exclusive'. T h e point being stressed at present is a complementary one, which Geiger also noted on occasion: the extent to which the L X X and the earlier versions, together with Jewish writers of the Herodian age as cited

Gnostics are favoured in many other treatments of the passage cited by J . Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersteziing mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Darmstadt, 1982), p. 233, n. 309. 16 A. N. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (TSAJ 14, Tübingen, 1986), p. 358, nos. 77-80. 17 Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael, Beshallah, Shirata viii, on Exod. 15:11, in J . Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ii (Philadelphia, 1933), p. 63. 18 O n the versions see A. Le Boulluec & P. Sandevoir, La Bible d'Alexandrie, 2, L'Exode (Paris, 1989), p. 174, and A. Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch (JSS Monographs, 15, Manchester, 1991), pp. 9 3 - 4 .

10

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

above, still perpetuate that 'inclusive' view of the supreme deity as a king of gods which many later interpreters sought to erase.19

2. Monotheism in Jewish and Christian

Apologetic

The concurrence of 'exclusive' and 'inclusive' interpretations of monotheism, and the abiding importance of an 'inclusive' interpretation in the Herodian age, are indicated in another way by the treatment of monotheism in ancient apologetic. Jewish and Christian apologetic directed towards the gentile world, Christian polemic against Judaism, and Jewish reaction against Christianity all appear to reflect a background of divergent Jewish understandings of monotheism. This background is suggested, first of all, by aspects of the commendation of Judaism in a gentile setting. It is true that in ancient Judaism and Christianity, as in modern scholarship, the broad general contrast between biblical monotheism and pagan polytheism was often stressed. Thus Abraham leaves home in Philo to remove himself fom the influence xf)5 jtoVudeou Soi;T]g, 'of polytheism' (Philo, Virt. 214); and in a modern statement of this contrast by A. Momigliano, 'To be a Jew was to consider oneself separated from the surrounding world. This separation was altogether easier because monotheism faced polytheism'. 20 On the other hand, when the biblical inheritance was being commended in antiquity, a resemblance between Judaism and paganism was sometimes asserted for good or ill. In general, this apologetic claim for resemblance can find support in the observations just made on links between Herodian Judaism and its gentile setting, and on the 'inclusive' Jewish monotheism which hailed a 'God of gods'. It is of course important that the independence ascribed to the many pagan deities, even when they were regarded as subordinate to a supreme god (see below), should not be underrated; this point is brought out, through a protest of Plutarch (born A.D. 46) against Stoic reduction of the gods to forces of nature, by J.

19 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uehersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums (Breslau, 1857), pp. 279-82 (rabbinic and versional treatment of elohim, el); 444 (at Deut. 4:19, discussed here further below, LXX retain a sense which was later excluded). 20 A. Momigliano, 'On Hellenistic Judaism', review of E. Will & C. Orrieux, Ioudaismoshellénismos (1986), reprinted from CP 83 (1988) in A. Momigliano, ed. R. Donato, Nono contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Storia e letteratura 180, Rome, 1992), pp. 763-7 (764); the pervasiveness of the cults of the many gods, vividly suggested by K. Hopkins, A World Full of Gods (London, 1999), pp. 7-42, also emerges from the ancient sceptical polemic cited from Cicero below.

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

11

Teixidor. 21 This pagan outlook finds correspondence in Judaism, however, in the concern with celestial 'princes' or 'holy ones' as powers with a comparable measure of independence which is manifest in Daniel, Enoch, and Jubilees, and forms part of the background of the Jewish divine titles which have just been considered. If then this kind of Jewish monotheism is presupposed, it can indeed be said with due caution, in the words of M. Mach, that 'There is no great difference between the duality of Zeus and the minor gods, on the one hand, and the duality of the biblical god and the angels, on the other'. 22 Perhaps the most famous instance of what can be called an apologetic claim for resemblance made by a Jewish author occurs in the probably second-century B.C. Letter of Aristeas, considered further below. Here Aristeas the Greek is imagined as saying to Ptolemy Philadelphus 'the god whom the Jews worship is he whom all worship, and we too, O king, though we address him by other names as Zeus and Dis' (Letter of Aristeas 16). A similar statement on the God whom 'both they and we worship' is comparably prominent in the version of this narrative given towards the end of the Herodian age by Josephus (Ant. xii 22), also considered further below. 23 These claims, which are of considerable significance for the view of Judaism as well as paganism which they imply, were not without basis. The polytheistic Greek and Roman piety of the Herodian age indeed sometimes acquired a monotheistic air, as when one supreme god was held to be raised over lesser deities - a picture presented with abiding effect in Homer and Hesiod and Virgil, as noted already - , or when one deity such as Isis was praised as the summation of all others, or when mediators between humanity and one supreme deity become important. 24 This tendency manifests itself not only through Greek and Latin sources, but also through Aramaic inscriptions reflecting non-Jewish Syrian religion with reference to a divine assembly or to messengers of a supreme god. 25 Later in antiquity it would be possible for Samaritans, Jews, pagans and Christians all to use, with varying connotations, the epigraphic formula EIZ ©EOS. 2 6 The importance of one possible connotation stressed in the present 21 Plutarch, De defectu oraculorum, 426BC, discussed by J. Teixidor, The Pagan God: Popular Religion in the Graeco-Roman Near East (Princeton, 1977), pp. 15-16. 22 Mach, 'Concepts of Jewish Monotheism during the Hellenistic Period', p. 36. 2 3 These passages are reviewed in a broader consideration of Jewish identification of the biblical deity with Greek conceptions of divinity by M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (E.T., 2 vols., London, 1974), i, pp. 264-6. 24 A. B. Cook, Zeus (Cambridge, i, 1914; ii 1-2,1925; iii 1-2, 1940), iii.l, pp. 944-54; M. P. Nilsson, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, ii, Die hellenistische und römische Zeit (2nd edn, Munich, 1961), pp. 569-81; the closeness of Philo to the philosophical expressions of gentile monotheism in Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-112) and Maximus of Tyre (Jl. c. 180) is brought out by H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum , translated with an introduction and notes (Cambridge, 1953, corrected reprint 1965), pp. xvi-xix. 2 5 Teixidor, Pagan God, pp. 13-15. 2 6 E. Peterson, EIE 0 E O S ; (FRLANT 41, Göttingen, 1926); Horbury, 'A Proselyte's Heis

12

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

study, the recognition of a supreme deity over lesser gods, emerges in the attestation from pre-Christian times onward of another such formula used by Jews, Christians and pagans, YWI2TOS. 2 7 Moreover, even the biblical idol-satire, with its tendency towards an exclusive rather than an inclusive monotheism, could find non-Jewish counterparts. Thus ruler-cult combined itself with due reverence for the gods above when the monarch was associated with a particular deity, but it could also bring a potentially impious contrast between the monarch as 'living god' or 'present god', and the ineffective or lifeless gods of ancestral tradition; both approaches were continued in the Herodian age from Hellenistic antecedents, in the praise of Augustus and his successors.28 In philosophy, similarly, sceptics could mock the multitude of deities, an argument exemplified just at the beginning of the Herodian age in Cicero's depiction of debate on the divine nature: if the cosmos is divine, as the Stoics assert, why then do we add more gods? - and what a lot of them there are, 'quanta autem est eorum multitudo!' (Cicero, N.D. iii 16, 4 0 42). Perhaps more typical of the philosophy of this age, however, M. Frede suggests, was monotheistic interpretation of the many deities as derivative from or at least subordinate to the one great god; but one should note the pious gloss on such interpretation made by Plutarch, who accepted it, in the passage cited above. 29 In Christian apologetic, on the other hand, as represented in the second century by the apocryphal Preaching of Peter, it is claimed that the Jews, 'thinking that they alone know God, do not understand, worshipping angels and archangels, month and moon' (Preaching of Peter, fragment 4, as quoted by Clem. Al., Strom, vi 5, 41). 30 The antecedents of this claim in the Pauline corpus (Gal. 4:810, Col. 2:18) confirm that polemists in the Herodian period could portray Judaism as including a polytheistic trend, picked out in all these passages as service to the sun and moon, the heavenly bodies which govern sabbaths and monthly observances.31 Angelolatry was likewise an anti-Jewish charge in Theos Inscription near Caesarea', PEQ cxxx (1997), pp. 133-7, with note of some instances from the fresh review by L. Di Segni of Palestinian examples. 2 7 S. Mitchell, 'The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians', in Athanassiadi & Frede, Pagan Monotheism (n. 8, above), pp. 81-148. 2 8 Horace, Od. iii 5 1-3, on Augustus as praesens divus, a 'present divinity' by contrast with Jupiter, and Statius, Silvae, v 1, 37-8, on Domitian as propior love, 'nearer than Jupiter', are among examples discussed, together with Hellenistic royal praises expressly damning other gods as absent or lifeless, in Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, pp. 73-4. 2 9 Frede, 'Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity', pp. 51-5. 3 0 An almost identical quotation is given by Origen, Comm. in Ioann., xiii 17, on John 4:22 'Ye worship ye know not what', with the statement that Heracleon had drawn his comment on this Johannine text from the Preaching of Peter. 31 T. C. G. Thornton, 'Jewish New Moon Festivals, Galatians 4:3-11 and Colossians 2:16', JTS N.S. xc (1989), pp. 97-100, confirming that, despite relatively late attestation of oxoiXEta in the sense of the sun and planets, this sense best fits the Pauline context.

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

13

pagan polemic as represented towards the end of the second century by Celsus (Origen, c. Cels. i 26, v 6). This polemic sets in the worst light some famous features of Herodian Judaism as described by Josephus, the Essene prayers to the rising sun, and the depiction of the heavens on the temple veil (Jos. B.J. ii 128, cf. 148 'the rays of the god'; v 212-4; cf. Ant. iii 179, on the slanders occasioned by the sanctuary furnishings). In this Christian and pagan polemic the 'inclusive' tendency in Jewish m o n o theism is viewed negatively as an angel-cult. At the same time, of course, the Christians claimed that the Jewish scriptures anticipated and taught the specifically Christian form of Jewish monotheism. Then, however, a more favourable view of the 'inclusive' tendency was implied, given the importance for early Christian doctrine of the angelic spirits surrounding 'the father of spirits'. Thus the mediatory wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon is a spirit, God's initiated associate in the making of the universe and partner of his throne (Wisd. 7:22, 8:4, 9:4, 10), great both in the divine council (Ecclus. 24:2) and as angelic guide of the exodus (Ecclus. 24:4, Wisd. 10:16-17); and under all these aspects wisdom was understood by many Christians as the pre-existent Christ, following an interpretation which is presupposed by Justin Martyr on 'another god' in scripture beside the maker of all {Dial, lvi 4; 11), a reasonable Power {Dial, lxi 1) begotten as a Beginning and called Glory, Son, Wisdom, Angel, Lord, Word, and Commander-in-chief [Jos. 5:13]). This line of thought is already attested in the Herodian age (John 12:41, cf. 10:35; I Cor. 10:4,9). O . Skarsaune points out that here only in the dialogue is Trypho portrayed as fully convinced by Justin's argument. 3 2 This striking feature suggests, as he shows, a Jewish understanding of monotheism related to Philonic understanding of the Logos as a 'second god' (Philo, Qu. Gen. ii 62). In these Christian sources the Christians rather than the Jews are presented as the true heirs of biblical monotheism; but their non-Christian Jewish contemporaries, as represented by Justin's Trypho, appear in their turn to have judged the Christocentricity of Christianity as a decline f r o m monotheism: 'for one w h o has forsaken God, and placed hope on a man, what kind of deliverance is left?' {Dial, viii 3, e c h o i n g Jer. 17:5 LXX EMXATAQAXOG O AVDQWJIOG 05 TT]V

eXju&a e/ei ere' avdQWjtov ... xai euro xugiou aitoaxfj r| xapSLa aiixoij). 33

32

Skarsaune, 'Is Christianity Monotheistic?', pp. 357-9. Skarsaune, 'Is Christianity Monotheistic?', pp. 360-2 differentiates this, as an objection to divine incarnation, f r o m a charge that Christians fail in monotheistic loyalty. H e seems to me right in underlining the shared monotheism of Jews and Christians, even in respect of a 'second god' ( n n . 2 & 30, above), but more questionable in separating Jewish objections to claims for Christ (which he recognizes behind the F o u r t h Gospel and some of the ' t w o powers' texts) f r o m zeal for monotheism. Forsaking G o d , the taunt ascribed to T r y p h o here, suggests a charge of apostasy f r o m the Lord (Jer. 17:5). 33

14

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

Here again the polemic is not insubstantial, for the Christian cult of Christ sometimes gave rise to ways of speaking in which Christ seems effectively to replace God, just as the bitter comment ascribed to Trypho the Jew might suggest. Thus Christ can appear as sole executor of the power of the Highest, rather as in ruler-cult a monarch might be sole executor of the power of Zeus or Jupiter here below (as in Horace on Augustus, quoted above); so the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22-3). T h e praise of Christ could take a different but equally striking form when he was envisaged rather as a mode of the manifestation of the one divine king. Second-century instances of this modalist monarchianism are found in Melito of Sardis and the apocryphal acts of the apostles, where Christ is hailed as father and as G o d alone. 3 4 Their Herodianage antecedents include N e w Testament passages such as Titus 2 : 1 1 - 1 3 or H e b . 13:8, which when heard in their larger context may allow for acknowledgement of one God working through Christ, but individually are wholly Christocentric. These two contrasting approaches to Christology, subordinationist and monarchian respectively, represent an inner-Christian conflict between inclusive and exclusive forms of monotheism, as R. M. Hiibner has argued. 35 O n e could perhaps also associate with this conflict, on the 'exclusive' side, the Ebionite Christology described by Eusebius, which included differing views on the natural or supernatural birth of Christ, but united in rejecting his divine pre-existence as Logos and Wisdom (Eus. H.E. iii 27, 3). Such conflict among contemporary Jews seems to be reflected in one further Christian apologetic statement, found in the second- or early third-century Tripartite Tractate known from Nag Hammadi Codex I, 5, and speaking of the schools of thought (algéaeiç) among the Jews. 'Some say that one G o d only proclaimed the ancient scriptures. Others say that there are many of them.' 3 6 This description shows special concern with the unity of inspired scripture, but it also suits the difference which has appeared in various elements of Jewish and Christian apologetic and polemic, a difference between the 'inclusive' mono34 S. G. Hall, Melito of Sardis O n Pascha and fragments (Oxford, 1979), pp. xl-xli, xliiixliv (citing passages including Peri Pascha 9 - 1 0 'inasmuch as he begets, Father; inasmuch as he is begotten, Son' and Acts of John 77 'Jesu, thou alone art God, and no other'); E. Junod & J . D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, ii (Turnhout, 1983), pp. 680-1; A. Harnack, History of Dogma, i (ET, 2nd edn, London, 1896), p. 196, n. 1 draws attention to the rejection of this viewpoint by Justin, Dial, cxxviii 2 - 4 . 35 R. M. Hiibner, with a contribution by M. Vinzent, Der Paradox Eine: Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 50, Leiden, Boston & Cologne, 1999), pp. 209-10. Christian reflection of divergent Jewish approaches seems to me more likely than the interpretation of such conflict as simply inner-Christian, offered with reference to Tertullian adversus Praxean by Skarsaune, 'Is Christianity Monotheistic?', p. 359. 36 Col. 112, lines 22-7, in E. Thomassen (ed. with introduction and commentary, trans, jointly with L. Painchaud), Le Traité Tripartite (NH I, 5) (Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi, Section 'Textes', 19; Québec, 1989), pp. 198-9.

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

15

theism of a ' G o d of gods' and that 'exclusive' approach which is attested in the later ancient versions and the preferred rabbinic divine titles. 37 This difference clearly marked both Herodian and later Judaism and Christianity. 'Inclusive' monotheism, however, emerges from review of apologetic as particularly characteristic of the Herodian age. This type of monotheism formed a basis for both Jewish and Christian apologetic claims, and a target for anti-Jewish polemic, in sources ranging from the first to the second century.

3. Jewish Acknowledgement

of Gentile

Monotheism

Herodian Judaism was further characterized by some readiness to recognize Gentile monotheism, and some willingness to accord a degree of legitimation to gentile polytheism. Both attitudes bring Jewish monotheism into connection with gentile religion, and modify that straightforward opposition between biblical monotheism and pagan polytheism which also retained strength. Recognition of gentile monotheistic tendencies will be considered first; it was of course aided by the resemblances between gentile and Jewish monotheistic argument which were exemplified in section 1, above. Jews, followed by Christians, argued in the Herodian age that the gentiles had at least vestiges of the knowledge of the one God, and that these were ultimately derived from the biblical revelation. It became a Jewish and then a Christian commonplace that the Greek poets and philosophers indicated a true theology, which polytheistic practice blindly ignored. This argument continued and adapted the appeal to the poets together with the philosophers which was favoured by Stoics like Chrysippus, and is often found in Hellenistic debate on the nature and form of the gods. 3 8 Herodian Jewish and Christian apologetic on these lines can be exemplified from Philo, on Moses rather than Hesiod as the father of Platonic and Aristotelian doctrine on the cosmos as originate yet imperishable (Philo, Aet.

17-19);

Josephus, on the theological wisdom known to the Greek philosophers but imparted only to the few (Jos. Ap.'n 168-9, 281); and Luke-Acts, on the theological testimony of 'your own poets' for divine generation of humanity and against the likening of the divine to works of art (Acts 17.28-9). In the second-century

37 Thomassen, Le Traité Tripartite , pp. 418-9, argues, especially on the basis of M. Sanh. iv 5 on 'many powers (n. 16, above), that a position in contemporary Judaism is reflected here. 38 O n the joint appeal to poets and philosophers as an apologetic topos see J . Geffcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig & Berlin, 1907), pp. 77, 171; from Hellenistic philosophy he cites among other passages Cicero, N. D. i 15-16, 41-2; iii 38, 91 on Stoic appeal to the poets, and Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 45, 369B .

16

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

Christian apologists the citation of poets j o i n t l y with philosophers reappears regularly in Aristides, Justin Martyr, and others. 3 9 T h e i r witness confirms the favour e n j o y e d b y this argument among J e w s and Christians at the end o f the H e r o d i a n age. Yet of course the e m p l o y m e n t of this argument cannot simply be described as apologetic. It also reflects an approach which arises naturally from G r e e k education. T h u s Philo reasserts the sole divine monarchy, in c o m m e n t on P e n tateuchal verses where in self-reference the deity speaks of 'us' ( G e n . 11:7, 1:26, 3:22), by quoting not M o s e s himself but the lines of H o m e r on kingship which Aristotle ( M e t a p h . xii 1076a, 3) had applied to theology: o i x aycrfrov no?ajxoi,Qcrviri' elg Koipavog eotcu, elg Paadeug. It is not good that many lords should rule: Let there be one lord, one king (Philo Conf.

170, quoting H o m e r II. ii 2 0 4 - 5 ) . O n this subject, as has often been

noted, the literary Hellenism enthusiastically embraced b y J e w s and Christians could bring with it a measure of religious Hellenism; loyalty to the one G o d could be envisaged on G r e e k lines, and G r e e k religion as well as literature could be evaluated with closer attention. T h e link between literature and religion is displayed clearly in the argument that Zeus is a name for the biblical deity w h o made heaven and earth. It was illustrated above f r o m the L e t t e r of Aristeas on the translation o f the law o f M o s e s into G r e e k , including the form of the Letter reproduced b y Josephus. T h e widespread currency of this argument is confirmed b y the witness o f Varro in R o m e , just before the beginning o f the Herodian age, to a corresponding Latin-language connection o f the name Jupiter/Jove with the name of the J e w i s h deity in the form I a o (fragments f r o m Varro, Ant. r. d. i). 4 0 In the Letter o f Aristeas as presented b y J o s e p h u s the G r e e k spokesman (here 'Aristaeus') states that b o t h G r e e k s and J e w s worship 'the G o d w h o constructed all things, calling him "Zena because he breathes life into all' (Jos. Ant. xii 22). H e r e this form of the Letter o f Aristeas takes up the traditional e t y m o l o g y of Zeus as life-

39 Aristides, Apology, xiii (Syriac) 'their poets and philosophers assert and say that the nature of all their gods is one'; Justin Martyr, I Apol., xx 3 'if we say some things which are like what is said by the poets and philosophers who are honoured among you'; Athenagoras, Leg. v-vii, xxiv (poets and philosophers have not been reputed atheists for inquiring concerning God; if poets and philosophers did not acknowledge that there is one God, there might be some reason for our harrassment); Theophilus, Aut. i 14 (poets and philosophers stole from the scriptures), ii 37-8 (prophets, poets and philosophers alike teach divine judgment). 40 The relevant fragments are printed with translation and comment by M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, i (Jerusalem, 1974), pp.209-12, nos. 72b-d (from Augustine, De Consensu Evangelistarum, i) and, for the name Iao, no. 75 (in Greek, from Lydus, De Mensibus).

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

17

giver, whereby 'Zeus gets his name Zena as being the giver of " l i f e " to all things, and Dia as being the cause " t h r o u g h " which they came to be'. 4 1 Jews were aware of the potential contact with their ancestral books offered by this widespread Greek interpretation of Zeus. T h e same apologetic alignment of Zeus with the biblical tradition makes another well-known pre-Christian appearance in the second-century B . C . Jewish philosopher Aristobulus, who addressed an allegorical exposition of the Mosaic law to Ptolemy Philometor. This work is likely to have been known throughout the Herodian period, for Clement of Alexandria could still quote it in the second century A . D . {Strom, i 22, 150, itself quoted by Eus. P.E. ix 6). T h e continuation of the passage quoted by Clement and Eusebius is preserved because Eusebius quotes from the same place more fully a second time. Here Aristobulus refers, like the Letter of Aristeas, to the making of the Septuagint translation; and he goes on to argue that the divine origin and governance of all things, which is attested by Moses, is also witnessed by the Orphic verses and Aratus. Both are quoted at some length, including those lines in praise of Zeus at the beginning of Aratus's Phenomena from which a quotation was later to be made at Acts 17.28. 'I think it has been clearly shown', Aristobulus then says, 'that the power of G o d pervades all things' - for what was said of Zena and Dia indeed refers to G o d (Eus. P. E. xiii 12, 7). Here there is perhaps again an allusion to the traditional etymology noted above. Irrespective of this point, however, it is clear that the Greek praises of Zeus are taken as a witness to biblical theology, just as in both forms of the Letter of Aristeas the Greek spokesman is allowed to claim that both Greeks and Jews worship the Maker of all. It was thus possible for Jews to envisage Greek religion as not wholly without shadows of the truth. O f course a great point of the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus is to strengthen Jewish distinctiveness and pride, as J . M. G . Barclay and E. S. Gruen have emphasized. 42 These writings are also, however, implicit endorsements of the Greek literary tradition, which was admired and promoted in the Greek-speaking Jewish community not only through philosophical prose, like that of Aristobulus, but also through poetry in the classical metres, like that of Ezekiel Tragicus, Philo Epicus, and the funerary epigrams sponsored by Jews. Approval extends not just to form, but also to content, in this case a content which includes the acknowledgement and praise of Zeus. T h e Letter of Aristeas does indeed go on ( 1 3 1 - 8 ) , like later Jewish and Christian apologists, to contrast the one God set forth by Moses with the many gods vainly venerated in human or bestial form by Greeks and Egyptians, re-

Cook, Ze«s, iii.l, pp. 947-8. J. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora (Edinburgh, 1996), pp. 138-58 (on the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus); E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism (Berkeley, Los Angeles & London, 1998), pp. 213-22 (on the Letter of Aristeas), 243-53 (on Aristobulus), 295-7. 41

42

IB

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

spectively; but even this characteristically biblical attitude has analogies in philosophical debate on the divine nature and form, as noted already from Cicero, and the critique of apotheosis in the Letter of Aristeas has a relatively mild presentation comparable with that found in the Wisdom of Solomon (14:12-21). Moreover, when it is claimed in the sequel that non-Jews cannot be called 'men of G o d ' , there is the not insignificant qualification 'unless anyone reverences the one who is truly G o d ' (el (xr| xig osfiExai xov x a x a a?a|§Eiav deov, 140). 4 3 T h e vocabulary used here sets this saving clause beside the group of texts in Acts and Josephus concerning 'those who reverence G o d ' , ae(36(i8voi xov deov, considered as a special class of gentiles who indeed honour the one God, and to be associated with the 'godfearers' attested in other literary sources and inscriptions. 4 4 This passage in the Letter therefore hints at the penumbra of the Jewish community mentioned in section 1, above, and should not be taken to cancel the measure of approval of Greek theology implied in the earlier passage on Zeus. 4 5 T h e approval of gentile monotheistic doctrine and censure of gentile polytheistic practice will then coexist here in the Letter of Aristeas as they do in other instances of this apologetic commonplace (Acts 17:22-9 form a concise example), and to some degree in its gentile philosophical background (compare again Cicero as quoted above). It is in the atmosphere of Jewish recognition of elements of truth in Hellenic theological tradition that Philo can quote H o m e r and Plato with delight and reverence. T h e particular argument just considered will have been most readily accessible to those who knew some Greek, but that does not mean that it was restricted to Alexandria or the diaspora; in the H e r o dian age it was taken over without fuss by the Jerusalemite Josephus. Greek and Roman tendencies towards the recognition of one supreme deity, such as were noted above, could then be saluted by Jews in the Herodian age as glimpses of the biblical revelation. This measure of approval inevitably affected the way in which biblical loyalty to one G o d was itself understood by Jews. H o m e r and the poets as well as the philosophers were taken as exponents, here and there at least, of true religion. T h e importance of inclusive monotheism, of intermediaries, and of divine immanence in and communion with humanity and 4 3 The possibility that this saving clause envisages gentiles is surely rightly allowed for by Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 1 4 4 - 5 , although he would himself prefer to restrict it to Jews. 4 4 Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14 (Lydia); 17:4, 17; 18:7 (Titius Justus), reviewed with comparable epigraphic references to OeooePetg by I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting (The B o o k of Acts in its First C e n t u r y Setting, 5; Grand Rapids & Carlisle, 1996), pp. 5 1 - 8 2 ; Jos. Ant. xiv 110, xx 41 (to ftetov OE(3EIV), reviewed with other passages including Test. Jos. iv 4 by L. H . F e l d m a n , / e w s and Gentiles in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1992), pp. 3 4 9 - 5 3 . 4 5 Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, p. 2 1 6 tends in this direction; but Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, i, p. 2 6 5 rightly notes the relative mildness with which the folly of apotheosis is censured.

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

19

nature was thereby strengthened, and any tendency to make an absolute separation between the supreme deity and the cosmos was mitigated. The approving salute to the glories of the Greeks was regularly followed, however, as noted already, by a regretful shake of the head over polytheism. It is therefore important that Jewish as well as Christian sources can occasionally suggest at least some excuse for or even legitimation of ancestral polytheism.

4. Legitimation

of

Polytheism

This legitimizing trend can be traced to the sacred books, as is noted below, but it emerges strikingly in Artapanus Concerning the Jews, an account quoted through Alexander Polyhistor by Eusebius. In this Greek Jewish narrative the Greeks are said to know Moses as Musaeus, who is here described as the teacher rather than the pupil of Orpheus; Moses gives the Egyptians their rites, founds Hermoupolis, and is hailed by the Egyptian priests as Hermes (Eus. P.E. ix 27, 3-9). This aspect of the legend corresponds to the veneration of Thoth under the name of Hermes in the Hellenistic age (Philo of Byblos in Eus. P.E. i 9, 19; Cicero, N.D. iii 56). Artapanus is probably pre-Herodian, but like the Letter of Aristeas and Aristobulus was still read in the Herodian age, at least in extracts; for his w o r k was excerpted by Alexander Polyhistor in the first century B.C., and quoted through Alexander by Clement of Alexandria in the second century A.D. The playful inventiveness which Artapanus shares with Hellenistic retellings of myth does not preclude narrative contact with versions of the stories of Joseph and Moses preserved by Philo and Josephus. 4 6 These suggest that a life of Moses on the lines relatively favourable to Egypt which Artapanus follows will not have been altogether exceptional in Jewish tradition. Of special note in the present connection, however, are the contacts between Artapanus and apologetic themes. Thus Moses is identified with Musaeus, here viewed as the founder of the Orphic tradition which was drawn on by Aristobulus and others to commend Judaism; this Moses-Musaeus is honoured as Hermes-Thoth, by one of those apotheoses of mortal benefactors which are criticized in the Letter of Aristeas 135-7; and he lays down those very Egyptian rites involving 'cats and 46 On Artapanus's inventiveness, Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, pp. 160 & n. 97; on his contacts with Philo and Josephus, J. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, Heft 1 & 2, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judäischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke (Breslau, 1875), pp. 169-71; M. Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938), pp. 27-31, 99-102; E. Bammel, 'Das Judentum als eine Religion Ägyptens', reprinted from M. Görg (ed.), Religion im Erbe Ägyptens, FS Alexander Böhlig (Wiesbaden, 1988), pp. 1-10 in E. Bammel, ed. P. Pilhofer,Judaica et Paulina: Kleine Schriften I I , mit einem Nachwort von P. Pilhofer (WUNT 91, Tübingen, 1997), pp. 115-21 (116-20).

20

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

dogs and ibises' which are picked out for mockery by others, as in the Letter of Aristeas 138. In all this there is a note of the glee which is inseparable from such claims that our neighbours' ancestral religion has been, all unbeknown to them, founded by one of ourselves; but there is also, by contrast with the Letter of Aristeas, a calm acceptance of the Egyptian rites, and even some endorsement of them as prescribed by Moses for the sake of peace and order. As J. Freudenthal noted, however, the manner of this endorsement of Egyptian rites as somehow Jewish is indeed recalled by the confidence of the claim in the Letter of Aristeas 16 that the deity revered by the Jews is the same w h o m all honour, as is the case with the Greeks, although they call him by a different name. 4 7 In each case there is at least a qualified endorsement of gentile cult. Thus the approval of Greek approaches to monotheism which is explicit in the Letter of Aristeas is probably implied in Artapanus's identification of Moses with Musaeus, given the monotheistic interpretation of Orphic verses; and Artapanus adds to this a depiction of Egyptian polytheism not only as Mosaic but also as useful - and the utility of ancestral religion could figure among gentiles too as a rationale of reverence for the gods. The background of Artapanus's striking concession includes an at least equally striking inner-biblical tension. Within the Hebrew scriptures the prophetic expectation of an end to idolatry (Isa. 2:20), when the gentiles will see the falsehood of their ancestral tradition (Jer. 16:19, cf. I Peter 1:18), 48 stands in some contrast with Pentateuchal passages which suggest divine appointment of gods for the gentiles. Most notable among these are Deut. 4:19 on the apportionment of sun, moon and stars to the nations and Exod. 7:1 on Moses as a god for Pharaoh (cf. Exod. 4:16, where Moses is 'for a god' for Aaron). Both texts often became subject to interpretation which modified or removed the sense which on the face of it they suggest, but the interpretative tradition also shows that this prima facie sense was not altogether lost. 49

47 Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, p. 163; the positive evaluation of Egyptian religion in Artapanus is underlined by Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, pp. 130-2. 48 The forsaking of ancestral error as a topic in early Christian apologetic is illuminated by W. C. van Unnik, 'The Critique of Paganism in I Peter 1:18', in E. E. Ellis & M. Wilcox (edd.), Neotestamentica et Semítica: Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 129-42; he views it as Christian rather than Jewish in origin, but earlier Jewish thought on these lines (already sketched in Jer. 16:19) is exemplified at Philo, Spec. Leg. i 52-3, on incomers to the Jewish community as having denounced their ancestral error - but as not entitled, on that account, to revile gentile gods with a convert's zeal. (Juvenal [xiv 96-100] later comparably expects Judaizers to honour no other gods and despise Roman customs.) 49 The importance of Deut. 4:19 LXX as pre-rabbinic evidence for tolerance of gentile paganism outside the Land is brought out by M. Goodman, Mission and Conversion (Oxford, 1994), pp.52, 116. Ancient versions and early commentators on Exod. 7:1 and Deut. 4:19, discussed further below, are surveyed by Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, pp. 78-9, 147-9.

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

21

Thus the two texts were cited together by Irenaeus to show that Paul will have had in mind these deities, rather than the special cosmic powers envisaged by the Valentinians and others, when he writes (I Cor. 8:5) of 'those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth' (Iren. Haer. iii 6, 5). The joint influence of the two Pentateuchal passages can probably already be detected in Artapanus. There Moses is indeed made 'a god for Pharaoh' (Exod. 7:1) at Hermoupolis (his status as 'god' in Exod. 7:1 was also taken up in the perhaps roughly contemporary Ecclus. 45:2, as noted below); and when he lays down the Egyptian rites he can do so, although they descend to theriomorphism, to some extent on the analogy of the divine appointment of higher celestial deities for the gentiles in general (Deut. 4:19). The potential influence of these passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy is underlined not only by the fact that they come from the Pentateuch itself, but also by the coherence of Deut. 4:19 with other passages in the same fifth book of Moses. 'The vision of the end of idolatry in the world which is so prominent in the prophets is completely missing in Deuteronomy.' 50 The book of Deuteronomy indeed indicates divine authorization of gentile star-cult not just in passing but through a group of texts (4:19, cf. 29:25 [26], 32:8). Particularly notable among these is of course 4:19 itself, a declaration, in the speech introducing the recital of the Ten Commandments, according to which the people are to guard their souls vigilantly lest they be led away to worship sun, moon, stars and the celestial host - 'which the Lord thy God apportioned ( h a l a q , LXX ajieveifisv) to all the nations that are beneath the whole sky'. Comparably, towards the end of Deuteronomy (29:25 [26]), Israel are said to have worshipped 'gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not apportioned to them ' (halaq; LXX 6 L S V E I , | X E V ) . Indeed, in the greater Song of Moses which had its own separate circulation but soon follows in the book as it stands, 'Israel is the Lord's portion', but 'he fixed the bounds of the nations according to the number of the sons of God', the heavenly beings who can be identified with the stars (Deut. 32:8 [4QDeut' & LXX], cf. Job 38:7, Ecclus 17:17).51 When bowing down 'to the sun and moon and the host of heaven, which I have not commanded' is condemned in Deut. 17:3, this can be understood as a prohibition for Israel rather than the nations. In Deuteronomy, therefore, the nations are allotted to the celestial sons of God, but Israel to the Lord himself (Deut. 32:8); and although the gentile worM. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford, 1972), p., 294. J. A. Duncan in E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross et al., Qumran Cave 4, IX (DJD xiv, Oxford, 1995), 79 (on the use of Deut. 32 in Hebrew), 90 (the text of verse 8); C. Dogniez & M. Harl, La Bible d'Alexandrie, 5, Le Deutéronome (Paris, 1992), pp. 319-20 (use of Deut. 32 in Greek), 325-6 (variation in Greek text between 'sons' and 'angels'). The Greek text with 'angels' shows, like some renderings of divine titles noted at the end of section 1, above, a wariness of 'inclusive' expressions; 'angels' also replaces 'sons', by contrast with 4QDeut', in the Qumran Aramaic version of Job 38:7 (11Q10, col. xxx, line 5). 50 51

22

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

ship of planets and stars is forbidden to Israel (Deut. 4:19a, cf. 17:3), to whom it has not been apportioned (Deut. 29:25 [26]), the astral deities have indeed been divinely apportioned to the gentiles (Deut. 4:19b). This teaching emerges equally from the Hebrew text and from the L X X of Deuteronomy. 5 2 Hence, even in the Herodian-age arguments against idolatry attested in Wisdom and Philo, the astral cult is set on a higher plane than the worship of images. 53 Wisd. 13:6-8 judges that those who took the elements or the stars for gods have but small blame, for they may have erred precisely because they were seeking for God and wanting to find him (cf. Acts 17:27), and were persuaded by the beauty which they saw - even though they are still not to be pardoned (cf. Rom. 1:20), for having been able to know so much, how did they not find him more quickly? Philo, similarly, in the discussion of plural divine speech which was quoted above, contents himself with saying that some have called not only the whole cosmos but also the sun, moon and heaven 'gods' (cf. Deut. 4:19); and that Moses, seeing their opinion (enivoia), says 'Lord, Lord, king of the gods' (cf. Deut. 10:17), so as to show the difference between God the ruler and the gods who are his subjects (Conf. 173). Here Deut. 10:17 'God of gods and lord of lords' is quoted in a form mixed with that of the current phrase 'king of gods', based on Ps. 95:3, which was quoted above from Greek and Hebrew sources. The conjectural emendation ajpovnoia 'delusion' was preferred by P. Wendland in his edition to the relatively colourless sjtivoia 'opinion' given by the MSS., but this conjecture is perhaps an example of that accentuation of the rigour of ancient Jewish monotheism which is sometimes found in modern scholarship. The less judgmental word which more probably represents Philo's text at the same time suggests that some influence has been exerted by the degree of acceptance of gentile worship displayed in Deut. 4:19. In a comparable passage on the divine monarchy, Spec. Leg. i 13-20, Deut. 4:19 is explicitly quoted, and again combined with Deut. 10:17 to show that the error against which Israel are warned in 4:19 is to take these subordinate gods as supreme (see Spec. Leg. i 15; 20). In Acts, correspondingly, in a passage which is close to Wisdom as just cited, the gentiles fall into idolatry in the differing conditions that have been allotted to them (cf. Deut. 4:19) so that they may seek God, but hitherto he has been able to overlook their ignorance (Acts 17:26-30). In Wisdom and Philo, then, the astral cult is at least partly excusable, but the supreme deity should have been acknowledged over and above these subordinate gods. In Acts, however, the excuse goes further, and also covers the making of images of the gods. The divine appointment of gentile worship which Deut.

52 That LXX makes no attempt to paraphrase (by contrast with later Greek versions) was emphasized by Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 444-5. 53 This point is made by Dogniez & Harl, Le Deuteronome , p. 139.

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age

23

4:19 suggests seems correspondingly to have been m o r e fully affirmed by some J e w s in the H e r o d i a n age. T h u s Justin M a r t y r ascribes to T r y p h o the J e w a 'plain' interpretation of Deut. 4:19, in the sense that the cult of the heavenly bodies has indeed been divinely allotted to the gentiles; but his paraphrase includes an implied explanation, f o r 'it is written', says T r y p h o , 'that G o d permitted (auyxexwQrixEvai) the gentiles to b o w down to sun and m o o n as gods' (Justin, Dial, lv 1). H e r e apportionment is interpreted as permission for, rather than establishment of, the gentile rites. Later on, however, Justin again summarizes the verse, this time in a speech in his o w n name, and here he makes no qualification; with special reference to the gentiles and to sun-worship, he n o w says simply that G o d ' f o r m e r l y gave the sun, as it is written, that they might b o w down to h i m ' (Dial,

cxxi 2,

eSeScbxEi). T h e difference between these t w o paraphrases should perhaps be regarded as one o f the lifelike touches in Justin's presentation; the J e w i s h spokesman understands gentile worship o f the heavenly bodies to have been permitted rather than ordained by the one G o d , but the gentile Christian takes it to have been divinely appointed f o r the n a t i o n s . 5 4 T h e interpretation o f D e u t . 4.19 as attesting divine allotment o f the astral cult to the gentiles reappears in C l e m e n t of Alexandria (Strom, gen (Comm.

vi 14, 110) and O r i -

in J oh. ii 2 4 - 7 , on J o h n 1:1), and in later Christian authors. 5 5 ' O u r

h o l y scriptures teach ... that in the beginning the worship of the visible luminaries had been assigned to all the nations, and that to the H e b r e w race alone had been entrusted full initiation into the knowledge o f the G o d w h o made and shaped all things' (Eus. P.E. i 9 , 1 5 ) . As in Trypho's speech, the apportionment is understood as a concession, and n o w its purpose is often spelt out - either to raise them to perceive the true G o d ( C l e m e n t ; compare W i s d o m and Philo, as cited above) or at least to keep them f r o m idolatry ( O r i g e n ) . This interpretation o f D e u t . 4.19 as declaring a concession of astral deities to the gentiles was taken b y Wilfred K n o x to be J e w i s h in origin. 5 6 His view receives confirmation f r o m the H e b r e w and L X X texts of D e u t e r o n o m y and f r o m Artapanus and Justin Martyr, as discussed above. It can perhaps also appeal to two contrasting aspects o f rabbinic biblical interpretation. W h a t has been regarded as a lenient attitude to idolatry emerges on the one hand, but on the

54 These passages can be added to the material for Justin's view of the origin of pagan religion which is discussed by O. Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 56, Leiden, 1987), pp. 368-9; the Deuteronomy-based notion of the heavenly host as a concession to gentiles then appears as a parallel to the notion of sacrifice as a concession to Israel (Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, p. 368, cf. pp. 313-24). 55 Comments by Eusebius, Isidore of Pelusium and an anonymous commentator are summarized by Salvesen, Symmachus, p. 149, n. 15. 56 W. L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939), p. 100, n. 3.

24

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

other there is a wide-ranging attempt to interpret the Pentateuch in a way which excludes divine appointment of gods for the gentiles. Thus, on the side of leniency, the often-repeated command to break down the gentile altars (Deut. 12:3, cf. Exod. 34:13, Deut. 7:5), which was expressly connected with monotheism in Josephus's explanatory paraphrase (Ant. iv 201, 'for God is one'), is none the less clearly restricted to the land of Israel (Sifre Deut. 61, on 12:3); and a contrary injunction 'do not pull down their high places' (lest you should find yourself rebuilding them) is attributed to a Herodian-age authority, Johanan ben Zaccai (Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan, version B, 31), in contrast with the command to destroy the high places at the entry into the land (Num. 33:52). These lenient interpretations in turn cohere with the L X X rendering of Exod. 22:27 ' D o not revile the gods', a commandment understood by Philo (n. 45, above) and Josephus to forbid blasphemy of the gods revered by others; Philo (V. M. ii 203) also understands Lev. 24:15 in this way, and Josephus (Ant. iv 207) connects Exod. 22:27 with Deut. 7:25, understood as a commandment not to rob foreign temples. Characteristically of the lenient tendency which is being traced, this prohibition of sacrilege in gentile sanctuaries is derived here in Josephus from the second clause of Deut. 7:25 - a prohibition against plundering the gold and silver from images of the gods - without any reference to the first clause - a commandment to burn such images. A comparable degree of tolerance of images and their ornaments emerges in rabbinic teaching of the second and third centuries, as E. E. Urbach has shown. 5 7 According to a ruling in the name of Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (Lydda, early second century), Jewish craftsmen may make necklaces and ornaments for idols, if the work is done for payment (Mishnah, A.Z. i 8). Again, the maxim was current that an idol is not forbidden unless it has been worshipped (baraitha in Babylonian Talmud, A. Z. 51 b). In the view attributed to R. Ishmael, this maxim applies to the idol of a gentile, whereas a Jew's idol is at once forbidden (Tosephta, A. Z. v 4, expressly restricting the scope of the first clause in Deut. 7:25); in R. Akiba's view, on the other hand, it applies to a Jew's idol, whereas a gentile's is at once forbidden (Mishnah, A. Z. iv 4). Similarly again, an image in one's house for decoration is pure (Tosephta, Kelim, Baba Mezia, iv 8). This lenient tendency was treated by Urbach as a new development, to be contrasted with earlier Jewish rejection of idols, and to be associated with a closer proximity of Jews to Palestinian gentiles which was newly brought about

57 E. E. Urbach, 'The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry in the Second and Third Centuries in the Light of Archaeological and Historical Facts', IE] ix (1959), 1 4 9 - 6 5 , 2 2 9 - 4 5 ( 1 5 8 - 6 5 , 2 2 9 38), reprinted with additional material in Urbach, edd. R. Brody & M. D. Herr, Collected Writings in Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 151-93 (160-77).

1. Jewish

and Christian

Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

25

in the period after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. 58 Aniconic principle and iconoclastic zeal in and before the First Revolt against Rome is indeed made evident by Philo and Josephus, as the contrast drawn by Urbach would lead one to expect; but these Herodian-age authors also show, as noted above, that this zeal coexisted uneasily with a lenient tendency. The leniency to be seen at the end of the Herodian age in the tannaitic rulings discussed by Urbach was therefore continuous with one tendency already known (together with its opposite) in the Herodian age itself. On the other hand, the trend in rabbinic Pentateuchal interpretation towards excluding any suggestion of divine appointment of gods for the gentiles itself indicates that this suggestion was a live interpretative option. The trend against it is also evident in the later biblical versions from antiquity - by contrast with the retention of the 'plain' sense in the LXX, from the third century B.C., and the Peshitta Pentateuch, probably not later than the mid-second century A.D. The persistence of the unwelcome option is particularly clear in the case of Exod. 7:1, whence the giving of the name 'god' to Moses was taken up in Ecclesiasticus (45:2, where 'god' is indicated by the fragmentary Genizah Hebrew), and again in the Herodian age by Philo (V. M. i 158, 'he was named god and king of the whole people'). 59 It was also probably taken up in 4Q374, a Hebrew fragment on the exodus and conquest (line 6, 'he set him for a god over mighty ones, and a cause of reeling to Pharaoh'). 60 In the ancient versions, the sense 'a god for Pharaoh' or 'a god of Pharaoh' remains not only in the LXX and the Peshitta but also in later Jewish or Jewish-influenced versions and interpretations, including Aquila, Symmachus, and the Vulgate. This sense survives too, but now with an added explanation which can modify the understanding of deity, in part of the Targumic tradition (Ps.-Jonathan 'a fear [deity] for Pharaoh, as if his god') and in the midrash (Exod. R. viii 1-2, on 7:1).61 The attempt to exclude any suggestion of divine appointment of gentile worship gains more foothold, however, in the targumic paraphrase rabba - 'great one' or 'master' - 'for Pharaoh', which is Urbach, 'The Rabbinical Laws of Idolatry', pp. 156-7 = Urbach, Collected Writings in Studies, pp. 158-9. 59 In Ecclus. 45:2 the Greek 'made him like to the glory of the ayioi, [holy ones]', shows that elohim in the Hebrew (where the preceding words are lost) has been taken in the sense of the 'gods' of the divine council, as in Ps. 82:1 'in the midst of gods'; J. J . Collins, 'Ecclesiasticus', i n j . Barton & J . Muddiman (edd.), The Oxford Bible Commentary (Oxford, 2001), pp. 667-98 (694b), ad loc. contrasts a merely angel-like Moses in Ecclesiasticus here with a divine Moses depicted by Philo under the influence of Exod. 7:1, but both Ben Sira and Philo appear to allude to Exod. 7:1. 58

Jewish

60 The application to Moses is expounded, with comparison of 4Q377, frag. 1 recto, ii, lines 10-11 on Moses speaking 'as an angel from his mouth', by C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, 'The Revelation of the Sacral Son of Man: the Genre, History of Religions Context and the Meaning of the Transfiguration', in F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger (edd.), AuferstehungResurrection (Tübingen, 2001), pp. 247-98 (250-2). 61 The versions and the midrash are discussed by Salvesen, Symmachus , 78-9.

26

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

given in Onkelos and Neofiti, and readily suggests a human 'master'; but even this paraphrase can still recall the rendering 'god for Pharaoh', for rabba was sometimes a divine title (as in I Enoch 91:13 'the temple of the kingdom of the Great One'; Aramaic text in 4Q212, col. iv, line 18). This attempt to exclude the view that God appointed gentile worship is represented still more strongly in interpretation of Deut. 4:19 and related Deuteronomic texts. Thus in the name of R. Jose the Galilaean, who was teaching before the Bar Kokhba revolt, the following exegesis of Deut. 4:19 is preseved in Sifre (148, on Deut. 17:3): 'From which the Lord thy God apportioned to all the nations [4:19] one could infer that he apportioned them to the gentiles, but the biblical teaching says gods which they did not know and he did not apportion to them [29:25 (26)]'. Here 29:25 (26), although it refers to Israel, is taken as a second reference to the gentiles and a sign that 4:19 cannot bear its prima facie sense of divine appointment of gods for the the gentiles; for 17:3 has also been taken just beforehand as a general prohibition against associating the host of heaven with God in worship (see below). 62 In this comment on Deut. 4:19, from the end of the Herodian age, the unwelcome option is clearly stated. The systematic reinterpretation of Deuteronomy which lies behind the exegesis which avoids it is made evident by additions to the Hebrew text which figure in rabbinic tradition as changes which the translators into Greek made 'for king Ptolemy', although they do not appear in the LXX as now known. With these additions, Deut. 4:19 reads apportioned to all the nations - to give light (as in Gen. 1:15; 17); and Deut. 17:3, which in its context is a command to Israel, now reads or all the host of heaven which I did not command - the nations to worship.63 Reinterpretation in this sense is especially clear in the later of the ancient versions and in mediaeval Jewish commentary, but the rejected 'plain' sense does not entirely disappear from Jewish interpretation. Its capacity for survival or reintroduction in mediaeval Jewish exegesis, noted below, should be borne in mind in assessment of its significance in the Herodian age. Perhaps the strongest instance of reinterpretation away from the 'plain' sense in the later versions is the Vulgate of Deut. 4:19 quae creavit Dominus Deus tuus in ministerium cunctis gentibus, 'which the Lord thy God created for service to all nations'. 64 Apportionment is replaced by the emphatic 'created'; and the addition 'for service' is on the lines of the rabbinic 'to give light', but is a more comprehensive phrase - recalling II Esdras 6:46 'thou commandedst them to serve [ut deservirent] 62 L. Finkelstein (ed.), Siphre ad Deuteronium (Berlin, 1939, repr. New York, 1969), p. 203; the passage is explained in this way by Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 445-6. 63 Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 9b, and Sopherim, i 8, with other witnesses assembled by G. Veltri, Eine Tora für den König Talmai (TSAJ 41, Tübingen, 1994), pp. 92-7. 64 The versions of 4:19 and 27:25 (26) are surveyed by Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 147-9.

1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism

in the Herodian

Age

27

humankind that was to be formed', and perhaps meant to cover all the various services of the heavenly bodies which are mentioned in Gen. 1:14-18 - and a clearer limitation of rank. It is not surprising that in mediaeval Jewish exegesis this Vulgate interpretation of 4:19 can appear side by side with the rabbinic addition, as in twelfth-century northern France in Joseph Bekhor Shor: 'which the Lord apportioned, to give light to all the nations; which were created to minister to the children of the world'. 65 On the other hand, in the same region in the following century the excluded option of divine appointment of gods for the gentiles reappears as an alternative exegesis of Deut. 4:19, immediately after a comment very close to that of Bekhor Shor, in the commentary Hizquni of Hezekiah b. Manoah: 'another interpretation: which he apportioned to all the nations to be their fear [deity]; for God is not concerned with them, but you has he taken to be the people of his inheritance - and how should you bow down to them? Hence you are not permitted to serve any other deity save him. ic; Mwaewg), in the late fifth-century church history attributed to Gelasius of Cyzicus. T h e context is a speech ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea in dialogue with a philosopher at the Council of Nicaea. 6 ' G o d foresaw me before the foundation of the world', says Moses in this passage, 'to be the mediator of his covenant', elvai (j,e tfjg Siafrr|xr|s ccutoii |x£an;r|v ut sim arbiter testamenti illius in the Latin (1:13). A little further on it is prophesied that the tribes of Israel will remember how Moses called heaven and earth to witness 'lest we should transgress his commandments, wherein he was mediator to us', in quibus arbiter fuit nobis (3:12). Later in the Herodian age, two other writers take up the same terminology. St Paul famously calls Moses 5 Differing views are exemplified by S. J. Hafemann, 'Moses in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: a Survey', JSP vii (1990), pp. 79-104 (92-3), who contrasts Mosaic eulogy with the Pentateuch, following J. Jeremias, with special reference to the Assumption; and C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 42, Leiden, Boston & Cologne, 2002), p. 6, who stresses continuity. 6 Gelasius Cyzicenus, H. E. ii 17, 16-17, in G. C. Hansen (ed.), Anonyme Kirchengeschichte (Gelasius Cyzicenus, CPG 6034) ( G C S N.F. ix, Berlin & New York, 2002), p. 58.

36

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

'mediator', [ieoltt|5, precisely in connection with the giving of the law (Gal. 3 : 1 9 - 2 0 ) . Comparably, the Epistle to the H e b r e w s seems to echo the title o f M o s e s f o u n d in the Assumption when it calls Christ the mediator of a better c o venant or a new covenant, XQeixtovog ... 5ia-&r|xr|5 jieaitr|g (8:6), 6iadr|xr|g xaivfjg n£aitr|5 (9:15), Sia0r|xr|5 vea? [xeaixrig (12:24); cf. XQeittovog 6iadr|xr|5 '¿yyvog (7:22). T h e title 'mediator o f [God's] covenant' which emerges through these texts evokes what may be called the general drift o f the Pentateuch on M o s e s and the covenant. M o d e r n interpreters have indeed used the term 'covenant-mediator' to describe an office or official function in the ancient Israelite polity which may perhaps be inferred f r o m the Pentateuchal traditions. 7 T h e theme of M o s e s as covenant-mediator is not restricted to a single source in the classical division, and it is especially evident in the varying f o r m s of narrative tradition assigned to J , E , and D . 8 So, in the accounts of the first transmission o f the covenant, a corrective n o t e in D e u t e r o n o m y emphasises that M o s e s ' s t o o d between' the L o r d and all Israel ( D e u t . 5:5), in accord with E x o d . 1 9 : 9 , 2 0 : 1 8 - 2 1 (JE), on the divine descent to M o s e s in particular, and his o w n solitary approach. Again, the strongly M o s a i c formula in the account o f the second transmission of the c o venant in J 'I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel' ( E x o d . 34:27) can be compared with the c o l o p h o n of the Holiness C o d e , 'the statutes and judgments and laws which the L o r d made between him and the children o f Israel in m o u n t Sinai by the hand of M o s e s ' (Lev. 26:46). This second verse is one of those quoted in the praise of M o s e s at the beginning o f A b o t h d e - R a b b i N a t h a n , version A , to show that the Torah was indeed given to Israel b y the hand of M o s e s . 9 T h e s e and other Pentateuchal passages on M o s a i c mediation of the covenant are echoed in writings of the G r e e k period and later. T h u s for Ecclesiasticus (24:23) 'the b o o k o f the covenant of the M o s t H i g h G o d ' (taken and read out by Moses, E x o d . 24:7) is expressly 'the law which Moses c o m m a n d e d ' ( D e u t . 33:4). Jubilees presents itself as a revelation to M o s e s in the course of the covenantmaking, and reproduces the M o s a i c clause 'the covenant which I establish between me and thee' f r o m E x o d . 34:27 (Jub. 1:5; H e b r e w text in 4 Q 2 1 6 , col. i, line 14). In the Damascus D o c u m e n t a m a j o r theme is formed by 'the c o m mandments of G o d by the hand of M o s e s ' ( C D - A v 21, 4 Q 2 6 6 3 ii, 8; cf. Lev. 2 6 : 4 6 ) and 'the covenant which Moses concluded with Israel' ( C D - A xv 8 - 9 . cf.

7 Examples are discussed by E. W. Nicholson, God and his People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford, 1986), pp. 53-5. 8 See especially the discussion of 'The Mosaic Office and the Sinai Tradition' by B. S. Childs, Exodus (London, 1974), pp. 351-60. 9 i 1, in S. Schechter (ed.), Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (London, Vienna, & Frankfurt, 1887), reissued with a Prolegomenon by M. Kister (New York & Jerusalem, 1997), text, p. 1 ; E.T. in J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven & London, 1955), p. 4.

2. Moses and the Covenant

in the Assumption of Moses and the Pentateuch

37

Exod. 24:7-8). Here and elsewhere the Mosaic mediation of the covenant continues to stand out. Correspondingly, although 'mediator of his covenant' is not a biblical phrase, it is not far removed from the idiom of post-exilic Hebrew. Translators of relevant parts of the New Testament into Hebrew have nevertheless varied between biblical and post-biblical vocabulary when rendering ¡xeaixrig. Thus Franz Delitzsch (1899 and reprints) either paraphrased, or chose the Mishnaic Hebrew noun sarsor, which is indeed sometimes used of Moses as mediator of the Torah (for instance at Exod. R. iii 5, on Exod. 3:13). J. H. R. Biesenthal, on the other hand, in his translation of Hebrews (1857) had chosen the relatively late biblical term melis}0 The Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus and the Qumran finds have now strengthened its attestation. 11 Two occurrences may be noted with regard to the traditions on Moses. In Job 33:23 'an angel [or, a messenger], a mediator among a thousand' the word stands together with mal'ak, a term repeatedly used for divine messengers. This line from Elihu's speeches is not of course linked with Moses in Job itself, but it casts light on the semantic range to be expected of the often comparable Greek HEaÍTT|5 in contexts formed by the biblical tradition, and prepares one for the association of ^eaítrig with ayyeXog, found in connection with Moses in both Philo (discussed below) and Paul (Gal. 3:19). In the midrash this passage in Job was indeed later itself related to the intercession of Moses, who was thought to be the mal'ak of 33:23. 12 Secondly, in the phrase 'mediator for thy people' found in 4Q374, fragment 7, melis is perhaps used of Moses, with whom a line in fragment 6 is clearly concerned. It is then not impossible to envisage a phrase such as melis berito, 'interpreter' or 'mediator' 'of his covenant', to which xfjg 6iadr|xr]g aiixoti (xeaixTi5 might have corresponded. In the light of Job 33:23 it is likely that such a phrase, if current in Hebrew, would have recalled the ambiguous title mal'akh ha-berit, 'messenger' or 'angel' 'of the covenant' (Mai. 3:1). These Pentateuchal and Hebrew comments draw attention to links between this title and ancient conceptions of the office and person of Moses. These are explored further below. At this stage, however, a more general point should be emphasized. The Greek and Latin phrases in the Assumption and the New Testament have emerged as coherent with Hebrew sources in both idiom and thought. The title 'mediator of his covenant', non-Pentateuchal though it is, 10 Franz Delitzsch (trans.), Siphre ha-Berith ha-Hadashah (2nd edn, 1899, repr. London, 1927), pp. 351 (Gal. 3:19-20), 415 (Heb. 9:15), 422 (Heb. 12:24), all with sarsor, and pp. 388 (I Tim. 2:5), 414 (Heb. 8:6), with paraphrases; J. H. R. Biesenthal, Der Brief Pauli an die Hebräer, mit rabbinischem Commentar (Berlin, 1857), pp. 53,63, 98 (Heb. 8:6,9:15,12:24), all

with melis. 11 Attestation in these texts and the Hebrew Bible is surveyed by D. Stec in D. J. A. Clines (ed.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, iv (Sheffield, 1998), pp. 544-5.

12 Pes. R. x, 38b, translated and discussed by I. Jacobs, The Midrashic and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 65-6.

Process:

Tradition

38

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

sums up a major theme of the Pentateuch. It is likewise in accord with Hebrew idiom and the content of Hebrew as well as Greek texts on Moses, both in Second Temple times and in the period of the Mishnah and Talmud.

2. 'Mediator' and 'Spirit' in the Praise of Moses From this general point I should like to turn to the more particular question of the relation between the title 'mediator of his covenant', which fully shares the biblical idiom, and the tradition of praise for Moses and his office and person, which has already received some illustration above, and sometimes sounds more like Greek eloquence. First, within the Assumption of Moses itself, how is this title in 1:13 related to the eulogy of Moses later on (11:16-17)? In this later passage, in lament for the impending departure of Moses, Joshua rolls out a long titulature of praise. The kings of the Amorites will hear, he says, that there is no longer among them 'the sacred spirit, worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, the master of the word, faithful in all things, divine prophet throughout the earth, the world's perfect teacher ...', sacrum spiritum dignum Domino multiplicem et inconpraehensibilem dominum verbifidelem in omnia divinum per orbem terrarum profetem consummatum in saeculo doctorem ... (11:16). The transmission of the letters immediately before the quoted sequence is corrupt, but sacrum spiritum is certain, and sacrum should almost certainly be taken with spiritum, giving the sense 'sacred spirit'. 13 This comprehensive praise takes up one or two famous Pentateuchal texts on Moses, notably Num. 12:8 (fidelis in omnia) and Deut. 34:10 (divinusprofetes). Other Pentateuchal echoes will be noticed shortly. The accumulated titles lead on, however, to particular notice of the power of Moses as intercessor, perhaps especially against the background of Exod. 32-4. The enemy will note, Joshua continues (11:17), that Israel no longer have a champion (defensor), in the absence of Moses the 'great messenger' (magnus nuntius), who knelt in prayer at all hours beholding the Almighty. This title 'great messenger' seems to sum up the earlier titulature by underlining the divine legation of Moses. Nuntius here probably represents ayytkoc,, in the light of usage illustrated below from Philo, even though there is also an overlap in semantic range with anóaxoXoc,, used of Christ in an implied comparison with Moses at Heb. 3:1-2; Hebrew shaliah is similarly applied to Moses later on, for instance in the passage from the beginning of Aboth de-prophesied Nathan which was cited above. In any case the emphasis lies on Moses as divine13 The manuscript gives iam non esse semet sacrum spiritum; emendations conjectured for semet include scm et = sanctum et, giving the good sense 'holy and sacred spirit' (Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, p. 254; he compares Philonic coupling of tegóg with ocnog or ay 105).

2. Moses and the Covenant

in the Assumption

of Moses and the

Pentateuch

39

ly sent, and in this respect magnus nuntius recalls both the divine predestination of the mediator of the covenant (1:13) and the title 'sacred spirit' (11:16), as implying a divinely-sent spirit. This eulogy in 11:16-17 has figured in earlier study especially as one of a series of ancient Jewish texts which depict a godlike Moses. 1 4 Here the main concern is the relation of the title 'covenant-mediator' with that tradition of Mosaic eulogy, as it is reflected in 11:16-17. Joshua's praise significantly leads there in the end to a title which underlines the divine legation of Moses and so recalls the mediation of the covenant. Divine legation is also hinted at in 'sacred spirit'. Further Judaean and Alexandrian texts of the same period suggest that a link between the eulogy of 11:16-17 and the title 'mediator of [God's] covenant' is indeed formed by the description of Moses as 'spirit'. Despite its contacts with legal language, ÖLa-&r|xr|5 (ieam^g is not a common title of Moses, and it is likely that Galatians and Hebrews are indebted either to the Assumption itself or to an unknown kindred expansion of the Pentateuch. More common are general references to Moses as mediator. Among these is a passage in the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo. This non-Christian Jewish text, surviving only in Latin and perhaps from the end of the Herodian age, has affinities in content and outlook with the Assumption. These emerge clearly in its treatment of Moses. Here Gen. 6:3 on 'my spirit* who shall not abide with humanity for ever, for he also is flesh, 'yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years', is understood as a prophecy concerning Moses, who was himself taken away at that age (Deut. 31:2, 34:7). Gen. 6:3 is also associated with Moses and especially 'the spirit of Moses' in Philo of Alexandria (Gig. 19, 24-9, 55-6), and it is linked with Moses in the midrash. 15 In Pseudo-Philo (9:8) it is applied to Moses after a reference to the covenant, and with the insertion of the term mediator. Here in the Biblical Antiquities Gen. 6:3 is paraphrased as part of a divine oracle concerning that which shall be begotten from the faithful Amram. 'I, God, will light for him [Moses] my lamp which shall dwell in him, and I will show him my covenant ( o s t e n d a m ei testamentum meum) which no man has seen; and I will display to him my exceeding glory and my ordinances and judgments, and I will light for him an everlasting light, for I have thought of him in ancient days, saying, M y mediator spirit ( m e d i a t o r spiritus meus) shall not be 14 Further literature is cited in the treatments by K. Haacker in K. Haacker & P. Schäfer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose', in O . Betz, K. Haacker & M. Hengel (edd.), Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet (Göttingen, 1974), pp. 147-74 (158-9), Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, pp. 251-8; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology (WUNT 2.94, Tübingen, 1997), pp. 180-2; id., All the Glory of Adam, pp. 6, 31, 171-2. 15 Ber. R. xxvi 6, end, on Gen. 6:3; further passages are cited by H. Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ( A G J U 3 1 , 2 vols, Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1996), i, pp. 417-18.

40

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

among these men for ever, for they are flesh, and their days shall be a hundred and twenty years' (9:8). Although the lifespan is applied here to 'these men', as in L X X , 'my spirit' is evidently Moses, whose soul or spirit has probably been in view a few lines earlier in the words 'I will light for him my lamp which shall dwell in him'. 1 6 By a significant insertion into the text of Gen. 6:3 the spirit is specifically called 'my mediator spirit', mediator spiritus mens.17 This insertion suggests that mediator will already have been a familiar title of Moses. Here it is used of Moses soon after a reference to the covenant, which Moses will be 'shown', just as the divine glory and the ordinances and judgments will be 'displayed'. 18 The allusion at this point to Exod. 3 2 - 4 suggests that the intercession of Moses might also have been in mind when mediator was used, but that would probably not have excluded the expressly mentioned testamentum from remembrance. A clause pointing in this direction is 'which no man has seen'; the Sinaitic covenant through Moses resumes the covenant with the fathers, but it forms a climax and is unique. 19 Thus mediator in this text has the covenantal association which is primary for (lEaLxrig in the Assumption. At the same, however, the combination of mediator with spiritus here in PseudoPhilo recalls the Assumption of Moses once again, but now in the passage where 'spirit' opens the accumulation of titles in Joshua's eulogy. In Pseudo-Philo, just as in the Assumption, the notion of Moses as divinely-endowed spirit is central in the praise of Moses, and in Pseudo-Philo this notion is bound together with the revelation of the covenant to Moses. In Philo of Alexandria, similarly, Moses envisaged specifically as mediator of the covenant is also Moses as spirit. These aspects of Moses come together in Phi16 Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum , i, p. 413 takes this lamp (lucerna med) to be wisdom, but also notes that the clause may reflect Prov. 20:27 on the human breath or spirit as lucerna Domini. As in Philo of Alexandria, the notions of a gift of divine spirit and the divinizing of human spirit probably intermingle here. 17 This passage and the Assumption, on Moses, are compared with LXX and Targum on messianic figures as spirit in W. Yiorbwry, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998), p. 92. 18 Jacobson, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, i, pp. 413-14 posits a textual error, because of the oddity of a 'showing' of the covenant; but ostendam ei testamentum meum seems acceptable, for the diction is congruous with the Pentateuchal 'all that I show thee on the mount' (Exod. 25:9 LXX, Vulgate ostendam tibi", the tabernacle pattern is in mind), and with the view that the ten words of God were seen as fire, which is based on Exod. 20:18 in Philo {Dec. 4 6 - 7 ) and the Mekhilta (Yithro, Bahodesh ix, on Exod. 20:18, in the name of R. Akiba). The people therefore 'saw' the voice (Exod. 20:18), but only Moses drew near to be 'shown' the covenant, as Pseudo-Philo says (Exod. 20:21, 24:12, cf. 34:5-10). 19 This exceptional character of the Mosaic covenant here is shown by J . R. Levison, 'Torah and Covenant in Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquatum Biblicarum', in F. Avemarie & H. Lichtenberger (edd.), Bund und Tora: zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und ur christlich er Tradition (WUNT 92, Tübingen, 1996), pp. 111-27 (113-14).

2. Moses and the Covenant

in the Assumption

of Moses and the Pentateuch

41

lo's interpretation of the angels ascending and descending on Jacob's ladder (Somn. i 133-43). Here, as in De Gigantibus (cited above on Gen. 6:3), he explains that the term angeloi in the sacred text answers to the term daimones in 'the other philosophers'; both (he goes on) denote the most excellent kind of souls, utterly pure and gifted with higher and diviner temper, viceroys of the All-highest. They are shown ascending and descending, not that the deity needs information, but because we in our awe of him need logoi for mediators and umpires, just as 'we once besought one of the mediators', eSer|{h](iEv jioxe xivog xcov [xeaixcov, when the Israelites begged Moses - 'Speak thou to us' (Exod. 20:19). Moses is reckoned as spirit, then, by the probably Judaean authors of the Assumption of Moses and the Biblical Antiquities, as well as by Philo of Alexandria. In Philo of Alexandria and the Biblical Antiquities it is as spirit that Moses is mediator, with a reference to the covenant in the Biblical Antiquities and in Philo of Alexandria specifically in connection with the giving of the law. In the Assumption, then, the title xfjg Siafhixrig aiixoO |x£aixr|g, arbiter testamenti illius used with proud reverence by Moses himself coheres readily, through the title sacer spiritus, with the titulature of Moses which is later rehearsed by Joshua; and both are consistent with magnus nuntius. Within the Assumption of Moses, then, the title 'mediator of his covenant' seems fully coherent with the exaltation of Moses expressed later in the text; both draw on a conception of Moses as divinely sent, and mediator in connection with God's covenant readily suggests the exceptional endowment of spirit which takes first place in the eulogy. For 'spirit' too there is Pentateuchal Mosaic background, still to be considered. Already, however, it can be sensed that the eulogy, despite its grandiose praise, is no less indebted to the Pentateuch than the much more obviously biblicizing title 'mediator of the covenant'. The coherence of this title with the eulogy emerges from comparison with other roughly contemporary texts, but it also suggests a shared Pentateuchal background. This interpretation of the Assumption of Moses through other texts from the Herodian age receives some confirmation from well-known lines on Moses in an earlier text, Ecclesiasticus. Here (45:1-5) once again Moses is praised both as glorious spirit and as receiver and teacher of the law. To pick out three points, Moses is glorified like elobim (45:2, cf. Exod. 7:1), he controls signs and wonders by his 'word' (45:3, cf. Exod. 8:13, 31 'according to the word of Moses'), and he is chosen (45:4, cf. Ps. 106:23) to receive the law of life and understanding (Hebrew 'in his hand', cf. Exod. 32:15, 34:29; Deut. 9:15,17; 10:3), that he may teach Israel the ordinances (45:5, cf. Deut. 4:14). These points all remain in the grandson's Greek version, but 45:2 is turned by 'he likened him to the glory of the holy ones' (divine beings, angels), and in 45:5 Moses is to teach the 'covenant', 6iadr|xr) - a favourite rendering of the grandson, which expands the association of berit with commandment already found

42

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

in the grandfather's Hebrew. His usage can also retain elsewhere, however, an association of 6iadf|xr| with Moses, as in 24:23, quoted above, on 'the b o o k of the covenant of the most high God, the law which Moses commanded us'. 2 0 These three points from the praise of Moses in Ecclesiasticus help to sketch some Old Testament associations of the titles in Joshua's eulogy in the Assumption of Moses. Thus 45:2, on elohim or the 'holy ones', suggests part of the Pentateuchal background of sacer spiritus. Another part is clearly the glory of Moses' countenance in Exod. 34:27-34. 2 1 Yet another is the account in N u m . 1 1 : 1 6 - 2 9 of the spirit which was upon Moses, and the divine communication of this spirit to the elders - a passage which leads to the affirmation of Moses the 'faithful' as greater than any prophet, in N u m . 12:7-8, cited above as source of the title f¿delis in omnia. Philo explains the 'spirit' in N u m . 11:16-29 as 'the spirit of Moses', yet not his own spirit, but divine spirit imparted, abiding in the soul for as long as is permitted (Gig. 2 4 - 8 , cited above).The same passage from Numbers is probably in view when Philo speaks of the inspired Septuagint translators as enabled to run together with 'the most pure spirit of Moses' (.Mos. ii 40). 2 2 Similarly, Ecclus. 45:3, on the powerful 'word' or 'words' of Moses, suggests that dominus verbi is not only, as has been pointed out, an approximation of Moses to Hermes ^oyiog, the eloquent mediator between the gods and humanity; it is also a Pentateuchal allusion ('according to the word of Moses', Exod. 8:13, 31) to the theme of Moses' effectual 'word', which was developed in the probably Jewish interpretation of Exod. 2 : 1 1 - 1 4 quoted by Clement of Alexandria, 'the mystai say that Moses slew the Egyptian with a word' (Sir. i 23, 154). 23 In the midrash this theme reappeared in the notion that Eliphaz's comfort to J o b , 'thou shalt decree a saying, and he shall establish it for thee' (Job 22:28), was in fact true of Moses, to whom G o d said, 'Speak, and I will do it'. 2 4 Finally, when at the climax of these lines in Ecclesiasticus Moses receives the law in order to teach (45:5), a link appears between the title consummatus in sae-

20 The importance in the grandson's Greek of the law transmitted to Moses on Sinai as well as the approximation of diatheke to 'commandment' is brought out by A. M. Schwemer, 'Zum Verhältnis von Diatheke und Nomos in den Schriften der jüdischen Diaspora Ägyptens in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit', in Avemarie & Lichtenberger, Bund und Tora, pp. 67-109 (75-9). 21 For these in Ecclesiasticus see Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam, pp. 6 - 8 . 22 The human as well as divine character of this spirit is underlined by H. Burkhardt, Die Inspiration heiliger Schriften bei Philo von Alexandrien (Glessen & Basel, 1988), pp. 184-6. 23 The likelihood that dominus verbi should be associated with the identification of Moses and Hermes found in Artapanus is brought out by Haacker & Schäfer, 'Nachbiblische Traditionen vom Tod des Mose', p. 158, n. 16; Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, p. 254 & n. 4, cf. pp. 252 & n. 2, 257 & n. 2; but the Pentateuchal links of the phrase are not discussed. 24 Exod. R. xxi 2, on Exod. 14:15, discussed together with Sifre Num. 135, on Deut. 3:26, by Jacobs, The Midrashic Process, pp. 183-5.

2. Moses and the Covenant in the Assumption of Moses and the Pentateuch culo doctor

43

and the narratives of Sinai. Moreover, there are also hints here in E c -

clesiasticus at the themes of the earlier sentence in the Assumption on Moses as foreordained arbiter

testamenti;

M o s e s is chosen f r o m all flesh (45:4), to teach

what in the grandson's translation is called the 'covenant' (45:5) T h e final title in Joshua's eulogy, consummatus

in saeculo

doctor,

can then be heard as an h o n o -

rific M o s e s - c e n t r e d variant of Moses's own m o r e theocentric phrase,

arbiter

testamenti illius. Ecclesiasticus thus brings t o g e t h e r the reception and teaching o f the law b y M o s e s with the o t h e r glories o f his office and p e r s o n , in a w a y w h i c h anticipates the A s s u m p t i o n o f M o s e s as it has been interpreted above. T h e r e b y it c o n f i r m s the view that the self-designation o f M o s e s as the f o r e o r d a i n e d m e diator o f the c o v e n a n t (1:13, cf. 3 : 1 2 ) is integrally c o n n e c t e d with J o s h u a ' s eul o g y ( 1 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) . B o t h alike are developments o f the Pentateuchal traditions c o n c e r n i n g M o s e s . T h e titles accumulated in 11:16 include allusion to the P e n tateuchal passages and themes w h i c h are m o r e o b v i o u s l y recalled in E c clesiasticus o n M o s e s . T h e c o n j u n c t i o n o f Moses as spirit with M o s e s as mediator o f the covenant found in the Assumption can be traced not o n l y in P s e u d o - P h i l o and Philo o f Alexandria, but already in the G r e e k period in Ecclesiasticus. A t first sight the Assumption stands out not only for the biblically-inspired title 'mediator o f the covenant' used b y Moses, but also f o r what may seem a characteristically H e l lenistic accumulation o f special titles in Joshua's speech. In both respects, h o w ever, the Assumption can n o w be seen to have contacts with other eulogies o f M o s e s f r o m the Second Temple period, and to share with them a tradition deriving from the Pentateuch itself.

3. The Assumption and the New Testament within early Pentateuchal Interpretation In conclusion, then, I should like to urge first o f all that this study of texts in the Assumption o f Moses confirms the comprehensive debt of M o s a i c eulogy to the Pentateuch, despite continual changes of literary context and Zeitgeist.

The

prominence given in the Assumption to M o s e s as covenant-mediator, in o b vious continuity with the drift of the Pentateuch, can be regarded as a sign o f other less obvious Pentateuchal features. T h e Second Temple period eulogies o f Moses, from Ecclesiasticus to the Assumption and P s e u d o - P h i l o and Philo o f Alexandria, all recur to a group of Pentateuchal themes. T h e s e themes persist also in later midrash on M o s e s . T h e startling accumulation o f titles in Joshua's eulogy in the Assumption may therefore open the eyes to the weight o f the praise of M o s e s in the Pentateuch itself.

44

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

To turn then to the Pentateuch, it may be suggested that the eulogy tradition underlines the significance of the passages on Moses as mediator which were noted at the beginning, but also highlights the strand in the Sinaitic narratives which shows Moses as the solitary inspired recipient and transmitter of the covenant. Moses in the eulogies is not only mediator, but also spirit. The account of the mediation of the covenant to the people in Exod. 24, commonly associated with E, is of course influential, as echoes in Ecclesiasticus and elsewhere have shown; but its relatively communal and corporate aspect is overshadowed in the Assumption and other texts by the portrait of a more eremitic, sacrosanct and spirit-filled Moses found in passages commonly linked with the J tradition. 25 Important examples are Exod. 19: 9, 20:18-21 and Exod. 34, where the divine descent is to strengthen faith in him, he alone draws near, and his face shines as he comes down to announce the revelation; and Num. 11-12, in which his spirit is central. These texts have all been mentioned in connection with the later praise of Moses discussed above. The importance of the strand picked out by the eulogy tradition can be exemplified more fully from Exod. 34. For this chapter the form taken by the eulogy tradition in the Assumption of Moses seems especially illuminating. The separate title 'mediator of his covenant' brings out the centrality of the figure of Moses in this chapter, and the emphasis on Moses as spirit in Joshua's speech is true to the aspect of Moses presented in Exod. 34. In particular, towards the end of the chapter the connection which has been traced in the Assumption and elsewhere between the title 'mediator of [God's] covenant' and the title 'spirit' corresponds closely to the narrative sequence of Exod. 34:27-35. Here the covenant formula speaks primarily of a divine covenant with Moses himself, 'I have made with thee a covenant and with Israel' (Exod. 34:27). The emphasis on Moses implicit in the striking and even awkward Hebrew word order remains in L X X T E - F R E I J I A I aoi 6ia^r|XR)v xai xw I O Q C I T J X . In L X X this emphasis on Moses as recipient of the covenant has indeed been heightened earlier in the chapter, where in verse 10 L X X reads 'I make a covenant with thee'. One may compare the emphasis laid on faith in Moses (cf. Exod. 14:31,19:9) in L X X Exod. 4:5, 8 and 9, where by comparison with M T 'in thee' is added after 'believe'. The strikingly Mosaic covenant formula in verse 10 L X X and in verse 27 is immediately followed in verses 2 8 - 3 5 by a sequence underlining the inspiration of the ascetic Moses; he fasts forty days and forty nights before writing down the covenant (verse 28), and afterwards he gives Israel in commandment what he has received from the Lord upon the mountain, and his face shines continually (verses 29-35). Now, therefore, he takes on the godlike aspect which was also 2 5 The contrast between these two strands of tradition on Moses as covenant-mediator is brought out vividly by Childs, Exodus, pp. 353-7.

2. Moses and the Covenant in the Assumption

of Moses and the Pentateuch

45

suggested to ancient readers by Exod. 7:1. The whole sequence, then, runs f r o m 'mediator' (of a covenant specifically made with him) to 'spirit' (as the glory of his countenance shows). The LXX is an early witness to appreciation of the strand being picked out here. The stature of Moses as it is presented in Exod. 34 was emphasized by the custom of regarding the transmission of the covenant described in this chapter as the occasion when all that should be regarded as revelation was delivered to him. The self-presentation of Jubilees on these lines and with quotation f r o m Exod. 34:27 was noted above, the Temple Scroll may have begun in the same way (as echoes of Exod. 34:10-26 in 11Q19, cols, i-ii might suggest), and this custom appears again much later in rabbinic views either that the two tables contained the secrets of the twofold written and oral Torah - decalogue, laws, midrash and haggadic traditions (Exod. R. xlvi 1, on 34:1) - or that Bible, Mishnah, Talmud and haggadah were all imparted to Moses in the covenant, but that he wrote down only the Bible (Exod. R. xlvii 1 & 7, on 34:27). This custom both picked out and, if possible, enhanced the stature of Moses as mediator, and it did not cancel a further custom to which I should like to draw attention, the practice of reading verses 27-35 as a continuous sequence. In the textual tradition of the H e b r e w Pentateuch these verses commonly form one single section. 26 This traditional treatment stands in some contrast with more recent practice. Thus verses 27-8 f o r m a separate paragraph in some English Bibles, including RV, REB and NRSV. Similarly, they can be treated separately f r o m the sequel by commentators, for they present a concluding resumption of 'I make a covenant' in verse 10, and raise questions about the relation of verses 10-28 to the decalogue. 27 The Assumption, however, by its presentation of Moses as both 'mediator' and 'spirit', draws attention again to the ancient habit of reading verses 27-35 in sequence, and to the contours which the figure of Moses then acquires. A famous outcome of this sequential reading is II Cor. 3, on the ministry of the new covenant. Here the apostle proceeds in verses 6 - 7 f r o m the engraved stone tables to the glory of the face of Moses, w h o remains a figure of inalienable majesty even as the associations of 'spirit' move away f r o m him. This retrospect f r o m the Assumption of Moses to the Pentateuch has thus also permitted another glimpse, prospectively, of continuity between the Pentateuch and the passages on Moses and the covenant and Christ and the new covenant in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. The point which I should like to draw out finally, however, is the extent to which the Assumption of Moses and the title 'mediator of his covenant' possess what may be called retrospective po26 This tradition is represented in C. D. Ginsburg, The Pentateuch (London, 1927) and, from the St Petersburg Codex, in BHS. 27 See the survey and critical assessment by Nicholson, God and his People, pp. 135-50.

46

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

tential. T h i s expansion o f the Pentateuch gives and receives light within the tradition of M o s a i c eulogy which it represents, but it also sends a beam back to the Pentateuch whence it derives. T h u s in the case of E x o d . 34 it encourages exegetes to take account of the effect of the narrative, and especially E x o d . 3 4 : 2 7 35, when read continuously as a description of the covenant-mediator. M o r e generally, the Assumption o f M o s e s and the title 'mediator of his covenant' suggest that, b o t h in E x o d . 34 and elsewhere, the covenantal narrative o f Sinai and the wilderness is also the story of the person and w o r k o f M o s e s . 2 8 T o summarize, then, the title 'mediator o f the covenant' has c o m e d o w n to modern times in G r e e k , in the Assumption of M o s e s (1:13) and the N e w Testament Epistles; but it is fully congruous with H e b r e w idiom, as shown in different ways b y the H e b r e w N e w Testament translations o f F. Delitzsch and J . H . R . Biesenthal, and with the drift of the H e b r e w Pentateuch. T h e phrase indeed sounds so thoroughly biblical that it may seem to contrast with the florid G r e e k eloquence o f the eulogy o f M o s e s in Ass. M o s . 1 1 : 1 6 - 1 7 , and especially the designation of M o s e s as spirit. In fact, however, this designation coheres with the spiritual associations of the title 'mediator', and M o s e s is envisaged as spirit in c o n n e c t i o n with the covenant in a series of texts, f r o m Ecclesiasticus to Philo o f Alexandria and the p s e u d o - P h i l o n i c Biblical Antiquities. T h e details of the praise of M o s e s in these sources take up themes of the Pentateuch which persist later on in rabbinic midrash. T h e presentation of M o s e s in the Assumption as both mediator and spirit then stands in a tradition of Pentateuchal interpretation. Within the literature of the H e r o d i a n age, it seems to anticipate II C o r . 3 : 6 - 7 as well as Gal. 3 : 1 9 - 2 0 ; but, like these Pauline passages, it also illuminates the b o o k of E x o d u s as understood in this age. In particular, it draws attention to the contours acquired b y the figure o f M o s e s when E x o d . 3 4 : 2 7 - 3 5 is heard as a continuous sequence, f r o m the making o f the covenant with M o s e s and with Israel, through the eremitic solitude o f M o s e s on the m o u n t , to his awe-inspiring descent with enlightened face.

2 8 Childs, Exodus, p. 619 observes that, for the author of Exod. 34, 'Sinai is also the story of Moses, the mediator between God and Israel'.

3. The Books of Solomon in Ancient Mysticism Dean Inge famously judged the influence exerted on mysticism by the Song of Solomon to be 'simply deplorable'. 1 In this respect he has been called typically Victorian, but a not dissimilar view of Christian mystical tendencies was later taken by Gershom Scholem, in line with his own characteristic contrast between Jewish and Christian mysticism; 2 and Inge's reservations could already be found in the church well before the Victorian age. Something related to them can in fact be suspected behind the withholding of the Song of Solomon from the immature which is recommended by Origen to Christians and noted by him as a laudable Jewish custom. 3 In the earliest period of Christian mysticism, however, by contrast with its whole history since the time of Origen, the influence of the Song of Solomon is by no means obvious. T h e biblical books in general, transmitted within a tradition of interpretation which is itself partly mystical, have formed a great link between ancient and mediaeval mysticism, and also between the mysticism of Jews and Christians. In both the ancient and the mediaeval periods both communities exhibit a mystical ardour which is focused through attention to biblical texts, and in both periods some at least of those texts are common to Jews and Christians. In the ancient period this is true already of the time of Christian origins, as attested in the N e w Testament and in the non-Christian Jewish literature of the Herodian age. Yet this biblical link with mysticism has itself been changeable. O n e notable sign of discontinuity appears in mystical use of the biblical books traditionally classed as Solomonic. These are Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song or Canticle 1 W. R. Inge, Christian Mysticism (London, 1899), pp.43, 272n.; see also pp. 369-72, where praise is found as well as blame. 2 G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (E.T. London, 1955), pp. 2 2 5 - 6 , cf. 5 5 - 6 . 3 Origen, Prol. Cant., in Rufinus's translation, 'In verbis enim Cantici canticorum ille cibus est, de quo dicit Apostolus, Perfectorum autem est solidus cibus... (Heb. 5:14). ... O b hoc ergo moneo, et consilium do omni qui nondum carnis et sanguinis molestiis caret... ut a lectione libelli huius eorumque quae in eo dicuntur, penitus temperet. Aiunt enim observari etiam apud Hebraeos, quod nisi quis ad aetatem perfectam maturamque pervenerit, libellum hunc ne quidem in manibus tenere permittatur. Sed et illud ab eis accepimus custodiri, quandoquidem moris est apud eos omnes scripturas a doctoribus et a sapientibus tradi pueris, simul et eas quas öeutEQtüaeig appellant, ad ultimum quattuor ista observari, id est principium Genesis, in quo mundi creatura describitur, et Ezechielis prophetae principia, in quibus de cherubim refertur, et finem in quo templi aedificatio continetur, et hunc Cantici canticorum librum'; P G xiii 6 3 - 4 , G C S viii (ed. W. A. Baehrens, 1925), pp. 62-3.

48

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

of Solomon, among the books now found within a Hebrew bible, and the Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, commonly called Ecclesiasticus, among the books which form the Old Testament Apocrypha in the English bible of 1611. Ecclesiasticus was often quoted by ancient Christian authors as Solomonic, and in its Latin text it ends with the prayer of Solomon from II Chron. 6.13-21. The first three Solomonic books are older than the last two, and Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom respectively represent the second and (probably) the first century B.C.; but all five books originated in the Jewish community, and they were all transmitted within the Old Testament of the church as read in Greek and Latin, notably in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. In antiquity texts of importance for mysticism were supplied by the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, themselves developing Proverbs, on the one hand, and by the Song of Solomon, on the other; but mystical attention was not evenly shared between the wisdom books and the Canticle. This point emerges when literature of the Second-Temple period, including the N e w Testament, is viewed together with later rabbinic and patristic texts. After the Second-Temple period the principal mystical focus then seems to shift within the Solomonic books from Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus towards Solomon's Song. A related and partly comparable variation, between Christian use of all three of these books and Jewish concentration on the Song of Solomon and Proverbs, appears when the Solomonic biblical foci of mediaeval Jewish and Christian mysticism are compared with one another. The discontinuity which emerges in these ways from mystical use of the Solomonic books is explored below, with special reference to the early period, as an instance of interrelationship between biblical interpretation and mystical theology. It is suggested that an emotional and intellectual mysticism was focused before and during the time of Christian origins on the figure of wisdom as presented within the Solomonic corpus in the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, both of them being viewed together with Proverbs; but that from the second Christian century onwards the mystical focus tended to shift within the Solomonic books towards the Song of Solomon, not least because of emphasis on the Hebrew canon. This shift was reflected successively in Jewish and in Christian teaching, and the mystical importance of the Song of Solomon became particularly clear in the work of Origen. N o w in Part 1 below the Solomonic books are viewed together with other biblical texts of importance for Jewish and Christian mysticism in antiquity and the Middle Ages. Part 2 considers what seems to be the limited influence of the Canticle in the Herodian age, and the increasing later importance of its mystical interpretation. In Part 3 I suggest that the other side of this coin was a movement at the end of the Herodian age a w a y from what had been a comparable and widely influential focus of mysticism, the figure of wisdom as presented in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. Finally in Part 4 there is brief com-

J. The Books of Solomon

in Ancient

Mysticism

49

ment on the aftermath in Christianity of this development, and on implications of the point that it was a development in biblical interpretation as well as mysticism and theology.

1. Biblical Foci of Jewish

and Christian

Mysticism

The changing fortunes of the Solomonic books in the period before Origen form part of a broader interrelationship between biblical texts and mysticism. The classical Jewish biblical texts of mysticism in late antiquity became the creation narrative in Genesis and the vision of the chariot of the cherubim in the first chapter of Ezekiel. These passages, dealing respectively with Ma'aseh Bereshith 'the w o r k of the Beginning' and Ma'aseh Merkabah 'the work of the Chariot', are mentioned in this connection in the Mishnah (Hag. ii 1) as texts which may not be expounded even to the smallest auditory: 'they may not expound the Work of the Beginning before two persons, nor the Chariot before one alone, unless he be a Sage and one that understands of his own knowledge'. To these two mystical foci others can be added, including the narrative of Moses, Isaiah's temple vision, and also the Song of Solomon, with reference to their exposition in Targum and midrash and the Hekhaloth and Shiur Qomah texts. Origen, as cited above (n.3), says correspondingly that Jews keep back from the immature the opening of Genesis and the opening and the close of Ezekiel, as well as the Canticle. These additional texts, especially the Canticle, offer glimpses of the tendency towards envisaging mystical union which Scholem, as cited above, thought atypical of ancient Jewish mysticism, but which has been detected for instance in the 'transformational mysticism' of the Hekhaloth texts, wherein Enoch becomes the godlike angel Metatron. 4 Lastly, there is what can be called a Torah mysticism, although it is not always discussed under the heading of mysticism, and this is focused on the figure of wisdom in Proverbs, wisdom being identified with Torah, as in Ecclesiasticus 24:23 and Baruch 4:1 (section 3, below). A famous instance of this view of Torah is the interpretation of Gen. 1:1 by wisdom's sayings in Prov. 8:30 and 8:22 in the Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, to show that God, using the Torah like an architect's plan, 'was looking into the Torah and creating the world' (Ber. R. i 1); compare the rendering of Gen. 1:1 in the Fragment Targum, 'By wisdom the Lord created'. The Christian mystical tradition in antiquity inevitably offers some contrast with the Jewish in its biblical foci; but if the N e w Testament is left aside, the nar4 On 'transformational mysticism' see M. Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, 1988), p. 60; on its exemplification in III Enoch 9:1; 12:1-5; 15:1-2, see C. R. A. MorrayJones, 'Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkavah Tradition', JJS xliii (1992), pp. 1-32 (10-26).

50

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

rative o f M o s e s and the Song of S o l o m o n , both important among J e w s , can perhaps be called the t w o classical mystical foci in both eastern and western Christianity, as exemplified b y O r i g e n , G r e g o r y o f N y s s a and Augustine. T h e Canticle is especially related to the characteristically Christian C h r i s t - m y s t i cism, and by the early Middle Ages this b o o k had c o m e to be important f o r the cult of our L a d y as well as the cult o f C h r i s t ; but C h r i s t - m y s t i c i s m had been fed from the beginning b y meditation on the figure of wisdom, and especially on wisdom as presented in t w o other S o l o m o n i c b o o k s , the W i s d o m of S o l o m o n and Ecclesiasticus. B o t h b o o k s were important in this Christological mystical interpretation from the patristic to the mediaeval period, and, like the Canticle, they came in time to be linked with our L a d y as well as Christ. In the mediaeval west, the degree of difference as well as overlap between Jewish and Christian mystical use of biblical b o o k s reappears precisely because the S o l o m o n i c b o o k s were especially dear to Christian mystics, for that applies not only to the Song of S o l o m o n but also still to the t w o b o o k s which are in the Christian but not the H e b r e w scriptures, namely the W i s d o m of S o l o m o n and Ecclesiasticus - witness the centrality of these b o o k s in the C h r i s t - m y s t i c i s m of Meister E c k h a r t , H e n r y Suso and others in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. O n the other hand, the figure of wisdom in Proverbs could continue to supply a related focal point f o r J e w i s h mysticism. Thus, even when the N e w Testament is left aside, there is still s o m e contrast as well as overlap between the biblical foci of Jewish and of Christian mysticism, a contrast arising partly from the special importance o f Genesis and E z e kiel in rabbinic tradition, and partly from Christian use of S o l o m o n i c b o o k s found in the Septuagint but not the H e b r e w bible. This contrast is related to the earlier contrast which forms the main topic here, the contrast between attention to the wisdom b o o k s and the Canticle, respectively, in the years between the Maccabaean revolt and the compilation of the Mishnah. Towards the end of the Second Temple period and for some time afterwards the figure o f w i s d o m portrayed in W i s d o m and Ecclesiasticus is prominent, and traces of mystical use o f the Song of S o l o m o n are rare; from the later R o m a n period onwards, however, although the figure of wisdom does not disappear, mystical understandings o f the Canticle b e c o m e prevalent among b o t h J e w s and Christians.

2. The Canticle in Herodian and Later Mysticism A fuller outline of these trends can n o w be sketched, beginning with the C a n ticle. Towards the end of the Second Temple period its mystical interpretation is n o more than sparsely attested. ' M y s t i c a l ' is being used broadly here, to cover the interpretation of the Shulamite in the Canticle in a c o m m u n a l as well as individual sense, as Israel or the church as well as the soul, in search of a beloved

3. The Books of Solomon in Ancient Mysticism

51

w h o is understood as G o d or Christ. O n the other hand, some antecedents of rabbinic visionary c o n c e r n with the beginning and the chariot and of the transformational mysticism noted above can be traced in apocalypses like E n o c h or h y m n o d y like the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice k n o w n f r o m Q u m r a n texts. Moreover, the importance o f the figure of w i s d o m f o r mysticism is abundantly represented in p o e t r y b y the presentation of w i s d o m in Ecclesiasticus in the second century B . C . , and then later in the W i s d o m of S o l o m o n and in other c o m positions which can be compared with the w i s d o m poems of Ecclesiasticus; in prose the mystical interpretation of w i s d o m emerges in Philo's wisdom-linked treatment o f the patriarchs. In the literature of the Herodian age, however, there are n o m o r e than hints o f the importance o f a mystical interpretation o f the Song o f S o l o m o n . In late Herodian times traces o f such interpretation o f S o l o m o n ' s Song can be detected occasionally among b o t h J e w s and Christians. T h e clearest examples are found in the Christian apocalypse of J o h n the Divine and the J e w i s h apocalypse o f Ezra; see Rev. 3:20, 'I stand at the d o o r and k n o c k ' (cf. C a n t . 2:9, 5:2) and II E s dras 5:24; 26 ' t h o u hast chosen thee one lily, ... thou hast named thee one dove' (cf. C a n t . 2 : 1 - 2 , 14; 5:2; 6:9). T h e r e are perhaps traces elsewhere in the N e w Testament J o h a n n i n e literature, f o r example II J o h n 1 on the 'elect lady' as interpreted b y M . Hengel with reference to C a n t . 6 : 9 - 1 0 L X X (and Vulgate), where ' m y dove, m y perfect o n e ' is 'elect to her that bare her' and 'elect as the sun'. 5 Again, the Q u m r a n copies of the Song o f S o l o m o n discussed by E . Tov, as noted below, may constitute a further and earlier hint. Yet these hints and traces are remarkably slight. It is true that traces of the Song o f S o l o m o n might perhaps not be expected in Philo, with his overwhelmingly Pentateuchal emphasis, or in Josephus, w h o was writing as an historian and apologist. W h a t is striking, however, is the absence f r o m the Q u m r a n literature and the N e w Testament, with their broad range o f biblical citation and their concern with mystical themes, of signs that mystical interpretation of the C a n ticle had the clear p r o m i n e n c e which it later enjoyed. This absence is also striking f r o m the point o f view o f the history of the biblical canon, f o r by the time of J o s e p h u s the Song o f S o l o m o n p r o b a b l y had an established place in the series of b o o k s regarded as authoritative by J e w s . 6 This series then broadly corresponded to the b o o k s of the H e b r e w canon, as J o s e phus shows (Ap. i 3 7 - 4 1 ) , and already it was customarily reckoned up to a fixed number, t w e n t y - t w o according to Josephus, t w e n t y - f o u r according to the 5 M. Hengel, ,Die „auserwählte Herrín", die „Braut", die „Mutter" und die "„Gottesstadt'", in M. Hengel, S. Mittmann, & A. M. Schwemer (edd.), La Cité de Dieu/ Die Stadt Gottes (WUNT 129, Tübingen, 2000), pp. 245-85 (248-53). 6 A. van der Kooij, 'The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the Temple of Jerusalem', in A. van der Kooij & K. van den Toorn (edd.), Canonization and Decanonization (Studies in the History of Religions 82, Leiden, 1998), pp. 17-40 (17-23, 37-8).

52

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

roughly contemporary II Esdr. 14:44-5; the two totals probably refer to the same series of books counted with slight differences in combination or disjunction, as in respect of Jeremiah and Lamentations, Judges and Ruth. The discovery in the Qumran caves 4 and 6 of four fragmentary copies of the Song of Solomon, including instances of what is probably deliberate abbreviation, independently suggests that the book was revered before the time of Josephus. 7 PreMishnaic rabbinic assertion that the Canticle is indeed holy and inspired, an instance of which is quoted below, is then likely to reflect dispute over a book which tradition already presented as authoritative, rather than questions raised by a wholly new suggestion that the book should be revered. From rabbinic traditions which probably reflect second-century biblical interpretation it is in fact clear that after the time of Josephus non-mystical understanding of the Song of Solomon still overlapped with mystical exegesis, and that the Song's status as holy, like that of Ecclesiastes, had been correspondingly questioned. R. Akiba, who died in Hadrian's repression of the Bar Kokhba uprising, is represented as unwilling to admit the accuracy of his brother-in-law's recollection that the status of both books had been confirmed after dispute; the Song could never have been doubted, 'for all the Writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is the H o l y of Holies' (M. Yad. iii 5). The possibility of non-mystical understanding of the Song of Solomon is however recognized when it is condemned, again in a saying ascribed to R. Akiba: 'whoever trills the Song of Songs in the banqueting house . . . has no share in the world to come' (Tos. Sanh. xii 10); and such interpretation is envisaged again when in the Mishnah the daughters of Jerusalem dancing in the vineyards after the fast-days are said to have twitted the young men with biblical verses including Cant. 3:11 'Go forth, O y e daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart' (M. Taan. iv 8). It seems to signify a trend, however, when the Mishnah then adds (Taan. iv 8) what is probably a secondary mystical interpretation: the day of his espousals - this is the giving of the law; the day of the gladness of his heart - this is the building of the house of the sanctuary. The comment on this Mishnaic text in the Babylonian Talmud (Taan. 31a) likewise speaks mystically of the rounddance of the righteous around the H o l y One in the time to come. These passages touch the communal or liturgical aspect of mysticism, whereby the Song of Solomon is associated with the Sinai narrative and the sanctuary, as in the Targum, and speaks of the mystical vision and union vouchsafed to Israel as a whole. The conception of the dance has its Christian second-century parallel in 7 M. Baillet, 'Textes des Grottes 2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 7Q a 10Q', in M. Bailie:,]. T. Milik & R. de Vaux, O.P., Les 'Petites Grottes'de Qumran (DJD 3, Oxford, 1962), pp. 45-164 (112-14); E. Tov, 'Three Manuscripts (Abbreviated Texts?) of Canticles from Qumran Cave 4 ' , J J S xlvi (1995), pp. 88-111 (88-90, 96-7, 107).

3. The Books of Solomon

in Ancient

Mysticism

53

the round-dance of the disciples around the Saviour as he sings and dances before his arrest in the Acts of John (94-6). Here, however, perhaps significantly, the hymn of Christ echoes the Wisdom of Solomon rather than the Song; compare Acts of John 96 on 'holy souls' and 'word of wisdom' with Wisd. 7:27 on wisdom 'from generation to generation passing into holy souls'. The complement of this picture derived from the Mishnah is the striking absence of reference to the Song of Solomon and its mystical interpretation in surviving literature of the Hasmonaean and Herodian age, including the Qumran texts and, for the most part, the New Testament. In later Christian writing it is not yet quoted to support the unity and sanctity of the church in Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, but it finally emerges as a source of such proof-texts and a commented book at the beginning of the third century, in Tertullian and the Hippolytean corpus. Then, as M.W. Elliott put it, the Canticle like its heroine seems to come 'out of a wilderness of neglect'. 8 Thus in the east Clement of Alexandria, a lover of the book of Wisdom, had not dwelt on Solomon's Song, but Origen soon construed it as the wise king's contemplation and the soul's quest. 9 In the west, similarly, where Tertullian had just once quoted it among proof-texts on Christ and the church {Marc, iv 11, 8), Cyprian soon cited it freely in this sense in epistles as well as treatises. This gradual Christian adoption of a mystical interpretation of the Song of Solomon like that which had found favour among Jews is perhaps comparable with the gradual contemporaneous Christian adoption of Jewish revision of the Septuagint; the revised Greek versions formed a tampering with the text, for Justin Martyr, but an instrument of study, for Origen. Hence, roughly between the time of Philo and the time of Origen, there appears to be a shift in the biblical foci of mysticism within the Solomonic corpus, from Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom towards the Song of Solomon. At the same time there was debate among Jews, reflected later among Christians, over the authority of the Solomonic books in general. Ecclesiasticus was current in Hebrew and continued to be read and quoted by Jews as well as Christians, but its status among Jews was doubtful; and Wisdom was known to Jerome only in Greek, and has not left an impress like that of Ecclesiasticus on rabbinic literature - although it is noteworthy that the poems on the figure of wisdom are not represented in the rabbinic quotations of Ben Sira's proverbs collected by Ad. Neubauer. 1 0 O n the other hand, both Jews and Christians began evidently to prize the Song of Solomon. 8 M. W. Elliott, The Song of Songs and Christology in the Early Church 381-431 (STAC 7, Tübingen, 2000), p. 3. 9 R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism (2 vols, London, 1914), ii, pp. 169-71. 10 A. E. Cowley & Ad. Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus (xxxix.15 to xlix.ll) (Oxford, 1897), pp. xix-xxx.

54

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety A t the end of the Second Temple period, then, the Song o f S o l o m o n seems to

have begun to gain the mystical p r o m i n e n c e which it thenceforth retained. 1 1 R a b b i n i c material suggesting ardour f o r the mystical interpretation has been clustered round the name o f R . Akiba, as noted above. T h e r e are likely to be old roots f o r the application to the deity, in the Shi'ur Q o m a h texts on the mystical measurement of the divine stature, of the words in C a n t . 5 : 1 0 - 1 6 beginning ' m y beloved is white and ruddy', words which are similarly applied in the B a b y lonian Talmud (Hag. 14a) and the Targum. 1 2 T h e period from the destruction of the temple to B a r K o k h b a has accordingly been picked out as formative f o r this development among J e w s . 1 3 C o m p a r i s o n of Revelation and II Esdras with the passages on the Song o f S o l o m o n f r o m the Mishnah and Tosefta quoted above makes a view on these lines plausible, even if the formative period is extended to the end o f the second century to allow f o r uncertainties of attribution to named rabbinic teachers. Correspondingly, b y the third century the Christians too have clearly inclined towards mystical understanding of the Song of S o l o m o n .

3. Hasmonaean

and Herodian

Wisdom-Mysticism

T h e other side o f this coin, however, it may be suggested, was a m o v e m e n t at the end of the H e r o d i a n age away from Ecclesiasticus and the W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n , which had formed a comparable focus of visionary and unitive mysticism. T h e development of the figure o f wisdom in these b o o k s and in early Christianity has often been studied, especially in connection with christology and feminine images o f deity, and it has been freshly presented b y P. Schäfer since this paper was first written. 1 4 F o r the present argument, however, just three aspects can be emphasized. First, a wisdom mysticism connected with Ecclesiasticus and the W i s d o m of S o l o m o n prevailed during the period when, as just noted, the C a n ticle was less prominent; and secondly, the wisdom b o o k s and the mystical interpretation of the Song of S o l o m o n are broadly comparable in use of visionary and unitive imagery; yet thirdly, Ecclesiasticus and W i s d o m present a figure which is clearly spiritual, f o r all their evocation o f physical beauty, whereas in 11 Elliott, The Song of Songs, pp. 3-5; P. S. Alexander, The Targum of Canticles Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Textual Notes, and Commentary (The Aramaic Bible, Edinburgh, 2002), Introduction, §6. 12 Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 63-5; G. G. Stroumsa, Savoir et Salut (Paris, 1992), pp. 545, 73-4. 13 E. E. Urbach, 'The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles and the Jewish-Christian Disputation', Tarbiz xxx (1961), pp. 148-70, E.T. in Scripta Hierosolymitana xxii (1971), pp. 247-75, reprinted in E. E. Urbach, edd. R. Brody & M. D. Herr, Collected Writings in Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1999), pp. 318-46 (247-51). 14 P. Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah (Princeton, 2002), pp. 19-78.

3. The Books of Solomon in Ancient Mysticism

55

the Song o f S o l o m o n the spirituality o f the figures is given mainly b y the interpretative tradition. T o begin with the prevalence of w i s d o m mysticism and its general comparability with mystical interpretation of the Canticle, the relevant texts in E c clesiasticus and W i s d o m , b o o k s which themselves w o n approval and influence, belong to a series of such poems in J e w i s h and early Christian literature. T h e cosmic and mystical significance of the figure of w i s d o m is evident in the poems of Proverbs 3 and 8 - 9 , with their Septuagintal renderings, and something of its importance emerges in the third-century G r e e k rendering o f the Pentateuch, when Bezaleel receives Jtveiina §etov aoqpiag, 'the divine spirit o f w i s d o m ' ( E x o d . 31:3, 35:31 L X X ) ; but it comes to the fore in the second century B . C . in Ecclesiasticus. A m o n g the hymns concerning w i s d o m incorporated into this b o o k , that in chapter 2 4 is wisdom's self-praise, on the model o f Proverbs 8, and speaks of her place in the divine assembly, her c o m i n g forth f r o m the m o u t h of the most H i g h , her dwelling in Jerusalem, and her glory and grace; it leads to the invitation ' C o m e to me, y o u that are desirous of me' (24:19). A t the end w i s d o m is identified with the M o s a i c law (24:23), as in the perhaps roughly c o n t e m p o r a r y w i s d o m - p o e m B a r u c h 3 : 9 - 4 : 4 (4:1); compare D e u t . 4:9 ' K e e p therefore and do [the statutes and judgements], for this is y o u r w i s d o m and y o u r understanding'. T h e last of the hymns in Ecclesiasticus is 5 1 : 1 3 - 3 0 , a H e b r e w alphabetical p o e m added at the end of the b o o k , and also current separately, as shown b y its inclusion in the Psalms scroll f r o m Q u m r a n cave 11 ( 1 1 Q 5 , cols, xxi 1 1 - x x i i l ) . 1 5 T h e poet describes his ardent youthful pursuit and attainment of wisdom, w h o 'came to me in her beauty' (verse 14 in 1 1 Q 5 ) ; here and elsewhere the G r e e k version spiritualizes the imagery. T h e s e t w o poems already s h o w that w i s d o m mysticism, like mystical interpretation o f the Canticle, uses the language o f courtship and love to signify a spiritual vision and union. T o move b e y o n d Ecclesiasticus, the series of w i s d o m poems reaches its high point in W i s d o m 7 - 9 . H e r e , in a manner both biblical and Platonic, S o l o m o n reverently praises w i s d o m as a loving world-soul, infinitely subtle and all-pervasive, an effluence f r o m the divine glory and the giver of all good gifts; he describes his o w n youthful passion for her ('I loved her above health and beauty', 7:10), and recites his ardent prayer f o r her. T h e n the series continues in Christian poetry, f o r example O d . Sol. 33, especially the lines ( 5 - 1 3 ) beginning ' B u t a perfect virgin s t o o d ' , which recall Proverbs 8, and the p o e m in Acts o f T h o m a s 1:6-7, beginning ' T h e maiden is the daughter o f light'. 1 6 In these last t w o poems the subject is p r o b a b l y the church, portrayed as the divine w i s d o m

15 Verses 21-29 are lost at the foot of col. xxi; see J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll of Qumran Cave 11 (DJD 4, Oxford, 1965), pp. 79-85. 16 E. Preuschen, Zwei gnostische Hymnen (Glessen, 1904), pp. 10-17, 28-44.

56

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

and envisaged as a pre-existent spiritual entity co-ordinate with Christ, as in II C l e m . 14. This series, beginning f r o m Ecclesiasticus, runs f r o m the second century B . C . to the second century A . D . , and shows a continuous preoccupation with this theme which provides a context for the importance of the figure of wisdom in Philo, in the synoptic tradition, and in the gnostic Christian myths o f Sophia, which were reviewed in the later second century by Irenaeus, and are exemplified in the A p o c r y p h o n of J o h n . T h e s e may reflect n o n - C h r i s t i a n J e w i s h m y thological development of material found in W i s d o m and Philo. 1 7 Alternatively, they may simply be radical Christian reshaping o f such material. 1 8 In either case, however, they attest the vigour and importance o f interpretation o f the figure o f wisdom at the end of the H e r o d i a n age and the beginning o f the second century. T h e influence o f the figure of wisdom during the H e r o d i a n age itself is evident in the synoptic tradition o f the sayings o f Jesus, notably at L u k e 7:35 and parallel, on wisdom's children or w o r k s (for wisdom as m o t h e r compare Ecclus 15:2, and, in the longer G r e e k text, 2 4 : 1 8 ; Wisd. 7:12), and L u k e 11:49, on 'the wisdom o f G o d ' as saying 'I will send them prophets and apostles' (perhaps in allusion to Proverbs 9:3 L X X , where wisdom's messengers are male). Perhaps the most famous instance is M a t t h e w 11:29 ' C o m e to me ... and I will give y o u rest; take m y y o k e upon y o u ' , with its echoes of the wisdom poems o f E c clesiasticus (24:19, quoted above, 5 1 : 2 3 - 7 and 6 : 1 8 - 3 1 ) . 1 9 In M a t t h e w here and at 23:34, where wisdom's words in L u k e 11:49 appear simply as words o f Christ, the form taken b y the sayings tradition seems already to presuppose an understanding o f C h r i s t as the divine wisdom, even though this christology is not a clear preoccupation of the evangelist. 2 0 Lastly, the prevalence o f wisdom mysticism in the H e r o d i a n age is confirmed b y its importance in Philo. A n u m b e r of his relatively few non-Pentateuchal biblical quotations are linked with the topic of divine wisdom; 2 1 and prominent among them is Prov. 8:22, f r o m wisdom's self-praise, ' G o d obtained me first o f all his w o r k s , and founded me before the world'. T h i s verse is echoed when Moses is imagined as saying, to justify his prayer that the L o r d would appoint a man over the congregation ( N u m . 27:16), that wisdom antedates not only his o w n birth, but that of the w h o l e cosmos (Philo, Virt. 62). Prov. 8:22 is similarly Schafer, Mirror of His Beauty, p. 59 inclines to this view. As urged by A. H. B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh, 1996), p. 32. 19 The allusion to 6:18-31 is stressed by W. D. Davies & D. C. Allison, Jnr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, ii (International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh, 1991), p. 293. 20 Davies and Allison, Matthew, ii, p. 295. 21 W. L. Knox, 'A Note on Philo's Use of the Old Testament', JTS xli (1940), pp. 30-34 (31-2). 17 18

J. The Books of Solomon in Ancient

Mysticism

57

quoted to show that wisdom is mother and nurse of the cosmos, which is the offspring of her union with God (Ebr. 30-31); Proverbs can indeed be understood to present wisdom as nurse (8:30), but with regard to union 8:22 'obtained' is here probably further interpreted by Wisd. 8:3, on wisdom's symbiosis with the God who loves her. 22 Another great theme of Wisd. 7-9, the symbiosis with wisdom sought by Solomon (Wisd. 8:9, cf. 8:2, 8:18), appears in Philo above all in his interpretation of the marriages of the patriarchs. Thus the wise Abraham with Sarah in her goodness and beauty, when Pharaoh seizes her (Gen. 12:10-20), stand for the union of mind and virtue achieved through wisdom; and Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob's quest for a wife in 'the house of wisdom', the daughter of God (Bethuel, Gen. 28:2), stand for mystical unions with wisdom (Abr. 92-102; Qu. Gen. 97,143,145-6, on Isaac; Immut. 92, Fug. 49-52, on Jacob). 23 Such Philonic interpretation, however elaborate, is not altogether removed from the treatment of Sarah in the paraphrase of Genesis 12 in the Genesis Apocryphon found in Qumran cave 1, where a detailed report of her charms to Pharaoh ends 'and with all this beauty, there is much wisdom with her' ( l Q a p G e n ar xx 7). The series of wisdom poems thus corresponds to the continuous prominence of the figure of wisdom in a variety of Jewish and Christian writings, down to the second Christian century; known locations for the works cited range from Jerusalem (the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach) to Egypt (his grandson's Greek translation) and Alexandria (Philo). The mystical reflection on wisdom which appears most strikingly in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom was clearly widespread. In content, it broadly corresponds to the visionary and unitive themes of the mystical interpretation of the Song of Solomon. Thus any shift of mystical focus within the Solomonic books from Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom towards the Canticle with Proverbs, as in the Jewish community, or towards the Canticle alongside a continuing association of Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom with Proverbs, as in the church, could take place without undue disturbance. Moreover, in the period when the Song of Solomon was less prominent, a largely comparable mystical focus was provided by the figure of wisdom. Yet, as noted already, this shift of focus meant that a text to which a spiritual interpretation had largely to be brought - the Song of Solomon - often became more prominent than texts which themselves presented a figure envisaged as a divine spirit - in Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and also Proverbs. To this extent mystical theology moved away from biblical texts which were themselves rooted in a mysticism, and became still more closely associated with allegory.

22

A debt to the Wisdom of Solomon is suggested by Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, p. 41. See E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, 1935), pp. 157-68. 23

58

Part I: Jewish

4. Mysticism

and Christian

and Biblical

Piety

Interpretation

One factor in this development in mysticism was a tendency in biblical interpretation. There was increasing concentration in the Jewish community on the established short collection of biblical books, and, within the Solomonic books of that collection, on the Song of Solomon as a focus of mysticism; widely approved books outside the number of the twenty-two or twenty-four, like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, concomitantly became more open to question. These interpretative positions then had their effect on the Christians, still a minority compared with the Jews, although Christian esteem for the Septuagint collection in its full extent was too settled, and often (as in respect of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) too closely connected with the church's Christ-centred teaching and cultus, for the approved supernumerary books to retreat as they eventually did among the Jews. Central mystical themes thus came to be connected with a fresh biblical focus. In the church, however, the presentations of wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon continued to be important. Both depict a divine spirit, but broadly speaking Ecclesiasticus appeals to the senses, notably in chapters 24 and 51 as discussed above, whereas in Wisdom (7.22-8.1) the loving disciple gives ardent but intellectually-focused praise to a spirit who is an effulgence of the everlasting light. This emphasis in the book of Wisdom has done something to balance not only Ecclesiasticus but also, particularly in respect of Christmysticism, those aspects of dependence on the Canticle which Inge deplored. This whole development suggests the importance of the bible for mysticism, but the shift in biblical focus also suggests something of the independent impetus acquired by the great mystical themes of vision and union. A n y theological w o r k which takes Jewish and Christian mysticism seriously must also take the bible seriously; but the biblical exegete must likewise reckon with the mysticism which has helped to shape the wisdom books and other biblical texts, and the mystical impetus which has more broadly and continuously impinged on biblical interpretation.

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im hero dianisch en Judentum C. F. D. Moule zum neunzigsten Geburtstag am 3. Dezember 1998

1.

Einleitung

Nostrorum primus Maro non longe fuit a veritate - ,Maro, als Erster unter den Unseren, war nicht weit von der Wahrheit entfernt' (Laktanz, Divinae institutiones [= D.I.] 1,5, über Aeneis [= Aen.] VI,724-6). 1 So schreibt im frühen vierten Jahrhundert Laktanz, ein lateinischer Christ im griechischen Osten. Er kann sogar auch in aller Kürze und Kühnheit formulieren: noster Maro, .unser Maro' (D. I. Epitome 3). Noster bedeutet natürlich Romanus. Ohne Zweifel schreibt Laktanz als ein Mann des Westens und der lateinischen Sprache. Trotzdem war es, wie wir sehen werden, auch für die Griechen der östlichen römischen Provinzen möglich und üblich, Vergil in ihre eigene Kultur einzubringen. Aber noch wichtiger für unser Thema ist die Behauptung: Maro non longe fuit a veritate. So positiv äusserte sich Laktanz gelegentlich, obwohl er auch - wie vor ihm Tertullian (Ad nationes 11,9) - kühne Kritik am Pietätsanspruch des v e r g i l i a n i s c h e n A e n e a s (D. I. V,10) und überdies an paganen oder stoischen Elemente der vergilianischen Theologie übte (D. 1.11,4; VII,3, nochmals über Aen. VI,725-6). Hier jedoch, in D.I. 1,5, erscheint Vergil als christlicher Vates. Dies war fast communis opinio des christlichen Altertums, die unvergesslich durch die Auslegung der vierten Ekloge in der Oratio ad Sanctos des Kaisers Constantin ausgedrückt ist. 2 Wo aber ein Vergilius christianus erscheint, dort muss man auch nach einem Vergilius iudaicus fragen. Immer wieder scheint Vergil nicht weit von der Gedankenwelt des antiken Judentums entfernt zu sein. Diese Frage erhebt sich besonders in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion der vierten Ekloge und des sech-

1 F ü r freundliche Hilfe mit dem deutschen Text dieses Aufsatzes danke ich Frau Dr. J u t t a Leonhardt, H e r r n D r Niclas Förster, und H e r r n Prof. Dr. Markus B o c k m u e h l . 2 Barnes, C o n s t a n t i n e and Eusebius, 75 mit A n m . 143; Courcelle, Les exégèses chrétiennes, 1 5 7 - 7 0 . 3

Lietzmann, 2 5 - 6 2 .

60

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

sten Buches der Aeneis. Es ist möglich, dass beide mit der Sibyllinischen Dichtung und mit der messianischen Hoffnung direkt oder indirekt verknüpft sind. Gerade diese Frage nach einem Vergilius iudaicus war ein Lieblingsthema der Säulen der klassischen Philologie, der Altertumswissenschaft und der Theologie, vor allem von Norden, Weber, und Lietzmann. 3 Norden wandte sich gegen einen möglichen Einfluss der jüdischen Literatur auf Vergils Dichtung. Er diskutiert die Frage schon in seiner Auslegung des sechsten Buches des Aeneis (hier in Verbindung mit der Geschichte der Apokalyptik) und später in seinem berühmten Buch ,Die Geburt des Kindes', das sich mit der sogenannten ,messianische Ekloge' beschäftigt. 4 Im Sinne der Religionsgeschichtlichen Schule ging er bei der vierten Ekloge von einem orientalischen, nicht aber von einem spezifisch jüdischen Einfluss aus. Nicht unähnlich waren die Vorschläge von Gressmann, der einen durch die babylonische Sibylle vermittelten, babylonischen Ursprung annahm, und von Knox, der die Rezeption des nichtjüdischen apokalyptischen Denkens sowohl bei den Römern als auch bei den Griechen unterstrich. 5 Mit Norden stimmten und stimmen in unserer Zeit viele - einschliesslich Menahem Stern in seinem Standardwerk 'Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism' - in der Ablehnung des direkten jüdischen Einflusses überein. 6 Doch bilden einige Autoren eine Ausnahme, besonders in der Diskussion der vierten Ekloge. So haben Nisbet in Oxford und Parke am Trinity College Dublin für einen Verbindung zum hellenistisch-jüdischen Messianismus plädiert. 7 Daher scheint es wichtig, die viel diskutierte Frage ,Vergil und das Judentum' erneut anzugreifen. Den Rahmen dieser Untersuchung bildet die eingehende Untersuchung des Themas ,Vergil und der griechische Osten' in der neueren wissenschaftlichen Literatur. Neues Material zu der sogenannten Fortuna des Vergils wurde besonders durch die Papyrusfunde der letzten fünfzig Jahre bekannt. Es gibt auch eine Fülle neuer Untersuchungen über den hellenistischen Hintergrund seiner Dichtung, über die Kultur der östlichen Provinzen, und nicht zuletzt über das antike Judentum. Aufgrund dieser neuen Funde und Forschungen erscheint Vergil jetzt nicht nur der jüdischen Gedankenwelt nahezustehen, sondern auch ein Spiegel der Leitideen des augusteischen Zeitalters zu sein, wie sie auch in den östlichen Provinzen und sogar im herodianischen Judäa einflüssreich waren. So schrieb bereits 1891 der Cambridger Neutestamentier Westcott:

4 5 6 7 8

Norden, Aeneis, 6-9; Geburt, 52-4,134. Gressmann, Der Messias, 462-78; Knox, Gentiles, 17-21. Stern, Bd. 1, 316f., Nr. 43 (Geo. 111,12-15); s. auch Clausen, Eclogues, 127-9. Nisbet 'Easterners and Westerners'; Parke, 145f. Westcott, Vf.

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

61

'It may seem to be a paradox - it ought to be a truism - that the Aeneid is the Roman Gospel . . . Few things are more surprising in the histories of the apostolic age than that Virgil finds no place in the popular estimate of the influences at work in moulding or expressing current opinion.' 8

'In moulding or expressing current opinion': Mit dieser Formulierung betont Westcott, dass Vergil ein Spiegel der Bewegungen in der Geistesgeschichte seiner Zeit gewesen sein könnte. Diese Äusserung Westcotts gilt vielleicht auch für das Thema des Tempels. Dieser Fragestellung entsprechend soll den zweiten Teil dieses Aufsatzes eine Skizze des Vergilius Graecus bilden, des Vergil der östlichen Provinzen, und man darf vielleicht auch sagen, des Vergil des herodianischen Judäa. Der dritte Teil konzentriert sich auf das Verständnis des Tempels bei Vergil, vor allem in der Aeneis, in der Aeneas so lange eine Stadt und einen Ort für seine Götter sucht, ,bis er in Latium endlich I Wohnstätten schuf für sich selbst und die Götter der Vorfahren' dum conderet inferretque

urbem,

deos Latio (Ken.

1,5-6). 9

Im vierten Teil schliesslich wird eine jüdische Quelle betrachtet, die wahrscheinlich nicht weit von Vergil entfernt ist. Es handelt sich um das vierte Buch der Sibyllinen, in dem die jüdische Sibylle sich gegen den Tempelkult zu wenden scheint.

2. Vergilius

Graecus

Wie ein Echo auf die Formulierungen Romanus Vergilius von Petronius (Satyricon 118,5) und noster Maro von Laktanz klingt die Wendung 'Roman Virgil' des viktorianischen Dichters Tennyson, die in England zu einem bekannten Ausspruch wurde. 10 Heute lässt sich auch vom Vergilius graecus zu sprechen. Dieser Ausdruck bedeutet in erster Linie .griechischer Vergil';11 doch mag er auch auf andere charakteristische Züge des Dichters hinweisen. Zuerst ist, um mit einigen bekannten Dingen zu beginnen, die Topographie seines Lebenslaufes von 70 bis 19 vor Christus zu nennen, die auf den griechischen Kulturraum weist. Vergil war stolz auf seine Herkunft aus Mantua; doch 9 An dieser Stelle und im Folgenden wird nach der deutschen Vergilübersetzung von Ebener zitiert. 10 Tennysons 'Ode to Virgil', die er für die Mantuaner Vergilfeier von 1882 geschrieben hat, beginnt: 'Roman Virgil, thou that singest Ilion's lofty temples robed in fire, I Ilion falling, Rome arising, wars, and filial faith, and Dido's pyre', und endet: 'Wielder of the stateliest measure ever moulded by the lips of man'. Levi, Tennyson, 304 urteilt: 'The Mantuans asked for a scribble and got a masterpiece'. 11 Baldwin.

62

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

waren seine späteren Beziehungen, so scheint es, vor allem mit Rom und der ehemaligen Magna Graecia, d.h. Campanien.12 So war es in der Nähe von Parthenope, Neapolis, dass er den in Herkulaneum wohnenden Epikuräer Philodemus von Gadara, und vielleicht auch die docta dicta Sironis (Catalepton V,9, vgl. VIII, 1 f.), die gelehrten Sprüche des Siro, eines zweiten Epikuräers, hörte; 13 hier schrieb er während der Komposition der Georgica, denn .förderte mich, den Vergilius, liebreich Neapel' - Vergilium me ... dulcis alebat I Parthenope (Georgica [= Geo.]. IV,563f.); hier, bei Cumae und Avernus, hat er die Landschaft der Sibylle und der Unterweltsreise des Aeneas kennengelernt; und hier, in der Nähe von Neapel an der Strasse nach Puteoli, ruhen auch - laut der Tradition - seine sterblichen Uberreste. Hier, in Puteoli und wahrscheinlich auch in Pompeji, gab es ferner eine bedeutende syrische und jüdische Gemeinde; in diesem Punkt war in Campanien dieselbe Situation wie in den östlichen Provinzen anzutreffen, wo die syrische und jüdische Diaspora in den griechischen Städten weit verbreitet war.14 Die letzte Ruhestätte Vergils, wie sie im Grabepigramm der Vita Suetonii (Donati) beschrieben ist, mag auch für sein inneres Leben bezeichnend sein, das so tief von der griechischen Kultur beeinflusst war: ,Mantua sah mich erwachen, Kalabrien sterben; Neapel birgt mich im Grab. Ich besang Hirtenwelt, Landbau und Krieg'; Mantua me genuit, Calahri rapuere, tenet nunc Parthenope; cecinipascua rura duces.

Seine ,süsse Parthenope' (Geo. IV,563f.) hielt den Mantuaner fest (tenet nunc). In Übereinstimmung mit diesen Andeutungen, war Vergil natürlich als Dichter nicht nur Römer, sondern auch Grieche und Alexandriner. Hinter der Bukolika steht Theokrit, hinter der Georgica Hesiod und Aratus, hinter der Aeneis Homer und Apollonius Rhodius. Die griechischen literarischen Quellen des Vergils bilden ein weites Feld für Untersuchungen. Darüber hinaus hatte Vergil wahrscheinlich persönliche Kontakte in Rom oder Campanien mit griechischen Dichter und Literaturkritikern; Horsfall verweist auf Herakleon von Tilotis in Ägypten und an Aristonicus von Alexandrien gedacht.15 12 Parthenope wird als Wohnsitz bestätigt durch Geo. IV,564f; Philodemus (P. Herc. Paris 2), ein Brieffragment von Augustus, und die Tatsache dass Vergil dort begraben wurde (Horsfall, Companion, 2.7). 13 Nur durch den Catalepton bezeugt (vielleicht eine frühe Folge aus Vergils Beziehung zu Neapel [so Horsfall, Companion, 7f.l0f.]), aber vergleichbar mit dem Notiz des Vergils bei Philodemus. Als historisch zutreffend wurde die Nachricht über Siro als philosophischen Lehrer des Vergils von Gigante, Campania, 28-36 angesehen. 14 Für Juden und Syrer in Puteoli, vgl. Josephus, B.J. 11,101-5, Ant. XVII,328; CIJ 561 = Noy, 23 (Grabinschrift aus Marano, in der Nähe von Puteoli), mit dem Kommentar von Noy; ferner in Pompeji, Noy, 38-40. Vgl. auch CIJ 556 = Noy, 26 (Grabinschrift der [Cl]audia Aster [HJierosolymitana [cajptiva, wahrscheinlich aus Neapel oder seiner Umgebung). 15 Horsfall, Virgilio, 39-42.

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

63

Ferner verdient auch die Rezeptionsgeschichte Vergils in der griechischen Literatur Beachtung. 16 So wurde er zu Lebzeiten von Philodemus erwähnt, und am Ende der Regierungszeit Hadrians nahm Phlegon von Tralles das Geburtsdatum des OiieQyiXiog Mägcuv 6 itoir]Tr|5 in seine Chronik auf (Photius, Bibliotheca, 97). Im frühen dritten Jahrhundert berichtet dann Cassius Dio wie der unglückliche Tribun Iulius Crispus ,einen Ausspruch des Dichters Maro' - es handelt sich um ein Zitat aus Drances' bitterer Verurteilung des Krieges, den Turnus führte, - angesichts der grossen Verlüste im Partherkrieg des Septimius Severus benutzte. Als Crispus dieses geflügelte Wort verwendete, wurde er auf Befehl des Severus hingerichtet. An dieser Stelle findet sich bei Dio (76.10, 2) eine griechische Zusammenfassung der betreffenden Zeilen des Vergil. Sie lautet: ,Nur damit Turnus die Lavinia als Braut heimführen könne, sterben wir ganz unbeachtet'. Die Vorlage in der Aeneis lautet (Aen. XI,371f.): .Freilich, wenn Turnus nur glücklich heimführt die fürstliche Gattin I mögen wir wertloses Volk, auch ohne Gräber und Tränen, I fallen im Felde!' scilicet ut Turno contingat regia coniunx nos animae viles, inhumata infletaque turba, sternamur campis.

Dieselbe Passage ist als lateinische Schreibübung in einem frühen Vergilpapyrus (P. Oxy. 50.3554) bezeugt, deren Text wahrscheinlich in Ägypten während des ersten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. niedergeschrieben wurde. 17 Es ist möglich, dass die Auswahl gerade dieser Zeilen als Schreibübung nicht nur durch die vielen verschiedenen Buchstaben des lateinischen Alphabets, die in ihr enthalten sind, angeregt wurde. Sie könnte auch darauf zurückzuführen sein, dass diese Passage durch Theatervorstellungen bekannt gewesen war. Horsfall hat auf diesen Aspekt der frühen Vergilzitate aufmerksam gemacht, und schon bei Sueton wird eine Pantomime über Turnus erwähnt.18 Es ist aber auch mit der wichtigen Funktion der vergilianischen Reden in der Rhetorikausbildung zu rechnen. Solche Überlegungen sind wahrscheinlich auch für den Hintergrund des Zitats bei Dio von Bedeutung. Auch in griechischer Sprache las man Vergil sehr früh. Vermutlich bestand, wie z.B. die Notiz bei Phlegon zeigt, bei den griechischsprächigen Provinzialen eine Interesse an diesem Klassiker der römischen Welt. Eine Ubersetzungstätigkeit begann, soweit wir wissen, in Rom schon im ersten Jahrhundert n. Chr., mit Polybius, einem Freigelassenen des Kaisers Claudius (Seneca, Dialogi XI,5). Unter Septimius Severus übersetzte sodann der Epiker Peisander von Laranda das zweite Buch der Aeneis ins Griechische, und im frühen vierten Jahrhundert gab dann Euseb die ,messianische Ekloge' in griechischer Fassung in der Oratio 16

Z u m folgenden vgl. D ' I p p o l i t o , 801.

17

Gigante, La fortuna, 40f. Horsfall, C o m p a n i o n , 251; Sueton, N e r o 54 (zitiert von Horsfall, C o m p a n i o n , 249).

18

64

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

ad Sanctos des Constantins wieder. Das Studium des Vergils in griechischer Sprache und bei griechischsprechende Lesern ist ausserdem in der spätrömischen und byzantinischen Zeit durch Papyri aus Ägypten, Syrien und Palästina nachweisbar, z.B. durch das lateinisch-griechische Glossar der Vergilpapyri des fünften Jahrhunderts aus Nessana im südlichen Judäa und durch Exemplaren einer zweisprachigen Vergilausgabe.19 .

Im Lichte dieser Notizen und Ubersetzungen meinte man mehrfach, Anspielungen auf Vergil bei griechischen Autoren entdecken zu können. 20 So war H. StJ. Thackeray geneigt, Reminiszenzen an Vergil bei Josephus zu finden, z.B. indem er die Bemerkungen von Josephus über die herausragende Bedeutung von Gerüchten (Bell III,433f.) mit Vergils Beschreibung der Fama verglich (Aen. IV,173-90). 2 1 Solche Reminiszenzen bei Josephus scheinen nicht über jeden Zweifel erhaben zu sein, bleiben aber sicher möglich. Ferner waren die Themen des Vergils im griechischen und jüdischen Osten durch Mythologie und Literatur vorbereitet. Dies ist besonders deutlich bei dem Held Aeneas, dessen Name schon durch Homer weit verbreitet war. So ist er als jüdische Name bereits im ptolemäischen Ägypten (174 v.Chr.) und in Judäa unter Hyrcanus I, später unter Agrippa I. und während des jüdischen Krieges belegt. 22 Eine weitere Verbindung zwischen Vergils Gedankenwelt und dem jüdischen Kulturkreis war auch durch die weite Verbreitung von antiken Ktisissagen gegeben, deren Motive sowohl bei den biblischen Erzählungen von den Patriarchen und vom Einzug ins gelobte Land als bei der Aeneis erkennbar sind. 23 Die Bezeichnung Vergilius graecus scheint also nicht unberechtigt zu sein. Sie weist sowohl auf den Kulturhorizont und die Themen des Dichters als auch auf seine früh- und weitbezeugte Rezeption bei den Griechen und im griechischen Osten hin. Doch war Vergil natürlich vor allem ein römischer Dichter, wie die Wendung noster Maro, .Roman Virgil', zeigt. Aber der Vergilius graecus und der Vergilius romanus sollten nicht voneinander getrennt werden. Das wird schon in der späteren Rezeptionsgeschichte im Osten deutlich. So waren Phlegon und Cassius Dio eng mit der Stadt Rom und der Reichsverwaltung verbunden; ferner ist das Vergilzitat bei Dio in den Mund eines militärischen Tribuns gelegt. 24 Ausserdem war das griechische Vergilstudium in der spätrömischen Zeit zugleich auch eine Einführung in die lateinische Sprache. Dementsprechend zeigt sich auch in der vergilianischen Rezeptionsgeschichte der frühen Kaiserzeit eine ähnliche Verbindung zwischen dem Ver19 20 21 22 23 24

Gigante, La fortuna, 30-35.37-9. Für eine Liste solcher Autoren (ohne Josephus) s. D'Ippolito, 803. Thackeray, Bd. 1, X V I I I - X I X . Williams, 110, zu Act 9,33-5; vgl. Jos Ant XIV,248, Bell V,326-8. Weinfeld, 1-21. Uber Romanitas bei Phlegon und Dio s. Swain, 78 Anm. 33 und S. 403-5.

4, Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

65

gilius graecus und dem Vergilius romanus. So las man Vergil schon damals im griechischen Osten, doch hinter den frühen lateinischen Textzeugnissen des Ostens ist manchmal gerade mit römischen Lesern zu rechnen. Bemerkenswert ist, dass Vergil überaus schnell als römischer Klassiker angesehen wurde, was seiner eigenen Hoffnung entsprach, virum volitare per ora, ,den Menschen durch den Mund zu fliegen' (Geo. 111,9; mit einem Echo von Ennius), und zwar nicht nur im Westen, sondern gerade auch im Osten. So führt der Weg von den frühesten vergilianischen Textzeugnissen in Pompeji vor allem nach Ägypten und Palästina. 25 Zunächst sieht man in Campanien an den lateinischen Graffiti von Pompeii, dass Vergil, wie andere Dichter des Altertums auch, ein in breiten Bevölkerungsschichten beliebter Schriftsteller war, und daher vielleicht mit den heutigen Dichtern der arabischen Welt zu vergleichen ist. Diesen Graffiti liegen nicht nur Schreibübungen mit vergilianischen Material zugrunde, sondern es ist auch - wie schon hinsichtlich des Vergilzitats bei Cassius Dio bemerkt - der Einfluss dramaturgischer Vorträge der Gedichte Vergils anzunehmen. 26 Des weiteren findet sich dieselbe Vergilverehrung in den frühesten nichtepigraphischen Textzeugen bei den Römern, und zwar in der Armee der östlichen und westlichen Provinzen. Denn einige dieser weitgestreuten Zeugnisse haben einen militärischen Kontext. Das scheint der Fall zu sein bei zwei wichtigen Entdeckungen, den lateinischen Vergilfragmenten aus Masada in Judäa (ca. 7 3 4 n.Chr.) und aus Vindolanda in Nordbritannien (ca. 100 n.Chr.). 27 Im Masadafragment findet sich das Wort der Dido aus Aen. IV,9: Anna soror, quae me suspensam insomnia terrent!, ,Anna, mich schrecken Traumbilder, lassen mich zweifeln und schwanken'. Bei diesem Fragment handelt es sich möglicherweise nicht um eine Schreibübung. Man hat darum gefragt, ob der Abschreiber entweder an eine Frau namens Anna oder an die schrecklichen Ereignisse in Masada gedacht haben könnte. 28 Vielleicht ist auch hier an einen möglichen Einfluss dramaturgischer Vorträge zu denken (eine Pantomime über Dido wurde später bekannt). 29 Einen militärischen Kontext hat wahrscheinlich auch ein ägyptisches Papyrusfragment des ersten Jahrhunderts n.Chr. (PSI1307), das auf der Rectoseite legionarische Anordnungen, auf der Versoseite in Latein die Namen Iulus und Aeneas enthält. 30 Dass Literatur oft mit den Legionen reiste, ist

2 5 So darf man vielleicht den Titel des Kapitels von Gigante, 'Virgilio da Pompeii all' E g i t t o ' , ergänzen (Gigante, La fortuna, 7 - 4 3 ) . 2 6 Solin, 333f. denkt vor allem an Schulübungen; für die Wichtigkeit des Theaters, s. H o r s fall, C o m p a n i o n , 2 4 9 - 5 1 . 27

C o t t o n & Geiger, 1 8 f . 2 7 . 3 1 - 4 ; B o w m a n & T h o m a s , 1 3 0 - 3 2 .

28

C o t t o n & Geiger, Masada II, 3 1 - 4 . Horsfall, C o m p a n i o n , 249.

29 30

Gigante, La fortuna, 41f.

66

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

weiter durch die Fragmente der Elegien von Cornelius Gallus, dem Freund Vergils, aus Qasr Ibrim in Nubien bezeugt. 31 Die Rezeption des Vergil gerade bei römischen Lesern ist also durch die frühesten Textzeugen des griechischen Ostens, d.h. Ägyptens und Palästinas, belegt. Doch war der Vergilius graecus schon in dieser Frühzeit von Bedeutung, wie die frühe Entstehung der griechischen Ubersetzungen und der Erwähnung Vergils bei Phlegon zeigen. Zusammenfassend lässt sich vermuten, dass für nichtrömische Provinziale Vergil primär als Klassiker und divinus poeta des römischen Reiches reizvoll war, und dass gerade dieser herausgehobene Stellung des Dichters manchem Nicht-Römer durch römische Vergil-Leser auch in den östlichen Provinzen bekannt war. Nun könnte aber die enge Verbindung des Vergilius graecus mit dem Vergilius romanus, die in der frühen Rezeptionsgeschichte des Vergil erkennbar ist, auch auf die Bedeutung Vergils für die Geistesgeschichte des herodianischen Judäa hinweisen. Zuerst ist der imperialistische Zug mancher vergilianischen Passagen über Griechenland und den griechischen Osten, einschliesslich Ägyptens und Judäas, zu nennen. So fürchten sich die Ägypter und der Fluss Ägyptens am adventus Augusti: .angstvoll I zittern die sieben Mündungen des gewaltigen Nilstroms' - et septemgemini turbant trepida ostia Nili (Aen. VI,800). 32 Ausserdem erwähnt Vergil auch Griechenland und Judäa in Zusammenhang mit dem Topos der victoria romana im Osten. So spricht Vergil gerade im diesem Kontext von den Palmzweigen des herodianischen Jericho und seiner Umgebung. In einer Triumph-Metapher am Anfang des dritten Buches der Geórgica schreibt er in der Persona eines römischen Siegers: ,Heimführen möchte ich ... als erster I dir idumäische Palmen, mein Mantua, bringen, und möchte I mitten im Grünen dir einen Tempel aus Marmor errichten I ... Drinnen im Tempel möge mir Caesar das Heiligtum hüten': Primus Idumaeas referam tibi Mantua palmas et viridi in campo templum de marmore ponam . . . in medio mihi Caesar erit templumque tenebit (Geo. III,12f. 16). 33

Diese herodianischen palmae Idumaeae symbolisieren den Sieg im Osten; auch Graecia mit seinen Wettläufen als Personifikation der Provinz im Triumphzug mitgeführt. ,Fort vom Alpheus, vom Hain des Molorchus zieht dann ganz Hellas, I wird sich bei mir im Wettlauf, im rohen Faustkampfe messen'; cuncta mihi Alpheum linquens lucosque Molorchi cursibus et crudo decernet Graecia caestu (Geo. 111,19-20).

Nisbet in Nisbet & Parsons, 130. Zu diesem Topos s. Donadoni. 33 Stern, Bd. 1, ibid. (s.o. Anm. 6); vgl. Mynors, Georgics, 180f.: 'Idumaea (Edom) stands for Palestine, where Herod's palm-groves were famous (Hor. ep. 2.2.184)'. 31

32

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

67

So werden Hellas und die östlichen Provinzen, einschliesslich Judäa, durch die Triumph-Metapher nicht so sehr als griechisch, sondern eher als griechischrömisch gekennzeichnet. Dem entspricht der römische Hintergrund der Gründung griechischer Städte in Judäa durch Herodes und seine Söhne, wie er in den Namen Caesarea, Sebaste, Tiberias, und Caesarea Philippi besonders deutlich hervortritt. 34 Darüber hinaus ist sowohl bei diesen Städtenamen als auch bei der vergilianischen Triumph-Metapher der Lobpreis des Caesar von zentraler Bedeutung, wie es im erdachten Marmortempel bei Vergil heisst: in medio mihi Caesar erit. So kann Vergil durchaus als Spiegel der Geistesgeschichte auch im herodianischen Judäa beschrieben werden. Zusammenfassend ist zunächst noch einmal an den Vergilius graecus zu erinnern, um sowohl die Stellung Vergils im römischen Osten als auch die thematischen Berührungen zwischen dem vergilanischen und dem jüdischen Kulturkreis hervorzuheben. Als Beispiel sei hier die schon erwähnte jüdische Vertrautheit mit dem Namen Aeneas und den Motiven der Ktisissagen genannt. Des weiteren lässt sich eine innere Verbindung des Vergilius graecus mit dem Vergilius romanus beobachten, denn es sind bei Vergil gerade einige Leitideen des augusteischen Reiches, die auf die griechisch-römischen Züge des herodianischen Kulturkreises hinweisen. Auf diesem Hintergrund lässt sich kurz auf drei Verbindungen zwischen der pax Augusta und dem herodianischen Judentum verweisen. 35 Zuerst gab es in Judäa unter Herodes - wie in Rom und für Vergils glücklichen Tityrus unter dem Princeps - Frieden nach civilia bella. Ferner könnte ein königstreuer Herodianer behaupten, dass, wie Rom die äusseren Feinde, vor allem die Parther, so auch Herodes Parther und Araber besiegt habe. Die vergilianische Darstellung der victoria hätte also ihr Gegenstück in der Geschichte auch in Judäa gefunden. Schliesslich ist zu bedenken, dass, ebenso wie Augustus und Aeneas, so auch Herodes in Judäa ein Vertreter der euseheia war, vor allem als Erbauer von Tempeln für Augustus und Roma, aber auch für den Gott Israels. In diesem Zusammenhang ist bedeutsam, dass sich bei Vergil die palmae Idumaeae in enger Verbindung mit dem Marmortempel Caesars finden. Deshalb ist es für das Verständnis des herodianischen Judentums wichtig, die Darstellung der euseheia bei Vergil näher zu betrachten. Hier kommt es dabei besonders auf den Tempelgedanken an.

34 Dieser Aspekt der herodianischen Städtegründungen wird von Miliar, 355, hervorgehoben. 35 Zum folgenden s. Horbury, .Herod's Temple', 109-111, Nachdruck 88-91.

68

Part 1: Jewish

and Christian

3. Der Tempelgedanke und im herodianischen

Piety

bei Vergil Judentum

Trotz seiner vielfältigen Ausblicke auf die Kultur seiner Zeit, ist Vergil primär als Dichter zu betrachten, und nicht als Religionswissenschaftler oder Philosoph. 36 Dennoch ist die Religion ein so wichtiges Thema bei Vergil, dass die Frage nach seiner Haltung zu den Tempeln, die sich in seinen Werken wiederspiegelt, von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Diese Einstellung scheint durchaus positiv gewesen zu sein. Das Stephanuswort ,Aber der Höchste wohnt nicht in Häusern, von Händen gemacht' (Act 7,48) widerspricht allem Anschein nach der allgemeinen Auffassung Vergils, der zwar die Anwesenheit der Götter nicht auf Tempelbauten beschränkt, aber den Tempeln auch keineswegs ablehnend gegenüberstand. So ist zutreffend, dass Vergil das Konzept der numina liebte, die oftmals ohne Tempel ganz im Freien wohnen: ,Faune ihr, göttliche Wesen, die ihr den Landleuten beisteht' Et vos, agrestumpraesentia

numina,

Fauni...

(Geo. 1,10).

N u n ist der Begriff numen bei Vergil sowohl mit der göttlichen Kraft und Anwesenheit im allgemeinen als auch mit den einzelnen Gottheiten verbunden, und scheint insofern mit dem griechischen pneuma vergleichbar zu sein, doch verwendet Vergil numen auch in Beziehung mit den Altaren und den Tempeln der Götter. 37 So erbebt Aeneas vor dem Walten der Gottheit voll Ehrfurcht, multo suspensus numine, als er sich dem Apollotempel des Buthroton nähert, um das Orakel durch Helenus zu hören; ,Helenus ... führte deinem Tempel mich, Phöbus, I während mich Ehrfurcht durchschauerte vor dem Walten der Gottheit', meque ipse manu

ad tua limina, multo suspensum

Phoebe, numine

ducit

(Aen. 111,371 f.).

Darüber hinaus spricht Vergil auch als philosophischer Dichter im stoischen Sinne von der anima mundi, denn J u p i t e r lebt auch in allem', - Iovis omnia plena (Eclogae 111,60): .Geistige Kraft durchdringt seit Beginn den Himmel, die Erde, I sämtliche Flächen des Wassers sowie die Titanengestirne I Sonne und Mond, sie durchflütet als Weltseele nährend die Teile, I treibt die gesamte Materie, verschmilzt mit dem riesigen Ganzen'; Principio caelum ac terras camposque lucentemque globum lunae Titaniaque spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per mens agitat molem et magno se corpore 36 37

Horsfall, Virgilio, 148-50. Uber numen bei Vergil s. Bailey, 60-69.302-3.

liquentes astra artus miscet (Aen. VI,724—7).

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

69

H i e r ist Vergil nicht weit von der Idee eines kosmischen Tempels entfernt. So hat Courcelle gezeigt, dass diese berühmte Zeilen Vergils jener Passage der Apologie des Minucius Felix zugrunde liegen, an der dieser die Frage beantwortet, warum die Christen keinen Tempel haben (Octavius X X X I I , 1 - 9 , vgl. X , 2 ) . 3 8 F e r n e r war es auch möglich gerade durch diese S y m b o l i k , d.h. durch eine Verbindung zwischen K o s m o s und Tempel, einen Tempelbau zu rühmen, wie dies J o s e p h u s für die Stifthütte tut (Ant. 111,123 ni^riaig xfjg xwv okiav cpijOEwg [,eine Darstellung des ganzen Weltalls']. 3 9 D o c h findet sich bei Vergil selbst in diesem K o n t e x t nichts über die Tempel der Götter. Vielmehr ist es kennzeichnend für seine Darstellung, dass die F r o m m e n i m m e r und überall nach einem Tempel für ihren G o t t verlangen. Aeneas und die Troianer bilden also eine A r t G e m e i n d e ohne Tempel. D e n n o c h bleibt der Tempel i m m e r ersehnt. Aeneas reist, wie schon gesagt, so lange umher, ,bis er in Latium endlich I Wohnstätten schuf für sich selbst und die G ö t ter der Vorfahren' dum conderet urbem inferretque deos Latio. D o r t bemüht er sich ,die besiegten Penaten einzuführen', victos Penatis

I inferre

(Aen. V I I I , 1 2 ) , und zwar zusammen mit den K o l o n i s t e n aus Troia: ,gönne den Teukrern und ihren die F r e m d e durchirrenden G ö t t e r n , I die man aus Troia vertrieb, im latinischen Lande ein W o h n r e c h t ! ' da ... Latio considere Teucros errantisque deos agitataque numina Troiae (Aen. VI,64-6). Latium bildet darum ein neues Heimatland auch für ,die wandernde G ö t t e r und die erschütterte G o t t h e i t e n Troias'. W ä h r e n d seiner langen Reise besucht Aeneas bei jeder Gelegenheit Tempel. So hat man in der Aeneis dreiundzwanzig Tempel gezählt. 4 0 D i e letzte Station seiner Reise bildet sein Tempelbesuch in C u m a e : , A e n e a s I aber, der Pflicht sich bewusst, begab sich zum Tempel, der hohen I Sitze Apollos, nicht allzu entfernt, und zur riesigen G r o t t e I w o die Sibylle einsam und schauerlich w o h n t e ' at pius Aeneas arces quibus altus Apollo praesidet horrendaeque procul secreta Sibyllae, antrum immane, petit (Aen. VI,9-11). In C u m a e war Aeneas allerdings nicht nur Tempelbesucher, sondern auch T e m pelerbauer. E r ist dabei timog xofi [xeXXovtog, d.h. des k o m m e n d e n Augustus, Courcelle, 'Virgile et l'immanence divine chez Minucius Felix'. Zu dieser Josephusstelle, und zur stoischen Spiritualisierung des Tempelbegiffs, insbesondere in Bezug auf die Menschenseele, s. Wenschkewitz, 87f.l 15f. 122—6; zur kosmischen Symbolik s. Knox, 33f. 40 Scagliarini Corläita, 81. 38

39

70

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

und er verspricht: .Aufbauen werde ich dann für Apoll und Diana aus reinem I Marmor ein Heiligtum, stiften ein Fest auf den Namen des Phoibos'; tum Phoebo et Triviae solidum de marmore templum instituam, festosque dies de nomine Phoebi (Aen. VI,69-70).

Hier denkt der Leser oder Hörer an den palatinischen Apollotempel, den Augustus im Jahre 28 v. Chr. errichten liess: ,durch seine eigene Gründung, mit wunderbarer Freigebigkeit geschmückt' (Jos Bell 11,81). Diana Trivia war Apollos aiivvaog, weil die Statue von Apollo zwischen denen der Latona und Diana stand (Propertius, Elegiae 3,29,11). D i e f e s t i dies de nomine Phoebi sind die ludi saeculares; für diese schrieb Horaz sein Carmen Saeculare, eine grosse H y m n e an Apollo und Diana. Auch im Jahre 28 v. Chr. wurde die enge Verknüpfung der Sibylle mit Apollo dadurch hervorgehoben, dass man die Sibyllinischen Bücher an der Basis der Apollostatue niederlegte. 4 1 Später, im achten Buch der Aeneis, erreicht Aeneas Rom. Hier ist er nochmals Typos von Augustus, der auf dem Schild des Aeneas als Tempelerbauer dargestellt wird: ,Er weihte in Rom an die dreihundert prächtige Tempel' sacrabat maxima ter centum

totam

delubra

per urbem

(Aen. VIII,715f.).

Hier erscheint erneut der palatinische Apollotempel. Der Kaiser thront dort als Sieger, um im Tempel die Gaben der Barbarenvölker als a v a d r i n a t a entgegenzunehmen. .Selber thronte am schneeweissen Tor er des leuchtenden Phöbus, I musterte prüfend die Gaben der Völker und liess an die stolzen I Pfeiler sie heften'; ipse sedens niveo candentis limine Phoebi dona recognoscit populorum aptatque superbis postibus (Aen. VIII,720-2).

Vergils Hinweis auf die augusteische Politik der Tempelerneuerung ist überaus deutlich. Die Liebe zu den Tempeln und die Sympathie für die Restaurationspolitik ist freilich auch an anderer Stelle belegt; z. B., wenn im dritten Buch der Aeneis die Troianer voll Freude die Küste Italiens erblicken und kurz darauf den Tempel der Minerva auf der Höhe sichten: ,in grösserer Nähe I öffnete schon sich der Hafen, man sah des Minervabergs Tempel' portusque patescit iam propior, templumque apparet in arce Minervae (Aen. III,530f.).

Ein Blick ab oris maritimis zu einem Tempel am Berg war ein Topos der vergilianischen Beschreibung von Tempeln. 42 41 Norden, Aeneis Buch VI, S. 142f., ad loc.; zum palatinischen Tempel im allgemeinen vgl. Galinsky, 213-24. 42 Scagliarini Corläita, 83.

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

71

Die Troianer suchten stets eine Heimat für die agitata numina Troiae und für den Patron Apollo. Im biblischen Raum, könnte man etwa Ps. 132 über David und die Bundeslade vergleichen: ,Ich will meine Augen nicht schlafen lassen ..., Bis ich eine Stätte finde für den Herrn, zur Wohnung für den Gott Jakobs' ei ö(baa> ünvov tolg 6(pdaX|xoig ^ou • • • £ ( 0 5 OÜ £ÜQ(Ü T Ö J I O V TÜ> X U Q U P ,

oxrivwna Ti>

'IaiMÖß (Ps. 132 [131],4-5).

Derselbe Eifer für den Tempel begegnet auch in der späteren jüdischen Literatur der herodianischen Zeit, und zwar in engster Verbindung mit dem heidnischen Tempelgedanke und im gehobenen epischen Stil, im dritten Sibyllinischen Buche. 43 Dieses Buch war Vergil wahrscheinlich in irgendeiner Weise vertraut. Die Juden sind hier primär dargestellt als ,die gerechten Männer, welche rings um den grossen Tempel Salomons wohnen', oi jtepi vaöv oixeiovai fieyav 2o>ion,dmov (Sib III,213f.; vgl. III,703f.). Das grosste Unglück für dieses Volkes ist es, fliehen und ,den herrlichen Tempel' verlassen zu müssen (^utcbv jtegixaÄ.X.ea ar|xöv [Sib 111,266]). Hinter diesen und ähnlichen Zeilen der Sibyllinischen Orakel steht die biblische Vorstellung vom Einzug ins gelobte Land unter Führung von Mose und Josua, der als Einzug in Jerusalem, und zwar in das Heiligtum ,verstanden wurde, so wie es im Moselied am Schilfmeer ausgedrückt ist: .Bringe sie hinein, und pflanze sie auf dem Berge deines Erbteils, den du, Herr, dir zur Wohnung gemacht hast; 44 zu deine Heiligtum, Herr, das deine Hand bereitet hat' (Ex 15,17; vgl. Ps 78 [77],53f.). Die biblische Vorstellung vom Einzug des Volkes in das Heiligtum war in der hasmonäischen und in der herodianischen Zeit sehr verbreitet, wie man in der Tempelrolle und bei Philon und Josephus sehen kann; für die Septuaginta war das Heiligtum schon durch den Hand Gottes vorbereitet, und nach späteren Quellen folgt dem Einzug ins Land sofort, und nicht etwa erst viel später, die Einsetzung eines Kultus am Heiligtum (1 l Q T a I—II, zu Ex 34f.; Philon, Hyp VI,7; VitMos 11,72; Jos Ant. IV, 199-200, zu Dtn 12). 45 Diese Gesamtkonzeption ist mit der Vergilianischen Vorstellung der Reise des Aeneas dum conderet urbem I inferretque deos Latio vergleichbar. Im Hinblick auf Judäa ist bemerkenswert, das wir Parallerscheinungen zur vergilianischen Tempeldarstellung nicht nur im allgemeinen, sondern auch in Einzelheiten besitzen. 46 Zum einen erbaute Herodes - ebenso wie Augustus Tempel und brachte - wie Augustus in der Aeneis und in Ubereinstimmung mit der jüdischen Erwartungen (Hag 2,7-9, vgl. Ps. 72,10), diespolia der Barbaren in 43 44

Chester, bes. 38-47. LXX: in deiner vorbereiteten Wohnung, die du, Herr, gemacht hast - elg Etomov

XAXOIXTIXRIQIOV o o u , 5 XATEIGYAOCU, X U Q I E .

45 46

Horbury,'Land'209. Zum folgenden s. Horbury, Herod's Temple, bes. 108-114, Nachdruck 88-93.

72

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

den Tempel. Zum anderen, sassen Herodes und Archelaus - ebenso wie Augustus und Salomo - erhöht vor dem versammelten Volk im Tempel. Eine weitere Parallele ist der Tempel der Minerva an der Bergspitze, in arce, der mit dem Augusteum von Caesarea vergleichbar ist. Dieses wurde von Herodes in erhöhter Lage errichtet, um für alle Seefahrer weithin sichtbar zu sein, so wie das Augusteum von Alexandria. 47 Vergleichbar ist auch der Jerusalemer Tempel, der entsprechend dem Modell des salomonischen Tempels, wie es im Chronikbuch entworfen wird, durch Herodes besonders hoch erbaut worden ist (Jos Ant XV,380.385f.), und weithin sichtbar war (Philon, Spec.Leg 1,73). Natürlich sind solche Einzelheiten der Tempelausstattung und -architektur in der heidnischen Welt nicht selten. Ferner finden sich bei den Juden in der hebräischen Bibel und in der späteren Literatur Elemente einer moralischen Kritik an Tempel und Kult. Trotzdem verdient die weitgehende Ubereinstimmung zwischen Vergils Darstellung und der antiken Literatur über die Tempel des herodianischen Judäa Beachtung. Darf man also auch bei den Juden mit Freude und Stolz über die Tempel rechnen, wie sie so oft bei Vergil ihren Ausdruck findet? Ein Augusteum selbst war sicher in den Augen Philons lobenswert (LegG 151). Ebenso galt das Jerusalemer Heiligtum, das von Herodes wiedergebaut war (binyan Horedos), als besonders schön, nicht nur nach Philon (das Heiligtum ist Jiavtög \6yov XQEITTCOV, SpecLeg 1,72) und Josephus (die Stoa Basileios ist ein Werk a|iaqpr|Yr|TÖTaTov ttöv ixp ' f|Xiq>, Ant XIV,412, und der Tempel als Ganzer egyov ... §au|xaoi5 (IV,27-8). Die Verbindung der Tempel mit Apollo und seiner Weissagung ist in diesen Zeilen negativ gedacht, denn diese Passage bildet ein Gegenstück zur Darstellung des Wahrsagers Apollo und seiner Tempel bei Vergil. Später aber spricht die Sibylle vom Jerusalemer Tempel ohne das begeisterte Lob, das für das dritte und fünfte Buch der Sibyllinischen Orakel kennzeichnend ist. Die Sibylle schildert in den Zeilen des vierten Buches über Rom und die Juden (115-139) zweimal kurz die Eroberung der Stadt Jerusalems und des Tempels. Er ist ,der grosse Tempel', vr|ög §eoü (xeyag, und ,der Tempel der Solyma', vr|ög 2OXTJ(XMV (IV,116.125-6). 51 Die Zerstörung des Tempels erscheint als Folge der Missachtung und Verwerfung der eusebeia durch den blutigen Totschlag in der Nähe des Heiligtums: ,wenn sie, der Torheit vertrauend, die Frömmigkeit wegwerfen werden und grausame Mordtaten vor dem Tempel vollbringen', r|vix ' ctv atpQoaiivr|oi nejicudÖTeg eiaeßtr]v |IEV pi/ipcooi/v cmjyEpoijg öe qpövoug TE>.E(uoi jiqö vr|Oi

(IV,117f.).

Hier findet sich ein Hinweis auf die inneren Kämpfe der Verteidiger Jerusalems.52 Darüber hinaus wird der Vesuvausbruch in Italien (xfrovirig ajtö Qwyäöog 'IxaXiöog y^G I JtiJQaoc;, 130f.) als ein Zeichen des göttlichen Zorns gegen die Urheber des ,Kriegsturms aus Italien' (xaxr] noXenoio §VEk'ka. I 'ItaXo-ftev), der ,den grossen Tempel Gottes vertilgen wird' (115f.) und ,den unschuldigen Stamm der Frommen (etioeßecov . . . cpi3X.ov ävamov) verderben' wird (135f.), interpretiert. So könnte man in diesen Zeilen des vierten Buches (115-139) eine tiefe, schmerzliche Verehrung für ,den grossen Tempel' entdecken. Im dritten und im fünften Buch ist das Heiligtum jedoch von zentraler Bedeutung, was im vierten Buch nicht der Fall zu sein scheint. So wird im vierten Buch die Seligkeit des irdischen Gottesreiches ohne Erwähnung eines Tempels geschildert (IV, 187-92), wenn auch diese Darstellung freilich nicht ohne Parallele bei den jüdischen Sibyllinen ist (vgl. 111,619-24). Darüber hinaus begegnet am Anfang des vierten Burches die schroffe Auseinandersetzung mit der Tempelidee, wie schon oben gezeigt wurde. Daher entdecken einige Ausleger in die5 1 D e r N a m e Solyma war besonders mit dem Tempel verbindet, denn nach Josephus heisst der Tempel 'Solyma', d.i. .Sicherheit' (äoqpcdEux, Ant V I I , 6 7 ) . 5 2 So Stemberger, 52, gegen Nikiprowetzky, 66, der an die R ö m e r denkt; für göttliche B e strafung dieser Taten der Verteidiger durch die Tempelzerstörung vgl. z.B. J o s Bell VI,110. 122; bYoma 9b (,Hass ohne Ursache' wird bestraft).

4. Der Tempel

bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

75

sem Buch eine Kritik, die auch gegen den jüdischen Tempel gerichtet ist. 53 Das vierte sibyllinische Buch Hesse sich dann vielleicht mit der Apostelgeschichte vergleichen, in der sich die Polemik sowohl gegen die heidnischen Tempel (in der Areopagrede) als auch gegen den Tempel Jerusalems (in der Stephanusrede) richtet. Simon meinte, im vierten Buch der sibyllinischen Orakel ansatzweise den Hintergrund der Stephanusrede und der negativen Einstellung der PseudoKlementinen zu Tempel und Opfer entdecken zu können. 54 Doch finden wir im vierten Buch wahrscheinlich kein Programm für eine Gemeinde ohne Tempel, sondern eher bittere Polemik gegen die heidnische Idololatrie vor. Hat also der einzige wahre Gott einen Tempel, ,den man von der Erde nicht schauen kann' (IV, 10), so ergibt sich daraus nicht notwendigerweise der Schluss, dass sich für den wahren Gott jeder Tempel ausgeschlossen ist. 55 Vielmehr könnte sich hier ein Hinweis an den himmlischen Tempel finden. So ist ,die vorbereitete Wohnung' (vgl. den oben zitierten Vers Ex 15,17 LXX) zwar von der Erde nicht sichtbar, doch kann sie am Ende der Zeiten von oben herabschweben. Der Sibyllinische Dichter oder Kompilator rechnete also nicht entfernt mit der Möglichkeit, dass seine Polemik gegen heidnische Idololatrie oder seine schmerzlichen Zeilen über den Tempel der Solyma als eine Schimpfrede gegen ,den grossen Tempel Gottes' missverstanden werden konnten. 56 Trifft dieser Deutungsversuch zu, weicht das vierte Buch nicht sehr von der Richtung des dritten und fünften Buches ab. Es ist zwar richtig, dass die schroffe Polemik des vierten Buches gegen Apollo und den Tempeln sich gegen eine tempelorientierte heidnische Frömmigkeit wie die des vergilianischen Aeneas richtet. Doch ist im vierten Buch auch eine bleibende Verehrung für ,den grossen Tempel Gottes', ,den Tempel der Solyma', erkennbar (IV,116.126). Es handelt sich also im vierten Buch um ein doppelseitiges Denkmal der spätherodianischen euseheia. So spiegelt sich im polemischen Teil dieses Buches eine vergilianische Frömmigkeit wider; daneben findet sich als Gegenstuck in dem Orakel über Rom und die Juden die ebenfalls tempelorientierte eusebeia des ,unschuldigen Stamms der Frommen'. Nun ist aber ferner zu bedenken, dass in der herodianischen Zeit die schon oben erwähnten alttestamentlichen Elemente einer gegen Tempel und Opfer gerichteten Kritik noch lebendig waren und mit der griechischen Spiritualisierungen der Kultusbegriffe zusammenflössen. 57 So kommt es z.B. in den Qumrantexten und bei Philon zu einer Umdeutung des Kultus; dennoch verlieren Tem53 Diese Meinung ist mit Betrachtung der Studien von Collins und mit besonderer Beachtung der Deutungsprobleme von ehester, 6 2 - 8 , geäussert. 54 Simon, 86f. 55 Zu dieser Auslegung neigt ehester, 66. 56 Für Nikiprowetzky, 34f. mit A n m . 18, gibt es im vierten Buch keine Polemik gegen den Jerusalemer Tempel. 5 7 Zum folgenden s. Horbury, ,Land', 214f.

76

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

pel und Altar in diesen Q u e l l e n nicht ihre zentrale Bedeutung. Möglicherweise wird auch grundsätzliche K r i t i k am Tempel geäussert, wie man auf dem Hintergrund der christlichen Verwendung von Jes 66,1 als Testimonium postulieren k ö n n t e (vgl. A c t 7 , 4 8 - 5 0 ; B a r n 16,2). So betonten nach J o s e p h u s die Verteidiger des Tempels im J . 70 n.Chr., dass die Welt ein besserer Tempel für G o t t sei als das Heiligtum in Jerusalem (Jos Bell V,458f.). Freilich wurde dieser Vorstellung eines kosmischen Tempels auch in einem durchaus positiven Sinne auf den T e m pel Jerusalems bezogen, wie schon o b e n erwähnt (vgl. Philo, SpecLeg 1,66; J o s A n t VIII,107.114); doch im K o n t e x t der letzten Phase der Verteidigung Jerusalems klingt sie eher negativ. D a r ü b e r hinaus ist im N e u e n Testament mindestens einmal scharfe Kritik am salomonischen Tempel belegt, wie es aus dem schon o b e n zitierten Vers der Stephanusrede deutlich wird: A b e r der H ö c h s t e w o h n t nicht in Häusern, von H ä n d e n gemacht (Act 7,48). Es wird ferner im Hebräerbrief die Vergänglichkeit des Tempeldienstes angedeutet ( H e b r 9,10, 10,9). D o c h im R a h m e n des herodianischen J u d e n t u m s bleibt eine solche negative Haltung wahrscheinlich die Ausnahme. S o war die Stärke einer tempelorientierten eusebeia

schon o b e n durch eine Reihe von Vergleichungen zwischen

Vergil und den jüdischen Q u e l l e n dieser Zeit, einschliesslich des vierten B u c h s der Sibyllinen, erkennbar. Weiterhin ist noch die Widerspiegelung der herodianischen Tempelfrömmigkeit im N e u e n Testament zu erwähnen. So fallt auf, das sich sowohl in der Apostelgeschichte als auch im H e b r ä e r b r i e f neben K r i t i k auch eine tiefe Verehrung für den Jerusalemer Tempel findet. E s stellt sich ferner die Frage, o b nicht sogar in den neutestamentlichen Spiritualisierungen des Tempelbegriffs in einigen Fallen ein H i n w e i s auf den bleibenden Einfluss einer tempelorientierten F r ö m m i g k e i t liegt. So dachte M o u l e an eine frühe A p o l o getik gerade in H i n b l i c k auf das T h e m a Tempel und O p f e r . 5 8 D e r neutestamentliche G e b r a u c h einer G r u p p e von W ö r t e r n wie vaög, xEiQOJioirjxog, jtveunaTixög, aw[xa legt es seiner M e i n u n g nach nahe, an ein E l e m e n t in der frühen K a techese zu denken. F ü r die Christen ergäbe sich hier eine A n t w o r t auf die Frage, warum sie keinen Tempel haben. So ist uns diese Frage schon oben im M u n d des heidnischen Caecilius bei Minucius Felix begegnet. A u c h im jüdischen K o n t e x t war dieses neutestamentliche Material vielleicht für die Katechese nützlich, und zwar überall dort, w o die Christen sich aus der jüdischen Gemeinschaft ausgeschlossen fühlten. D a r u m kann man auch im Lichte der neutestamentlichen Spiritualisierung betonen, dass für J u d e n wie Heiden in der herodianischen Zeit eine

tempelorientierte

Frömmigkeit

üblich

war.

Dementsprechend

kann

schliesslich auch das N e u e Testament einige Punkte zu den o b e n skizzierten Berührungen zwischen Vergil und dem herodianischen Kulturkreis hinsichtlich des Tempels beitragen. So ist z . B . mit H i n b l i c k auf die doppelseitige Stellung

58

M o u l e . I h m sei diese Abhandlung mit D a n k b a r k e i t und vielen guten W ü n s c h e n ge-

widmet.

4. Der Tempel bei Vergil und im herodianischen

Judentum

77

des vierten Buches der Sibyllinen eine herodianische eusebeia in der Apostelgeschichte zu erkennen, denn der reisende Paulus ist nicht nur ein Polemiker, der sich gegen die Tempel wendet, die ,mit Händen gemacht sind' (17,24), sondern auch - ähnlich wie Aeneas - ein durchaus frommer Tempelbesucher (18,18; 20,16; 21,26f.; 22,17).

Summary Lactantius's claim that 'Maro was not far from the truth' (D.I. 1,4) represents the view of Vergil which came to prevail among Christians. Those aspects of Vergil which gave him the appearance of a Christian vates also raise the question whether he was affected by Jewish beliefs and writings. This question is often asked with regard to the Fourth Eclogue and the Sixth B o o k of the Aeneid, as compared with contemporary developments of Jewish prophecy and messianism; but fresh evidence for the early influence of Vergil and further discussion of his work suggests a slightly different question on Vergil and Judaism. He mirrored leading ideas in the current opinion of the Augustan age, which were also influential in Herodian Judaea. Can his work help to illuminate understandings of the temple in Herodian Judaism? Vergil's own approaches to the Greek world, and the reception of Vergil in the Greek language and in the eastern Roman provinces, are sketched in Part 2 with attention to early attestations, including the papyrus with a line from the Aeneid (IV,9) found at Masada. The imperial and Roman stamp of his work is noted at the same time, with discussion of such eastern provincial allusions as palmae Idumaeae (Geo. 111,12). Herodian Jewish life, including its eusebeia, was in touch, it is suggested, with his thought-world and its Graeco-Roman character. The place of the temple in the piety depicted by Vergil and in Herodian J u daism is discussed in Part 3. Stages in the travels of Aeneas, who seeks not only a new homeland but also a sanctuary for the displaced divinities of Troy, are marked by his visits to famous temples; and these foreshadow the temple restorations of Augustus, especially his foundation of the temple of Apollo on the Palatine. F o r Herodian Jews, correspondingly, Moses brought his followers not only to a homeland but also to a sanctuary for their God (Ex 15,17), David had not rested until he found a place for the ark (Ps 132,4f.), and the people dwell round a temple which it is their greatest misfortune to leave (Sib 111,213f.266); Herod himself was a temple-builder like Augustus, his work culminating in the rebuilt Jerusalem sanctuary. Sources from Herodian Judaea recall the presentation of temples in Vergil both in the details singled out for praise and in a general joy in and zeal for the temple.

78

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety Part 4 considers what might be an an exception to this rule, the fourth Sibyl-

line b o o k , w h i c h is sometimes understood to c o m m e n d worship without any temple, even the temple of Jerusalem. T h e b o o k is interpreted here rather as an attack on idolatry, from a standpoint of reverence f o r 'the great temple o f G o d ' (Sib IV, 115). Against this background it is suggested that the N e w Testament, together with its spiritualizing passages on the temple o f G o d , can also reflect a temple-centred H e r o d i a n eusebeia;

thus the travelling Paul of Acts is not only a

critic of pagan temples, but is also making his o w n laborious pilgrimage, not wholly unlike Aeneas, to the sanctuary of his G o d .

Bibliography C. Bailey, Religion in Virgil (Oxford, 1935) B. Baldwin, Vergilius Graecus, AJP 97 (1976), 361-8 T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass. & London, 1981) A. K. Bowman & J. David Thomas, 'New Texts from Vindolanda', Britannia 18 (1987), 125-42 A. N. Chester, 'The Sibyl and the Temple', in Horbury (Hg.), Templum Amicitiae, 37-69 W. Clausen, A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues (Oxford, 1994) H. M. Cotton & J. Geiger, with a contribution by J. David Thomas, Masada II, The Latin and Greek Documents (Jerusalem, 1989) P. Courcelle, 'Les exégèses chrétiennes de la quatrième Églogue', REA 61 (1957), 294-319, nachgedruckt in Courcelle, Opuscula selecta, 156-81 - , 'Virgile et l'immanence divine chez Minucius Felix', Mullus (JAC Ergänzungsband I, Festschrift Theodor Klauser; Münster, 1964), 34-42, nachgedruckt in Courcelle, Opuscula selecta, 228-36 - , Opuscula selecta (Paris, 1985) S. Donadino, 'Egitto', Enciclopedia Virgiliana II (1985), 182-3 D. Ebener, Vergil: Werke, aus dem Lateinischen übertragen (Berlin & Weimar, 1983) K. Galinsky, Augustan Culture: an Interpretive Introduction (Princeton, 1996) M. Gigante, Virgilio e la Campania (Neapel, 1984) (Hg.), La fortuna del Virgilio (Neapel, 1986) H. Gressmann, Der Messias (FRLANT 43, Göttingen, 1929) W. Horbury (Hg.), Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel (JSNT Suppl. 48, Sheffield, 1991) - , 'Herod's Temple and "Herod's Days'", in: Ders. (Hg.), Templum Amicitiae, 103-49, erweiterter Nachdruck in Ders., Messianism among Jews and Christians (London, 2003), 83-122 —, 'Land, Sanctuary, and Worship', in J. Barclay & J. Sweet (Hgg.), Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context (Cambridge, 1996), 207-24 N. Horsfall, Virgilio: l'epopea in alambicco (Neapel, 1991) (Hg.), A Companion to the Study of Virgil (Mnemosyne Supplementum 151, Leiden, 1995) G. D'Ippolito, 'Fortuna del Virgilio nella Grecia antica', Enciclopedia Virgiliana II (1985), 801-4

Bibliographie

79

W. L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939) P. Levi, Tennyson (London, 1993) H. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland (Bonn, 1909), nachgedruckt in H. Lietzmann, Hg. K. Aland, Kleine Schriften, I (TU 67, Berlin, 1958), 2 5 - 62 F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C. - A.D. 337 (Cambridge, Mass., & London, 1993) C. F. D. Moule, Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the New Testament, JTS N.S. 1 (1950), 29-41 R. A. B. Mynors (Hg.), P. Vergili Maronis Opera (Oxford, 1969) - , Virgil, Georgics (Oxford, 1990) V. Nikiprowetzky, 'Réflexions sur quelques problèmes du Quatrième et du Cinquième livres des Oracles sibyllins', HUCA 43 (1972), 29-76 R. G. M. Nisbet, Hg. S. J. Harrison, Collected Papers on Latin Literature (Oxford, 1995) R. G. M. Nisbet, 'Virgil's Fourth Eclogue: Easterners and Westerners', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 25 (1978), 59-78; nachgedruckt in Nisbet, Collected Papers, 47-75 'Elegiacs by Cornelius Gallus from Qasr Ibrim', JRS 69 (1979), 140-55; nachgedruckt in Nisbet, Collected Papers, 101-31 E. Norden, Publius Vergilius Maro, Aeneis Buch VI (Berlin, 2 1916) - , Die Geburt des Kindes (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, iii, Leipzig & Berlin, 1924) D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, i, Italy (excluding the City of Rome), Spain and Gaul (Cambridge, 1993) H. W. Parke, ed. B. C. McGing, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London, 1988) D. Scagliarini Corlàita, 'Tempio', Enciclopedia Virgiliana V* (1990), 80-86 M. Simon, St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London, 1958) H. Solin, 'Epigrafia', Enciclopedia Virgiliana II (1985), 332-40 G. Stemberger, Die römische Herrschaft im Urteil der Juden (Darmstadt, 1983) M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 Bde, Jerusalem, 1974-1984) S. Swain, Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World, A.D. 50-250 (Oxford, 1996) H. StJ. Thackeray, Josephus: The Jewish War (2 vols, Loeb Classical Library, London & Cambridge, Mass., 1927) W. Weber, Der Prophet und sein Gott. Eine Studie zur vierten Ekloge Vergils (Leipzig, 1925) M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land. The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley, Los Angeles & Oxford, 1993) H. Wenschkewitz, 'Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im Neuen Testament', Angelos 4 (1932), 71-230 B. F. Westcott, Essays in the History of Religious Thought in the West (London, 1891) M. H. Williams, 'Palestinian Jewish Personal Names in Acts', in R. Bauckham (Hg.), The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Jewish Setting (Grand Rapids & Carlisle, 1995), 79-113

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

Judaea

A link between the Jews of ancient Judaea and the Christian use of euangelizein 'to announce', with the cognate noun euangelion, 'good or euangelizestbai news' or 'gospel', has regularly been postulated through comparison of the New Testament with the Old. These Greek words in their New Testament contexts have been perceived, through the LXX and the Vulgate, as sharing a good part of the semantic range of the Hebrew verb lebasser, 'to announce', and its cognate noun besorah, in the Old Testament. A signpost in the general direction of this view is formed by Heb. 4:2 (cf. 4:6), 'we have been evangelized ( e u e n g e lismenoi) just as they' - the generation of the exodus - 'had been'. The Epistle to the Hebrews here implicitly classifies as evangel the message of election, victory and settlement to come which was conveyed through Moses, for example from the divine messenger (in Greek, angelos) at Exod. 3:214, but was disregarded by the people and their princes other than Caleb, as shown above all in Num. 13-14, cf. Ps. 95:11. Of special note for scholarly assessment of the New Testament euangelizestbai, however, were a series of verses in the psalms and prophets which use the verb lebasser and its participle nfbasser, rendered in the LXX by euangelizestbai and euangelizomenos, respectively, to speak expressly of the announcement and announcers of good tidings (Pss. 40:10, 68:12; Isa. 40:9, 41:27, 52:7 [parallel with Nah. 2:1 (1:15)], 61:1). The series is expanded in the LXX byJoel2:23 (3:5), ending 'euangelizomenoi whom the Lord shall call', where the Hebrew will have been read as mebasserim. Note, however, that the noun besorah does not occur in this series; in the Hebrew biblical books it appears only in II Samuel and II Kings (six times in all). These verses from the psalms and prophets are quoted or echoed in presentations of the teaching and work of Christ in the synoptic gospels, Acts, and Ephesians (Isa. 61:1 in Matt. 11:5, parallel with Luke 7:22, and in Luke 4:18, with an echo in Acts 10:39; Isa. 52:7 in Eph. 2:17). They are also applied to the apostolic preaching in the Pauline corpus (Isa. 52:7 quoted in Rom. 10:15, and echoed in Eph. 6:15), and probably in Acts (the end of Joel 2:23 (3:5) LXX not quoted but envisaged in Acts 2:21, see n.28, below). These attestations of Old Testament passages which use the relevant vocabulary of course occur amid more widespread New Testament use of euangelizestbai and euangelion. The common share of the Old Testament in Greek and of the New Testament in this vocabulary is partially but strikingly recalled in the Vulgate Latin by the occur-

y 'Gospel' in Herodian

Judaea

81

rence of evangelizare and evangelista in some of the passages on good tidings in the psalms and prophets (Ps. 68 [67]:12; Isa. 40:9, 41:27; Nah. 2:1 [1:15]). This Old Testament-guided interpretation of Christian usage regularly also led to discussion of languages and vocabulary used by ancient Jews. The topic considered below is the place of the vocabulary associated with lebasser and euangelizestbai in Herodian Judaea, that is the Roman province of Judaea (including Galilee, Samaria, Peraea and Idumaea) in the period beginning when the Roman senate designated Herod the Great as king of the Jews in 40 B.C., and ending at least in principle with the death of Herod's great-grandson Agrippa II, probably in A.D. 100. 1 Conditions which can be called Herodian will not have vanished overnight, and the full end of the Herodian period can be associated with the uprising of Bar-Kokhba in 132-5. N o w some indications of the use of the relevant vocabulary in Judaea in this period will be reviewed in two main parts. To begin with, points which have emerged from biblically-oriented study of euangelion against the background of the Old and New Testaments are gathered, and there is a fresh consideration of aspects of the Septuagint and its pseudepigrapha, with kindred passages in Josephus and the N e w Testament, and of the Targum with some rabbinic texts (part 1, below). Then the discussion moves from this mainly biblical orientation to another viewpoint often taken in earlier study, the interpretation of this vocabulary in the setting of both gentile and Jewish religion (part 2, below). Herodian Judaea is still the focus of inquiry, and the use of the relevant words in ordinary life is not ignored; but attention is now paid to some primary texts of a more directly cultic character, notably honorific formulae, prophecy and h y m nody, including material from the Qumran finds and later Jewish literature. It is suggested overall (part 3, below) that, for Judaean Jews, the prominence of this vocabulary in scripture, and its development in interpretative tradition, were enhanced by contemporary more general usage of the relevant Aramaic and Greek words, and their high profile in the honorific language of courts and temples.

1. The Biblical

Tradition

The main lines of an approach to the N e w Testament vocabulary of 'gospel' guided especially by the Old Testament in Hebrew and Greek emerge in Matthew Poole's synopsis of seventeenth-century comment on euangelion.2 He began by noting attestation in Greek authors of the meanings 'reward for good

1 2

N. Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty M. Poole (Pole), Synopsis Criticorum

(Sheffield, 1998), pp. 396-9. aliorumque Sacre Scripturae

Interpretum

(ed. J.

82

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

news' and 'sacrifice on account of good news' as well as 'good news' itself - the three meanings later distinguished in the Greek lexicon of Liddell, Scott and Jones. 3 Christian understanding of the word as 'good news' thus emerged as continuous with Greek usage, even though it would increasingly be noted that the sense 'good news' was best attested in the relatively late Greek used by the bilingual Cicero, Plutarch and (from Herodian Judaea) Josephus, and that the relevant Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary could sometimes be used for the announcement of bad news as well as good. 4 Poole gave most of his space, however, to Hugo Grotius's view (itself a development of earlier concern with the Semitic-language setting of the gospels)5 that Hebrew or Aramaic here lay beneath New Testament Greek and was used by Christ, whose gospel (in Hebrew, besorah) consisted of the good tidings of peace and of the kingdom of God declared in Isa. 52:7; 'the Christians received this term from their great teacher, and he from the prophets'. A motto for Grotius's approach could perhaps be taken from I Clem. 42:1, 'the apostles had the gospel imparted to them (euengelistbesan) for us from the Lord Jesus Christ'. The LXX and Hebrew and Aramaic continued to hold their place in comment on euangelion beside Greek usage, and were characteristically but not unjustly emphasized at the end of the nineteenth century in H. Cremer's biblicaltheological New Testament lexicon (n.4, above). Yet it also remained clear both that Christian use of euangelion took up a sense attested in Greek authors, characteristically connected with the 'announcement' of births, victories and new reigns, and that euangelion had quickly become a quintessentially Christian term. Thus it was already beginning to be used as a term for a written Leusden, 5 vols., Utrecht, 1684-6; corrected reprint of work issued first in 1669-76), iv, cols. 3 - 4 , quoting among other authors H. Grotius, Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (Amsterdam, 1641), pp. 4 - 5 . 3 H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones & R. McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th edn, Oxford, 1940), reprinted with a Revised Supplement, ed. P.G.W. Glare (Oxford, 1996), p. 705a. 4 On the relatively late attestation of euangelion in the sense 'good news', see H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Gräcität (7th edn, Gotha, 1893) pp. 30-31 - but G. Friedrich, EÜaYYeX.i£o(iai, etc., TWNT ii (1935), cols. 705-35 (719), E.T. in TDNT ii (1964), 707-37 (722), urged that some earlier instances of 'sacrifice on account of good news' presuppose the sense 'good news'; on use of relevant vocabulary for bad news as well as good, P. Billerbeck in H.L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1922 [vol. i], [1924 [vol. ii], 1926 [vol. iii], 1928 [vols, iv.l & iv.2], 1956 [vol. v , indexes compiled by K. Adolph], 1961 [vol. vi, indexes compiled by J . Jeremias]), iii, p. 5, on Rom. 1:1 (the favourable sense predominates). 5 Such concern was encouraged in the sixteenth century by the patristic tradition that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, together with the printing of Jewish Hebrew versions of Matthew (1537, 1555), and of the gospels in Syriac (1555); see W. Horbury, 'The Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew Study', in id. (ed.), Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh, 1999), pp. 122-31. The Aramaic words quoted by Grotius were the Syriac sebar 'to announce' and sebarta 'tidings'.

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

83

Judaea

g o s p e l - b o o k b y t h e t i m e o f B a r - K o k h b a : it w a s a d o p t e d f r o m G r e e k , w i t h o u t t r a n s l a t i o n , b y C h r i s t i a n s p e a k e r s o f L a t i n a n d S y r i a c : a n d t h e G r e e k w o r d is a l s o e c h o e d in r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e w i t h r e g a r d t o C h r i s t i a n i t y . 6 W i t h i n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t , c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , as m a n y as s i x t y o f its s e v e n t y f i v e o r s e v e n t y - s i x o c c u r r e n c e s a r e in t h e P a u l i n e c o r p u s ; in t h e g o s p e l s a n d A c t s , t h e n o u n is r e s t r i c t e d t o M a t t h e w ( f o u r o c c u r r e n c e s ) , M a r k ( s e v e n o r e i g h t ) , a n d A c t s ( t w o ) , a l t h o u g h t h e v e r b euangelizesthai

is f r e q u e n t in L u k e

a n d A c t s . T h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n c o u l d in i t s e l f e n c o u r a g e t h e v i e w t h a t t h e n o u n w a s essentially a Pauline term derived f r o m G r e e k - s p e a k i n g circles, and was unlikely to reflect the ( A r a m a i c o r H e b r e w ) v o c a b u l a r y o f J e s u s and his disciples.7 Its r a p i d a c q u i s i t i o n o f a s p e c i a l C h r i s t i a n s e n s e (a s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w h i c h d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e v e r b t o t h e s a m e e x t e n t in C h r i s t i a n u s a g e ) p e r h a p s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e p o p u l a r i t y in p a t r i s t i c a u t h o r s o f t h e r e l a t e d w o r d euangelismos

for the m o r e

g e n e r a l g o o d a n n o u n c e m e n t , a b o v e all f o r t h e ' a n n u n c i a t i o n ' m a d e t o M a r y b y Gabriel, w h o had earlier been sent to ' a n n o u n c e ' to Zacharias the future birth of J o h n ( e u a n g e l i s a s t h a i , L u k e 1:19).8

6 G. N. Stanton, 'The Fourfold Gospel', NTS xliii (1997), pp. 3 1 7 - 4 6 (334), citing instances of euangelion as referring to a written text in Did. 8:2, 11:3, 15:3-4; Ign. Smyrn. 5:1; 7:2; II Clem. 8:5; C. Mohrmann, Etudes sur le latin des chrétiens, iii, Latin chrétien et liturgique (Rome, 1965), pp. 104, 113, from an article first issued in 1949 (evangelium already found in the Latin version of I Clement), 130-31, from an article first issued in 1950 (evangelium one of a group of words adopted in Christian Latin together with the institutions which they designate); S. P. Brock, 'Greek Words in the Syriac Gospels (VET and PE)', Le Muséon lxxx (1967), pp. 3 8 9 - 4 2 6 (399), noting the currency of the translation sebarta as well as the transliteration; Babylonian Talmud, Shabb. 116a, in H. L. Strack, Jesus, die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen Angaben (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin, 37; Leipzig, 1910), pp. 2, 19* (R. Meir [second century] said in condemnation "wen-gillayon, 'trouble of gillayon', R. Johanan b. Nappaha [third century]) "won-gillayon, 'iniquity of gillayon'), interpreted by J . Maier, Jüdische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Christentum in der Antike (Darmstadt, 1982), pp. 74-8 as originally referring not to the gospel but to blank parchment (Hebrew gillayon) considered unsuitable, but more probably, given the rarity of the use of awen attributed to Meir, alternative polemical malformations of Greek euangelion. 7 G. N. Stanton, Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 18-25 argues in general on these lines. The unlikelihood of a link with the vocabulary of Jesus was stressed by J . Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd edn, Berlin, 1911 [1st edn 1905]), p. 99 (affirming the Paulinism of Mark) and W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (FRLANT 21, 2nd edn, Göttingen, 1921 [first edn 1913]), p. 42 n. 1; but it was allowed as possible by A. Harnack, 'Evangelium: Geschichte des Begriffs in der ältesten Kirche', in A. Harnack, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 199-239 (234); E.T. 'Gospel: History of the Conception in the Earliest Church', in A. Harnack, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the first two Centuries (London, 1910), 275-331 (324) - rejecting the Paulinism of Mark - and - now together with the opinion that Marcan usage reflected that of Paul - by M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon saint Marc (4th edn, Paris, 1929), pp.clvii, 17-18. 8

G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek

Lexicon

(Oxford, 1961), p. 559.

84

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

These Greek and Christian aspects of euangelion were highlighted after the publication in 1899 of an inscription (c. 9 B.C.) from Priene in Caria, using the plural evangelio, for the good tidings which began with the birthday of the divine Caesar. Adolf Deissmann brought this epigraphic text together with papyri to present euangelion as a term of Augustan and later Roman ruler-cult, attested in Asia Minor and Egypt with regard to the good news of an auspicious reign; he stressed that it was just one of a group of N e w Testament words which recall the idiom of ruler-cult, including parousia, epiphaneia, and soter,9 Papyri and inscriptions published later on confirm the association with sovereigns, but also, like literary authors, attest more general announcement, notably in connection with birth, marriage, and victory. 1 0 The general and royal usages were of course intertwined; victory as well as birth well suits the ruler-cult context, especially given the dependence of many Hellenistic and Roman rulers, from the Seleucids to Herod the Great, Augustus and Vespasian, on decisive battles and generalship for their sovereignty. 11 J . Kögel, in his revision of Cremer, simply noted the fresh attestation of the sense 'good news' provided by the Priene inscription and related papyri. 12 This new contemporary context for New Testament usage, however, also attested 'good news' in a sense strikingly comparable with Christian understandings of euangelion - as the gospel of a divine reign. Christian use of euangelion has often been derived, ever since, not from Jewish Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek usage related to the Old Testament, but from the language of Greek and Roman rulercult. 1 3 Mediating positions are exemplified by M.-J. Lagrange, who envisaged Jesus as having himself spoken of good news, but the evangelist Mark as setting the evangel of the messianic advent of Jesus Christ deliberately in contrast with 9 A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten: Das Neue Testament und die neuentdeckten Texte der hellenistisch-römischen Welt (4th, revised edn of work issued first in 1908, Tübingen, 1923), pp. 312-24; E.T. Light from the Ancient East (London, 1910), pp. 370-84; on the Augustuscult at Priene see S. Mitchell, Anatolia (2 vols, Oxford, 1993), i, p. 102. 1 0 G . H . R . Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri published in 1978 (Macquarie University Ancient Documentary Research Centre, 1983), pp. 10-15, no. 2. 11 This is noted in connection with the autocratic rather than constitutional character of much Hellenistic kingship by E. Bi(c)kerman, Les institutions des Séleucides (Paris, 1938), pp. 12-13. 12 Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Gräcität, 10th edn, ed.], Kögel (Gotha, 1911), p. 31. 13 Sponsors of this view include Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, pp. 9 8 - 9 (but he allowed that the term could have come from the ruler-cult to the church through Christian speakers of Aramaic); Bousset, Kyrios Christos, pp. 42 n. 1, 244; E. Lohmeyer, Christuskult und Kaiserkult (Tübingen, 1919), p. 54, n. 60; G. Strecker (1975 onwards), cited by P. Stuhlmacher, 'The Pauline Gospel' in id., (ed.), The Gospel and the Gospels (Grand Rapids, 1991), pp. 149-72 (151, n. 11); H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (London & Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 3 - 4 ; Stanton, Jesus and Gospel, pp. 2 0 35.

'Gospel' in Herodian

85

Judaea

the evangel of imperial advents. 1 4 In the discussion b e l o w I have taken it that influence f r o m ruler-cult should indeed be recognized, but in convergence with rather than as an alternative to biblical and later J e w i s h influence. A t the time of the first consideration o f the Priene inscription, however, the H e b r e w and Aramaic setting of the gospels and their vocabulary of 'gospel' was being explored by G . D a l m a n and, f r o m a m o r e radically critical viewpoint, b y J . Wellhausen; Wellhausen in turn was criticized in a study of euangelion

b y A.

H a r n a c k , and Dalman's approach was taken further b y P. Billerbeck. A t the same time, in a contribution which gained less p r o m i n e n c e in the biblical discussion overall, W. B a c h e r had shown the importance of the H e b r e w verb lebasser

in rabbinic exegetical terminology. A revived and deepened O l d Testa-

ment approach to euangelion

began to emerge.

In this discussion, above all because o f the importance of the verb as well as the noun in both G r e e k and Hebrew, the study of the vocabulary of 'gospel' was saved f r o m some o f the narrowness o f concentration on a single w o r d which has been viewed as a defect o f this type o f inquiry. T h e contexts of occurrences and the relationship of the words in G r e e k and H e b r e w with other words of c o m parable signification received attention, and an attempt was made, in the f o o t steps o f Grotius and others, to envisage the Semitic-language as well as the Greek-language idioms o f the Judaean church. H e n c e , despite the prominence in debate o f what were often questionably regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives - is this vocabulary essentially dominical or Pauline, H e b r a i c or G r e e k ? - much was provided o f value f o r inquiry directed towards the place o f the 'gospel' vocabulary in H e r o d i a n Judaea. T h u s , to turn first to the L X X , with Judaean use o f G r e e k in mind, it became a c o m m o n p l a c e that Septuagintal attestation o f euangelion

in the sense ' g o o d

news' is slender or even non-existent; just one sure instance (II K i n g d o m s = II Sam. 18:25) was allowed by Billerbeck (as m o r e recently by M . Hengel and G . N . Stanton), but the view in its most negative form was shared b y scholars as different as Wellhausen, H a r n a c k , K ó g e l and G . Friedrich. 1 5 Since then, h o w ever, the interpretation and diffusion o f the G r e e k scriptures at the time o f Christian origins have been further discussed, and it seems likely that this mainly negative view should be modified, as noted below. Secondly, n o w with Aramaic and H e b r e w in Judaea in mind, the much m o r e positive finding of this research with regard to Semitic-language texts is notable. Despite the assumed slenderness of clear Septuagintal attestation o f 14

euangelion

Lagrange, Évangile selon saint Marc, pp. clvii, 2 (on Mark 1:1), 17-18 (on 1:15). Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, p. 98; Harnack, Entstehung und Entwickelung der Kirchenverfassung und des Kirchenrechts in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten, pp. 199-200, 235, E.T. 276, 325; Friedrich in TWNT ii, col. 723, E.T. 725; M. Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel ofJesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (E.T. London, 2000), pp. 210-11, n. 9; Stanton, Jesus and Gospel, p. 13. 15

86

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

in the required sense, G. Dalman, Harnack and Billerbeck all took it, somewhat as Grotius had done, that the Hebrew noun besorah and the Aramaic besoretba were used in Judaea, by early Judaean Christians and possibly by Jesus (Dalman appears more cautious than Harnack on this point), in the sense of the good news of God's reign - a sense which would become central in the characteristic Christian understanding of euangelion as the preaching of the coming of the kingdom by Christ and his church. It was in Judaea, according to Harnack, that Greek-speaking Christians first adopted the Greek word in this sense, to gain an equivalent for the Hebrew or Aramaic used by fellow-members of the church. From the New Testament side, this inference was encouraged especially by Mark, a gospel which attests the noun euangelion but not the cognate verb. Hence Aramaic, including Aramaic renderings of Hebrew scripture, would have formed the immediate background of the Christian use of the Greek noun. Yet this assumed new inner-Christian development in the use of the noun could readily have merged with the emphasis on the verb and its participle already received by Judaeans familiar with the Old Testament in Greek. Thus Judaean Christian Greek vocabulary, for Harnack, included the whole cluster euangelizesthai, euangelion, and euangelistes. Thirdly, this argument for the importance of the Aramaic ^sor^tha in the awareness of Judaean hearers of scripture was supported by Dalman with evidence which is abidingly important in two respects. On the one hand he showed that the Aramaic vocabulary, like the corresponding Greek, was used for the significant announcements of family and national life, as when 28th Adar is remembered in an essentially pre-Mishnaic Aramaic text as the date when (probably after the death of Antiochus IV) 'good news ( b e s o r e t h a tabetha ) came to the Jews, that they should not depart from the law' (Megillath Taanith, 12). On the other hand, the biblical attestation of lebasser in the context of divine or prophetic announcement could itself be seen to heighten the prominence of besoretba. Thus Dalman noted that the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (44:6, 77:12) spoke of the prophetic 'message', although he did not discuss the underlying Greek or Semitic-language term (considered further below). Attention was implicitly drawn by Dalman to the near-synonymous collocation in biblical and post-biblical Hebrew of lebasser with lehashmia', 'to proclaim' and of besorah with shemu'ah, 'report' or 'tidings', and by Billerbeck to the use of Aramaic besoretha to represent shemu'ah as well as besorab; this collocation is well attested in Isa.52:7, parallel with Nah. 2:1 (1:15). 16 16 G. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig, 1898, 2nd edn 1930), E.T. The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1909), p. 85, E.T. p. 104, citing for a messianic announcer of good tidings Kalir's piyyut Az mi-liphne be-reshith, in which the third stanza ends 'to make proclamation to us (lehashmi'enu) on mount Lebanon [the temple mount] a second time (Isa. 11.11) by the hand of Yinnon [the messiah, 'Yinnon is his name' (Ps. 72.17)]' (for a text with brief commentary

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

87

Judaea

T h e n e a r - s y n o n y m i t y o f the t w o H e b r e w verbs and nouns, and the importance of Targumic rendering of shemu'ah

b y besoretha,

was later explicitly un-

derlined b y P. Stuhlmacher, with acknowledgement to J . Buxtorf's registration o f this rendering, f r o m O b a d . 1, in his lexicon (first issued 1615). 1 7 Stuhlmacher's appeal to fresh evidence f o r the p r o m i n e n c e of besoretba

was part o f a

broad review o f Jewish and n o n - J e w i s h sources which marked a new stage in inquiry through scrutiny o f newly-published or neglected texts, especially but not only f r o m the Targums and the Q u m r a n writings; it included a study of and euangelion

euangelizesthai

in the L X X and J o s e p h u s which brought out

contacts with J e w i s h tradition. Stuhlmacher's overall view was close to that of H a r n a c k , and is followed in the main b y M . H e n g e l and A . M . Schwemer when they argue against derivation of 'gospel' vocabulary f r o m ruler-cult, and f o r a very early Christian development (already taken up by the Hellenists in the J e rusalem church) o f a G r e e k vocabulary o f euangelion maic besoretha

on the basis of the A r a -

and the Septuagintal renderings of Isaiah and the Psalter. 1 8

Fourthly, to move f r o m the question of the prominence of the relevant H e brew and Aramaic vocabulary to its signification, particularly notable was the continuing c o n n e c t i o n between announcement and the vocabulary of divine kingship discerned b y D a l m a n and Billerbeck; D a l m a n had drawn attention in this regard not only to biblical passages on the bearer o f tidings such as Isa. 40:9, 41:27, 52:7, but also to interpretations o f this mebasser

in Isa. 52:7 as the return-

ing Elijah or the messianic king, in the midrash and synagogue p o e t r y of later R o m a n and B y z a n t i n e Palestine. 1 9 Chronologically, their biblical and p o s t - b i b lical H e b r e w and Aramaic material ranges f r o m the Second Temple period to the B y z a n t i n e age; but it suggests that Christian linkage of 'gospel' vocabulary with declaration of the kingdom of G o d and his C h r i s t may belong to a series of Judaean J e w i s h developments of the biblical association of announcement with divine kingship. H e n c e , lastly, it also emerged that the associations o f euangelion

in the c o n -

text o f Augustan ruler-cult were not far f r o m those o f the announcement v o cabulary in its O l d Testament contexts. T h u s J o a c h i m Jeremias stressed that the see [E.] D. Goldschmidt, Mahzor la-yamim ha-nora'im [2 vols., Jerusalem, 1970], ii, p. 410); Billerbeck, Kommentar, iii, p. 5, on Rom. 1:1, citing parallel narratives of Johanan b. Zaccai before Vespasian in Hebrew (Babylonian Talmud, Gittin 56b, with shemu'ah ) and Aramaic (Lam. R. i 5, with besoretha)-, D.J.A. Clines (ed.), with J. Elwolde and others, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, ii (Sheffield, 1995), p. 277a (collocation of synonyms in Isa. 52.7). 17 P. Stuhlmacher, Daspaulinische Evangelium. I. Vorgeschichte (FRLANT 95; Göttingen, 1968), pp. 122-53; id., 'The Pauline Gospel', pp. 151-2, 161-2. 18 M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer, Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien (WUNT 108, Tübingen, 1998), pp. 153-5. 19 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 84-6, E.T. 102-4, citing among texts on the messiah Targ. Lam. 2:22, Cant. R. on 2:13, and Az mi-liphne be-reshith; Billerbeck in Strack & Billerbeck, Kommentar, iii, pp. 4-11 (8), on Rom. 1:1.

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

88 H e b r e w verb lebasser

recalled ancient near eastern announcement of the new

age o f a n e w king. 2 0 Jeremias urged that associations with kingship - very like, it may be added, the associations highlighted b y Deissmann from the ruler-cult of the eastern R o m a n provinces - did indeed already belong to the p r o p h e c y including the phrase 'to announce to the afflicted' ( l e b a s s e r 'anawim, gelisasthai

ptochois)

LXX

euan-

in Isa. 61:1; and that this p r o p h e c y was quoted b y Jesus at

the beginning of his ministry to declare the opening of a new age ( L u k e 4:18— 19). It is implied in Jeremias's presentation that these associations o f a 'gospel' with the publicity of a new reign would have reached Galilaean J e w s under A n tipas not through the G r e e k idiom o f the Augustan cult or its predecessors, but through the H e b r e w biblical b o o k s and their o w n reflections o f Israelite, Syrian, M e s o p o t a m i a n and Persian monarchy, transmitted in a mainly Semiticlanguage J e w i s h context. It could then seem, however, that the interpretation of 'gospel' f r o m the G r e e k praises of Augustan ruler-cult, and its interpretation against the background o f H e b r e w scripture, fully converge in associating this vocabulary with the good tidings of a new reign. B o t h backgrounds loomed large in H e r o d i a n Judaea. T h e s e considerations offered b y earlier biblical study outline a good case f o r the familiarity o f relevant H e b r e w , Aramaic and G r e e k vocabulary, especially the verbs, among Judaean J e w s at the time of Christian origins. T h e r e are perhaps still m o r e indications pointing in this direction. T h a t is suggested b y further aspects o f some primary texts n o w to be be considered, first f r o m the L X X and its pseudepigrapha, with one or t w o passages o f kindred content f r o m J o s e p h u s and the N e w Testament, and then f r o m the Targum, with a n o t e of the rabbinic exegetical usage registered b y Bacher. First, then, with reference to the opinion that Septuagintal attestation of the noun euangelion

is slender or non-existent, debate turns on those verses in I I

Samuel and II Kings (II and I V Kingdoms in the G r e e k ) which in H e b r e w attest the six biblical occurrences o f the noun besorab

noted above. In the G r e e k text

o f the great uncial codices the feminine n o u n euangelia

is clearly attested in the

sense of ' g o o d news' at I I K i n g d o m s = II Sam. 18:20; 27; I V Kingdoms = II Ki. 7:9, but the neuter noun euangelion

appears with certainty only once, with the

sense 'reward f o r good news' and in the accusative plural (II K i n g d o m s = II Sam. 4:10). Possible instances of its nominative plural euangelia

in the sense

'good news' do indeed o c c u r in the account of the bringing of the double news o f victory over the rebels and the death of A b s a l o m in II K i n g d o m s = I I Sam. 18:22; 25. In both verses the w o r d is accentuated as the plural of euangelion

by a

c o r r e c t o r of C o d e x Vaticanus. 2 1 Verse 25 presents the single sure instance o f 20 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie xxxiii.4, Gütersloh, 1930), pp. 17-18. 21 A.E. Brooke, N. McLean & H.StJ. Thackeray (ed.), The Old Testament in Greek, Volume II. The Later Historical Books, Part 1.1 and II Samuel (Cambridge, 1927), pp. 170-71.

Í. 'Gospel' in Herodian euangelion

89

Judaea

in the sense of ' g o o d news' allowed b y Billerbeck and Hengel, as

noted above. In b o t h verses, however, the word could be accentuated as the nominative singular of the feminine noun euangelia,

which is attested m o r e

clearly, as already noted, just before and after these t w o verses. 2 2 In all the verses cited M T gives the singular

besorab.

Yet, as the corrections in C o d e x Vaticanus might already suggest, some cursive G r e e k witnesses to the account o f the bearing o f tidings to David attest the plural euangélia,

' g o o d news', in the genitive in verses 20 (one manuscript) and

27, and in the nominative in verse 31. 2 3 In verses 27 and 31 the five manuscripts in question have long been taken to attest the Lucianic recension. 2 4 This is in general close to some O l d Latin witnesses and to the biblical text of Josephus, and perhaps ultimately reflects revision in the A n t i o c h e n e Jewish c o m m u n i t y of the first century A . D . 2 5 In verses 27 and 31, accordingly, the plural euangélia

is

admitted into the ' A n t i o c h e n e text' as reconstructed b y N . Fernández M a r c o s and J . R . B u s t o Saiz, and these editors also accentuate euangélia

in verse 22. 2 6 In

verses 2 0 and 25, following the five Lucianic manuscripts, they print forms o f euangelismos;

this noun is not attested in the uncials or the N e w Testament but

is c o m m o n in patristic G r e e k , as noted above. Yet, despite its non-registration b y Liddell and Scott and their revisers, it was not necessarily restricted to Christians in antiquity. T h e H e b r e w and the G r e e k texts of the b o o k s o f Samuel were marked b y variation and revision from long before the time of Christian origins. It seems very possible that, as Wellhausen, H a r n a c k and Friedrich held, the redactor responsible f o r II K i n g d o m s = I I Sam. 1 8 : 2 0 - 2 7 as transmitted in the great uncials envisaged the feminine noun euangelia the attestation of the neuter euangelion

throughout. O n the other hand, given in the sense o f 'good n e w s ' in n o n -

J e w i s h G r e e k texts f r o m the first century B . C . onwards, it seems not unlikely that some J e w s in this period may have understood I I Ki. 1 8 : 2 2 , 2 5 as presenting euangelion

in this sense in the plural (as in C i c e r o , e.g. ad Att. 2.3.1, the Priene

22 This accentuation is followed by Brooke, McLean & Thackeray, as cited above, and by H.B. Swete and A. Rahlfs in their hand-editions. On the gradual introduction in Greek biblical manuscripts of diacritical signs (second century onwards) and then of fuller accentuation (fourth century onwards) see A. Biondi, Gli accenti neipapiri greci biblici (Papyrologica Castroctaviana, Studia et textus, 9; Rome & Barcelona, 1983), p. 67. 23 Brooke, McLean & Thackeray, I and II Samuel, pp. 170-71. 24 Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium,, pp. 155-6: N. Fernández Marcos & J.R. Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega, I, 1-2 Samuel (Madrid, 1989), pp.xiv, lxxxvii. 25 This is the view of N. Fernández Marcos, Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia (2nd edn, Madrid, 1998), p. 238, E.T. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible (Leiden, Boston & Cologne, 2000), pp. 235-6; at E.T. p. 235, in the last line of the text, 'Antioch' should be read for 'Alexandria'. 26 Fernández Marcos & Busto Saiz, El texto antioqueno de la Biblia griega, I, 1-2 Samuel, pp. 143-5.

90

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

inscription, and Josephus, B.J. iv 618, cited below); and that they may have also read this plural in verses 20, 27, and 31, in the fashion attested in the Vaticanus corrections and in some cursive manuscripts, most notably by witnesses to the Lucianic recension in verses 22, 27 and 31. Diffusion of G r e e k biblical versions f o r Jewish use in Judaea is confirmed f o r the time o f Christian origins b y G r e e k biblical fragments from Q u m r a n Cave 7 and above all b y the Nahal H e v e r (Wadi H a b r a ) G r e e k text of the M i n o r Prophets. A t this period, therefore, J e w s could have discerned in their G r e e k scriptures a n u m b e r of instances o f euangelion

in the plural in the sense of 'good news', as

well as widespread use o f euangelizesthai.

T h i s point is supported, n o w with

one or t w o indications o f the singular, b y pseudepigrapha from the later Second Temple period. T h u s euangelizesthai

is used f o r divine or prophetic announce-

ment in the G r e e k texts of the Psalms of S o l o m o n , on 'the voice of one announcing in J e r u s a l e m ' (11:1, considered b e l o w ) and the Paralipomena of Jeremiah, on preaching b y Jeremiah (3:11, 5:21). Again in connection with the prophetic message, the Syriac A p o c a l y p s e of B a r u c h as cited above refers to (plural) 'ann o u n c e m e n t s ' which he had given beforehand (46:6), and a 'scroll of tidings' (in the singular, 77:12) which he writes to the exiles in B a b y l o n ; both passages use Syriac sebarta,

which often renders the G r e e k noun euangelion

there is therefore a fair possibility that euangelion

(n.6, above), and

stood in the lost G r e e k text

translated here. T h e association of euangelizesthai

with the divine or prophetic message re-

appears in Josephus, when J o s h u a as prophet (compare his high profile as prophet in I Ki. 16:34 and the Q u m r a n texts) ' a n n o u n c e d ' beforehand to the people the fall of J e r i c h o (euengelizeto,

Ant. v 24, expanding J o s h . 6.16), and the

apparition of an angel was ' a n n o u n c i n g ' beforehand the birth of Samson gelizomenon,

(euan-

Ant. v 277, expanding Judg. 13.3); and likewise in L u k e , when

angels ' a n n o u n c e ' births to Zacharias and the shepherds ( L u k e 1:19, quoted above; 2:10; both with parts o f euangelizesthai),

and the Baptist ' a n n o u n c e d ' his

prophetic exhortation to the people ( e u e n g e l i z e t o , L u k e 3:18). In Revelation, close in expression to the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, G o d ' a n n o u n c e d ' the completion o f his mystery to the prophets (Rev. 10:7, with the verb and an angel has an eternal euangelion

euengelisen),

(singular) to announce (Rev. 14:6, with

b o t h verb and noun). T h e s e N e w Testament passages primarily attest not a specialized Christian usage, but J e w i s h usage o f the H e r o d i a n age. 2 7 This evidence from the Lucianic G r e e k text of the historical b o o k s , from pseudepigrapha transmitted in G r e e k and Syriac, from Josephus's biblical paraphrase, and from passages of L u k e and the Revelation which lack a specialized Christian stamp, should be set in turn beside the slight but significant Septua27 They were assessed on these lines by Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische pp. 216-7.

Evangelium,

i. 'Gospel'

in Herodian

Judaea

91

gintal heightening of the notion of a number of bearers of tidings (Joel 3:5 [2:32] end, implicitly recalled in Acts 2:21, as well as Ps. 68 ([67]:12; Isa. 52:7 is comparably quoted with a plural in Rom. 10:15). 28 In all, then, the Greek noun (sometimes in the singular) as well as the verb, especially in the context of divine or prophetic announcement, and the group of biblical texts on announcing and announcers, were probably familiar to Greek-speaking Jews and Christians in Herodian Judaea. Secondly, the Targumic renderings of the Isaianic prophecies of good tidings gave besoretha a higher profile, as Stuhlmacher showed, by the use of besoretha to render shemu'ah. This extended use of besoretha is probably also relevant for Herodian Judaea, especially given the biblical collocation of Hebrew besorab and shemu'ab noted above; for Targum Jonathan on the prophets is regarded as relatively early (before A.D. 200), and despite its exclusively Babylonian transmission is thought to reflect language either of Judaea itself or of Syria. 2 9 Neither Aramaic besoretha nor Greek euangelion is therefore likely to have been unfamiliar in Herodian Judaea. The view that besoretba and cognate words became prominent in Aramaic biblical paraphrase receives some confirmation from their appearances in the Pentateuchal Targums of the Palestinian tradition. One or two of these appearances introduce into Pentateuchal contexts in Aramaic the phrases concerning a herald of good tidings which are prominent in Hebrew in the psalms and prophets. Thus Sarah exclaims 'how faithful was the bearer of tidings who announced (m e bass e ra de-bassar) to Abraham, saying Sarah will suckle children' (Gen. 21:7, Neofiti and Ps.-Jonathan). Again, Naphthali like 'a hind sent out, putting forth words of beauty' in Jacob's blessing (Gen. 49:21) becomes a 'herald of good tidings', rrfbassar besoran tabban, in Neofiti and Ps.-Jonathan, in recognition of his position in the haggadah as the swift messenger among the patriarchs. 3 0 These Targums are closely linked with the haggadah as expounded in Galilee and elsewhere in Palestine well after the Herodian age, in the third, fourth and fifth centuries; but they indicate the persistence of the relevant Aramaic vocabulary and of the image of the herald of good tidings, and thus confirm the suggestion of a high profile for this vocabulary which emerges from Targum Jonathan on the Prophets.

28 For the implied reference to this part of Joel 3.5 (2.32) in Acts 2.21 see Dodd (1952), 467; on Rom. 10.15 against this background Stuhlmacher (1991), 163. 29 The setting of the Targum is discussed by E.M. Cook, 'A New Perspective on the Language of Onkelos and Jonathan', in D.R.G. Beattie & M.J. McNamara (ed.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context (JSOT Supplements, 166; Sheffield, 1994), pp. 14256. 30 These passages were cited from Ps.-Jonathan by Stuhlmacher, Das paulinische Evangelium, pp. 128, 139 n. 2.

92

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

In the Galilaean and Palestininan settings which shaped these Targums, the H e b r e w verb lebasser

came to the fore not dissimilarly in biblical interpretation

transmitted in Hebrew. This point was made b y B a c h e r with reference to literature f r o m the Mishnah onwards. 3 1 T h e scripture or the h o l y spirit was viewed as a messenger bringing tidings, often with use of the feminine nfbassereth,

participle

prominent in the biblical text at Isa. 40:9, Ps. 68:11 (pi.). T h u s , to

pick out t w o of Bacher's instances, in Mishnaic exposition of the D e u t e r o n o m i c rite for expiation of an uncertain murder, 'the holy spirit announces to them (mebassartan)'

that when the rite is performed the blood

shall be forgiven

them

'

( D e u t . 21:9, interpreted in M . Sotah ix 6). Similarly, an exegesis attributed to R e s h Laqish, w h o taught in third-century Tiberias, takes the suggestion of a future reference constituted b y the unexpected use of imperfect tenses in E x o d .

1:12 the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied as 'the holy spirit announcing to them ( m e b a s s a r t a n ) ' that affliction will o n l y make the Israelites multiply (Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 11a, foot; E x o d . R . i 11, on E x o d . 1:12). T h u s the scripture or the spirit 'announces', in this H e b r e w terminology, somewhat as a divine messenger or prophet ' a n n o u n c e s ' in the earlier J e w i s h G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y noted above f r o m the Psalms of S o l o m o n , the Paralipomena of Jeremiah, J o s e p h u s , L u k e and Revelation. T h e O l d Testament approach to 'gospel' vocabulary which has been followed thus far has highlighted biblical translation and interpretation in the J e w i s h community, from the L X X in the Hellenistic age to the H e b r e w and A r a maic midrash and synagogue p o e t r y o f the later R o m a n empire. S o m e G r e e k biblical renderings have been freshly reviewed together with G r e e k pseudepigrapha, Josephus's biblical paraphrase, and some N e w Testament texts; and passages f r o m the Targums have been reconsidered together with rabbinic c o m ment. T h e biblically-derived vocabulary o f 'gospel', including the noun, has emerged as alive in H e r o d i a n Judaea in the transmission and development o f biblical tradition not only in Aramaic, but also in G r e e k . Its continuing life is accompanied by continuing interest in messengerfigures, evident in the concept o f a n u m b e r o f euangelizomenoi

in the L X X , in

the added references to a bearer of good tidings in the Targum, and in the rabbinic concept o f scripture or the holy spirit as giving tidings. This development can be linked with the persistence into Hellenistic and R o m a n times o f that interest in messengers of G o d - prophetic, priestly, or angelic - which had became prominent in H e b r e w biblical texts during the Persian period (Isa. 42:19, 44:26; Hag. 1:13; Mai. 2:7, 3:1; I I C h r o n . 3 6 : 1 5 - 1 6 ; cf. E x o d . 3:2, 23:12, 33:2, on the messenger or angel of the exodus). In G r e e k these passages use the w o r d los, cognate with euangelizesthai. 31

W. Bacher, Die exegetische

ange-

Against the background of this interest, to-

Terminologie

der jüdischen

Traditionsliteratur

zig, 1899, 1905, repr. in one vol., Darmstadt, 1965), i, p. 11; ii, pp. 23, 203.

(2 vols., Leip-

y 'Gospel' in Herodian

Judaea

93

gether with widespread use of euangelizesthai, sometimes with euangelion, for the divine and prophetic message, it is not hard to see how the exodus generation could be viewed in Hebrews as euengelismenoi (Heb. 4:2, quoted above). At the same time this interpretation can be envisaged as current in Judaea, not simply in the diaspora. The Greek and Aramaic vocabulary of 'gospel' has now been considered in the context of the scriptures and their Jewish interpretation and translation. The review confirmed that Jews in Herodian Judaea are likely to have been familiar with this vocabulary in both languages. At the same time, however, it became clear that the relevant words were used by gentiles as well as Jews in family life, and gained prominence in connection with temples and royal courts. A move can now appropriately be made from a focus on the Old and New Testaments to an overlapping but distinct focus on religion in Judaea. The place of 'gospel' vocabulary in ordinary life is not forgotten, but Jewish and gentile religion are primarily in view, with special reference to honorific formulae, hymnody and prophecy.

2. Myth and Hymnody

in

Judaea

Syrian, Idumaean, Greek and Roman cults flourished in Herodian Judaea together with the Jewish cult of the one God. This old-established coexistence came to the fore under Herod the Great through the reincorporation into his kingdom of Greek cities which had once been subject to the Hasmonaeans, and his own zeal as a founder and benefactor of cities, now with Roman as well as Greek characteristics in cult and ethos. 3 2 Syrian and Greek mythology was correspondingly current in Judaea side by side with what may be called Jewish biblical mythology. Recognition of a mythological aspect of biblical literature by such students of ancient Judaism as H. Gunkel and W. Bousset has been vividly restated for the later Second Temple period by S. Schwartz, with emphasis on the impact of successive empires. 33 He pictures Judaism as a covenantal religion focused on two institutions supported by Persian and Greek rulers, the sanctuary and the law of the one God; but he also stresses that it was permeated by and sometimes in tension with a mythology, most strikingly attested in the apocalypses. A similar permeation can be discerned, it may be added, through the prophets and psalms, J o b and Proverbs, and the biblical versions in Greek and Aramaic. In

3 2 F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, 1993), pp. 353-9. 33 S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. (Princeton & Oxford, 2001), pp. 14-15, 49-87.

94

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

this biblical m y t h o l o g y lesser divine beings - 'gods', ' h o l y ones' or 'messengers' (in English translation often 'angels') - are envisaged together with the sovereign deity in a kind of pantheon, comparable with the historically related pantheons o f Syria and Greece. Settings f o r the vocabulary of announcement which are brought into view in this context of religion then include not only ruler-cults but also the cults of deities envisaged as kings. A m o n g these the most important for the present purpose is the J e w i s h cult o f the most high G o d , 'a great king above all gods' (Ps. 95:3), the 'king of heaven' (Dan. 4:34 [37], in Aramaic; I Esdras 4:46; 58, in G r e e k ) . F r o m the Persian period onwards a renewed J e w i s h emphasis on the deity as king and on his kingdom (for phrases which can be rendered ' k i n g d o m o f G o d ' first b e c o m e prominent in C h r o n i c l e s ) was concurrent with a G r e e k heightening o f emphasis on the supreme deity as king, found in philosophical as well as poetic discourse. 3 4 T h e setting o f these developments, for b o t h J e w s and Greeks, was the Persian m o n a r c h y and then the G r e e k monarchies which followed Alexander the Great. T h e importance of heavenly heralds and messengers f o r J e w s in this period has emerged already. T h e i r equal importance for gentiles appears clearly in the broader context of the religions of Judaea. F r o m the O l y m p i a n s H e r m e s stands out. H e was invoked as euangelos,

and his attribute as the swift announcer of

good news is emphasized b y Philo: he was connected with the praise of A u gustus, and he was one o f the deities whose dress was adopted by Gaius Caligula: his likeness had been k n o w n in Syria, Phoenicia and Samaria through gems and seals, and later he was k n o w n in Judaea under the R o m a n name Mercury, echoed in the Mishnah. 3 5 Herald-figures also include, however, kings (like A u gustus and Gaius) in some aspects of ruler-cult. S o m e w h a t comparably in the Assumption of Moses, to return to a document of H e r o d i a n Judaism, Moses becomes a H e r m e s - l i k e 'master of the w o r d ' and 34 W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998), pp. 37-46, on biblical texts; C. Markschies, 'Piatons König oder Vater Jesu Christi? Drei Beispiele für die Rezeption eines griechischen Gottesepithetons bei den Christen in den ersten Jahrhunderten und deren Vorgeschichte', in M. Hengel & A.M. Schwemer (edd.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Christentum und in der hellenistischen Welt (Tübingen, 1991), pp. 385-439 (408-18), on Hellenistic philosophy. 35 P.G.W. Glare (ed., with the assistance of A.A. Thompson), H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. Stuart Jones & R. McKenzie, Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement (Oxford, 1996), p. 135b, citing IG 12 (5).235 (Paros, 1st century A.D.); Horace, Od. i 2, 41-4, addressed to Augustus, with the comments by R.G.M. Nisbet & Margaret Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book I (Oxford, 1970); Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 99-102, on the attributes of Hermes and Gaius's claim to them; M. J. W. Leith, Wadi Daliyeh, i, The Wadi Daliyeh Seal Impressions (DJD xxiv, Oxford, 1997), pp. 39-48, and Plate i, on bullae originally attached to Aramaic papyri connected with Samaria found in the Wadi Daliyeh, north of Jericho; W. A. L. Elmslie, The Mishna on Idolatry: Aboda Zara (Texts and Studies viii.2, Cambridge, 1911), pp. 62-3, on A.Z. iv 1-2 'by the side of the Merqolis ... on top of the Merqolis'.

5. 'Gospel'

in Herodian

Judaea

95

'great messenger' ( d o m i n u s verbi, magnus nuntius; 11:16-17), and at the appearing of God's kingdom (10:1-2) a 'messenger' (nuntius) is commissioned to avenge Israel (cf. Isa. 61:1-2). Against this broader Judaean background of both gentile and Jewish concern with heavenly messengers, the nfbasser or euangelizomenos of Isa. 52:7 commanded attention. The cults of Judaea and their mythology of course form the general setting of the biblical texts and versions considered above. Now, however, I should like to concentrate on some texts which are cultic in a more immediate sense. H o n o rific formulae, hymnody and prophecy are mainly in view. To begin with ruler-cult, it is likely, as noted already, that the associations of euangelion in this context will have been known to many Jews in Herodian J u daea. Ruler-cult had been familiar to Jews throughout the Greek period, and the cult of Augustus in particular was fostered by Herod in Judaea with magnificent temples at Paneas and at his new foundations of Sebaste and Caesarea; elements of ruler-cult surrounded the Herodian kings themselves. 36 Publicity correspondingly accompanied Herod the Great's accession day, chosen as the dedication day of the rebuilt Jerusalem sanctuary, and Antipas's birthday in his territories (Josephus, Ant. xv 421-3; Mark 6:20). Although the vocabulary of euangelion and besoretha is unattested in the general notices of the 'good reports and praises' with which Herodian kings were hailed ( e u p h e m i a i kai epainoi, Josephus, Ant. xvii 200, on the acclamation of Archelaus in Jerusalem), these recurrent Judaean occasions can be expected to have attracted it. This vocabulary is attested, however, in connection with Vespasian's accession in Josephus (euangelia were celebrated with feasting in every city, B.J. iv 618, cf. 656); and rabbinic legend as later transmitted in Aramaic correspondingly imagines Johanan b. Zaccai telling Vespasian fcsor^tha tabetba itbbassart, 'you have received good news' (Lam. R. i 5). Christian use of euangelizesthai and cognate words has often appeared principally, as noted above, as part of a more extensive overlap between New Testament and ruler-cult vocabulary, with a suggestion of gentile rather than Jewish derivation. This suggestion has probably been strengthened not only by recognition of the impact of ruler-cult on Judaea and its Jewish population, such as is advocated here, but also by the assumed yet questionable lack of attestation of the noun euangelion in an appropriate sense in Greek current among Jews. At

3 6 O n the interaction between Greek, R o m a n and Herodian ruler-cult and Judaism and early Christianity, with an argument for its influence on messianism and the cult of Christ, see Yiorbnry, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ, pp. 68-77, 1 3 4 - 6 ; the prominence of the Augustan cult in Herodian Judaea is stressed b y A. Yarbro Collins, ' T h e Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult', in C . C . Newman, J . R . Davila & G.S. Lewis (ed.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 63; Leiden, Boston & Cologne, 1999), pp. 2 3 4 - 5 7 (242, 2 5 5 - 7 ) , in her argument that the imperial cult was a decisive factor in the emergence of the worship of Christ.

96

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

a n y rate, it also became clear in earlier s t u d y that the theme of an auspicious reign belonged both to the newly-discovered texts of ruler-cult, and to the Old Testament passages on announcement and announcers of divine kingship which had influenced the N e w Testament. Moreover, both J e w i s h scriptural attestations, and those linked w i t h gentile ruler-cult, were seen to be taking up usages familiar in f a m i l y and national life, notably the announcement of births and victories. Hence the overlap in this instance between Old and N e w Testament vocabulary and that associated w i t h ruler-cult can be compared w i t h the similar overlap between ruler-cult and the piety of Israel and the church in the vocabulary concerned w i t h gift and benefaction. In this case too the overlap covers the H e b r e w biblical texts themselves (as in Exod. 28:28 on the ' h o l y gifts' of the people) as well as the LXX and the N e w Testament. The vocabulary of gift w a s current, like that of 'gospel', in e v e r y d a y life f r o m the Persian to the Hellenistic and R o m a n periods. 3 7 In these cases there is p r o b a b l y less difficulty or paradox than has sometimes been thought w h e n vocabulary which is prominent in gentile courts and temples is also e m p l o y e d in J e w i s h or Christian piety. The w o r d s in question are in more general currency, and receive a heightened profile and an attractive association w i t h p o w e r f r o m their honorific use by gentiles w i t h regard to deities and to rulers. In biblical as in later times, the language of liturgical praise has characteristically been influenced b y court usage. To move n o w f r o m ruler-cult to the J e w i s h cult of the 'king of heaven', the main texts still to be considered belong to J e w i s h praise and prophecy. The good news of the divine reign had been classically declared, f r o m the beginning of the Persian period, in prophecies often cited already on the voice or the herald announcing that ' y o u r God has become king' (Isa. 40:3; 9; 52:7, etc.), and in commemorations of the ' k i n g d o m ' of God (Dan. 3:33 (4:3), Ps. 145:13) and its Davidic manifestation (I C h r o n . 28:5, 29:23; II Chron. 13:8). The unabated vigour of prophetic formulae of announcement in Judaea, shortly before H e r o d the Great became king, is seen in respect of lebasser and euangelizesthai in the Q u m r a n H o d a y o t h and the Psalms of Solomon. A fragmentarily preserved passage of the H o d a y o t h envisages the 'servant' of God w h o speaks as empowered 'to proclaim ( l e h a s h m i a ) from his understanding to a creature, and to interpret these things to dust like myself', 'to be a herald ( m e b a s s e r ) of ... t h y generosity, to preach good news ( l e b a s s e r ) to the afflicted' ( l Q H a xxiii 11-14, f o r m e r l y xviii 11-14). 3 8 Line 11 lehashmia ulti-

37 On the impact of gift-culture on both ruler-cult and the piety attested in Philo, Josephus, rabbinic literature and St Paul see W. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians (London & New York, 2003), pp. 70-78. 38 Garcia Martinez & Tigchelaar (2000), i, 194-7.

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

mately evokes line 14 mebasser

and lebasser,

Judaea

97

on the pattern of the D e u t e r o -

Isaianic collocation o f the t w o verbs noted above. In the absence of context it can be surmised that here as in other similar compositions the speaker is the 'servant', despite his rueful reference to 'dust like m y s e l f ' . 3 9 H e stresses his abasement, but also the grace which has highly exalted him - to the status of the herald in Isa. 52:7 ( m e b a s s e r ) , and o f the one anointed with the spirit in Isa. 61:1 to preach ( l e b a s s e r ) to the afflicted. Even through the oracular and allusive style of the H o d a y o t h , the 'herald' begins to emerge as a distinct figure. T h a t is also the case in the eleventh Psalm of S o l o m o n , already quoted above, f r o m a collection n o w current in G r e e k and to be dated between 63 and 4 0 B . C . T h i s h y m n on the ingathering o f Jerusalem's children (cf. Isa. 60:4) can be classified as a ' Z i o n psalm' outside the Davidic psalter, broadly comparable with the Jerusalem-centred psalm o f Tobit or the A p o s t r o p h e to Zion f r o m the psalms scroll of Q u m r a n Cave 11, but particularly close to the p o e m addressed to Jerusalem in B a r u c h 4 : 3 6 - 5 . 9 . It begins ' B l o w the trumpet o f jubilee (Lev. 2 5 : 9 - 1 0 ) f o r the saints, proclaim ( k e r y x a t e ) in Jerusalem the voice of one w h o bears tidings (euangelizomenou),

f o r G o d has had

mercy on Israel in his visitation' (Ps. Sol. 11:1 ). 4 0 H e r e the voice is the particular 'voice' o f the 'bringer o f tidings' to Z i o n (Isa. 40:6;9, 52:7) in the day of 'visitat i o n ' or divine deliverance (cf. 1 Q S iv 6, 19, 26; Wisd. 3:7), viewed as the supreme liberating jubilee (Lev. 2 5 : 9 - 1 0 , echoed in Isa. 61:1 'to proclaim release', L X X keryxai...

aphesin).

T h e s e t w o hymns therefore link the announcer o f Isa. 52:7 ( t r f b a s s e r , L X X euangelizomenos)

either with the anointed announcer o f Isa. 61:1 (in the

passage f r o m the H o d a y o t h ) or with the unspecified announcer of the jubilee in Lev. 2 5 : 9 - 1 0 , the law which is echoed in Isa. 61:1 (in the Psalms of S o l o m o n ) ; in Ps. Sol. 11:1 the announcer is also identified with the Deutero-Isaianic 'voice'. T h e figure of the announcer has thus b e c o m e nodal in a nexus of Isaianic texts, with which the Pentateuchal jubilee law is linked, and which is used in differing ways in h y m n o d y b y the beginning of the Herodian age. Particularly notable is the extent of the nexus in Ps.Sol. 11:1, f o r which the existence of a G r e e k text suggests a wide currency. 3 9 Following M. Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumran (Hodayot) (Paris, 1962), p. 288, rather than S. Holm-Nielsen, Hodayot: Psalms from Qumran (Acta Theologica Danica 2, Aarhus, 1960), p. 255 (arguing that the speaker differentiates himself from the 'servant' with this phrase). 40 Keryxate was conjecturally retroverted into Hebrew as hashmi'u by W. Frankenberg, Die Datierung der Psalmen Salomos (BZAW 1, Giessen, 1896), p. 77; although lebashmia is not rendered by this Greek verb in LXX, a Hebrew or Aramaic text of Ps. Sol. 11:1 could well have echoed Isa. 42.2 'proclaim (yashmia') his voice', as happens in the later Hebrew and Aramaic synagogue poems quoted below (see nn. 45-6), and the collocation of lebashmia' and lebasser noted above would then have appeared not only in the Hodayoth but also in Ps. Sol. 11:1.

98

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety This impression is confirmed by t w o further fragmentary Q u m r a n H e b r e w

texts. T h e y p r o b a b l y represent prophetic compositions rather than hymns, although they use expressions which could also suit hymnody. First, the ann o u n c e m e n t o f Isa. 61:1 is linked with the future resurrection in an exhortation classified b y E . Puech as a messianic apocalypse, perhaps of the later second century B . C . . ' G l o r i o u s things which were not before shall the L o r d do, as he said; for he shall heal the stricken and revive the dead, he shall bring good tidings to the meek . . . ' ( 4 Q 5 2 1 , f r a g m e n t 2 ii, lines 1 1 - 1 2 ) . 4 1 Puech emphasizes the resemblance in theme and language between these lines and the passage f r o m the H o d a y o t h considered above, envisaging the possibility that they are by the same author. T h i s resemblance should not, however, obscure the links between 4 Q 5 2 1 and texts not found at Q u m r a n . T h u s the Isaianic tidings to the meek are comparably linked with healing and resurrection in the Q passage Matt. 11:5, parallel with L u k e 7:22, noted above among the N e w Testament quotations o f O l d Testament texts using euangelizesthai.

T h e association o f Isa. 61:1 with re-

surrection also broadly coheres with Ps. Sol. 11:1. H e r e Isa. 52:7

euangeli-

zomenos and Lev. 2 5 : 9 - 1 0 (echoed in Isa. 61:1) are connected with divine 'visitation', which in the Q u m r a n C o m m u n i t y Rule can include the gift of everlasting life ( 1 Q S iv 6 - 7 ) . T h e n yet another Q u m r a n find, the fragmentary H e b r e w text 1 1 Q 1 3 ( 1 1 Q Melchizedek), again perhaps f r o m a prophetic composition, associates themes o f Isa. 6 1 : 1 - 2 (the jubilee-like proclamation of liberty, with its echo of Lev. 2 5 : 9 - 1 0 ; the year o f grace; the day o f vengeance) with a definite figure, the priest-king M e l c h i z e d e k coming again at the end of days, at the tenth jubilee ( 1 1 Q 1 3 , col. ii, lines 4 - 7 , 9 , 1 3 ) . 4 2 H e is envisaged as returning from heaven, as is suggested later b y tradition p r o b a b l y current in Tiberias at the end of the third century (Pesikta d e - R a b Kahana v 9, in the name of R . Isaac, and elsewhere); here Melchizedek is one of the four smiths seen in Zechariah's vision o f four w h o would subdue the gentiles (Zech. 2:3 [1:20]), the others being Elijah, the messiah, and the priest anointed f o r war, and the four together are the 'flowers' w h i c h 'appear' when the voice of the beloved is heard in C a n t . 2 : 8 - 1 3 , a passage read together with Isa. 52:7, as noted below. In the Q u m r a n text M e l c h i z e d e k is indeed the ' g o d ' w h o 'shall give judgment in the midst of gods', as David said in Ps. 8 2 : 1 - 2 ( 1 1 Q 1 3 ii, lines 9 - 1 2 ) . M o s t importantly for the present purpose, the sequel in the Q u m r a n H e b r e w (col. ii, line 15 onwards) presents an extended interpretation of Isa. 52:7, in which the bearer o f tidings (m e basser) is identified as 'the anointed of the spirit' (ii 18) - a title which alludes again to Isa. 61:1. H e announces ' y o u r god reigns', 41 Text, translation and comment in E. Puech, Qumrân Grotte 4, xviii: Textes hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579) (DJD xxv, Oxford, 1998), pp. 10-38. 42 Text, translation and comment in F. Garcia Martinez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar & A.S. van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.ii (DJD xxiii, Oxford, 1998), pp. 221-41.

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

Judaea

99

and the 'god' is Melchizedek, according to a probable restoration (ii 23-5). The mebasser who makes this announcement is distinguished from Melchizedek by a number of interpreters; 4 3 but his title 'anointed of the spirit' (Isa. 61:1 'the spirit of the Lord God is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me to give good tidings [lebasser]') identifies him with Melchizedek, whose activity has just been presented in the terms of Isa. 61:1-2 and the jubilee of Lev. 25:9-10 (ii 4-7, 9,13, cited above). This identification in turn coheres once more with Ps. Sol. 11:1, in which, as in 11Q13 on this interpretation, the bearer of tidings in Isa. 52:7 also announces the jubilee of Lev. 25:9-10. The identification of this coming announcer with Melchizedek as anointed of the spirit and the 'god' who 'judges in the midst of gods' also coheres with later views of Melchizedek as a great spiritual being linked with Christ. These are met for instance in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7:3) and, at the end of the second century in Rome, in the monarchianism of Theodotus the banker, for w h o m Melchizedek was a great power, and Christ his image (Hippolytus, R e f . vii 36, x 24). 44 Finally, 11Q13, in combination with Ps. Sol. 11.1, suggests a background for the later Assumption of Moses, cited above, on the commissioning of an avenging nuntius (10:1-2) at the appearing of the kingdom - perhaps once more an interpretation of Isa. 61:1-2, where the anointed of the spirit announces the day of vengeance, in connection with Isa. 52:7. These further Hebrew fragments from the Qumran finds therefore fill out, through their contacts with texts not attested in the finds, the associations which had gathered round the Isaianic announcing and announcer at the beginning of the Herodian age. The announcer of Isa. 52:7 had been identified with the anointed announcer of Isa. 61:1 (the Hodayoth, 11Q13, and probably by implication Ps. Sol. 11.1), with the announcer of the jubilee of Lev. 25:9-10 (11Q13, Ps. Sol. 11:1), and with the Deutero-Isaianic voice (Ps. Sol. 11:1). The announcing in Isa. 61:1 (and Lev. 25:9-10) had been connected with future life (4Q521, cf. Ps. Sol. 11:1), a link taken up in the later Herodian age in Matt. 11:5, Luke 7:22, and with the great coming liberation (11Q13, Ps. Sol. 11:1). The verbs lebasser and euangelizesthai with their participles are therefore linked, through prophecy, with national hope and the figure of an expected announcer and deliverer, and with the law as well as the prophets and psalms; they play a part in this connection in hymnody. These associations of the verbs in their scriptural contexts reappear in the N e w Testament in Greek in connection with John the Baptist and Jesus; but 43 For example, Garcia Martinez, Tigchelaar & van der Woude, Qumran Cave 11.ii, p. 232. 44 The line connecting 11Q13 with Hebrews, Theodotus the banker, and other Christian views of Melchizedek as an angelic spirit is traced by C. Gianotto, Melchisedek e la sua tipologia (Supplementi alla Rivista Biblica, 12, Brescia, 1984), pp. 264-6.

100

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

they are also attested once more, as Dalman noted, in connection with Elijah and the messiah, in the synagogue poetry of later Roman and Byzantine Palestine. Through Hebrew and Aramaic texts from the Cairo Genizah this is now more extensively represented in print than in Dalman's time. One group of such attestations concerns the high priest, viewed as the angel or messenger of the Lord of hosts (Mai. 2:7) when he brings the tidings of divine forgiveness on the Day of Atonement, in a liturgical embodiment of national hope. In Hebrew poems of about the fifth century and later he is the 'herald ( r r f b a s s e r ) of salvation' (Isa. 52:7, quoted by Yose ben Yose), and 'as one crying in the wilderness to make straight the highways' (Isa. 40:3, in an anonymous poem), so that even the angels tremble (compare the power over the 'gods' exercised by Melchizedek the rrfbasser).45 In a second group these texts are applied to the messianic king. Some allusions play upon the resemblance noted already between Isa. 52:7 (Nah. 2:1 [1:15]) 'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the rrfbasser, together with Isa. 40:3; 6, 42:2 on the 'voice', and the Song of Solomon on 'the voice of my beloved' who 'comes leaping upon the mountains', telling me that 'the voice of the turtle-dove is heard in our land' (Cant. 2:8; 12). Thus in an exegesis probably known in third-century Tiberias 'the voice of the turtle-dove' is 'the voice of king-messiah' (Pesikta de-Rab Kahana v 9, in the name of Johanan b. Nappaha [n. 6, above]; this section was cited above for an exegesis of earlier words from Cant. 2:12). In poetry Yose ben Yose then asks correspondingly 'when will the turtle-dove cause his voice to be heard (yashmia, cf. Isa. 42:2, 52:7)? Comparably, in a later poet, Yehudah, 'he shall make us hear the voice (Isa. 42:2) crying in the wilderness (Isa. 40:3)' - the messiah - and 'I will surely bring near the one crying in the wilderness'. 46 Lastly, in an Aramaic poem for 9th Ab the messiah is both voice and rrfbasser. A great redeemer shall come to Zion (Isa. 59:20), a branch shall sprout in Jerusalem (Jer. 23:5); the voice of thy might shalt thou make heard in Zion (Isa. 40:3, 42:2; Cant. 2:12), the feet of a bearer of tidings (Isa. 52:7) in Jerusalem. 4 7

45 Yose ben Yose, Azkir geburoth, 269, in S. Mirsky (ed.), Yosse ben Yosse: Poems (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 171; anonymous Az be-eyn kol, 570-1, in J. Yahalom, Priestly Palestinian Poetry: a Narrative Liturgy for the Day of Atonement [Hebrew title begins: Az be-eyn kol] (Jerusalem, 1996), p. 126. 46 Yose ben Yose, Anusah le-ezrah, 25 in Mirsky, Yosse ben Yosse, p. 108; Yehudah, poems xxv 3, line 6; xxx 6, line 41, in W.J. van Bekkum, Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums, xliii; Leiden, Boston & Cologne, 1998), pp. 79, 196. 47 Poem 23, lines 17-20 in M. Sokoloff & J. Yahalom, Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from Late Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 164.

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian

Judaea

101

These poetic interpretations of the rrfbasser are rooted in third- and fourthcentury midrash. With their midrashic sources they form the culmination of a series of similar developments of the Old Testament texts using lebasser and euangelizesthai into connected hints at the message of divine kingship and communal redemption. The series begins with the consistent and expanded use of the rendering euangelizesthai in the LXX prophets and psalms, perhaps from the early second century B.C. onwards, and the resultant echoes in Greek pseudepigrapha. Then another partly concurrent development, with clearer elements of a myth of a herald of the divine kingdom and deliverance, is evinced just before the Herodian age in the Qumran texts and the Psalms of Solomon, and probably also after the death of Herod the Great in the Assumption of Moses. Both these developments are reflected during the Herodian age in the New Testament, and they are taken further in specifically Christian applications to Christ and the apostolic preaching. In the non-Christian Jewish community they were later on continued in the midrashic and poetic development noted already. In Hasmonaean and Herodian times, and again in Byzantine Palestine, these interpretations were prominent enough to appear in hymnody. The midrashic and poetic development could be understood as an implicit response to Christianity, but the signs of some continuity with pre-Christian sources, for instance in connection with Melchizedek and with the more general identification of the mebasser as a coming deliverer, viewed together with the strength of messianic tradition in the Targums, make it unlikely that this development was wholly evoked by the rise of the church. This point is of some significance for the familiarity of the Old Testament texts using I'basser and euangelizesthai in the Herodian age. They were heard with a tradition of interpretation which had flourished before Herod the Great's reign, and was still continuing among non-Christian Jews, irrespective of its interest for the church. The religions of Herodian Judaea have formed the setting of this part of the inquiry. To summarize, the Aramaic and Greek vocabulary in question was in everyday use, but gained a high profile in cultic contexts. Thus the relevant verbs and nouns were prominent in ruler-cult, and this will have contributed indirectly to their vogue in Jewish piety, as suggested above. The verbs with their participles came to the fore also in Jewish hymnody from the Qumran Hodayoth and the Greek Psalms of Solomon, and recur in later synagogue poetry. All these poetic compositions highlight scriptural texts which use lebasser and euangelizesthai, and together they indicate an old tradition of interpreting these prophecies which continued throughout and beyond the Herodian age. Rulercult and Jewish hymnody thus conferred still further éclat on a vocabulary which was already important for Jews in their scriptures and in ordinary life. This observation can be added to the argument for Herodian Jewish familiarity with the relevant words which was drawn from other primary sources in part II, above.

102

Part I: Jewish

3.

and Christian

Piety

Conclusions

The vocabulary under review has now been encountered in a number of distinct but related settings. In both Jewish and gentile environments it was used in daily life, as noted in the biblically-oriented part II, above, and it was emphasized by ruler-cult, as shown in the religion-oriented part III. Among Jews the vocabulary derived special dignity from its scriptural employment, discussed in part II, and especially from the use of lebasser and euangelizesthai in a group of prophecies which were themselves already influenced by court language, and from varied usage in biblical translation and interpretation. Its profile was further heightened for Jews, as shown in part III, by h y m n o d y which incorporated many of these biblical texts into a myth-like outline of the announcement of the divine kingdom and deliverance. For Jews in Herodian Judaea this vocabulary then had a scriptural prestige which was accentuated in interpretative tradition, both Aramaic and Greek; but this prominence was further enhanced by the concomitant familiarity of the relevant Aramaic and Greek words in daily life, and by their high profile in the honorific language of court publicity and divine praise. Judaean Christians, whether Aramaic- or Greek-speaking, are likely to have felt the impact of this vocabulary above all through the Jewish community, its scriptural reading and interpretation, and the associated hymnody. Influences from ruler-cult and everyday life had already affected, and continued to affect, both non-Christian Jewish and Christian reception of the words. A limited fresh study of primary sources, especially Aramaic and Greek biblical paraphrase and interpretation and Jewish hymnody, suggested some more particular observations which can now be summarized. (i) From Grotius to Dalman, Wellhausen, Harnack, and Stuhlmacher the case for continuity between the Greek N e w Testament and the literature and languages of Herodian Judaea was clear in the case of euangelizesthai, which was strikingly attested in biblical prophecy. In the case of euangelion, however, special argument was needed, in order to identify an immediate background for the Greek noun in an expanded use of Aramaic besoretha - use which was in fact increasingly well documented. (ii) Nevertheless, Greek euangelion in the sense of 'tidings' was probably known in Herodian Judaea, as is suggested by the Lucianic text of the books of Kingdoms together with Josephus on Vespasian. In these sources the word is in the plural, but Judaean Jewish use of the singular also can be inferred from the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch in conjunction with Rev. 14.6. (iii) The view that Aramaic besoretha was known as an equivalent term, partly through its expanded use as a rendering for shemu'ah as well as besorah, was supported by Stuhlmacher from Targum Jonathan to the Prophets and from Palestinian Pentateuchal Targums (to which Neofiti can now be added); this

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian Judaea

103

combination of sources attests continuous currency from the second century A . D . onwards, probably with antecedents in Herodian Judaea. (iv) B o t h euangelizestbai and lebasser, with its Aramaic cognate, came to be used in scriptural interpretation for the giving of a divine or prophetic message, sometimes with the relevant nouns. This emerges from the pseudepigrapha and the N e w Testament in Greek, and from Targumic and rabbinic terminology in Aramaic and Hebrew. Judaean Christian use can best be derived from this Jewish use. (v) T h e interest in messengers of G o d evinced in biblical tradition corresponded to non-Jewish concern with divine messengers, and encouraged attention to the herald(s) mentioned in prophecy and psalmody as mebasser or euangelizomenos. B y the late Hasmonaean period this had led to a nexus between Isa. 40:3, 52:7, 61:1 and other passages including Lev. 25:10, and in one instance to an identification of the herald with the returning Melchizedek. In later midrash and poetry from the third century onwards the herald was comparably identified also with Elijah, the high priest or the messianic king. T h e N e w Testament association of the herald with the Baptist and Jesus should be set within this series of interpretations. 4 8

4 8 T h i s essay is gratefully offered to Prof. G . N . Stanton, in recollection of many years' friendship.

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper Cena pura, the 'pure dinner' or 'pure supper', is of all known ancient Jewish meals that closest by name to the Christian meal called 'the Lord's Supper' (Greek kyriakon deipnon, Latin cena dominica; in a more servile English rendering, 'dominical supper'). The Latin phrase cena pura was used by Jews of the western diaspora in the second century and later as a name for the sixth day of the week, the eve of Sabbath, 'Friday' in English terminology; but the use of this name to denote a day suggests that it was already well established as a name for a meal eaten on this day. The process by which the day took the name of a meal well accords with the importance of corporate dining in honour of Sabbath and festivals, especially in the western diaspora (see section IV, below; ' C e n a Pura in the Setting of Sabbath Tradition and Dining Customs'). The meal known as cena pura was most probably the Friday-evening dinner, commonly eaten at the time of Christian origins before sunset, while it was still the eve of Sabbath. Thus in discussion of the Sabbath and festival Kiddush it was related that Simeon b. Gamaliel and Jose b. Halafta were dining together in Ptolemais when Sabbath began before the end of dinner (Tos. Berakhot v 2; PT Pesahim x 1, 37b; Pesahim 100a).1 Since cena pura was current towards the end of the second century as a name for the sixth day, it can be inferred that by the early second century many Jews will have called this Friday-evening meal the 'pure dinner'.

1 S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-fsbutab, a Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, Order Zera'im, Part 1 (New York, 1955), p. 73, on Berakhot v 2, prefers the text according to which Judah b. Ilai was also present. I. Elbogen, 'Eingang und Ausgang des Sabbats nach talmudischen Quellen', in M. Brann and I. Elbogen (eds.), Festschrift zu Israel Lewy's siebzigstem Geburtstag (Breslau, 1911), p. 179 quotes this passage together with Pes. 102a (baraitha) on members of a ilTQn at dinner on Sabbath-eve when the sun sets, and the clause 'when people assemble to eat their portion on the sabbath-eves' (Tos. Berakhoth i 1; PT Berakhoth i 1, 2a), to show that in the tannaitic period the meal was begun in daylight. The habit of eating at this hour is also reflected later in Abba bar Kahana's story of servants (j"0"~El = iijtriQExai,) who usually ate in the synagogue of Kephar Hittaia near Tiberias; see Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni, & J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani: Judaea. Palaestina (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 163. They ate fcOlEJ E31Ü1 T13K b o , 'every sabbath-eve as evening drew on' (Ber. Rabbah lxv 16, according to the text and interpretation in J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck (eds.), Bereschit Rabba mit kritischem Apparat und Kommentar (Berlin, 1931), ii, p. 728.

6. Cena pura and Lord's

105

Supper

Can cena pura then throw light on the sparsely attested early history of the Eucharist? This question is the first to suggest itself in the context of inquiry into Christian beginnings, given the importance of the Lord's Supper as an institution. Yet the obscurity surrounding cena pura itself commends a differentlyframed question. Can consideration of Lord's Supper and cena pura

together

cast light on Jewish as well as Christian institutions, ancient sabbath observance as well as eucharistic origins? Particular points for review within this framework will be noted in the following section, when some earlier study of cena pura has been outlined.

1. Cena pura in the Study of Christian

Origins

The phrase cena pura has long had a place in modern N e w Testament study. In 1861 A. Hilgenfeld took the Christian use of this name for Friday as a confirmation of the primitive Christian observance of a Friday fast. 2 In 1905 Emil Schiirer 3 and Wilhelm Bacher 4 reconsidered it in connection with Jewish names for the days of the week. They drew attention to its occurrence, in the Old Latin biblical version and elsewhere, as a term corresponding to the Greek names prosabbaton or paraskeue, and therefore as a name for the day which in rabbinic sources in Hebrew and Aramaic is called 'eve of Sabbath' or simply 'eve' KPDlliJ). Thereafter cena pura, now as a Jewish name for a Sabbath-eve meal which was thought likely often to have been a fish-dinner, was brought into the debate on the origins of the symbolism of fish and fish-dinners in early Christianity. F.-J. Dòlger (1922), 5 bringing cenapura into his discussion, did not accept the suggestion that Christians simply adopted existing Jewish symbolism and practice; but the suggestion was reaffirmed, still with reference to cenapura, by E. R. Goodenough (1956, 1965), 6 and C . Vogel (1966). 7 Mean-

2 A. Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche nach seiner Bedeutung für die Kirchengeschichte und für die Evangelienforschung (Halle, 1860), pp. 1 6 1 - 2 . H e notes, without preferring it, the possibility that Christians derived the term cenapura not from Jews, but directly from the gentile asceticism reflected in the definition of cena pura in the lexicon of Festus, discussed in section II, below. 3 E. Schürer, 'Die siebentägige Woche im Gebrauche der christlichen Kirche der ersten Jahrhunderte', ZNW, vi (1905), pp. 1 - 6 6 . 4 W. Bacher, 'Cena pura', ZNW, vi (1905), pp. 2 0 0 - 2 0 2 . 5 F.-J. Dölger, Ichthys: Das Fisch-Symbol in frühchristlicher Zeit, ii (Münster, 1922), pp. 5 3 6 - 4 4 ; the view that Christian symbolism derived from Jewish messianic fish-symbolism and sacred meals had been represented, without discussion of cena pura, by I. Scheftelowitz, 'Das Fisch-Symbol im Judentum und Christentum', Archiv für Religionswissenschaft , xiv (1911), pp. 1 - 5 3 , 3 2 1 - 3 9 2 , and R. Eisler, Orpheus - the Fisher: Comparative Studies in Orphic and Early Christian Cult Symbolism (London, 1921), pp. 2 2 1 - 2 2 5 . 6

E. R . Goodenough, Jewish

Symbols

in the Greco-Roman

Period,

v-vi: Fish, Bread,

and

106

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

while cena pura had been considered again with reference to the names of the sixth day by D. S. Blondheim (1925),8 in study of the Old Latin as a clue to Jewish Latin. Later comment on the meal rather than the day came from Frédéric Manns (1977), who moved away from the debate over fish-symbolism, and concentrated on the question of the meaning of the adjective pura in this connection. 9 Nevertheless, the likely significance of cena pura for Christian origins seems not to have been widely recognized. 10 This is no doubt partly because Dôlger and Goodenough treated it within large-scale studies of the symbolism of fish. They both argued that a communal fish dinner on the eve of Sabbath, with strong symbolism attached, was important among Jews under the name cena pura. For Dôlger the Christian Supper focused on bread and cup was a conscious reaction to the fish cena pura of the Jews. With the deliberate Christian imitation of yet departure from Jewish custom which Dôlger envisaged, one might compare the rule in the Didache (8:1) against fasting on the same days as Jews. For Goodenough, on the other hand, the Christian meal was, rather, a continuation of the Jewish one, probably still with fish as a focal point. Among evidence pointing in this direction, he cited the gospel accounts of the feeding of the multitude on bread and fish, and of the fish-meals of the risen Christ. Goodenough held that among non-Christian Jews the fish eaten at this cena pura already symbolized the Messiah, and that Christians at first simply carried on a custom which well suited their own messianism, until St Paul's advocacy of the bread and cup began to displace the earlier fish supper; Goodenough followed Hans Lietzmann in thinking that the Pauline Lord's Supper represented a divergence from the earlier Christian common meals. 11 Fish is indeed likely to have been important in both Christian and Jewish common meals. The New Testament texts highlighted by Goodenough and others point in this direction, and (although both Dôlger and Goodenough in different ways posit a conflict between fish on the one hand, and bread and cup on the other) it can reasonably be supposed that fish often had a place in the Christian Agape together with bread and cup. In what follows, however, the Wine (New York, 1956), v, pp. 41-53; xii, Summary and Conclusions (New York 1965), pp. 100-101. 7 C. Vogel, 'Le repas sacré au poisson chez les chrétiens', Revue des sciences religieuses xlix (1966), pp. 1-26. 8 D. S. Blondheim, Lesparlers judéo-romans et la Vêtus Latina (Paris 1925). 9 F. Manns, Essais sur le Judéo-Christianisme (Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Analecta 12) (Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 153-161. 10 For example, neither Sabbath eating in general nor cena pura in particular figures in the discussion of ancient Jewish meals by D. E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: the Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis, 2003), pp. 133-172. 11 Dôlger, Ichthys, ii, pp. 536-44; E. R. Goodenough, 'John a Primitive Gospel', JBL, xliv (1945), pp. 145-82 (171-8); idem Jewish Symbols, v, pp. 41-53; xii, pp. 100-101.

6. Cena pura and Lord's

107

Supper

special question of a fish dinner is not pursued, but cena pura

is approached

through the history of the Sabbath as well as the Eucharist. First, in connection with the Sabbath, it is asked if the attestation of cena pura, discussed in section 2, below, genuinely reflects a phrase from Jewish vernacular usage, which is discussed in section 3. It is concluded that cena pura was indeed a phrase applied by Latin-speaking Jews, at least from the beginning of the second century, to the dinner eaten on the eve of Sabbath, and that it soon came to be used as a name for this day of week itself. Then section 4, on

'Cena

Pura in the Setting of Sabbath Tradition and Dining Customs', considers three questions about Jewish usage which now arise: what Sabbath traditions made this Sabbath-eve meal important enough to give its name to a day of the week, how does its connection with the sixth rather than the seventh day affect assessment of ancient sources for Sabbath observance, and how does the importance of this meal fit what is known of Jewish corporate dining in the Roman period? It is suggested that the name cena pura both fits and exemplifies the public prestige enjoyed by corporate Jewish Sabbath-eve dinners. Attention now turns to the Eucharist and Christian origins. In section 5, on 'The Title Lord's

Supper

in Christian Usage', the early history and names of

the Eucharist are reviewed with special reference to the name 'Lord's Supper', cena dominica,

which is particularly close to cena pura. Two questions are ad-

dressed. First, can the Jewish institution which came to be known as cena

pura

illuminate the development of the Lord's Supper into a 'Lord's D a y ' observance, and the associations of its name? It is suggested that the Jewish institution of the weekly Sabbath-eve dinner formed a major influence in favour of the Christian inception of a weekly 'Lord's Supper' on 'the Lord's D a y ' . Secondly, what distinguished the name 'Lord's Supper', in comparison with other names given to Christian c o m m u n i o n meals before Constantine? T h e answer proposed is that it belongs to a group of early and more overtly Christian designations for the Eucharist which were overtaken in later church usage b y more general terms; it is demonstratively confessional, but it also perhaps implicitly claims comparison with those Jewish corporate meals which will have included the Sabbath-eve dinner, and appear in Josephus as legitimized b y R o m a n decree. It is now asked how the Sabbath-eve dinner came to be called 'pure' (section 6), and it is argued that Christian views of communion meals shared the concern with purity shown by the Jewish title (section 7). Finally, it is suggested that the associations of the names Lord's Supper and cena pura are mutually illuminative in attempts to recover the significance attached to these institutions in the R o man period, from the first to the third century (section 8). It will be argued, then, that the Latin sources on a Sabbath-eve 'pure dinner' cast light on the Roman-period Sabbath, on eucharistic origins, and on the ancient associations of both the Sabbath-eve dinner and the Lord's Supper. First,

108

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

therefore, the outlines of the attestation of the name cena pura should be recalled.

2. Attestation

of C e n a pura

The phrase cena pura is known mainly from biblical and Christian texts, but one of its earliest surviving occurrences is in Festus's late second-century epitome of the lexicographical work De significatu verborum by the Augustan scholar Verrius Flaccus; the entry beginning penem notes that "even now in pure dinners {in cenispuris) a piece of pork with a tail is called penita".12 J. J. Scaliger in his edition of Festus had judged that the 'pure' dinner was one eaten in a state of purity, and that this name was applied to the paraskeue of the Jews in imitation of gentile usage (see below). 13 Festus's reference to pork shows that these 'pure' dinners were not necessarily vegetarian, by contrast with some 'pure' meals noted in section VII, below, and so can suggest that, as Scaliger held, they were distinguished less by a special menu than by the purification of the eaters. Otherwise cena pura is attested in Old Latin biblical texts, in the probably fifth-century Latin version of the second-century Greek church father Irenaeus, and in Latin Christian writers. In these texts it denotes not a dinner, but a day of the week - the sixth day, the day before Sabbath. The Latin phrase was used to translate the Greek prosab baton 'day before sabbath' or paraskeue 'preparation'. The biblical texts concerned are Judith 8:6 (a list of days when the devout Judith did not fast) and various passages in the Passion narrative of the four gospels which identify the day of the crucifixion as the day before the Sabbath or before the Passover: Matthew 27:62 ('on the morrow, which is after the paraskeue'); Mark 15:42 ('it WAS paraskeue, which is prosab baton'); Luke 23:54 ('it was the day oi paraskeue'); John 19:14 ('it was theparaskeue of the Pascba'), 31 ('it was paraskeue'), 42 ('because of the paraskeue of the Jews'). The Old Latin version consists of the Latin translation or translations of the Old and New Testaments which were in use before Jerome made his new rendering, the Vulgate. The currency of Latin biblical versions is already clear from the biblical quotations of Tertullian, at the end of the second century. The Old Latin includes, from whatever sources, some material suggesting knowledge of Jewish subjects. On the face of it, the rendering cena pura belongs to this category.

12 W. M. Lindsay (ed.), Festus, in Glossaria Latina iussu Academiae Britannicae édita iv.2 (Paris, 1930), p. 338. 13 Scaliger's comment is quoted by Hilgenfeld, Der Paschastreit (n.2, above), pp. 161-2, n. 4, and Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vêtus Latina (n. 6, above), p. lx, n. 2.

109

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper

Yet, h o w genuine is the alleged reflection of a J e w i s h phrase in these Christian sources? T h e Christian Latin writers w h o use the phrase, p r o b a b l y all African - Tertullian about and soon after the year 2 0 0 , the translator of Irenaeus, perhaps in early fifth-century Africa, 1 4 and Tyconius and Augustine, in the fourth and early fifth centuries - will themselves have k n o w n it from the O l d Latin biblical version. It will have been especially familiar from its gospel occurrences in the Passion narrative. T h u s Tyconius uses it when explaining J o h n 19:42: ' f o r after sunset it was not lawful for J e w s to bury, since it was cena pura, the beginning of the Sabbath, as J o h n says, Illic ergo,propter

cenampuram

Iudaeorum

...\15 Au-

gustine similarly, in passages quoted below, uses it when expounding the Passion narrative. Moreover, it became an established Christian expression. T h e translator of Irenaeus simply uses it to render or e x p l a i n p a r a s k e u e - , thus ' o n the sixth day, quae

est in cena pura'

renders G r e e k ' o n the sixth day, which is Paras-

ceve' (i 8, 7) and in a passage f o r which G r e e k is not extant, the Latin runs ' h o c est Parasceve, quae dicitur cena pura, id est sexta feria' (v 23, 2). In Sardinia, it was so current among the Christian population that the usual w o r d f o r the sixth day became kenabura, paraskeue

in parallel with the B y z a n t i n e and later G r e e k use o f

as the name f o r this day. 16 Perhaps correspondingly, the manuscript

tradition o f the O l d Latin includes at least a hint that cena pura was p r o n o u n c e d as one w o r d - a sign that the phrase was frequently used. D . de B r u y n e pointed out that the fifth-century C o d e x Palatinus of the four gospels, written in silver letters on purple vellum, can present it as one word; o n l y the second part of the w o r d is declined. 1 7 H e drew attention to one or t w o other comparable instances in other manuscripts, including C o d e x Bezae. 1 8 Augustine, however, explicitly speaks o f its use b y c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w s . In his series o f expository sermons, tractatus,

on J o h n (cxx 5), when explaining J o h n

19:41, where Christ is said to be buried in a t o m b near at hand 'because of the Preparation (paraskeue)

o f the J e w s ' , Augustine says 'because o f the Parasceve,

which the J e w s in our parts m o r e customarily call cena pura

in L a t i n ' (quam

cenam puram iudaei latine usitatius apud nos vocant). In a slightly earlier tractatus

on J o h n (cxvii 2) Augustine seems at first sight to

say something contradictory. Dealing with the phrase 'Preparation'

(parasceve)

' o f the Passover' in J o h n 19:14, he had noted that although Parasceve

signifies

Praeparatio,

'that G r e e k w o r d is used b y J e w s for preference in observations o f

H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (Oxford, 1976), pp. 205-6. F. C. Burkitt, The Rules of Tyconius (Texts & Studies 3.1, Cambridge, 1894), p.59. 16 M. L. Wagner, 'Sardisch kenabura "Freitag" ', Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie xl (1920), pp. 619-621. 17 The non-declension of cena can be seen in the edition by C. Tischendorf, Evangelium Palatinum Ineditum (Leipzig, 1847), pp. 220 (John 19:42), 416 (Luke 23:54). 18 D. de Bruyne, 'Cenapura', Revue Bénédictine xxvii (1910), pp. 498-9. 14

15

110

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

this kind, even if they speak Latin rather than Greek.' Different localities may possibly be envisaged in the two passages, either Europe and (apud nos) Africa (so Blondheim), or, within Africa, Carthage and (apud nos) Hippo (so B. Blumenkranz). 19 Perhaps, however, even if the same locality is in view, the passages need not be regarded as contradictory, for a different contrast is envisaged in each. In cxvii 2 the Jews would rather say Parasceve than Praeparatio, in cxx 5 they more customarily say cena pura than Parasceve - that is, the Greek term is still in use among them, and they would prefer it to the Latin praeparatio, but cena pura is more generally used than parasceve. Both statements seem to be covered by a third and more general remark of Augustine: 'Parasceve, which the Jews also call cena pura' (quam Iudaei etiam cenam puram vocant; Serm. ccxxi, on the Easter vigil). There are earlier hints that Jewish as well as Christian usage is reflected in these Latin sources. Tertullian twice uses the expression in reference to Jewish custom, but when he is not expounding a biblical text in which it occurs. In his early apologetic work Ad Nationes, dated in the year 197 by T. D. Barnes, 20 he says that pagans cannot criticize Christian Sunday observance, for they themselves often choose Sunday as the day for postponing the bath, or for taking rest and banqueting; but these things, he goes on triumphantly, are actually totally alien Jewish observances - for 'Sabbath and cena pura belong to a Jewish feast, and Jewish are the rites of lamps and the fasts with unleavened bread and the sea-shore prayers' {Nat. i 13, 4). He may give Sabbath and cenapura in that surprising order because of his earlier reference to rest and banqueting, successively; but the same order reappears in his Adversus Marcionem, quoted below, and this may then simply be the order in which he customarily thought of the first two and most important Jewish observances - the Sabbath, with its associated cenapura. Thus again, about ten years later, in his work against Marcion he expounds Gal. 4:10, 'You observe days, and months, and times, and years', as a reference to Jewish customs; and so he goes on epexegetically: ' - and sabbaths, I judge, and cenaepurae, and fasts, and high days' {Marc, v 4, 6). As before, sabbath and cenapura are the first two items in a list of observances. The prominence given to cenapura in these two lists suggests that it had corresponding prominence in the Jewish life known to Tertullian. It best fits his context here if it is a reference to the day rather than the meal. It is true that he will probably have known it in Latin versions of the Passion narrative, but he will also have been aware that it does not figure in the prophetic lists of Jewish feasts which were in his quiver of biblical testimonia. His reference to cena pura can then be compared with his 19 Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vetus Latina (n. 6, above), pp. xxix-xxx; B. Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basel, 1946, reprinted Paris, 1973), p. 63. 20 T. D. Barnes, Tertullian (Oxford, 1971, reprinted with 'Tertullian Revisited: a Postscript', Oxford, 1985), p. 55.

6. Cena pura and Lord's

111

Supper

mention of 'sea-shore prayers' in Ad Nationes, as genuinely reflecting a postbiblical Jewish institution. It then seems probable, from Augustine and Tertullian viewed together, that although cenapura gained a strong foothold in Christian vocabulary, it was indeed a vernacular Jewish expression. By the late second century, then, it was a well-known name for a day observed by Jews, as Tertullian shows; the Old Latin probably also reflects second" to third-century usage. Yet, as mentioned at the beginning, the use of this particular name to denote a day implies that it had first become well-established as a name for a meal eaten on this day. Consequently, a meal called cena pura must have been familiar early in the second century. The background of this Jewish designation, however, is likely to include contemporary pagan use of the term cenapura, as Scaliger proposed in his comment on Festus. L. Ginzberg suggested that Jewish purification as preparation for the sabbath (see section 6, below) facilitated adoption of the pagan term.21 The passage in Festus sheds limited if valuable light on pagan cenae purae, but it suffices to show that Jews probably adopted a term used by Latin-speaking gentiles.

3. Cena pura in the Setting of Vernacular Jewish

Vocabulary

Cena pura would therefore have been one of the relatively rare non-epigraphically attested items of ancient Jewish Latin vocabulary pertaining to Jewish custom and communal organization. Blondheim reviewed it among thirty expressions which he noted as common to the Old Latin biblical versions and to attestations of Jewish Latin, but for only eight of which he cited no epigraphic witness. 22 There is a corresponding class of Greek vocabulary. Thus the Greek w o r d s p r o s a b b a t o n a n d p a r a s k e u e , which cenapura translates in the Old Latin, are themselves survivals from what may be termed ancient Jewish Greek, so long as that description is not taken to denote a dialect. Thus, prosabbaton appears to be short for f] icqó xofi aaPPaxoO, "the [day] before the sabbath", an expression found at 2 Macc. 8:26. Prosabbaton occurs in the LXX, in the title of Psalm 93 (92); the Massoretic text has no title, but the LXX title here agrees with the tradition in BT Rosh Hashanah 31a that this is a 21 Blondheim, Lesparlers judéo-romans et la Vêtus Latina (n. 6, above), p. lx, n. 1, it seems with reference to a personal communication by Ginzberg; cf. p. xiii, 'M. L. Ginzberg me fait remarquer ...'. 22 Blondheim, Les parlers judéo-romans et la Vêtus Latina (n. 6, above), pp. lvii-lxv. In the present writer's view, some Jewish writings in Latin were probably current in antiquity, despite the importance of Greek among Jews in the west. In discussion of this question, the Jewish origin of Collatio Legum and Epistula Annae ad Senecam is upheld by L. V. Rutgers, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome (Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1995), pp. 210-259.

112

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

psalm for the sixth day, because then the world was peopled. Prosabbaton also appears before the sabbath in the list of days on which Judith did not fast (Judith 8:6, cited above). In the New Testament it occurs once only, at Mark 15:42, where it is given as an explanation of the word paraskeue. The author or editor of Mark evidently regarded prosabbaton as the more familiar word. Paraskeue does not occur in the LXX, but its currency among Jews in the early Roman period is confirmed by its appearance as the name of the day before sabbath in a decree of Augustus in favour of the Jews of Asia (Josephus, Ant. xvi 163); they are not to be compelled to attend a law court 'on the Sabbaths or on the preparation before it (sic) after the ninth hour', ev 0d|3|3aaLv r} xfj jtqo aiiTfjg jiaQaaxEurj outo a>Qag EvctTT]^- Note that the designation of the ninth hour fits the view expressed in the Damascus Document that work should cease some time before sunset on the eve of sabbath ( C D x 14-17). 2 3 Paraskeue also appears in a Christian text roughly contemporary with Josephus's Antiquities, the Didache, in a passage noticed already for its deliberate divergence from Jewish usage; here Christians are to fast not 'with the hypocrites', on the second and fifth days of the week, but rather on the fourth day and the Preparation [paraskeue) (8:1). The verse in which paraskeue occurs in Mark (15:42) is from the Passion narrative, and describes the circumstances in which Joseph of Arimathaea begged for the body of the crucified Christ - 'when evening was come, because it was the Preparation (paraskeue), that is, the day before the Sabbath (prosabbaton)'. Similar observations, with paraskeue but without prosabbaton, occur in other gospel passages cited already: Luke 23:54 (after the narrative of the burial; D substitutes prosabbaton)-, John 19:31 and 42 (both before and after the burial narrative); and Matt. 27:62 (noting that the next day was after the Preparation). John 19:14 has in addition the note that Pilate brought Jesus out to his trial on 'theparaskeue of the Passover'. The L X X and the gospels therefore preserve two Jewish Greek technical terms for the day or period of time known in Hebrew and Aramaic as 'eve of sabbath' or simply 'eve'. Paraskeue, no doubt short for paraskeue sabbatou, roughly corresponds to the shortened Aramaic term 'eve'. For someone acquainted with Judaism it would evoke the various particular preparations for Sabbath, including advance attention to lamps and food (M. Shabb. i 10-iv 2). For Greek-speakers in general, moreover, it would have the advantage of being a Greek word rather than one adapted from Hebrew or Aramaic. The currency 2 3 C D x 4-17 are reviewed in connection with Josephus and rabbinic discussion of the beginning of the Sabbath rest by L. Doering, Schahhat: Sahbathalacha und -praxis im antiken Judentum und Urchristentum (TSAJ 78, Tübingen, 1999), pp. 133-138, 303. The decree in Josephus, as Doering emphasizes, does not indicate a particular ruling on the time, such as is given in C D ; but it coincides with C D in providing for full Sabbath-observance from the moment of sunset.

113

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper o f paraskeue selytos

side b y side vfithprosabbaton

beside

seems comparable with that of pro-

geioras.

O l d Latin renderings o f prosabbaton

in the verses from J u d i t h

andparaskeue

and the four gospels cited above provide, as already noted, many o f the k n o w n occurrences of cena pura.

Examples are Judith 8:6 ( C o d e x Sangermanensis)

praeter cenam puram et sabbata; Matt. 27:62 d ( C o d e x Bezae) in crastinum autem, quae est post cena puram (sic, in accord with the declension of pura

only,

noted above); M a r k 15:42 k ( C o d e x Bobbiensis, often close to Cyprian's text) cenae purae sabbati; L u k e 23:54 c ( C o d e x C o l b e r t i n u s ) and e ( C o d e x Palatinus): et dies erat cena(e) purae et sabbatum inlucescebat; J o h n 19:14, 31, 42 e. T h e Vulgate normally substitutes the transliteration Cena pura

parasceve.24

can itself n o w be identified as another term of broadly the same

kind as the two G r e e k words: a vernacular expression f o r a distinctively J e w i s h institution. In this case, however, the term f o r the day before sabbath has narrowed down f r o m preparation in general (paraskeue)

to the dinner eaten on

the eve of sabbath. T h e dinner gives the name to the day. T h e prestige which this development implies f o r the dinner will be considered in the following section. As noted already, this name f o r the day presupposes that a dinner under this name was already a c o m m u n a l institution in the early second century. C o r r e s pondingly, the importance o f a sixth-day dinner is suggested by the rabbinic passages reflecting s e c o n d - c e n t u r y usage cited at the beginning o f this paper. T h e setting o f the meal which came to be called cena pura

in sabbath tradition

and J e w i s h dining custom will n o w be considered.

4. Cena Pura in the Setting of Sabbath Tradition and Dining Customs Cena pura,

then, can indeed be taken to be a name given b y J e w s w h o used Latin

to the sixth day of the week and, before that, to the sixth-day dinner. In Judaea and Galilee at the end o f the period of Christian origins the Sabbath-eve dinner was customarily eaten before sunset, while it was still the sixth day, as noted at the beginning. It can be inferred that the same hour was usual f o r this dinner in those D i a s p o r a circles through which the name cena pura for the sixth day came to be mentioned in the O l d Latin version and in Latin Christian authors. W h a t was the background o f Sabbath observance against which this Sabbatheve meal gained such importance that the eve of Sabbath was named after it? T h e 24 Texts are presented in H. Ronsch, Itala et Vulgata (2nd edn, Marburg, 1875), p. 307; F. H. Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis (Cambridge, 1864), p. 93 (Matthew); H. von Soden, Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians (TU 33, Leipzig, 1909), pp.449 (Mark), 503 (Luke), 545-546 (John); P. Burton, The Old Latin Gospels: a Study of their Text and Language (Oxford, 2000), p. 144 (Luke).

114

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

associations of the description 'pure' will be considered in section V I , below; at present, attention is concentrated on the importance implicitly assigned to the meal in the transfer of its name to the day, and its connection with the sixth rather than the seventh day. In general, although the particular connection of cenapura

with the day be-

fore Sabbath represents an emphasis not usually made explicit in other Sabbath texts, the importance implied for the meal by the use of this title for the day is in full accord with the importance attributed to eating and drinking in sabbath observance. 2 5 T h e third-century Galilaean rabbinic sayings that 'the sabbaths and festivals were given only for eating and drinking' or that the sabbath is hallowed 'by eating and drinking and clean clothes' indeed represent only one side of a discussion in which sabbath Torah-study also finds its forceful advocates. 2 6 They have ample antecedent, however, in earlier rabbinic biblical exposition. Thus 'Eat that to-day, for to-day is a sabbath to the Lord', in the narrative of the manna (Exod. 16:25), is taken as the equivalent of 'Keep sabbath to-day' in interpretations in the name of Joshua b. Hananiah, Eleazar of Modin, and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, reflecting opinion from the years before Bar Kokhba's uprising; and the same text is understood in tannaitic exegesis to imply the honouring of the Sabbath by three or four meals. 2 7 Comparably, Shammai and his followers are said to have honoured the Sabbath by keeping for it the best food that came their way during the week, connecting this practice with the commandment to 'remember' the Sabbath (Exod. 20:8). 2 8 These expositions and customs themselves continue a still earlier post-biblical line of sabbath teaching, evident in the expression from Jubilees 'to eat and to drink and to keep sabbath' (Jub. 2:31, cf. 2:21, 5 0 : 9 - 1 0 ) , and in the prohibition of fasting on the sabbath (Jub. 50:12) - an ordinance reflected in Judith 8:6, cited above. At a later date, perhaps in the Herodian period, mourning is com2 5 Rabbinic passages on this subject were collected by P. Billerbeck in connection with the gospel narrative of the disciples' hunger on the Sabbath; see H. L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, i, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus erläutert aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, 1922), pp. 611-615, on 12:2. 2 6 For these sayings see, respectively, P T Shabb. xv 3, 15a (Haggai, in the name of Samuel b. Nahmani); Cant. R. vi 4, on 5:16 (Aha and Tanhum b. Hiyya, in the name of Johanan, expounding Ezek. 20:20). 2 7 Mekhilta Ishmael, Beshallah, Wayyassa, iv, on Exod. 16:25, in H. S. Horovitz & I. A. Rabin (edd.), Mechilta d'Rabhi Ismael (Frankfurt a.M., 1931, reprinted Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 168-169 (three meals, and eating as Sabbath-keeping); B T Shabb. 117b (four meals). 2 8 Mekhilta Simeon, Yithro, on Exod. 20:8 (Shammai); B T Besah 16a (two traditions, on Shammai and Hillel and on Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel); Mekhilta Ishmael, Yithro, Bahodesh, 7, on Exod. 20:8 (Horovitz & Rabin, as cited in the previous note, p.229), in the name of Eleazar b. Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon, perhaps a member of the wealthy Gurion family - see R. Bauckham, "Nicodemus and the Gurion Family",/TS, N.S. 47 [1996], pp. 1-37 (24). On the exegesis of Exod. 20:8 followed here see D. Instone Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 CE (TSAJ 30), Tübingen 1992, pp. 33, 71.

6. Cena pura and Lord's

Supper

115

parably prohibited on the seventh day in the Greek Vita Adae, 43:3, and rest and rejoicing are prescribed ( x a x à n a v o o v xai £i)cpQ(xvdr|Ti); whether the seventh day of the week or after death is intended here, the command to rejoice shows that Sabbath is taken to imply feasting as well as rest. Jubilees further implies rejoicing in its striking description of Sabbath as 'a day of the holy kingdom for all Israel' (Jub. 50:9); Qumran hymnody for the Sabbath sacrifices correspondingly sings the praises of God's sovereignty as king of the gods, king of glory, king of holiness, and, significantly for the present theme, king of purity. 29 Already in the Pentateuch the classification of the Sabbaths together with the festivals (Lev. 23:2-3, cf. Isa. 1:13-14, Hos. 2:13 (11), Lam. 2:6) and the prescription of additional sabbath sacrifices (Num. 2 8 : 8 - 9 ) imply that the Sabbath shares the characteristic festal eating and drinking. This Pentateuchal classification, with its implication for the joy of sabbath, is taken up by Philo when he expounds all the feasts of the year under the heading of the Sabbath commandment {Spec. Leg. ii 39-41). In the prophets the Sabbath is explicitly joyful in Hos. 2:13 (11), where feasts, new moons and Sabbaths belong to Israel's 'mirth' (tDHDQ); the point is emphasized in the L X X 'I will turn away all her rejoicings (eiKpQooiJvai), her feasts and new moons and Sabbaths ...'. This joyful aspect of the Sabbath came to be more strongly linked, however, with another prophetic text, Isa. 58:13, discussed below. The currency of this Sabbath tradition of eating and festal joy at the time of Christian origins and among Jews contemporary with second-century Christians is underlined by its reappearance in early Christian writers on the heavenly or millennial Sabbath. Thus the connection of the Sabbath with the kingdom and feasting just noted in Jubilees is used by Irenaeus, towards the end of the second century, to interpret the millennium as 'the times of the kingdom, that is, the seventh day ... the true Sabbath of the righteous, in which they shall not be engaged in any earthly occupation, but shall have a table at hand prepared for them by God, supplying them with all sorts of dishes' (Haer: iv 33, 2; cf. iv 16, 1, on the Sabbath as signifying the kingdom in which the faithful shall rest and partake of God's table). In the early third century, Origen comparably speaks of 'the day of the sabbath and the rest of God, when those who have done all their works in the six days shall feast together with God' (C. Cels. vi 61). In 29 4 Q 400 2, lines 1, 5; 4 Q 403 1 i, lines 3, 7; 4 Q 403 1 ii, lines 25-6 (text in F. Garcia Martinez and E. J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ii [Leiden & Grand Rapids, 1998], pp. 808, 810, 814, 816, 820); on the link with Jubilees and on these kingship phrases see A. M. Schwemer, 'Gott als König und seine Königsherrschaft in den Sabbatliedern aus Qumran', in M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer (edd.), Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult im Judentum, Urchristentum und in der himmlischen Welt (WUNT 55, Tübingen, 1991), pp. 45-118 (52-58, 82-84, 86-88, 103-104). 'King of purity' (lintD) in this context perhaps alludes primarily to Exod. 24:10 on the heavenly purity p i l D ) of what was seen beneath God's feet; the association of purity with the sabbath is in any case likely to have influenced the choice of the phrase.

116

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

each case the Christian author presupposes that Sabbath implies not only rest, but also feasting. Correspondingly, the contemporary Jewish Sabbath is classified as a festival by Tertullian, Nat. i 13, 4, quoted in section II, above: 'iudaei enim festi sabbata et cena pura It is then not surprising that Isa. 58:13 'If ... you call the Sabbath delight' was soon connected with eating and drinking in Sabbath observance; thus Targum Jonathan here, 'if ... you celebrate the Sabbath with delights' (pplDSrQ Krn©'? n i n u n seems almost to recommend the Shammaite practice just noted. A half-humorous rabbinic saying current from the third century onwards defined the 'delight' as a dish of beet, and large fishes, and heads of garlic (BT Shabbath 118b, in the name of Rab). The opinion recorded by Plutarch (Qu. Conv. iv 6, 671E-672A) that Jews on the Sabbath usually invite one another to drink wine, and at the very least taste some unmixed wine, can then be associated with a tradition of Sabbath eating and drinking which was already well established when he wrote, as a slightly younger contemporary of Josephus; the reflection of this tradition in Plutarch suggests that it was also prevalent in the western diaspora. From the time of Jubilees and Judith, therefore, the importance of Sabbath observance by means of eating and drinking, with its Pentateuchal antecedents, found continued, explicit and emphatic expression. The process whereby the the name of the Sabbath-eve meal, cena pura, became the name given to the eve of Sabbath itself is then wholly consistent with the importance of eating and drinking as observance of the sabbath, although the particular emphasis on the eve involved in this process deserves further notice. Secondly, then, how does the connection of cena pura with the sixth rather than the seventh day affect assessment of ancient sources on Sabbath observance? Dining was indeed among the Sabbath customs which made an impression on gentiles in the Roman empire. This point has already been illustrated from Plutarch on the Sabbath and wine, in Greece perhaps about the end of the Flavian period, not far from the time of Josephus's Antiquities. At a rather humbler level, Sabbath dining was satirized on the gentile stage in third-century Caesarea, according to Abbahu (Lam. R., Proem 17, and iii 5, on Lam. 3:14); the audience would be told that Jews eat up all their weekday earnings on Sabbath, and to get firewood for cooking they break up their bedsteads. Among Christians in the fourth and fifth century it was usual to criticize the Jews' Sabbath luxury in dining; 'they keep the Sabbath day in servile fashion, for luxury and drunkenness' (Augustine), 'filling their bellies, making themselves drunk, stuffing themselves to bursting, faring sumptuously' (Chrysostom). 30 30

Iudaei enim serviliter observant diem sabbati, ad luxuriam, ad ebrietatem, Augustine 7V.

in Joh. iii 19, on 1:18; yaoTp^onevoi, HE-fhiovxes, 6iagpr)yvij|i,Evoi, TQixptovxeg, Chrysostom,

Horn. 1 on Lazarus, 717B (quoted with other similar patristic passages by J. Bingham, Origi-

6. Cena pura and Lord's

117

Supper

Yet, on the other hand, earlier sources show that gentiles repeatedly characterized the Sabbath as a fast-day, perhaps most famously in Augustus's remark in a letter that 'ne iudaeus quidem, mi Tiberi, tam diligenter sabbatis ieiunium servat quam ego hodie servavi', " n o t even a Jew, m y dear Tiberius, fasts so scrupulously on the Sabbaths as I have done t o - d a y " (Suetonius, Augustus,

76.4).

This gentile impression seems surprising in view of the later attestations of Sabbath dining just noted, as well as the prohibition of Sabbath fasting and the long tradition of 'eating and drinking and keeping sabbath' identified above from J u bilees and Judith and rabbinic teaching. Perhaps, however, the texts attesting cenapura

point towards an explanation

in their special emphasis on the eve of Sabbath. As noticed already, cena

pura

became the name for the sixth day, and denoted a dinner eaten before the beginning of Sabbath. According to this usage, eating and drinking were primarily associated with the day before Sabbath, not the Sabbath-day itself. It is true that, as noted already, teaching from the tannaitic period recommends a number of Sabbath meals. Josephus, however, is ambiguous when he calls the sixth hour the time 'at which it is lawful on the Sabbaths for us to have our mid-day meal' ( x a d ' F)v xotg AAFI|3aaiv agiaTOJioieTaftcu

V6(XL(XOV

eativ rj|xTv,

V. 279). H e is describing the dispersal of an assembly on account of this meal, and so can be taken, as b y L. Ginzberg, to attest a prescription to take food on the sabbath, on the lines of the rabbinic teaching just noted; L. H . Feldman, however, points out that this passage also suggests a custom-decreed restraint from food until noon, which could have contributed to an appearance of fasting. 31 Moreover, there is a contrast in tone between the positive rabbinic injunctions to eat on the Sabbath, and the negatively-expressed limitations on eating and drinking in the earlier Sabbath regulations of Jubilees and the Damascus D o c u m e n t . ' L e t n o - o n e eat on the Sabbath-day save what has been prepared ... and let him not drink save what is in the camp' ( C D xi 2 2 - 3 , cf. J u b . 2:29, 50:8). T h e negativity of the Damascus D o c u m e n t on Sabbath-day eating and drinking stands out especially when it is noted that xi 4 is a prohibition of mingling, not of Sabbath fasting (see n.31, above). It may then be asked whether the tannaitic recommendations for meals on the Sabbath itself perhaps had to counter in some quarters a tendency to eat the food of the seventh day only in negligible quantities, in continuity with earlier practice reflected in the gentile impression of the Sabbath as a fast. This impresses Ecclesiasticae: The Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xx, chapter ii 4, in his Works [1726, reprinted London, 1844], vii, pp. 3 2 - 3 5 ) . 31 L. Ginzberg, 'Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte' (Fortsetzung), MGWJ lvi (1912), pp. 4 1 7 - 4 4 8 ( 4 3 6 - 4 3 7 ) , on C D xi 4 (accepting the conjecture 3 B l t T for 3 1 J)IT; but the text of C D is now supported by 4 Q 2 7 1 , frag. 5 i, 1, and should be retained); L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1993), p. 163.

118

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

sion would then have arisen from an older pattern of Sabbath observance, still perceptible in Jubilees and the Damascus Document, but revised by continuing advocacy of substantial eating on the Sabbath itself. Moreover, the avoidance of any fires or cooking (Exod. 35:3, cf. 16:23, N u m . 15:32-6) on the 'cold' sabbath day itself would have done much to create the appearance of fasting; fires were the great sign of cooking, as in the Caesarean joke about bedsteads, or Tertullian's gibe that the smoke of a dinner of Serapis fetches out the fire-brigade (Tert. Apol. xxxix 15). So Trypho, who has quoted Isa. 58:13 to defend Sabbath observance, is told by Justin 'Don't think it terrible that we have a hot drink (fteQ[x6v juvo^ev) on the Sabbath days' (Justin Martyr, Dial. 29.3, cf. 27.1). The Pentateuchal prohibition of fire itself suggests that the old Sabbath practice was to eat on the eve, and to take relatively little on the day. 32 Above all, however, the Sabbath could figure as a fast because it was the previous day, not the Sabbath itself, that was associated with an important dinner, as the texts on cena pura attest. The Sabbath-eve dinner, in the late afternoon before a day on which food, and that sometimes cold, was not taken until a relatively late hour, was then perhaps somewhat comparable with the substantial dinners eaten in antiquity on the eve of fast days like the Ninth of Ab and the Day of Atonement. 3 3 The expression in Jubilees, 'to eat and to drink and to keep sabbath', would well fit a pattern in which the eating and drinking were mainly linked with the eve of Sabbath. Similarly, Philo's presentation of the Sabbath itself as a day for study of the ancestral philosophy (Spec. Leg. ii 61-2; Hyp. ii 12-13, assembly until late afternoon) is consistent with the view that Sabbath eating and drinking are chiefly linked with the previous day. Thirdly, how do these conclusions fit what is known of Jewish corporate dining in the Roman period? Despite gentile impressions of sabbath as a fast, it now seems proper to envisage that cena pura, on Sabbath-eve, was among the common meals provided for in the Roman decrees preserved by Josephus. The Jews' corporate syndeipna, held both in Asia and in Rome, are sanctioned in a decree (Josephus, Ant. xiv 214-216) attributed to Julius Caesar and in favour of the Jews of Delos and Parium. For the present purpose the editorial reshaping which the decree may have undergone from time to time need not be consider-

32 D o e r i n g , Schabbat (n. 23, above), pp. 105-7 (without discussion of cena pura) agrees w i t h Y. D . Gilat, m e n m i m , Tarbiz 52 (1982-3), pp. 1 - 1 5 that there was p r o b a b l y a c u s t o m of Sabbath fasting, b u t urges that it was a late and m i n o r i t y view; comparably, it is linked with the city of R o m e in particular b y M. Williams, 'Being a J e w in Rome: Sabbath Fasting as an Expression of R o m a n o - J w s i h I d e n t i t y ' in J . M . G . Barclay (ed.), Negotiating Diaspora ( L o n d o n & N e w York, 2004), 8 - 1 8 (not k n o w n t o me w h e n the above was written). Pagan evidence, viewed together with the Pentateuchal p r o h i b i t i o n of fire and the association of cena pura with the sixth day, suggests that it was m o r e widespread, and earlier t h a n D o e r i n g allows. 33 See L a m . R., P r o e m 17, end ( d r u n k e n n e s s at dinner b e f o r e N i n t h of Ab); Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana xi 23 (dinner o n eve of D a y of A t o n e m e n t ) .

6. Cena pura and Lord's

Supper

119

ed, as its presentation by those in whose favour it was made will have been governed by the wish to validate current Jewish practice. The references to ancestral usage in these decrees point to a setting into which cenapura readily fits, as a dinner required by the Jews' 'ancestral laws'. The Sabbath was a prominent concern in such decrees, for example when the paraskeue is mentioned in the decree of Augustus quoted in the previous section (Josephus, Ant. xvi 163). Jewish common meals were considered together with the dinners of gentile associations (tbiasoi). So, in the wording claimed for Julius Caesar's decree (Ant. xiv 215-216), 'Forbidding other thiasoi, these people alone do I permit to assemble and feast (hestiastkai) according to their ancestral customs and ordinances'. Cenapura in the diaspora can then be envisaged as in many cases a syndeipnon, a communal dinner, probably held often in a dining-room adjoining a p r o seuche. Thus the andron mentioned with a Sabbath-house in the decree of Augustus in favour of the Jews of Asia Minor, quoted in the previous section for its reference to paraskeue (Josephus, Ant. xvi 164), and the later triclinium (trikleinon) of the Stobi synagogue, were both probably used for dining. 34 It seems likely, as M. Hengel has argued, that these corporate meals were especially typical of the diaspora, in which the character of the Jewish community as a corporation within the gentile cities was more sharply defined. 35 In the past, the diaspora syndeipna of Caesar's decree were perhaps too readily connected with the dining of members of a ¡"ITOn in the homeland, as attested in early rabbinic sources. 36 Yet, although domestic Sabbath meals were probably more important in the homeland, and although it is often unclear whether regulations concerning members of a i l l D n , like that quoted at the beginning of this paper, refer to collective or domestic dining, the general importance of clubs and guilds in the Roman period suggests that seeming traces of corporate dinners in the homeland should be taken seriously. 37 Thus, in the Mishnah, Erub. vi 6 envisages that five HITOn may keep sabbath in one 'triclinium' (j,'?p-|C3), suggesting that each company dines together as a group; and in Berakhoth vii 3 the form of and provisions for the invitation to grace seem better suited to the corporate 34 S. J. D. Cohen, 'Pagan and Christian Evidence on the Ancient Synagogues', L. I. Levine (ed.) The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1987), p. 166; M. Hengel, 'Die Synagogeninschrift von Stobi', reprinted from ZNW, lvii (1966), pp. 145-183, with a new appendix by H. Bloedhorn, in M. Hengel,]udaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften I (Tübingen, 1996), pp. 9 1 - 1 3 0 ( 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 ) . 35 Hengel, 'Die Synagogeninschrift von Stobi', p. 113. 36 Instances of this connection are O. Holtzmann, Berakot (Giessen, 1912), p. 80, on vii 1; F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (London, 1928), p. 66. 37 The importance of the background of Greek Vereinswesen was shown afresh in work on the Qumran community, for example by M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (English translation, 2 vols., London, 1974), i, pp. 243-245; M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect (Freiburg, Schweiz & Göttingen, 1986), p. 7.

120

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

meal of a m " Q ! 7 than any other setting. 3 8 Comparably, the Essenes in the cities and villages of Judaea, according to Philo, lived in associations, x a x a ihaaoug {Hyp.

xi 5) with c o m m o n meals, a u a a m a ( P r o b . 86, Hyp.

xi 5). In Galilee at a

later time, a dinner on synagogue premises in h o n o u r of the N e w M o o n in the third century seems to be implied in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin, viii 2, 2 6 b ) when R . J o h a n a n says, as he eats scraps o f food remaining in the synagogue f r o m the night before, ' M a y my portion be with him w h o inaugurated the new m o n t h here last night'. 3 9 Sometimes in the homeland, then, and often in the diaspora, the Sabbath-eve meal will have had the heightened profile o f a c o r p o rate dinner. Finally, although the name cena pura

was given to a dinner which was pro-

minent in the homeland was well as the Diaspora, the immediate background of the sources in which it is attested is the western diaspora, which also included the particular places mentioned in J o s e p h u s on Caesar's decree. It may therefore be noted that the inference f r o m these sources to the importance o f a Sabbatheve dinner is consistent with both J e w i s h and non-Jewish allusions to dinners in h o n o u r of sabbaths and festivals in the western Diaspora. T h u s , in a Galilaean rabbinic saying, J e w s 'outside the land' ([""IK1? f i n

'(OiR) - from the Mediter-

ranean Diaspora, since they are expressly differentiated here f r o m the J e w s of B a b y l o n - are considered as characteristically h o n o u r i n g (D'-QDO) Sabbaths and holy days (Ber. R . xi 4, on G e n . 2:3, in the names o f Ishmael b. J o s e and J u dah the Prince). 4 0 T h e y do so b y means of special dinners, as is implied b y t w o separate later anecdotes w h i c h immediately follow. T h e s e describe, in the names of H i y y a b. A b b a and Tanhuma, respectively, an almost Lucullan Sabbath table ( j T S I Q = TQCtJtE^iov) at Laodicaea in Syria, and the purchase of extremely dear fish before the D a y of A t o n e m e n t in R o m e . This view of diaspora custom is confirmed f o r an earlier period, with reference to festivals rather than the sabbath itself, b y III Maccabees on the days of banqueting and drinking instituted J. Heinemann, 'Birkath ha-Zimmun and Havurah Meals', JJS, xiii (1962), pp. 23-29. S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertümer (Berlin and Vienna, 1922), p. 193 allows that the passage implies a festal dinner, but thinks that SntD'jD means assembly rather than building here and in the anecdote of Kephar Hittaia cited from Ber. R. lxv 16 in n. 1, above; in both cases, however, it seems likely that the building is in question, especially given the more abundant evidence now available for eating on synagogue premises. 4 0 Theodor & Albeck (eds.), Bereschit Rabba (n.l above), i, p. 91 note among parallel texts the more precise 'Jews of Syria' (R'llD , 33), Pesiqta Rabbathi 119b. This wording clearly specifies the diaspora community which immediately impinged on western Galilee; unlike the broader phrase, it suits the first (Laodicaean) but not the second (Roman) anecdote appended in Ber. R. xi 4, and symmetrically corresponds to ^DD 'ID and ^ S I E T used just before. The last point could be used to argue for the priority of the broader and less elegant phrase, but on balance it seems rather more likely that the latter arose when the saying was transmitted with both anecdotes. In any case, Syrian Jews will probably have been specially in view in the saying; but the pair of anecdotes attached to it in Ber. R. show that it could apply more widely to the western diaspora, and this is the point taken up in the argument above. 38

39

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper

121

by Egyptian Jews in honour of their deliverance (6:36, 7:18-20), and, externally, by Persius's fifth satire (179-84) on the lights, flowers, wine and tunny-fish brought out for 'Herod's Days' in the time of Nero by the Jews of Rome. 41 In Plutarch, Sabbath symposia and wine-tasting are comparably envisaged, as already noted. To summarize, then, cena pura became the name of a Jewish Sabbath-eve meal, probably under the influence of gentile use of this phrase, and the meal was of such importance that it eventually gave this name to the day with which it was associated, the sixth day of the week. The implied importance of this meal is consistent, as argued in this section, with the long-standing importance of eating and drinking as a sign of Sabbath observance, a point which was part of the biblical interpretation inherited by early Christians. On the other hand, the connection of cena pura with the sixth rather than the seventh day is a feature not explicitly emphasized in these Sabbath texts; but it helps to explain ancient gentile views of the Sabbath itself as a fast, despite concomitant gentile awareness of Jewish festal dining, and it probably reflects an old pattern of Sabbath observance - eating and drinking on the eve, followed by a day of rest and little food. This pattern is implied in the Pentateuchal prohibition of Sabbath-day fires, and suits the presentations of the Sabbath in Jubilees and Philo, but would have begun to change through the advocacy of substantial eating on the Sabbath day itself which is reflected in rabbinic sources. The Sabbath-eve dinner which came to be known as cena pura can then properly be envisaged as one of the communal diaspora meals for which Roman recognition was claimed. In the homeland its domestic setting was more important, but here too it will sometimes have been a corporate dinner. With regard to the western Diaspora, the area which the attestation of the phrase cena pura most immediately represents, a series of Jewish and non-Jewish references to Sabbath and festival dinners indicates a setting into which a Sabbath-eve dinner of the importance of cena pura would fit without difficulty. The material just considered, on Sabbath-eve meals, Diaspora syndeipna, and corporate meals in the homeland, has also played an important part in discussion of eucharistic origins.42 Against this background, it can now be asked if the institutional importance of the Sabbath-eve dinner, as reflected in the title cena 41 In the prsent writer's view these days were Herodian accession-days or birthdays, not Sabbath days (W. Horbury, 'Herod's Temple and "Herod's D a y s ' " , idem, ed., Templum Amicitiae [Sheffield, 1991], pp. 103-149, revised and reprinted in W. Horbury, Messianism among Jews and Christians [London & New York, 2003], pp. 83-122); but on either interpretation the lines describe Roman Jews marking special days with a festal dinner. 42 See for example Lietzmann in H. Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl (Berlin, 1926), E.T. Mass and Lord's Supper by Dorothea H. G. Reeve, with Introduction and Further Inquiry by R. D. Richardson (Leiden, 1979), pp. 165-70, building on Elbogen, 'Eingang und Ausgang des Sabbats' (n.l above).

122

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

pura and its application to the sixth day of the week, can illuminate the early history and the name of the 'Lord's Supper'.

5. The Title 'Lord's Supper' in Christian Usage First, what is known of the meal which was called 'the Lord's Supper' must be briefly reviewed. The title 'Lord's Supper' has its single explicit N e w Testament attestation in Paul (I Cor. 11:20 kyriakon deipnon), probably in the year 54. The Supper here in I Corinthians (10:14-22, 11:17-34) is a common meal to satisfy hunger as well as a commemorative sharing in 'the bread and cup of the Lord' (11:27). It clearly takes place regularly (I Cor. 11:17-20). The usual time was probably weekly, on the day, probably Sunday, which came to be called 'the Lord's Day' (Rev. 1:10); Paul envisages the first day of the week as the occasion when money should be laid aside for his 'collection for the saints' in Jerusalem (I Cor. 16:1-2). At the end of the century this 'eighth day' - a widespread title, encouraging and perhaps in part arising from comparison with the Sabbath — was celebrated etc; eutpQoaiivTjv, 'with rejoicing', implying a festal meal (Epistle of Barnabas 15:9, at the end of a discussion of the Sabbath); and at about the same period the Didache prescribes eucharistic assembly 'on the Lord's Day of the Lord' (14:1 ).43 With these passages may be associated Acts 20:7-12, on 'the first day of the week when we had gathered together to break bread', in an upper room at Troas on the Mysian coast; this meal need not be precisely the Pauline Lord's Supper, but the passage describes Christians gathering to eat together 'on the first day of the week', and to this extent supports the view that this day was the weekly occasion of the Supper. 44 Saturday 43 The title 'eighth day' (see G. W. H. Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford, 1961, repr. 1976], p. 935 a-b) originated from a custom of baptizing on Sunday, baptism being symbolically linked with the number eight (as in I Peter 3:20-1), according to W. Rordorf, Der Sonntag, Zürich 1962, E.T. Sunday (London, 1968), pp. 275-293; but it seems more likely to have arisen under the influence of Jewish emphasis on the seventh day, aided perhaps by a resemblance to Latin nundinae, the 'ninth-day holidays' occurring every eighth day, pointed out by T. Zahn (Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 276-277, n. 5). 44 Justin Taylor suggests that the nocturnal 'breaking of bread' before converse lasting until dawn described in Acts 20:7-12 began on the night following Sabbath, and was a Christian adaptation of a Jewish rite at the outgoing of the Sabbath, comparable with the nocturnal repast of bread and water eaten before a vigil by the Therapeutae ; see J. Taylor, S.M., Les Actes des deux Apotres, VI: Commentaire historique (Act. 18, 23-28, 31) (Paris, 1996), pp. 86-92. For earlier interpretation of the occasion as a Saturday evening see Rordorf, Sunday, pp. 179, n. 2, 201-202, n.4; 205, n.6. This detailed argument has much to be said for it: 'breaking of bread' is indeed likely to continue Jewish custom, Christian bread and water eucharists were widespread, and the Acts passage is one of a series of texts, from the New Testament to Irenaeus, where breaking of bread figures without mention of a cup; see A. Harnack, Brot und Wasser: Die eucharistischen Elemente bei Justin (Texte und Untersuchungen 7.2, Leipzig,

6. Cena pura and Lord's

Supper

123

evening, at the beginning of the first (eighth) day, as later Christian observance of Saturday as a feast might suggest, and Sunday evening, at the close of the first day, as Pliny on the Christians seems to imply, are both possible times in the first century. 45 In either case, the Christians had a weekly Lord's Day meal challenging comparison with the weekly Sabbath-eve dinner, just as the Sabbath day and the Lord's Day are compared in Barn. 15:9. Yet the course of the development whereby the Supper became a weekly Lord's Day observance, as was probably the case already in Paul's time, remains unclear. Paul himself linked the Lord's Supper of the church with the Last Supper of Christ, and it is with reference to the ecclesiastical institution that sayings of Christ spoken when he took the bread and cup are recounted in I Corinthians (11:23-26). These sayings were probably part of the apostolic tradition known to Paul. H e introduces them with the words 'I received from the Lord and have committted to you', and his account is largely parallel with the Supper-scene in the Passion narratives of the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, save that I Corinthians significantly adds the twofold command 'do this in remembrance of me' (I Cor. 11:24—5).46 This Pauline passage, when its appeal to received tradition is viewed together with the synoptic Passion narratives, suggests that the Lord's Supper is a prePauline institution. It is hard, however, to derive this Christian institution directly from the Last Supper itself, which is presented in the synoptic gospels as a Passover meal rather than a weekly meal, and without any command to 'do this'. The name Lord's Supper, like the similar early Christian title 'Lord's Day, or, more slavishly, 'dominical day', xugiaxr] r||jiga (Rev. 1:10), most probably presupposes the cultic acclamation of Christ as Kyrios. Otto Betz has indeed 1891), with a list of passages at pp. 134-6. It remains a question, however, whether in this case the cup was simply of water. Thus Didache 14:1 'break bread and give thanks' (etj/agioTr|oaT£), also without mention of a cup, occurs in a work where wine is mentioned elsewhere, Didache 9:1. 45 For authors inclining to Saturday evening, including H. Riesenfeld and C. F. D. Moule, see Rordorf, Sunday, p. 179, n. 2, and compare Taylor's interpretation of Acts 20:7, cited above; Rordorf himself prefers Sunday evening. Pliny records a dawn meeting on a fixed day (unnamed) followed by dispersal, and later by reassembly for a meal f m o r e m sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum', Pliny, Ep. x 96, 7). 46 Luke 22:19b-20, which include this command and harmonize the otherwise striking Lucan mention of cup before bread with the order followed in Matthew, Mark and I Corinthians 11, are lacking in some witnesses and probably constitute an early insertion into the text of Luke. This view, sponsored on another ground (the coherence of the short text with characteristically Lucan emphases) by Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (n. 10 above), pp. 262-263, 357-358 (n. 128), with reference to defenders of the longer text from J . Jeremias onwards, seems likely despite the arguments for the authenticity of the longer text represented, with reference to advocates of the shorter text from F. J. A. Hort onwards, in C. S. C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp. 47-51; J. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus (2nd, revised edition, E.T., London & New York, 1966), pp. 139-59.

124

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

urged that the name in I Corinthians echoes the biblical terminology of Passover, 'a Passover to the L o r d ' (Exod. 12:11, 27, etc.). 4 7 This Paschal echo would then also constitute a link with the Last Supper, associated as that is in the synoptic gospels with the Passover meal. Yet the adjective xugiaxov, 'dominical', in I Corinthians recalls more precisely the use of the same adjective in the Greek phrase rendered 'the Lord's D a y ' , and the common use of this adjective in connection with royal or imperial requirements. 'Lord's D a y ' itself can perhaps be compared with 'Herod's Days', noticed at the end of section IV, above. It therefore seems more likely that the immediate background of the name 'Lord's Supper' is the Christ-cult. O n the basis of material in the gospels and Acts Hans Lietzmann held, as noted already, that earlier Christian common meals took a different form from the Pauline Lord's Supper; he envisaged a custom of corporate 'breaking of bread' (compare the discussion of Acts 20:7-12, above) without special links with the Last Supper and the Christ-cult. H e came accordingly to agree with Emanuel Hirsch that Paul's words on Supper-tradition received 'from the L o r d ' (I Cor. 11:23) referred to a fresh revelation from the Lord Christ in heaven, and that the 'Lord's Supper', a common meal linked with the Last Supper and the thought of Christ's redemptive death, was a new Pauline institution; the emphasis with which the tradition 'from the L o r d ' is stated in I Corinthians 11 suggests, Lietzmann argued, that this new form of the common meal was energetically propagated by Paul. 4 8 This position was taken over by Goodenough, as noted already, and was adopted by H y a m Maccoby. 4 9 Rudolf Bultmann, on the other hand, although he accepted Lietzmann's view that the 'Lord's Supper' was a later development differing from the common meal of the earliest Christians in Jerusalem, held more plausibly that the institution was already known to Paul. 5 0 Bultmann ascribed it to the Hellenistic Christianity encountered by Paul, but it need not have been unknown in 'the churches of G o d in Judaea' which Paul mentions (I Thess. 2:14); the invocation Marana tha quoted in I Cor. 16:22 suggests that participants in the Christ-cult included Aramaic speakers. The Supper, then, was a pre-Pauline institution, a weekly common meal probably held on the Lord's Day, that is on Saturday or Sunday evening. It thereby evoked comparison with the weekly Jewish Sabbath-eve meal which would soon be called by many the 'pure dinner'. As noted in the previous section, the 4 7 O . Betz, 'Das Mahl des Herrn bei Paulus', idem, Jesus, Der Herr der Kirche: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie II (WUNT 52, Tübingen, 1990), pp.217-252 (227-228). 4 8 Lietzmann in Lietzmann & Richardson, Mass and Lord's Supper (n. 42 above), pp. 2 0 4 208. 4 9 Goodenough, Jewish Symbols (n. 6, above), V, p. 53; H. Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism (London & Philadelphia, 1991), pp. 90-128. 5 0 R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 1. Lieferung (Tübingen, 1948), p. 148 (section 13); E.T. of the whole work, The Theology of the New Testament (2 vols., London, 1952), i, p. 150.

6. Cena pura and Lord's

Supper

125

title cenapura and its use as the name of the eve of Sabbath underline the great public prestige enjoyed by the Sabbath-eve dinner. Hence it may be suggested that this dinner constituted a major influence towards the establishment of a weekly Lord's Supper, on the Lord's Day. Its influence would also have affected any differing forms or predecessors of the Supper, like the 'breaking of bread' envisaged by Lietzmann and documented further below. As noted at the end of the previous section, it has for a long time been urged that Sabbath-eve meals influenced eucharistic origins, with special reference to resemblances between the Kiddush and the Christian formularies spoken over the bread and cup; but this influence has often been envisaged as operating through the Last Supper itself, a view raising difficulties not least because in the gospels the Last Supper is set on a Thursday evening, not on the eve of Sabbath. 51 The present suggestion, however, simply concerns the development of the Christian common meal into a weekly Lord's Day observance, and it is envisaged here that Jewish custom impinged directly on Christian corporate meals independently of the Last Supper. In the environment of Jewish custom the prestige of the weekly Sabbath-eve dinner, vividly illustrated by the texts concerning cenapura, would have been an important factor in the rise of a weekly Christian dinner on corresponding lines on the 'eighth day'. The drunkenness at the Lord's Supper in Corinth criticized by Paul (I Cor. 11:21) is a reminder not only of gentile symposia, but also of the long-standing associations of the Sabbath dinner with wine and abundance which were reviewed in the previous section. 5 2 The name 'Lord's Supper' bears witness, like 'Lord's Day', to the strength of the cult of Christ in the primitive church. Yet this name which attests a central inner-Christian concern is close in form to cenapura, and it comparably reflects the institutional importance of a corporate dinner. Can its associations be further identified? It is distinctive within the early Christian context. 'Lord's Supper' continued in use from the first to the third century, but it is one only, and not the most common, of a number of terms applied to Christian communion meals throughout this period. Some of the significance which can have attached to this name in particular emerges more clearly when others are considered. At least five more such names deserve notice. To begin with, the name Agape, like Lord's Supper, continued in use throughout these years, even though it too occurs only once in the New Testa5 1 See the criticisms by Jeremias, Eucharistic Words (n. 46 above), pp. 2 6 - 2 9 and by Richardson in Lietzmann & Richardson, Mass and Lord's Supper (n. 42 above), pp. 6 2 1 - 6 2 5 . 5 2 Hengel, ' D i e Synagogeninschrift von Stobi' (n. 34 above), p. 113, n. 88a associates it with the general importance of wine in corporate Jewish dining in the diaspora; the present writer agrees, but would add that the Sabbath-eve dinner is likely to have been the most regularly encountered example of such dining, and would not restrict this aspect of the dinner to the Diaspora.

126

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

ment (Jude 12). By Tertullian's time the Greek term had been taken over into Christian Latin in the senses both of a virtue and of a Christian common meal. Tertullian can use it with a play on both meanings (Orat. 28, orationem, hostiam ... castitate mundam, agape coronatam, 'prayer, the sacrificial victim which is pure in chastity, crowned with Agape'; the probable echo of Mai. 1:11 is discussed below). Hence in Latin as well as Greek St Paul's chapter on charity (agape) in I Corinthians 13 would have recalled his teaching about consideration for others in the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 11. Moreover, in the New Testament itself a third phrase, 'the breaking of bread' (xXáaig TOÍJ a g i o í , Acts 2:42), with comparable expressions using the verb xXcxco, is far better attested than the name 'Lord's Supper'. This phenomenon forms a basis for the views of Lietzmann and Goodenough, noted above. The relevant expressions probably reflect Greek in use among Jews; compare Jer. 16:7 LXX 'bread shall not be broken in their mourning'. Together with what Paul calls 'the cup of blessing', a breaking of bread appears in the custom he describes; 'the bread which we break', he says, 'is it not a communion of the body of the Christ?' (I Cor. 10:16). No cup is mentioned, however, in the references to the breaking of bread in the Acts of the Apostles. Two passages which seem likely to attest Christian custom are 2:42-6, on the Jerusalem Christians breaking bread by households, and 20:7-12, already discussed. Predominance in the second and third centuries, however, was gained by a fourth term: 'thanksgiving', Greek eucharistia. This name is anticipated by New Testament references to Christ's giving of thanks at the Feeding of the Multitude and the Last Supper (Mark 8:6,14:23, and parallels). Eucharistia appears as a technical term in the Didache (9:1). This compilation from about the end of the first century reflects close and hostile contact with the Jewish community, as noted already, and is probably the oldest text to reproduce special thanksgiving prayers concerning the cup and the bread (in this order, which has Christian as well as Jewish parallels). 53 The rite presupposed in the Didache, however, seems to be a supper to satisfy hunger as well as a eucharist in the later sense; 'when they are filled, thus shall you give thanks' (10:1). Here, as in the Feeding of the Multitude in John 6:12, there is probably a hint at Deut. 8:10, 'when thou hast eaten and art full, thou shalt bless the Lord thy God', a passage quoted in the second benediction of Birkath ha-Mazon. The term 'eucharist' likewise occurs, often in conjunction with Agape and other terms, in Greek in Ignatius, Justin

5 3 A. McGowan, 'First Regarding the Cup: Papias and the Diversity of Early Eucharistic Practice', JTS, N.S. 46 (1995), pp. 551-555, adds to the parallels Papias's description of millennial plenty, in which grapes, mentioned before wheat, offer themselves for wine of benediction (Papias, quoted in Irenaeus, Haer. v 33, 2-3). Papias probably associated this dinnerscene with the eschatological Sabbath, on the lines followed by Irenaeus and Origen (quoted in the previous section).

127

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper

Martyr, Irenaeus, C l e m e n t o f Alexandria, and, taken over into Latin by transliteration, in Tertullian - here in c o n j u n c t i o n with Supper ( c e n a ) and Agape. Cyprian, however, nearly fifty years after Tertullian and based m o r e centrally in Latin-speaking tradition, uses eucharistia a fifth term: sacrificium,54

to denote this rite less often than

This term is heralded when the corresponding G r e e k

i h j a i a is used in this eucharistic connection in the D i d a c h e ( 1 4 : 2 - 3 , further discussed below), and likewise 6WQOV 'gift', in the sense o f a sacrificial offering, in I C l e m e n t 44:5 (compare its later use in the fifth canon of Nicaea, n. 67, below); in G r e e k sources fruaia appears as a regular name f o r the rite from the end o f the third century onwards. 5 5 Lastly, to the five terms already noted there may be added a sixth: 'blessing'. This name, like eucharistia

eulogia,

prepared f o r by verbal usage in the N e w

Testament, as at M a r k 6:41 (the Feeding of the Multitude) and 14:22 (the Last Supper), and used often o f the bread and cup in particular, was also sometimes applied to the rite in general; further, eulogia

and benedictio

were used especial-

ly for the portions o f bread and wine which were distributed to those present and also sent out to absent friends. 5 6 A m o n g these six terms, eucharistia

was applied especially to the rite with the

bread and cup, and participation in these regularly t o o k place apart from as well as within the c o m m u n a l Supper or Agape, as appears in Justin M a r t y r and Cyprian and the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. T h e natural time f o r the Supper as a w h o l e was the evening, as noted above, whereas already in the second century it had b e c o m e customary to hold a eucharist also in the morning. Nevertheless, the reception of the eucharist within the evening Agape-Supper also continued, as the Didache suggests and C y p r i a n again shows. 5 7 In the third century ' o u r supper', in Tertullian's phrase, remained a central and characteristic Christian institution. T h e phrase ' L o r d ' s Supper' is correspondingly attested in the context of the c o m m u n a l meal rather than the separated eucharistic sharing of bread and cup. T h u s cena dominica

figures in the Latin version of the early ecclesiastical regula-

tions which circulated as Ordinances

of the Holy Apostles,

but are conventional-

ly k n o w n as the A p o s t o l i c Tradition o f Hippolytus, and reflect customs and ideas current in the second century and later. 58 H e r e ' L o r d ' s Supper' denotes a

54 E. W. Watson, 'The Style and Language of St. Cyprian', in the serial publication Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iv (Oxford, 1896), pp. 189-324 (265-8). 55 Lampe (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (n. 43 above), p. 395b, s.v. 6rr|v 'and to hallow it' (Deut. 5:15); this text mirrors the 'keep ... to hallow' of the beginning of the commandment (Deut. 5:12), gives the Deuteronomic version two occurrences of 'hallow', like the version in Exodus (20:8,11), and deepens the strong existing emphasis on sanctification in the Sabbath commandment. The interpretative conflation preserved in Barn. 15:1 and prepared for in Deut. 5:15 LXX will represent the same pious care for keeping Sabbath in purity as was encountered in II Macc. 12:38, and thereby suggests part of the background of the title cenapura. This is the dinner which partakes of the purity with which Sabbath is properly approached. Further, a powerful symbol of a pure Sabbath meal was presented by the 'pure table' of shewbread in the temple, and the Pentateuchal provisions for it (Lev. 24:5-9, cf. Exod. 25:23-30, 37:10-16, 40:22-3). The 'pure table' (LXX f| TQajte^a f| x a d a g a ) bore bread renewed each Sabbath and eaten by the priests in a pure place. Its particular connection with the Sabbath is underlined by the narrative of David and the shewbread (I Sam. 21:2-7 (1-6)), which concludes with a reference to the changing of the bread, fixed for the sabbath in Lev. 24:8. The scene is envisaged, with due reference to the seventh day, in the ' N e w Jerusalem' text made known through a series of Qumran finds (Aramaic text of this passage in 2Q24, frag. 4, parallel with 11Q18, frag. 20). The twelve loaves were linked with the twelve months (Philo, Spec. Leg. i 172; Jos. Ant. iii 182) or the twelve tribes (Philo, Spec. Leg. ii 161, Her. 175), and in rabbinic tradition it was said that the priests used to elevate the table for pilgrims, showing them the bread with the words, 'Behold your love before the Lord' (DlpOn ^ S ^ • D r i T n ) - the love which God has shown you (BT Hagigah 26b, Menahot 29a, in the name of Resh Laqish). This 'pure table' in the temple, bearing bread which was linked in thought with the months and the nation but had a particularly strong biblical association with the Sabbath, is likely to have formed part of the background of conceptions of a 'pure' Sabbath-eve dinner. Thus Philo, in a passage about to be considered further (V. Contempl. 81), says that the Therapeutae at their common meal ate leavened bread and salt mingled with hyssop, so as not to presume to imitate in every respect the bread and salt of the holy table of shewbread, which were unleavened and unmingled, respectively, and reserved for priestly consumption. The importance of keeping the Sabbath in purity was therefore emphasized in ancient Jewish piety. To turn to the association of common meals with purity, three Jewish texts on common meals adduced by earlier writers on cena pura mention the purity of food and participants. They deal respectively with the feast of Weeks, with daily usage, and with the Sabbath itself.

132

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

First, Philo's account of the Pentecostal meal of the Therapeutae, just cited and also mentioned earlier (n. 44) in connection with Taylor's interpretation of Acts 20:7-12, speaks of their assembly in white robes, their hands 'pure from lucre' (xcrfragal Xrinnaxcov), and their 'table pure from foods containing blood' (xgdite^a xaftapa xwv evai|i(ov), for they eat leavened bread with salt and hyssop recalling, but not venturing to rival, the unleavened bread and unmixed salt of the table of shewbread (V. Contempl. 66, 73, 81). Similarly, Josephus says of the Essenes that, having washed girt with linen in cold water, they go 'to the dining-room pure, as if to some holy shrine' (xadagoi xaftajteQ Eig ayiov ti xeixevog E15 5eiJtvr|TT|Qiov), partake of bread and a single course of cooked food, and afterwards lay aside their garments as holy (B.J. ii 129-31). Lastly, F. Manns drew attention to rabbinic references to washing before a Sabbath dinner. 63 Particularly notable among these is the tradition that the great second-century authority Judah b. Ilai every Friday washed his face, hands, and feet in warm water, put on white linen, and looked like the angel of the Lord of hosts; his disciples withdrew the hem of their garments (lest they should impart uncleanness) (BT Shabb. 25b). Here the meal to be eaten is probably the dinner known among Latin-speakers as cenapura; but the passage is simply concerned with the purity of one notable participant. He is washed and in special clothing, like Josephus's Essenes; and he looks angelically bright and majestic, like Philo's Therapeutae, who assembled for dinner 'white-robed, radiant, with the most reverend mien' (^et)xei.[iovo{jvx£5, epca6Qol ¡xexa xfjg avcoxaxw aeixvoxrixog, V. Contempl. 66). Philo's treatment of the dinner of the Therapeutae belongs to an extended example of contrast between Jewish moderation and gentile excess in dining. A similar apologetic concern is discernible in Josephus on the Essenes, but here the contrast remains implicit. W. Bacher drew attention to the expression of the same contrast in the midrash; when Israel feast, they praise the Lord, but when the nations feast, they turn to lewdness (for example, with an implied claim for Israelite moral purity, Esther R. iii 13, on the summoning of Vashti, Esther 1:11; Cant. R. viii 14, 1, on Cant. 8:13).64 Philo's notice of the bloodless diet of the Therapeutae exemplifies this apologetic presentation, but also points to the Jewish roots of the custom being presented. 'Bloodless' food could appeal to Greek admiration for abstinence from meat, associated especially with Pythagoras and the altar at Delos reserved for bloodless offerings (Diogenes Laertius, Pythagoras, 13; Clement of Alexandria, Strom, vii 6, 32); but it also accords with Jewish care for avoidance of blood, made compatible with meat-eating in the Noachide and Levitical codes (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 17:10-14), and emphatically endorsed by many early Christians, as the Apostolic Decree attests. Avoidance of both blood and idol-meat was probably important among considerations 63 64

Manns, Essais (n. 9 above), p. 160. Bacher, 'Cena pura' (n. 4 above).

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper

133

leading to the Christian vegetarianism mentioned b y St Paul ( R o m . 14:2, 21; I Cor. 8:13), a custom which is likely to reflect some J e w i s h practice in similar circumstances. Philo and Josephus, then, together with Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, confirm that a many-sided Jewish emphasis on pure eating was prominent where J e w s had close contact with gentiles. T h e talmudic description of R . J u dah b. Ilai, b y contrast, closely resembles Philo and J o s e p h u s in substance, but concentrates on inner-Jewish care f o r purity within the Israelite community. T h e purity o f both food and participants is emphasized with the same innerc o m m u n a l view in references to meals in rabbinic passages on the Associate (~nn),

p r o b a b l y reflecting s e c o n d - c e n t u r y custom. T h e Associate may not en-

tertain an A m ha-aretz w h o retains his o w n clothing (Mishnah, D e m a i ii 3), and as host must therefore be expected to provide fresh raiment, like that noted in the descriptions above (compare also C D xi 3); and 'purities' ( m i T O ) , portions o f 'pure f o o d ' intended f o r other Associates, are not to be sent b y the hand o f an A m ha-aretz, handed over to an A m ha-aretz, or given to an A m ha-aretz to eat (Tos. D e m a i ii 2 0 - 2 2 ) . T h i s rabbinic application of

milCD,

'purity', to pure food has t h r o w n light on

a group o f Q u m r a n H e b r e w passages in which the noun was similarly used at an earlier date. T h e halakhic letter o f 4 Q M M T and the Q u m r a n rule literature use m r r a , 'purity', in the sense o f 'pure f o o d ' , as in 4 Q M M T B 6 5 'the h o l y purity' (tonpn

nmtD)

or l Q S v i 1 6 - 1 7 ' t h e purity of the M a n y ' ( • " D i n

nintD).65

This

Judaean vocabulary of the Hasmonaean, H e r o d i a n and later R o m a n period, from Q u m r a n texts, the Mishnah and the Tosefta, has a built-in emphasis on the purity of f o o d and occurs in contexts which also stress the need f o r purity in those w h o eat. T h e inner-Jewish concerns exhibited here are likely to have c o n tributed to the formation o f the title 'pure dinner'. T h e passages on c o m m o n meals just reviewed, after the opening discussion of sabbath purity and the shewbread, comprise G r e e k texts f r o m the Herodian period (Philo, Paul, Acts, Josephus), together with Q u m r a n and rabbinic texts in H e b r e w reflecting slightly earlier and slightly later times, respectively. T h e s e together indicate J e w i s h concern with the concept o f a pure dinner. In the innerJ e w i s h context reflected in the H e b r e w texts this concern is manifest not only in the admiring description of Judah b. Ilai's ablutions and dress, but also in the long-continued use o f a noun with the sense of ' p u r i t y ' to denote pure food. In the G r e e k texts, an externally-oriented contrast between J e w i s h purity in dining and gentile pollution, b o t h ritual and moral, comes to the fore and is stated or implied. In the context of thought and speech indicated b y these texts a Jewish corporate meal could readily receive the name 'pure dinner'; but this 65 D. J. A. Clines et al. (eds.), The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, iii (Sheffield, 1996), p. 348b.

134

Part I: Jewish

and Christian

Piety

would be especially appropriate, as the opening discussion indicated and as L. Ginzberg suggested (n. 21 above), for a dinner connected with the Sabbath. The command to hallow the Sabbath was taken to imply 'pure hands and a pure heart', and in the Greek period could encourage special purification beforehand; the pure table of shewbread stood for the ideal of a pure Sabbath dinner. The name cena pura taken over from gentile usage could be understood in a Jewish context to allude to the wide range of ritual and moral purity, in the food and in the participants, indicated in the texts just noted. The food would be pure from blood and from contact with idolatry, the diners would have washed and dressed specially, and these customs would probably be taken to symbolize the moral purity of the Jewish way of life vis-á-vis gentile excess. At least in the second and third centuries there would also have been a contrast with what was taken to be the depravity of the Christian dinner; see for example Tertullian on the charge of incest post convivium (Apol. vii 1; compare Ux. ii 4, 2, quoted in the previous section). All these points would receive special emphasis from the corporate rather than simply domestic character which the meal will often have had (section IV, above). Above all, however, the double connotation of abundance and purity implicit in the title cena pura would have precisely suited the ancient association of Sabbath with purification before feasting. This association will have encouraged the adoption of the gentile title, but the name which implied that here was a Jewish version of a gentile custom of eating in purity is likely also to have acquired overtones of contrast with non-Jewish practice. Herein it can be compared with 'Lord's Supper' as discussed in the previous section.

7. Purity in Christian Meals and

Oblations

How far did early Christians share this circle of ideas? The prominence of Christian claims for the purity of common meals and Eucharists suggests a very considerable extent of common ground with Jewish opinion. These claims are found, like the Jewish claims just noted, both with and without comparison with gentile dinners. Thus, to begin with an explicit contrast between Christian morality and gentile excess, Tertullian uses his phrase cena nostra {Apol. xxxix 16, cited above) in the course of a defence of triclinium Christianorum, 'the triclinium of the Christians', and their 'modest dinners' (coenulae). He attacks, in the manner of Philo, the most obvious comparable gentile targets - gargantuan dinners in honour of heroes and deities (his remark on smoke from Serapis's kitchen was quoted in section 4, above); the Christian meal, he claims, again recalling Philo on the Therapeutae, is not so much a dinner as a moral training, and the diners are worthy, good, pious, and chaste. A little earlier, the purity of Christian food is underlined by the Sibylline injunction, in verses attributed to a second-century Christian source (Sib. viii

6. Cena pura and Lord's

Supper

135

403), 'set a pure and unbloody table' ( D E G xaftagav xai, avai|iaxxov OXI XQCXJIE^av); charitable giving of food and drink is being commended, and an allusion to the Agape seems likely. 66 The language, however, is very close to Philo's 'table pure from foods containing blood' (xQdjt£i;a xaftaQa tuv evainwv, quoted above from V. Contempl. 73). The concord between the Jewish and the Christian source on this point recalls the prominence of the prohibition of blood in the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:19, 29; 21:25), but it also confirms that Christian and Jewish common meals were affected by the same biblically-rooted ideals of purity. Here it should be noted that, comparably, the early sources for the Lord's Supper or Eucharist consistently lay strong emphasis on purity. This is evident particularly when the Christian rite is called 'the pure offering', in a phrase from the biblical testimonium Mai. 1:11 'wherefore from the rising of the sun to its going down my name has been glorified (LXX 6e66^aoxai) among the gentiles, and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure offering' (LXX fhiaia xafraQa). The biblical context in Malachi includes reference to the surrounding gentiles and to 'the table of the Lord' (Mai. 1:7, 12, LXX xQcuie^a Kugiou), a phrase which is applied to the common Christian meal at I Cor. 10:21. Among Christians internally, this testimony inculcated purity at the eucharist; with external reference, it also asserted, against the Jews, that the Christian rite with its associated prayers is the prophetically predicted replacement of the ancient sacrifices, and against critics of any kind that it is a blameless procedure, marked by that concern for purity which commanded general respect in the gentile world. The phrase pure offering is accordingly applied to the eucharist, with quotation of or allusion to this testimony, in the Didache (14), Justin Martyr (Trypho 41, 70, 116-117), Irenaeus (Haer. iv 17, 5; 18, 1-4), and Tertullian {Marc, iii 23, 6-7). The moral overtones of this phrase, and the extent to which it passed into common thought, emerge in the reign of Constantine in the canons of the council of Nicaea. The fifth canon fixes the time for a synod as before Lent, to give time for any ensuing petty-mindedness to be dispersed before Easter, so that 'the gift' - the Easter Eucharist - 'may be offered to God pure' (i'va ... xo S W Q O V xaftagov jiQoaqpeQT|xai xw ftEa>).67 In the later west, comparably, but now with reference primarily to the oblations rather than those who offer them, the prayer Unde et memores in the Roman Canon calls the bread and cup first of all bostia pura.bS 6 6 The table is to be set up for the 'man who is my image' (line 402); Christ is the man created (line 442); God is to be worshipped 'with abundant loves (agapae) and hands that bring good gifts' (line 497). 6 7 W. Bright, The Canons of the First Four General Councils (2nd edn, Oxford, 1892), pp. xi, 19 (noting the debt to Mai. 1:11). 6 8 B. Botte, Le canon de la messe romaine (Louvain, 1935, repr. 1962), p. 40.

136

Part I: Jewish and Christian

Piety

This understanding of the Christian rite as the 'pure offering', evident in literature from the end of the first century onwards, also appears without clear evocation of the prophetic testimony from Malachi. Thus the famous secondcentury epitaph of the Phrygian Abercius, delicately alluding to Christian mysteries in Greek hexameters, says that ' F a i t h e v e r y w h e r e led t h e w a y , a n d set f o o d b e f o r e m e , Fish f r o m f o u n t a i n , mighty, pure'

¡X(K>v duo JtrjYfjS nav|x£YEdr| xaOagov.69 A special link between the Supper and purity at an earlier date is suggested by at least one N e w Testament passage, the narrative of the Last Supper in St. John's Gospel. Here the Last Supper is pre-eminently a 'pure dinner', although the phrase itself is not used. First, the description of the meal seems to allude to the term Agape. At the Last Supper, according to John, Christ gave the 'new mandate' of 'Love one another' (John 13:34-5); and the evangelist begins the account of the meal with the words 'Having loved his own ..., he loved them to the end' (13:1). These passages use the verb agapan, and a link is probably intended with the noun agape. The evangelist will then be connecting the Last Supper not only with love, but also with the Christian love-feast, the Agape. 7 0 Secondly, this Agape-supper is "pure". Christ himself washes the disciples' feet (compare the washings of the Essenes and Judah b. Ilai, noted above); and he then pronounces xadapoL EOTE, ' Y O U are pure' - save for the one traitor (John 13:10-11). After Iscariot leaves, when all present are pure, Christ gives the commandment 'Love one another' (John 13:34-5). The evangelist will then be evoking the thought not only of a love-feast, Agape, but also of a 'pure dinner'. The Christian communion meal, therefore, similar as it was to the Sabbatheve dinner in name and weekly incidence, also shared the association of cena pura with purity. The expressions of this association lack the explicitly apologetic aspect which might be expected, given the strength of attacks on 'the Lord's banquet, which they defame', 'convivium dominicum illud, quod infamant' (Tert. Ux. ii 4, 2, quoted above). The passages considered above seem to attest, rather, a concern with purity deriving from long-standing biblical interpretation shared with contemporary Jews. Like the Jewish material discussed in the previous section, these Christian texts are concerned with a wide range of ritual and moral purity, in the food and in the participants. 6 9 Lines 13-14 of the Greek text in W. W i s c h m e y e r , 'Die A b e r k i o s i n s c h r i f t als G r a b e p i g r a m m ' , J a h r h u c h fur Antike und Christentum xxiii (1980), pp. 2 2 - 4 7 (see p. 25, for the text, and p. 41, for discussion and literature). 70 For the chapter as hinting at this technical sense of A g a p e see B. Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier ( U p p s a l a & W i e s b a d e n , 1951), p. 12.

6. Cena pura and Lord's Supper

8. Lord's Supper and

137

Cenapura

T o summarize sections 5-7, the Latin name cena pura

- 'pure supper' or 'pure

dinner' - will have been applied to the J e w i s h Sabbath-eve dinner b y the early second century, within about fifty years of Paul's use o f the name kyriakon non, ' L o r d ' s Supper', in Latin cena dominica,

deip-

f o r the Christian c o m m u n a l meal.

B o t h names will have had as an important part of their background the J e w i s h custom of holding corporate suppers ( s y n d e i p n a ) in order to celebrate festal days, above all the Sabbath, often on synagogue premises. T h r o u g h material preserved b y J o s e p h u s and other J e w i s h and n o n - J e w i s h writings this custom is attested in the western Diaspora, notably Asia M i n o r and R o m e . In the D i a s p o ra the J e w i s h and Christian meals stood, as J o s e p h u s and Paul b o t h show, alongside the dining of gentile associations connected with the cults of heroes and divinities. T h e balance o f population in the homeland was different, but there t o o corporate dining and a perceived contrast with gentile excess will have played a part in Sabbath observance. T h e s e t w o names f o r c o r p o r a t e meals are similar in f o r m , but t h e y differ in c o n t e n t and association; ' L o r d ' s S u p p e r ' is o v e r t l y c o n f e s s i o n a l , but pura

cena

is a t e r m also in use a m o n g gentiles. B o t h names, however, take up

themes w h i c h were also i m p o r t a n t internally. T h u s the n a m e ' L o r d ' s Supper', like ' L o r d ' s D a y ' , reflects the cult o f C h r i s t as Kyrios

w i t h i n the C h r i s t i a n

c o m m u n i t y . W i t h regard t o the outside w o r l d , however, the d e m o n s t r a t i v e c h a r a c t e r o f this name, and its particularly close links w i t h the n o t i c e a b l e practice o f c o r p o r a t e dining, emerge w h e n it is c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r names f o r the C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i o n

meals. T h e

group of more

distinctively

C h r i s t i a n designations to w h i c h ' L o r d ' s S u p p e r ' b e l o n g s give w a y to a group o f m o r e general terms w h i c h e v o k e the rites o f religion rather than c o r p o r a t e dining, and suit b o t h the biblical and the H e l l e n i c inheritance. I n the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y , however, cenapura,

a l t h o u g h like cena dominica

it brings dining

t o the fore, is in o t h e r respects just such a general t e r m as t h o s e w h i c h tended to displace cena dominica

in C h r i s t i a n usage. Cena

pura,

adopted f r o m gen-

tile vocabulary, facilitates p e r c e p t i o n o f the c o r p o r a t e S a b b a t h - e v e dinner as a version o f a familiar gentile institution; the distinctively J e w i s h ' S a b b a t h ' w i t h d r a w s i n t o the b a c k g r o u n d , and emphasis lies rather o n the p u r i t y w h i c h gentiles also esteem. This stress on purity itself corresponded, however, to a central concern of the J e w i s h community, strongly manifested in c o n n e c t i o n with the Sabbath-eve dinner, as noted in section 6; and it is this correspondence which will have encouraged J e w i s h adoption of the gentile term. A t the same time this name, despite its gentile origins, cohered with apologetic stress on the purity of J e w i s h as opposed to gentile dinners, p r o b a b l y including as time went on the widelycriticized Christian cena

dominica.

138

Part I: Jewish and Christian Piety

T h e same inherited c o n c e r n with p u r i t y is also strongly marked, however, in early C h r i s t i a n references t o the L o r d ' s Supper, E u c h a r i s t and A g a p e (section 7). T h e C h r i s t i a n rite n o t o n l y had a name w h i c h placed c o m p a r a b l e e m phasis on c o r p o r a t e dining, but also shared s o m e o f the principal associations o f the J e w i s h cena pura.

T h i s emerges especially in C h r i s t i a n use o f the phrase

'pure offering', another t e r m f o r the c o r p o r a t e meal w h i c h recalls cena

pura.

Consideration o f the t w o meals together therefore gives some confirmation, as suggested in the first part o f section 5, to the t i m e - h o n o u r e d opinion that corporate Sabbath-eve dinners exerted influence on the origins of the Lord's Supper. T h e particular element in origins envisaged here as affected b y this influence is the development of the Supper, cena dominica,

into a weekly Lord's

D a y observance, somewhat comparable with the weekly Sabbath-eve meal which came to be k n o w n as cenapura.

A related instance of the impact of J e w i s h

custom can be seen in the implicit and explicit comparison between the Lord's D a y and the Sabbath which was drawn b y early Christians (Didache 14:1, Barn. 15:9, both cited at the beginning o f section 5, above).

Summary of Conclusions T h e principal conclusions reached on cena pura (sections 1 - 4 ) and on the Lord's Supper and cenapura 1. Cena pura

together (sections 5 - 8 ) can n o w be resumed as follows.

is attested in Festus (later second century) as a name f o r a gentile

dinner, and in the O l d Latin biblical text and in African Latin patristic c o m p o s i tion and translation from the end of the second century onwards, as a name for the sixth day of the week. P r o b a b l y the Latin phrase, adopted from gentile usage, genuinely belongs to the Jewish vernacular vocabulary of the western Diaspora, as Augustine said; it is broadly comparable with a G r e e k J e w i s h term such as paraskeue,

which applies to the sixth day a familiar G r e e k w o r d suitable

to J e w i s h c u s t o m but lacking the overtly J e w i s h association o f 'eve o f Sabbath'. T h e process w h e r e b y the sixth day, the eve o f Sabbath, received the name of a meal eaten on that day reflects the ancient custom of eating the Friday evening dinner while it was still Sabbath eve, before sunset. 2. T h e importance implicitly assigned to the meal when its name was used to designate the day is in full accord with the importance attributed to eating and drinking in Sabbath observance. Post-biblical c o m m e n d a t i o n of Sabbath meals continues a long tradition o f treating the sabbath as a feast, going b a c k to the Pentateuch and prophets, reflected in literature of the G r e e k and H a s m o n a e a n periods, and forming part of the biblical interpretation continued b y early Christians.

Summary of Conclusions

139

3. Cena pura, in giving its name to Sabbath-eve, picks out the sixth rather than the seventh day. This emphasis on the eve is not made so explicit in other ancient sources on Sabbath dining noted above, but it helps to explain how gentiles could view the Sabbath-day itself as a fast, even though Jewish festal dining was well known. 4. The link between cena pura and Sabbath-eve probably reflects an old pattern of Sabbath observance - eating and drinking on the eve, followed by a day of rest and little food. This pattern is implied when the Pentateuch forbids Sabbath-day fires, and it suits the presentations of the Sabbath in Jubilees, the Damascus Document and Philo. It would have begun to change when eating on the Sabbath day itself was influentially recommended, in the manner which is reflected in rabbinic sources. 5. The Sabbath-eve dinner which came to be known as cena pura can then be envisaged as one of the communal diaspora meals for which Roman recognition was claimed, as Josephus shows. In the homeland too it will sometimes have been a corporate dinner. Jewish and non-Jewish references to Sabbath and festival dinners in the western diaspora indicate a setting into which a Sabbath-eve dinner of the importance of cena pura would readily fit. 6. The Lord's Supper is known under this name in the first century only from Paul. A communal dinner as well as a sharing in the 'bread and cup of the Lord', it was probably held weekly on the 'Lord's Day', that is on Saturday or Sunday evening; it therefore inevitably evoked comparison with the Sabbath-eve dinner, just as the Lord's Day evoked comparison with the Sabbath. The development of the Christian Supper into a weekly Lord's Day observance probably owes much to the influence of the weekly Sabbath-eve dinner; the prestige of this Jewish institution is underlined by the texts concerning cena pura (see no. 2, above). 7. The name Lord's Supper is pre-Pauline and, like the name Lord's Day, reflects a Christian communal concern, the cult of Christ. 'Lord's Supper' belongs to a group of early terms for the rite which are more demonstratively confessional than other terms which tended to displace them in the church, and it lays more stress on dining than the terms which gained predominance; it invites, as in the case of Jewish common meals, a comparison with the dinners of gentile groups in honour of gods and heroes. Cena pura, on the other hand, is comparable with other Jewish and Christian vocabulary which gave communal institutions, including Sabbath-eve and the Christian Supper, gentile names without particularist overtones; but it resembles cena dominica in its explicit link with dining and in its correspondence with an internal communal concern, in this case purity.

140

Summary of Conclusions

8. T h e hallowing o f the Sabbath was taken at the end of the Second-Temple period to imply 'pure hands and a pure heart' (cf. Ps. 24:4), and earlier in this period could encourage special purification beforehand; the associations of the 'pure table' o f shewbread with solemn c o m m o n meals were consistent with this outlook. C o n c e r n for purity in c o m m o n meals emerges f r o m G r e e k texts of the Herodian period (Philo, Paul, Acts, Josephus), stating or implying a contrast with gentile excess, together with Q u m r a n and rabbinic texts in H e b r e w , f o cused on the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y itself. T h e adoption of the name cenapura

cor-

responded to internal c o m m u n a l concern with purity, manifest in c o n n e c t i o n with the Sabbath and the Sabbath-eve dinner. 9. T h e same c o n c e r n with a wide-ranging conception o f purity is also strongly marked, however, in early Christian references to the Lord's Supper, Eucharist and Agape. T h e Christian meal had an old name which, like cena pura,

laid

stress on dining; but it also shared s o m e o f the principal associations o f the J e w i s h cenapura,

as the title 'pure offering' shows. T h e J e w i s h and the Christian

institutions evince a c o m m o n debt to the J e w i s h tradition o f biblical interpretation, and a c o m m o n participation in G r e e k and R o m a n concern f o r purity.

Part II

Modern New Testament Study

7. British New Testament Study in its International 1902-2002

Setting,

When the twentieth century began, N e w Testament study was increasingly regarded as a distinct field. In the meanwhile, workers within it have felt the importance of looking over the hedge. 1 In 1902, however, the movement towards demarcation could be seen at least partly as an assertion of integrity. This field of biblical study was of profound concern to the theological faculties and to the church, and it also attracted students of biblical and rabbinic Hebrew and of Classics; but if it was to flourish it had to attain a certain concentration and detachment. N e w Testament work since 1902 is here reviewed with an eye on movements in British scholarship, but with some notice of their continental European and N o r t h American background. Scholarly publication and tendencies of thought persisted throughout both the world wars. Hence, although 1918 and to some extent 1945 were perceived soon afterwards as theological turning-points, the epochs in this story can perhaps best be marked by books. 2 I have taken two books as signs of changing times and new periods: G. Kittels Wörterbuch (Stuttgart, 1932 onwards) and E.P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London and Philadelphia, 1977). German and American respectively, they reflect the importance for Britain of continental and transatlantic developments. An opening sketch of the manifold setting of N e w Testament study during the century is followed accordingly by comment arising successively from the three periods 1902-32, 1932-77, and 1977-2002. As a thread leading through these times I have kept in view the interaction between the two principal sides of N e w Testament study, the philological - to use the word in its broadest sense - and the theological.

1 This need is stressed b y M. H e n g e l , ' A u f g a b e n der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft', NTS xl (1994), p p . 321-57. T h e t e r m Fakultätszaun , ' f a c u l t y - h e d g e ' , was used half jestingly b y H . L i e t z m a n n , ' N o t i z e n ' , ZNWxxxvi (1937), p. 293. 2 A.M. H u n t e r , Interpreting the New Testament, 1900-1950 ( L o n d o n , 1951), pp. 124-5 (tendencies evident b e f o r e t h e First World War first had their full effect f r o m 1918); f o r 1945 as a threshold of theological revival, J. de Z w a a n , ' T h e U n i t y of P u r p o s e in N e w Testament Studies', JTS xlviii (1947), p p . 129-36 (135-6).

7. British New

Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

143

1. The Settings of New Testament Study Demarcation New Testament work is part of biblical study, and also part of the study of the early church. These two larger areas are in many ways distinct from one another, but the sequence Old Testament - New Testament - early Christian literature is closely knit, both chronologically and thematically. The Old Testament with the Apocrypha extends into New Testament times, and the New Testament with the Apostolic Fathers verges on the patristic age. To turn to major subject-groupings, the New Testament has its place within the fields of theology and religion, and can also come within the purview of Classics and Jewish Studies. Towards the end of the nineteenth century all these relationships were manifest in a number of journals and series printing New Testament work. In Britain the links of New Testament study with the Old Testament and the early church, and with Jewish Studies and Classics, could be seen especially in the Oxford series Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (1885-1903), and they had also appeared in the Cambridge Journal of Philology (1868-1920), which continued the range of the short-lived Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (1854-60). Then the Old Testament, the New Testament and the early church were treated together within the theological field by the new Journal of Theological Studies (1900-), and in the U.S.A. by the Harvard Theological Review (1908-). The biblical field as a whole was served in Britain by the Expository Times (1889-) and the Expositor (1873-1925), in the U.S.A. by the Journal of Biblical Literature (1886-), and in France by the Revue Biblique (1892-). 1900 also saw, however, the inception in Germany of a specialized New Testament journal, E. Preuschen's Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, followed later in the century by others including New Testament Studies (Cambridge, 1954-), Novum Testamentum (Leiden, 1956-), the Journal for the Study of the New Testament (Sheffield, 1978-), and Filologia Neotestamentaria (Cordoba, 1988-). The demarcation of New Testament study emerges clearly in these later titles, which separate the New Testament from the Old Testament on the one hand, and the early church on the other (Preuschen's reference to the early church has been dropped). Professional concentration is correspondingly evinced in the sponsorship of New Testament Studies by a new international specialist society, Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, founded 1937-8. 3 Throughout the twentieth century this progressively delimited field was cultivated in universities and church institutions, in Britain and overseas, in differing political settings. Its demarcation helped to buffer pressures - ecclesiastical, 3 G . H . Boobyer, 'Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas', NTS i ( 1 9 5 4 - 5 ) , pp. 6 6 - 9 ; formation was discussed on J. de Zwaan's initiative in 1937, and effected in 1938.

144

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

academic, political or intellectual. For much of this time N e w Testament study, eagerly followed in the church, was central in a theological curriculum, and closely linked with work on the Old Testament and early church history and doctrine; but by the end of the century it was often one of a more loosely connected series of subjects in theological and religious studies, and scholars in a firmly defined New Testament field had become correspondingly concerned to keep in touch with kindred disciplines. Early Twentieth-Century

Settings

Overseas

The clearer demarcation of a field had its background in the political as well as the academic developments of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Academically, theological study was proliferating, but it did so in political settings which, despite the differences between countries and regions, placed N e w Testament work mainly in the context of theology and the church. In continental central and northern Europe N e w Testament study had its chief home in university theological faculties. These were famous, especially in Germany, for their freedom and fecundity in critical work, but they also by law represented the interests of the ecclesiastical bodies. An influential but debated liberal attempt to bring together New Testament work with service to the church was Adolf Harnack's Das Wesen des Christentums (1900), in which this great historian and interpreter of the early church endeavoured to show how synoptic criticism could be united with the Reformation 'liberty of a Christian'; a fresh and simple apprehension of the essence of Christianity could then, he urged, be found in the ethical and spiritual teaching of Jesus. 4 Harnack here shared the 'quest of the historical Jesus' soon to be renewed by the young Albert Schweitzer. 5 For Harnack the teaching of Jesus was penetrating in its simplicity, for Schweitzer it was challenging in its strangeness, but for both authors the historical Jesus was at the heart of a rethought Christianity, and their links with the church as well as scholarship are clear. The ecclesiastical setting of the field was paramount, however, in countries such as France and the U.S.A., where the tendency to separate church and state was strong, notably in the French disestablishment of 1905. Here biblical work was equally pursued at high levels, but characteristically within church institu-

4 Harnack expressed longing to serve 'our churches of the Reformation' in their difficulties ('unsern vielfach kümmerlichen Reformationskirchen') in a letter of 21st O c t o b e r 1899 to M. Rade, discussed by Agnes von Zahn-Harnack, Adolf von Harnack (Berlin, 1936), pp. 2 9 9 302. 5 A. Schweitzer, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (2nd edn of Von Reimarus zu Wrede [1906], Tübingen, 1913); E.T. The Quest of the Historical Jesus, First Complete Edition, translated by W. Montgomery, J. R. Coates, Susan Cupitt & J. Bowden, ed. J o h n Bowden (London, 2000).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting, 1902-2002

145

tions of various kinds. These included denominational universities in North America, and Instituís Catholiques (originally intended as new church universities) in France; and a directly ecclesiastical setting like that of a seminary could indeed encourage a valuable interaction with all branches of theology. Yet it also became of great moment that biblical criticism, perhaps above all in the New Testament field, was increasingly perceived as a threat to church loyalty. In the French Roman Catholic community of the early twentieth century these studies aroused interest as intense as the hostility they evoked. Eminent New Testament scholars among the clergy included the judicious M.-J. Lagrange (1855-1938), founder of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem, and the outspoken Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), who sceptically questioned Harnack's reliance on a reconstructed body of Jesus's teaching, and urged that the historian inevitably encountered, rather, the church which arose from and presented the teaching. Lagrange, who remained a devoted Dominican, later nostalgically called these years a time of struggle, but also of burning ardour for biblical studies.6 Prosper Alfaric, a younger priest who eventually became a rationalist lay scholar, remembered how, when teaching dogma in French seminaries at this time, he read with fascination the Revue Biblique and the work of Loisy; and how the liberal archbishop of Albi, Mgr Mignot, startled him by an urgent summons to what turned out to be a discussion of Philo in relation with the Fourth Gospel and Hebrews. 7 Similar excitement was felt in Italy, not least in Rome, where in the 1890's a Società romana per gli studi biblici had formed a seed-bed for contributions to the Revue Biblique.8 The precarious conditions of New Testament work in this setting became parlous during the conservative church reaction to biblical criticism fostered under the rule of Pius X (1903-1914). Loisy formed the main target when propositions termed Modernist were condemned in the decree Lamentabili of the Holy Office in 1907, followed up by the encyclical Pascendi (1907) and the antiModernist oath to be taken by the clergy (1910-67). 9 In 1907, correspondingly, and from 1911 to 1914, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued responsa upholding widely doubted traditional views on the Fourth Gospel, the synoptic problem, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews. Defence of biblical criticism was not helped by revival at this time of the 'Christmyth' theory, suggesting that Jesus had never existed, a suggestion rebutted in England by the radical but independent F.C. Conybeare. 10

6 'Une époque de luttes où les esprits étaient si ardents pour les études bibliques': M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon Saint Marc(Aûi edn, Paris, 1929), p. iii. 7 P. Alfaric, De la foi à la raison (Paris, 1955), pp. 137-43, 170. 8 J. (G.) Semeria, 'Chronique d'Italie', RB ii (1893), pp. 4 3 1 - 5 4 (431-3). 9 O . Chadwick, A History of the Popes, 1830-1914 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 346-59. 10 F.C. Conybeare, The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the views of Mr J.M. Ro-

146

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

L o i s y was excommunicated in 1908. Mignot was eminent among scholarly members of the clergy w h o kept in touch with him, despite the danger of being stigmatized. A m o n g N e w Testament scholars in England he won sympathy not only from his faithful friend B a r o n Friedrich von Hiigel, w h o took a deep interest in biblical subjects from the standpoint of a philosophical theologian and student of mysticism, but also from F. C . Burkitt ( 1 8 6 4 - 1 9 3 5 ) . 1 1 T h e cloud over R o m a n Catholic biblical study was lifted only after a generation, b y Pius X I I ' s 1943 encyclical Divino

afflante

Spiritu.

Yet N e w Testament w o r k went on in

France; Lagrange's large-scale commentaries questioned the radicalism

of

Loisy, vigorous Protestant learning was exemplified b y M . Goguel at the Sorbonne, and sceptical non-religious study by P.-L. C o u c h o u d , Alfaric and others implausibly favoured the C h r i s t - m y t h theory, but led to thorough discussion of Christian origins. 1 2

Twentieth-Century

British Settings

There was a somewhat comparable contemporary N e w Testament struggle in Britain and especially in the C h u r c h of England, but the political and academic setting here recalled G e r m a n y rather than France. T h e N e w Testament had long been studied in universities with an ancient or more recent church connection, including O x f o r d , Cambridge, the four older Scottish universities, Trinity C o l lege, Dublin, and the early nineteenth-century foundations of King's College in L o n d o n , D u r h a m University, and Queen's College (later University) in Belfast. Yet by the end of the nineteenth century formal links with the church had b e c o m e less marked in Britain than in Germany. University religious tests had effectively ceased, and although many chairs retained their ecclesiastical ties academic biblical study was n o w clearly lay as well as clerical, and also increasingly interdenominational, with a powerful Free C h u r c h participation. A t the same time important contributions were being made b y scholars from the Jewish community. In 1904 a Faculty of T h e o l o g y was established at Manchester in express independence of any religious test, and this example was followed in a number of university colleges and universities in the early years of the century, and then in a new wave after the Second World War. T h e N e w Testament stood out in these developments; among scholars named above and below, F.C.

bertson, Dr A. Drews, and Prof. W.B. Smith (London, 1914); these writings were also criticized in 1913 by Schweitzer, Geschichte der Lehen-Jesu-Forschung, pp. 444-97, E.T. 355-90. 11 Letters of Burkitt to Loisy written in 1908 and 1934 are quoted by A. R. Vidier, A Variety of Catholic Modernists (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 186-7; a sympathetic contemporary account of Loisy was given by F. C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism (London, 1910), pp. 72-4 (with plate), 134-8. 12 E. Trocmé, 'Exégèse scientifique et idéologie: de l'Ecole de Tubingue aux historiens français des origines chrétiennes', NTS xxiv (1978), pp. 447-62 (458-60).

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

147

Burkitt and C . H . Turner were early lay divinity professors in C a m b r i d g e ( 1 9 0 5 ) and O x f o r d (1920), respectively, and professors in the Manchester faculty include the Congregationalist C . H . D o d d (1930), w h o moved in 1935 to a C a m bridge chair and was succeeded in Manchester b y the Presbyterian T. W. Manson. Disquiet over N e w Testament criticism and church loyalty emerged in Britain as well as France, not least in the C h u r c h of England, in w h i c h the B r o a d C h u r c h or liberal Anglican tradition n o w became k n o w n , in line with the continent, as M o d e r n i s m . Tension was b o u n d up with the question whether recital of the creeds required affirmation o f physical miracle. T h e 1 9 0 5 - 6 Declaration Biblical

Criticism

by 1725 Clergy

of the Anglican

Communion

on

was an effort to

show, despite opposition, h o w substantial was the support f o r criticism among the clergy. Supporters o f L o i s y in F r a n c e valued this document, and N e w Testament signatories in the British A c a d e m y included R . H . Charles and B . H . Streeter, but not the m o r e conservative W. Sanday, although his views later changed; among signatories in related fields were J . E . B . M a y o r and W.W. Skeat, professors respectively o f Latin and A n g l o - S a x o n in C a m b r i d g e . 1 3 O n the other side 'there were many w h o wished [their] Bishops to give the same relentless reply as the P o p e ' , and they found a leader o f formidable spirit and integrity in Charles G o r e , bishop successively of Worcester, B i r m i n g h a m and O x f o r d . 1 4 Feeling of this kind continued, witness for example the charge of teaching contrary to scripture which was formally brought against H . D . A . M a j o r in 1921; f o r his part he presented his o w n contested view of resurrection as emerging primarily f r o m 'the application of modern methods of literary and historical criticism to the interpretation of Scripture', exemplified by Charles. 1 5 Gore's position was relinquished by his successors in the liberal catholic movement in the C h u r c h of England, including N e w Testament scholars mentioned b e l o w such as A . E . J . Rawlinson (bishop o f D e r b y ) , Wilfred K n o x and E . G . Selwyn; but the inward tension still felt b y critics in this tradition emerges in a c o m m e n t f r o m E . C . H o s k y n s , looking back, on 'the acute pain of our technical w o r k ' , 1 6 and later in the ultimately negative retrospect on L o i s y as well as H a r n a c k leading however to a defence of free N e w Testament criticism as not i n c o m 13 H. Handley (ed.), A Declaration on Biblical Criticism by 1725 Clergy of the Anglican Communion (London, 1906) [French newspaper reaction is quoted at p.26], discussed by A. Houtin, La Question Biblique au XXe Siècle (Paris, 1906), pp. 227-40. 14 G.K.A. Bell, Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury (3rd edn, London, 1952), 671; on Gore's view that biblical criticism would not affect credal affirmation of physical miracle see S.W. Sykes, The Integrity of Anglicanism (London & Oxford, 1978), pp. 20-25. 15 Major in The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body: Documents Relating to the Question of Heresy raised against the Rev. H.D. A. Major, Ripon Hall, Oxford issued by H.M. Bürge, D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford (London, 1922), pp. 48-9. 16 Letter of Hoskyns (1934) to A. R. Vidier, quoted by Vidier, A Variety of Catholic Modernists, 188.

148

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

patible with Christian o r t h o d o x y - offered in 1939 b y N.P. Williams, w h o as a young graduate had studied in both the Protestant and the R o m a n C a t h o l i c faculties at Strassburg during the fraught years 1906-7. 1 7 Perhaps the last m a j o r eruption o f controversy on criticism followed the publication in 1947 of The Rise of Christianity

by E.W. Barnes, F.R.S., bishop o f

Birmingham. Barnes's emphasis on the late date and doubtful authorship o f N e w Testament b o o k s evoked a form-critically fortified response from D o d d on the early tradition which they preserved. 1 8 T h i r t y years later there was a comparable controversy, again as it happened arising f r o m w o r k in B i r m i n g ham, over The Myth of God Incarnate,

edited by J o h n H i c k . N o w , however, al-

though the debate had a strong N e w Testament side, public concern was predominantly doctrinal. 1 9 A new phase of ecumenical church-related scholarship had in fact already begun before the Second W o r l d War, and was further strengthened in the aftermath of Divino

afflante

Spiritu.

F o r a considerable period N e w Testament w o r k

was particularly closely integrated into church life. T h e N e w English Bible was translated f r o m 1947 onwards at the joint request o f m a j o r Christian bodies in the British isles, and N e w Testament theology was important f o r the World C o u n c i l of C h u r c h e s founded in 1948, and the Second Vatican C o u n c i l o f 1 9 6 1 - 5 . D o d d was only ten years y o u n g e r than Barnes, but in his critique he, a Congregationalist academic, represented this new phase o f church-related ecumenical scholarship, whereas Barnes, a bishop of the established

church,

warmed to the m o r e detached scholarship typical of an earlier phase. Towards the end o f the century the atmosphere in Britain changed again. In the universities the undergraduate syllabus in ancient and modern languages, literature, and history was broadening, with greater choice and some fragmentation. Within the theological faculties this trend converged with the increasing importance o f religious studies, concentrated on n o n - C h r i s t i a n religions and sometimes distinguished from theology as a subject. A t the same time critical approaches in which subjectivity was taken f o r granted became m o r e c o m m o n . D e m a r c a t i o n n o w perhaps helped to preserve the wholeness of N e w Testament study as it moved into new settings. In the U . S . A . biblical w o r k was n o w finding a place not only in denominational universities and colleges but also, under the aegis of the study o f religion, in state universities and other places o f higher education. Paula Fredriksen 17 N. P. Williams, 'What is Theology?', in K. E. Kirk (ed.), The Study of Theology (London, 1939), pp. 3-82 (32-6); E. W. Kemp, N. P. Williams (London, 1954), pp. 7-9. 18 C. H. Dodd, Christian Beginnings. A Reply to Dr. Barnes's 'The Rise of Christianity' (London, n. d. [1947]); J. Barnes, Ahead of his Age: Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (London, 1979), pp. 395-414. 19 J.H. Hick (ed.), The Myth of God Incarnate (London, 1977); M.D. Goulder (ed.), Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued (London, 1979).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

149

wrote of a 'new home for N e w Testament research created, particularly in the United States and Canada, within the religion faculties of liberal arts colleges and universities'. 2 0 Contrasts in self-awareness arose between scholarship with and without church sponsorship, respectively. At the same time there was a shift towards the predominance of the English language in scholarship. In 1900 Latin was still in use, then and later French was always important, and in time Spanish, Italian and other languages became prominent; but the main language of N e w Testament study for most of the century had been German. N o w the international impact of the North American scene and the English language was also heightened by the expansion of the U.S.A.based Society of Biblical Literature to include researchers from many other countries. In Britain, affected by these developments together with its own syllabus broadening and concern with world religions, N e w Testament study could benefit from the wish for choice and diversity and for the representation of religions by their own texts and adherents, but it could also seem less central within theological faculties and departments, and become more isolated from other areas. Reduced opportunities for the learning of Latin and Greek at school increased the difficulty of beginning N e w Testament study, but were partly countered by widespread interest in archaeology and ancient history. Connections with the church and the Jewish community remained important, but non-religious standpoints regained their early twentieth-century prominence, and the philological side of N e w Testament work tended to become more separate from the theological side. British scholarship was in a position to feel tension, sometimes perhaps creative, between continental European traditions of study and North American approaches. By the end of the twentieth century the N e w Testament was studied in connection with theology and religion in well over twenty of the larger universities in Scotland, Wales, England and Ireland, as well as in the theological and bible colleges and colleges of education which were increasingly connected with the universities. To pick out two centres which were important throughout the period, comparison between histories of twentieth-century Oxford and C a m bridge might give the false impression that N e w Testament scholarship has been more significant in the latter; 21 it had greater nineteenth-century strength in 20 P. Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: a Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (1999, repr. London, 2001), p. 5. 21 In B. Harrison (ed.), The History of the University of Oxford, viii, The Twentieth Century (Oxford, 1994), theology is not treated among the areas of study, although New Testament comments in the chapter on 'Religion' [e.g. pp. 298, 309] receive a little supplement in the select list of pre-1939 arts publications [pp. 134-5]; but C.N.L. Brooke, A History of the University of Cambridge, iv, 1870-1990 (Cambridge, 1993) has a chapter on 'Theology' and separate studies of F.J.A. Hort and C.H. Dodd.

150

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

Cambridge, but in the twentieth century it has flourished in both, and in universities old and new throughout the British isles. A notable aspect of this w o r k was the training of graduates; at the end of the century N e w Testament candidates for research degrees in Britain included a high proportion from overseas, notably from the U.S.A., the Commonwealth, and continental Europe. The former ecclesiastical pressures now mainly took the form of internal tension between scholarship and piety, but political, academic, and intellectual movement of course also continued to impinge on the study of theology and religion, within which most N e w Testament w o r k was carried on. Yet some of the strength of N e w Testament study has arguably arisen in response to tensions of this kind. 2 2 Retrospect At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, N e w Testament w o r k occupied a sometimes uncomfortably central height in theology and the church. Practical consequences are illustrated by the fate of an early twentieth-century article on 'The Relation of the Discourses in the Fourth Gospel to the Book of Wisdom'. The author was the young J.A.F. Gregg, commentator on Wisdom (1909) and later professor at Trinity College, Dublin (1911) and archbishop successively of Dublin and Armagh. From Greek catena manuscripts he had already edited 'The Commentary of Origen on the Epistle to the Ephesians' in the Journal of Theological Studies (iii [1902-3] pp. 233-44, 389-420, 554-76). His piece on the Fourth Gospel was accepted for the Journal in December 1904 by the Cambridge editor, J.F. Bethune-Baker, a leading representative of Anglican Modernism. The article reached the stage of a corrected final proof due to be published in 1905, only to be rejected in late March that year on the plea of the other editor, the more traditional F.E. Brightman, who was supported, as Bethune-Baker wrote to Gregg, by 'one of the most influential of the Oxford directors' of the Journal.23 This was probably Sanday, the revered founder of modern N e w Testament w o r k in Oxford, who united an unrivalled knowledge of German scholarship with deep loyalty to church tradition, above all on the Johannine question. After his death, and despite his adoption later on of more liberal critical opinions, Burkitt suggested that it might now be easier for Sanday's junior Oxford colleagues to express their views freely. 2 4

22 Pressures on academic t h e o l o g y as perceived d u r i n g the unrest of 1 9 6 8 - 9 w e r e discussed b y C . K . Barrett, ' T h e o l o g y in the W o r l d of Learning', reprinted f r o m the Australian Biblical Review xvii (October, 1969), pp. 9 - 2 0 in Barrett, New Testament Essays ( L o n d o n , 1972), pp. 144-56. 23 G. Seaver, John Allen Fitzgerald Gregg, Archbishop ( L o n d o n & Dublin, 1963), p. 45, q u o t i n g a letter of B e t h u n e - B a k e r of 28th M a r c h 1905. 2 4 F. C . B u r k i t t , r e v i e w i n g B. H . Streeter, The Four Gospels in J TS xxvi (1925), pp. 2 7 8 - 9 4 (278).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting, 1902-2002

151

It was in autumn 1904 that Sanday made a heartfelt defence of the Fourth Gospel as apostolic eyewitness testimony, against critics including P.W. Schmiedel and Loisy, in lectures which he issued at Easter 1905 as The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel. Gregg's article was rejected just when these lectures were being prepared for publication. Hoskyns later wrote, with special reference to this book of Sanday, that 'it was a widely held opinion in liberal theological circles in Germany before the War that Sanday in Oxford and [V.H.] Stanton in Cambridge had been appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in order to defend orthodoxy; ... nor is this judgment altogether surprising'.25 Sanday had given up this view of the Fourth Gospel by 1912. 26 Seven years earlier, however, Gregg's article had touched the same neuralgic point as Mignot's discussion with Alfaric, the relation between ancient Jewish conceptions of divine intermediaries and the Johannine christology.27 From April 1905, also, the declaration in defence of biblical criticism was circulating, and Gregg became one of the 1725 signatories.

2. 1902-32 The early twentieth

century

Yet despite pressures the years from 1902 to 1932 formed a golden age of abundance, solidity and variety in New Testament scholarship. Well-known British contributions to it include Sanday's Oxford seminar which brought forth Studies in the Synoptic Problem By Members of the University of Oxford (Oxford, 1911). Aspects of the problem, notably the character of Q, were being studied at the same time by Harnack and others, above all J. Wellhausen, outstanding in work on the New Testament as well as the Old. The seminar led ultimately to Streeter's The Four Gospels (London, 1924), a book which includes the classic English statement of a four-document hypothesis of the literary interrelationship of the synoptic gospels.28 E . C . Hoskyns, ed. F.N. Davey, The Fourth Gospel (2nd edn., London, 1947), p. 35. W. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1905) and Divine Overruling (1920), p. 61, discussed by C . H . Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920 (3rd edn, Oxford, 1926), pp. 33-5. With the reaction to Gregg envisaged here from Sanday, compare Sanday's 1890 warning against misunderstanding of E. Hatch on Greek influence (n.103, below). 2 7 Contrast Gregg's view that John 'drank deeply' of a pre-existent Jewish Wisdom-doctrine (Seaver, Gregg, p. 48, quoting a paper delivered by Gregg in 1905) with Sanday's tracing of Johannine Christology (by simultaneous use of and debate with Loisy) above all to the teaching of Christ preserved by the earliest Christians (Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 2 2 3 - 6 , 231-3). 28 O n the seminar and Streeter see S.C. Neill in S.C. Neill & N.T. Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 129-36. 25 26

152

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

The immediate background of these studies, which were based on minute first-hand scrutiny, was the uncertainty about the origins of the synoptic material which still remained after wide acceptance of the priority of M a r k or a form of Mark. In Britain the lively late-Victorian comments on the synoptic problem by George Salmon, F.R.S. kept in currency, for instance, the thoughts that Q might well stand for Query, and that Mark might be at once early and late - preserving apostolic tradition used by Matthew and Luke, but completed in its present form only after them. 2 9 Then in Cambridge about 1912 the problems of Christian origins became the w o r k of a similar seminar. Collaboration which was continued later in the U.S.A. led to the five-volume work on Acts issued by F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake under the title The Beginnings of Christianity (London, 1920, 1922, 1926, 1933, 1933). As it seemed to the editors, 'the discovery and the general solution of the synoptic problem' had been achieved; we now had 'to translate these results into the language of the historian' and to scrutinize the process whereby 'the preaching ... begun by Jesus passed into the sacramental cult of the Lord Jesus Christ'. This echo of German religio-historical study (Religionsgeschichte), a movement noticed further below, led to a matter-of-fact English conclusion, 'the necessary preliminary to the investigation of these questions is the study of Acts'. 3 0 These two large-scale projects both involved textual and source criticism; the study of Acts went on to exegesis and history, and historical interest was also important in the synoptic seminar. This w o r k on the gospels and Acts then formed as it were a frame for reconsideration of the historical Jesus. Two contrasting presentations of Jesus emerged. On one side stood such scholars as Burkitt and E.C. Hoskyns, following J. Weiss and Schweitzer in presenting Jesus as imbued with eschatological hope; the outline of the ministry, in Burkitt's view, was disclosed by the Marcan sequence of events. 31 Burkitt urged that apocalypses gave the key to gospel interpretation; the Assumption of Moses, dated soon after the death of Herod the Great, presents the hope reflected in the gospels that God's 'kingdom shall appear' (Ass. Mos. x 1), and some sayings of Jesus 'only appear in their true light if regarded as Midrash upon words and

2 9 G. Salmon, An Historical Introduction to the Study of the New Testament: being an expansion of lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (4th edn, L o n don, 1889), pp. 155-8; F. C . B u r k i t t , Jesus Christ: an Historical Outline ( L o n d o n & Glasgow, 1932), p. 13, n. 1. 3 0 F o a k e s J a c k s o n & Kirsopp Lake, Beginnings, i, p.vii; cf. v, pp. vii-viii. 31 F.C. B u r k i t t , The Gospel History and Its Transmission (2nd edn, E d i n b u r g h , 1907), pp. 6 2 - 3 , 7 8 - 8 1 , w i t h other w o r k s including id., Jesus Christ (n.29, above), discussed b y M . D . C h a p m a n , The Coming Crisis: the Impact of Eschatology on Theology in Edwardian England (JSNT Supplement Series, 208; Sheffield, 2001), pp. 81-101.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

153

concepts taken from Enoch'. 32 In its eschatological aspect this approach was not far from that then being followed by Loisy and the young Rudolf Bultmann, but they did not share Burkitt's historical confidence. 33 Bultmann in particular had viewed form criticism as precluding any outline of the life of Jesus. This position was to receive much discussion, as noted below; but meanwhile perhaps the most obvious contrast continued to be that between eschatological and other depictions of Jesus. To turn now to the other side, non-eschatological depictions were offered by Harnack and Wellhausen in Germany - in Wellhausen's case with particular emphasis on the Christian colouring of Mark's narrative - and B.W. Bacon in the U.S.A. 34 In Germany these would recur to a considerable extent in the work of Gerhard Kittel and Joachim Jeremias, now beginning. In England they would be developed by Dodd, in work also just beginning, which was to form (in the words of a Scottish reader who was not fully convinced) 'a remarkable turning of the tables against the purely futurist eschatology ascribed to Jesus and His disciples by Weiss and Schweitzer'. 35 In the Oxford Studies Streeter, following Sanday, had indeed already urged, not without sympathy for the apocalypses, that their significance for the thought of Jesus was strictly limited; Paul and John brought the church back nearer to the mind of the historic Christ. 36 Bacon in Yale would write very similarly that Jesus fully shared 'those apocalyptic ideas native to every Jewish mind', but had 'an inner core of individual faith ... which made practical the ultimate adjustment to Hellenistic ideas' in Paul and above all in the Fourth Gospel. 37 These contrasting presentations indicate two broader aspects of the history of study. First, here as often a divergence of opinion traversed national boundaries; realized as well as futurist eschatology found sponsorship in Germany as well as England, and Dodd and Kittel approached the subject similarly at the first of a series of Anglo-German theological conferences with a New Testa32 F.C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Schweich Lecturesl913; London, 1914), pp. 21, 38-40. 33 A. Loisy, La naissance du christianisme (Paris, 1933), pp. 91-7; R. Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin, 1926), pp. 29-30. 34 A. Harnack, Sprüche und Reden Jesu (Leipzig, 1907), esp. pp. 170-74, E.T.The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1908), esp. pp. 246-52; E. Bammel, 'Der historische Jesus in der Theologie Adolf von Harnacks', Tutzinger Texte i (1968), pp. 71-97, E.T. 'The Jesus of History in the Theology of Adolf von Harnack', The Modern Churchman N.S. xix (1975-6), pp. 90-112; J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2nd edn, Berlin, 1911), pp. 86-104, 147— 53 (expressly against both Schweitzer and Harnack); B.W. Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story (New Haven, 1909), reviewed by Burkitt,/TS x (1909), pp. 604-7. 35 J. Baillie, The Belief in Progress (London, 1950), p. 203. 36 Streeter, 'Synoptic Criticism and the Eschatological Problem', in Sanday, Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 425-36; on Sanday's view see J.K. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 27-8. 37 B.W. Bacon, Studies in Matthew (London, 1930), pp. 412-35.

154

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

ment orientation (1927 in Canterbury, 1928 at the Wartburg, and 1931 in Chichester) w h i c h were jointly led b y Adolf Deissmann and G.K.A. Bell (bishop of Chichester f r o m 1929). 3 8 Local or national characteristics in scholarship can be too hastily identified. Secondly, in both the contrasting presentations noted above philological and historical w o r k merged with religious and theological apprehension; this dimension can also be detected in other philological trends of N e w Testament study. The w o r k just outlined shared in three such trends w h i c h have continued to the present day, but had particular early twentieth-century influence: the s t u d y of ancient versions and apocrypha, the exploration of J e w i s h and Palestinian material for exegesis, and the interpretation of C h r i s t i a n i t y in the setting of Greece and Rome. These trends were all related to the customary s t u d y of the N e w Testament in its O l d Testament and patristic setting, but they had independent impetus, and a brief sketch of each will help to characterize this first phase of twentieth-century study. Versions and apocrypha The N e w Testament versions and a p o c r y p h a are among the prime witnesses to ancient biblical interpretation, but this w a y of looking at them is more typical of later study. At the beginning of the century they w e r e mainly considered w i t h regard to problems of text, history, and language. The ancient versions, especially the Latin and the Syriac, could often claim to attest indirectly an earlier Greek text than either the Textus Receptus as issued b y Erasmus on the basis of relatively late minuscule Greek manuscripts, or the text issued b y B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. H o r t (1881) on the basis especially of the great fourth-century uncial codices. This claim w a s to the fore at the end of the nineteenth century. 3 9 Sometimes, as scholars such as F.C. Burkitt and C . H . Turner n o w emphasized, the Latin translations current before J e r o m e (the Old Latin) converged w i t h a p r o b a b l y early Syriac version (the Old Syriac) to attest not only an earlier but also w h a t seemed a more original text. The 'Western text' of the N e w Testament, so named in the past on the basis of its O l d Latin support, had been best k n o w n f r o m the Greek and Latin gospels and Acts in the bilingual C o d e x Bezae. In Hort's analysis this form of text had emerged as marked b y the tendency, seen in C o d e x Bezae, towards w h a t w a s judged to be paraphrase and interpolation; yet it had also been recognized as early, and w i d e spread in east as well as west. Fresh O l d Latin and O l d Syriac witnesses, h o w -

38 C.H. Dodd and G. Kittel, both under the heading 'The this-worldly Kingdom of God in our Lord's Teaching', Theology xiv (1927), pp. 258-60, 260-62. 39 See for example F.H. Chase, The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels (London, 1895).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

155

ever, now converged with one another as 'Western' but less marked by this tendency. 40 The Latin and Syriac traditions seemed then to promise access to early and unrevised textual material of many-sided interest, often reflecting, as Hort had said of the Western text in general, 'a vigorous and popular ecclesiastical life', but now with a clearer claim also to be of value for textual restoration. 4 1 Work on these and other versions, notably the Coptic, 4 2 was aimed first of all at the preparation of reliable editions of versions and particular manuscripts. Widespread though such textual interests were, they do indeed seem characteristic of Britain. Here the beaten track from Classics to Theology opened eyes to the significance of textual questions, even if it might sometimes allow relative inattention to the Old Testament. 43 Thus C . H . Turner highlighted the significance of textual variation for the synoptic problem, and like the more radical Kirsopp Lake and the classical scholar Friedrich Blass he spoke out for the legitimacy and value of conjectural emendation of the N e w Testament text. 44 Classicists concerned with the N e w Testament text include A . C . Clark and editors of the many finds of early papyri, notably F.G. Kenyon and H.I. Bell. A list of eminent names in N e w Testament textual criticism, in a French handbook of 1935, gives nine from England, as compared with five in the U.S.A., three in Germany, and two each in France, Belgium and Holland. 4 5 Pride of place among the ancient versions and in w o r k on them in Britain belongs to the Latin Vulgate. An outstanding achievement, spanning more than half the period considered here, was the large Oxford critical edition of the Vulgate N e w Testament, issued between 1889 and 1953, and edited by John Wordsworth (1843-1911) and H.J. White (1859-1934) - 'each of the two gave all the credit of the work to the other' - and then by H.F.D. Sparks (1908-1996). 4 6 Its F. C. Burkitt, 'Text and Versions', EB iv (1907), cols. 4977-5031 (4988-9). Hort in B.F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in Greek (2 vols., Cambridge, 1881), ii, p. 126; Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, pp. 58-61 (with five examples from Mark). 42 G.W. Horner edited at this period both the Bohairic (4 vols., Oxford 1898-1905) and the Sahidic (7 vols., Oxford, 1911-24). 43 Thus when Charles Raven moved from the Classical to the Theological Tripos as a B.A. in 1907, despite being taught by J.H.A. Hart he 'never became a Hebraist nor did he ever make an extended study of Old Testament documents', as noted by F.W. Dillistone, Charles Raven (London, 1975), pp. 49-51. 44 Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, pp. 47, 61-2; K. Lake, review of F. Blass, Evangelium secundum Matthaeum (Leipzig, 1901), in JTS iii (1902), p. 303. 45 M.-J. Lagrange, with the collaboration of S. Lyonnet, Introduction a l'Etude du Nouveau Testament, Deuxième Partie: Critique Textuelle, ii, La critique rationelle (Paris, 1935), pp. 16-17. 46 Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuerunt Iohannes Wordsworth et Henricus Iulianus White, in operis societatem adsumto Hedley Friderico Davis Sparks (3 vols., Ox40 41

156

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

immediate late nineteenth-century background included fundamental work on the history of the Vulgate text by the French Protestant theologian Samuel Berger. The Oxford N e w Testament was the first modern attempt to recover the text on the basis of manuscript witness, for the issue of the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 had been accompanied by prohibition of the printing of any other text, or of a text with variants. Work towards a new papally-sponsored edition was not authorized until Pius X entrusted it to a commission of Benedictines in 1907; and in view of the Oxford project they courteously began with the immense task of issuing the books of the Old Testament. 47 Turner and Burkitt, among others, stressed that the Vulgate gospel manuscript tradition represented in Wordsworth and White ascended to the sixth century rather than the fourth. Turner's last work, issued posthumously by A. Souter, Regius Professor of Humanity in Aberdeen, offered evidence from a St. Gall manuscript which might help to bridge the gap. 48 O n the other hand, an invaluable feature of the large edition was its registration of Old Latin readings. Jerome's work on the gospels had been a revision of existing Latin texts, as he says in his prefatory letter to Damasus; and the Vulgate Acts, epistles and Revelation, although they lack clear attestation from Jerome himself and are unlikely to be his work, are also revisions rather than translations. Other Old Latin work accompanying the edition included editions of manuscripts by E.S. Buchanan and others, and studies of patristic witness by Sanday, Turner, Souter and others. 49 The Oxford series Old Latin Biblical Texts founded by Wordsworth (1883 onwards) was matched by the comparable Collectanea Biblica Latina (Rome, 1912 onwards), the first-fruits of the Benedictine Vulgate commission, and by German work including H. von Soden's comparison of Old Latin manuscripts with Cyprian. 5 0 Souter, who inspired others in this field, was himself inspired by teachers including J . E . B .

ford, 1889-1953); see H.J. White, 'The Vulgate New Testament', in E. W. Watson, Life of Bishop John Wordsworth (London, 1915), pp. 140-56; A. Souter, 'Henry Julian White and the Vulgate', JTS xxxvi (1935), pp. 11-13 (the quotation in the text is from p.11); H.F.D. Sparks, 'The Rev. A. Ramsbotham and the Oxford Vulgate', JTS xxxvi (1935), p. 391; S.P. Brock, 'Hedley Frederick Davis Sparks', PBA ci (1998), pp. 513-36 (520-24, 535). 47 Pius X paid some expenses personally, and nuns as well as monks shared the work; see F. Stummer, Einführung in die lateinische Bibel (Paderborn, 1928), pp. 208-9. 48 C.H. Turner, The Oldest Manuscript of the Vulgate Gospels (Oxford, 1931), reviewed by Burkitt, JTS xxxii (1931), pp. 67-8; H . N . Bate, 'Cuthbert Hamilton Turner: A Memoir', in C.H. Turner, Catholic and Apostolic (London, 1931), pp. 1-65 (28-9, 30). 49 Thus C.H. Milne, A Reconstruction of the Old-Latin Text or Texts of the Gospels used by Saint Augustine, with a Study of their Character (Cambridge, 1926) was undertaken at Souter's suggestion. 50 H. von Soden, Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians ( T U 33A, Leipzig, 1909).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

157

M a y o r (mentioned above as one of the 1725 signatories), a contender for the value of biblical and ecclesiastical Latin in classical study. 51 The Oxford Vulgate, with White's hand-edition, did much to familiarize those studying the N e w Testament with the importance of the Latin versions. Further help on this w a y came from Souter's widely used Oxford Greek Testament (1910); a revised edition appeared in 1947, proof-read by the young F.F. Bruce. Here the text was that followed in the Revised Version, but Souter's apparatus gave greater prominence than had been usual to Latin evidence. 52 The value of the Vulgate itself for textual questions was emphasized by Harnack, who noted that in the gospels it was a second-century text revised in the light of third- or fourth-century Greek manuscripts; 'we have no other witness of the same value, but this witness we do now know accurately, thanks to the w o r k of Wordsworth and White' - generous words from the second year of the First World War. 53 The Syriac New Testament had aroused lively western interest ever since the sixteenth century, mainly in the Peshitta translation, that which was most widely current. In the early twentieth century much work, especially by John G w y n n in Dublin, was devoted to the later revisions of the Peshitta; but a great focus of N e w Testament study in general was what came to be called the Old Syriac version. A fragmentary British Museum text of the gospels in this version, from the Syrian convent of St M a r y in Nitria, had been edited by W. Cureton in 1848, and three leaves identified in a Berlin manuscript were published in 1872. In 1892, however, Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis of Cambridge, with her twin sister Mrs. Margaret Dunlop Gibson as photographer, found what was identified as a more complete text of the Old Syriac gospels in the underwriting of a palimpsest in St Katharine's monastery on Mount Sinai; a first transcript appeared in 1894. 54 Mrs. Lewis issued her own edition (London, 1910) after further inspections of the manuscript. Meanwhile Burkitt had presented the Sinaitic evidence in a fresh edition of the Curetonian text (1904), with translation and comment; he judged that the title, which could be rendered 'copy of the separated gospels', distinguished the four gospels copied as separate works from a gospel harmony, the popular Dia51 J.E.B. Mayor and A. Souter, Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Apologeticus (Cambridge, 1917), pp. v (Souter), xii-xiii (Mayor). 52 Novum Testamentum Graece, textui a retractoribus Anglis adhibito brevem adnotationem criticam subiecit Alexander Souter (Oxford, 1910); Lagrange, La critique rationelle,

P-15. 53 A. von Harnack, 'Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften des Johannes', reprinted from SB Berlin (1915) in id., Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche, i, Zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik (Berlin & Leipzig, 1931), pp. 105-52 (145-6). 54 Agnes Smith Lewis, In the Shadow of Sinai: A Story of Travel and Research from 1895 to 1897 (Cambridge, 1898), pp. ii-xv; R.L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris & F.C. Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest (Cambridge, 1894).

158

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

tessaron of Tatian (c. 170). 5 5 In the same years the Sinaitic text was translated with full commentary by the Heidelberg Orientalist and theologian Adalbert Merx, who exemplified contemporary fascination with the potential of this new version for historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus. 5 6 In the long run the importance of the Old Syriac has seemed rather to lie in the history of the text and early interpretation of the N e w Testament. Thus, to give examples, in both the Curetonian and the Sinaitic Syriac the bystanders who beat their breasts after the Passion (Luke 23:48) cry out 'Woe to us, what has befallen us! Woe to us for our sins!'. This expansion is the first part of a lament found in the Gospel of Peter (7:25) and in Codex Sangermanensis I of the Latin Gospels; in these two texts it goes on to foretell the desolation of Jerusalem. The O l d Syriac here attests apocryphal influence (direct or indirect) on the reading of the canonical gospel, as well as the anti-Jewish tendency often seen in early interpretation; Hort's 'vigorous and popular ecclesiastical life' is disclosed. 5 7 Secondly, however, despite this tendency, the Sinaitic Syriac agrees with the O l d Latin Codex Bobbiensis in omitting Matt. 9:34 'but the Pharisees said, He drives out demons by the prince of demons' - a clause which is not required by the context and is probably a harmonistic addition. Here the Old Syriac, in conjunction with the Old Latin, points towards restoration of the gospel text. 5 8 It was especially in view of such indications that C . H . Turner wrote: ' O f all additions, since the publication of Westcott and H o r t , to our knowledge of the early texts of the gospels, this Sinai Syriac MS is, take it all in all, the most weighty'. 5 9 In the related field of apocrypha a central place belongs to a scholar who has retained an aura of glamour and affection, M . R . James ( 1 8 6 2 - 1 9 3 6 ) . 6 0 His evergreen repute rests in part on his unequalled ghost stories, and in part on his manuscript catalogues; but it also attests his creative sympathy with a literature which in some sense linked these two sides of his activity, the biblical apocrypha. Gifted contemporary workers in this field included Forbes Robinson

5 5 F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe; the Curetonian Syriac Gospels re-edited, together with the readings of the Sinai palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic evidence; with a translation into English (2 vols., Cambridge, 1904). 5 6 A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten bekannten Texte. Übersetzung und Erläuterung der syrischen im Sinaikloster gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift (3 vols., Berlin, 1897-1911). 5 7 Comment on the Old Syriac by Burkitt, Merx and others was discussed by L. Vaganay, L'Evangile de Pierre (2nd edn, Paris, 1930), pp. 268-71. 5 8 See J . Neville Birdsall, 'A note on the textual evidence for the omission of Matthew 9:34', in J . D . G . Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways, A.D. 70 to 135 (WUNT 66, Tübingen, 1992), pp. 117-22. 5 9 Turner, The Study of the New Testament, 1883 and 1920, p. 54. 6 0 R.W. Pfaff, Montague Rhodes James (London, 1980), with bibliography of James; M. Cox, M.R. James, an Informal Portrait (Oxford, 1983).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

159

on Coptic N e w Testament apocrypha and J. Rendel Harris and others on the Syriac Odes of Solomon. The Odes, which form an Old Testament pseudepigraph but resemble hymn-like poems in the Acts of Thomas and John, and were treasured for their fresh and vivid mystical piety, are a reminder that N e w Testament apocrypha cannot well be separated from Old Testament pseudepigrapha, which were opened up in this period above all by R.H. Charles. On their specifically Christian side, the N e w Testament apocrypha also merge with the Apostolic Fathers; the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve (first edited in 1886), the Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas are all attached to names found in the N e w Testament. At this period these writings were at the heart of w o r k on the dating of N e w Testament books, and also of w o r k on early catechesis and liturgy, two subjects which would soon gain still greater prominence. James like Charles worked in the apocryphal literature of both Testaments, but he is perhaps best known for his repeatedly reprinted The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford, 1924), later supplemented by J.W.B. Barns (1953) and revised and re-edited by J.K. Elliott (1995). James kept in mind inquirers from the fields of mediaeval literature and art, as well as biblical and patristic study. ' M y aim' (he wrote) 'has been to give a fresh translation of everything and hardly any notes. A great deal appears for the first time in English.' 6 1 As compared with its chief rival, E. Hennecke's bulkier Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (1904 and subsequent reissues and revisions), James's one handy volume offers less in the w a y of introduction and interpretation, but considerably more translated apocrypha. James's genius was for short publications, in which he commonly produced both new textual evidence from felicitous manuscript discoveries, and new views on the date and contents of sparsely attested writings. He ranged through Old Testament pseudepigrapha - the Greek Psalms of Solomon and Testament of Abraham, and in Latin Enoch, II Esdras, and the Biblical Antiquities of Pseudo-Philo - to apocryphal gospels, acts, and revelations, notably the Apocalypses of Peter and Paul, which witness to conceptions of after-life with a strong Hellenic air. 62 The pseudo-Philonic Biblical Antiquities and the Apocalypse of Peter are among works the importance of which James showed, although they became foci of study mainly after his death. German study of N e w Testament apocrypha included an interest in their value for the life of Jesus which recalled Merx's approach to the Old Syriac. W. Bauer (1877-1960) brought them together with the N e w Testament text and Letter of September 1923 to R.W. Chapman, quoted by Pfaff, James, p. 373. W. Dieterich, Nekyia (Leipzig, 1893), and E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneis Buch VI (2nd edn, Leipzig & Berlin, 1916), p. 6 (the Apocalypse of Peter); E. Maass, Orpheus: Untersuchungen zur griechischen römischen altchristlichen Jenseitsdichtung und Religion (Munich, 1895), pp. 254-7 (the Apocalypse of Paul). 61

62

160

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

versions - arguing for instance from the apocrypha against Merx's contention for the historical value of the reduction o f R o m a n responsibility in the Sinaitic Syriac Passion narrative - and he analysed the apocryphal presentation of the life of Jesus. 6 3 C l o s e r to James's sphere was the treatment of N e w Testament apocrypha in connection with early and mediaeval Christian art b y E . von D o b schiitz ( 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 3 4 ) . 6 4

Jewish and Palestinian material for exegesis T h e second great trend of the early years o f the century to claim notice is the exploration o f J e w i s h and Palestinian material for exegesis. ' F r o m where did the mass of early Christian conceptual material c o m e if not f r o m J u d a i s m ? ' , asked William Wrede in 1897. 65 This trend has mediaeval and earlier origins, it readily coalesced with O l d Testament study, and in the early twentieth century it appeared in many countries; one of its expressions is in the range of J e w i s h literature, from the Septuagint to rabbinic texts, which E m i l Schiirer surveyed in his h a n d b o o k on N e w Testament history (revised edition, 1909). 6 6 In Britain Sanday introduced a revised edition of w o r k b y A. Edersheim, a Christian scholar o f J e w i s h birth, with the observation that Schiirer's philological judgment was complemented b y Edersheim's rabbinic knowledge and imaginative sympathy with Jewish life. 6 7 T h e p o w e r of this trend in Britain had particular nineteenth-century antecedents. In the universities, there had been co-operation between gentile biblical scholars and rabbinic scholars from the Jewish community, exemplified in C a m b r i d g e b y J . B . Lightfoot's debt to S.M. Schiller-Szinessy. 6 8 T h r o u g h the

63 W. Bauer, Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen (Tübingen, 1909, reprinted Darmstadt, 1967), pp. 204-7, 487-541. 64 E. von Dobschütz, Christusbilder: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende (TU 18, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1899); id., Der Apostel Paulus, i, Seine weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung; ii, Seine Stellung in der Kunst (2 vols, Halle, 1926, 1928). 65 W. Wrede, 'The Task and Methods of "New Testament Theology"', E.T. in R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology: The Contribution of William Wrede and Adolf Schlatter {London, 1973), p. 114. 66 M. Hengel, 'Der alte und der neue "Schürer". Mit einem Anhang von Hanswulf Bloedhorn', reprinted from JSS xxxv (1990), pp. 19-72 in M. Hengel, Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana: Kleine Schriften II (Tübingen, 1999), pp. 157-99 (158-66). Schürer's less than sympathetic view of 'life under the law' (n. 75, below) did not prevent him from indicating the importance of rabbinic texts. 67 W. Sanday in A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of Jerusalem under Titus, revised by H.A. White (London, 1896), p. vi. 68 J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London, 1875, reprinted 1897), p. viii. Adolph Neubauer, whose substantial Oxford co-operation with gentile scholars bore especially on Old Testament work, had earlier in France helped Renan in the New Testament field; see E. Renan, Vie de Jésus (13th edn, Paris, 1867), pp. xlv-xlvi.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

161

church's missionary work there was much interest, strongly represented in Scotland and Ireland as well as in London-based mission, in the Jewish populations of central Europe and the east. In the country more broadly, there was long-standing concern with the Holy Land, focused in the Quarterly issued by the Palestine Exploration Fund from 1869. The Jewish-Christian co-operation just noted has regularly been important, and in later years it was strongly represented in England on the Jewish side by scholars including H. Loewe, D. Daube and R. Loewe, but it was especially notable in the early years of the twentieth century. It meant that the immersion of New Testament scholars in Jewish texts was stimulatingly matched by Jewish investigation of the New Testament. Two Anglo-Jewish scholars who involved themselves deeply in New Testament work were C.G. Montefiore (1858-1938), commentator on the synoptic gospels, and Israel Abrahams (1858-1925), author of Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels.69 They collaborated (1889-1908) as editors of the Jewish Quarterly Review, which welcomed to its pages gentile New Testament scholars including Burkitt, Charles, Conybeare, and J.H. A. Hart - who had himself learned jointly from H.B. Swete, editor of the Septuagint, and the rabbinic scholar Solomon Schechter.70 It was also a forum for important Jewish New Testament contributions from such scholars as Adolph Biichler, Kaufmann Kohler, and Samuel Krauss. The historical discussion of new apocryphal discoveries which was typical of those years is met, for instance, but now with special reference to Judaism, in Biichler's study of the unknown Greek gospel text presented by a miniature parchment leaf from Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy. 840). Here a Pharisaic chief priest charges 'the Saviour' with entering the temple court unpurified, and asserts his own purity: 'I have bathed myself in the pool of David and have gone down by the one stair and come up by the other and have put on white and clean clothes'. Biichler urged that this text showed a better knowledge of relevant detail than the synoptic gospels, and must rest on good sources.71 Jewish texts explored for New Testament exegesis included the Septuagint, studied notably in this connection by A. Deissmann, and much else that was familiar in Greek, above all Philo. Debate on resemblances between Wisdom, Philo, and John has already been noticed; a major contribution to perception of the setting of these resemblances had been F.C. Coneybeare's 1895 argument that Philo on the Christian-like monastic Therapeutae was a genuinely Philonic 69 C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (2 vols., London, 1909; 2nd edn, revised and partly rewritten, London, 1927); I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (First Series , Cambridge, 1917; Second Series, Cambridge, 1924). 70 For Swete's work on Septuagintal, New Testament and patristic study, with bibliography, see Henry Barclay Swete, A Remembrance (London, 1918). 71 A. Biichler, 'The New "Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel"', JQR xx (1908), pp. 3 3 0 46.

162

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

description of a Jewish group. Josephus, the most familiar non-biblical Jewish source of all, was considered with reference to the historical Jesus and the New Testament by authors including H. StJ. Thackeray at home, and Adolf Schlatter and Robert Eisler abroad. 72 Greek-speaking Judaism was viewed in its historical setting especially through E.R. Bevan's work on the Hellenistic kingdoms, beginning with The House of Seleucus (1902). More recondite were the apocalypses and other pseudepigrapha which now came to the centre of New Testament study, especially in Leben-] esu-Forschung, as noted above, but also, as Sanday emphasized, in interpretation of Paul. 73 The Ethiopic Enoch and many other texts were edited and studied by Charles in a large-scale programme which led to his collective two-volume Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), and also prepared for his own monumental exposition of Revelation (2 vols., 1920). All these Jewish writings, however, from the Septuagint and Philo to the pseudepigrapha, were mainly preserved by church tradition and in Greek and the languages of the Christian east, and they had to be viewed together with the Aramaic Targums and the Hebrew and Aramaic rabbinic texts handed down in the Jewish community - a point underlined in 1910 by Schechter's publication of Cairo Genizah texts of the Damascus Document, widely recognized as exemplifying, together with Genizah texts of the Hebrew Ecclesiasticus, Hebrewlanguage literature from the Hellenistic age. 74 The tradition of collecting material to form a rabbinic commentary on the New Testament goes back to John Lightfoot and Christian Schoettgen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but it received an unprecedentedly rich development from 1921 onwards in the great commentary written by Paul Billerbeck at the suggestion of H. L. Strack. 75 The keen-eyed and large-hearted Montefiore judged that Billerbeck was over-concerned to show the originality of Jesus (and, one may add, the distinctiveness of Christianity), but that his wealth of rabbinic passages formed a 'magnificent collection', presented with consistent accuracy in translation and reference. 76 7 2 H. StJ. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York, 1929); R. Eisler, IHZOYZ B A Z I A E Y Z O Y BAZIAEYZAZ (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1929-30); A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josef us (Gütersloh, 1932). 7 3 W. Sanday in G . H . Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (London, 1912), p. 9*. 7 4 S. Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, i, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Cambridge, 1910); Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ii, pp. 785-834; L. Rost, Die Damaskusschrift (Berlin, 1933), pp. 4 - 6 (listing further studies from this period). 7 5 H.L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich, i [1922], ii [1924], iii [1926], iv 1 [1928], iv 2 [1928]; index volumes by K. Adolph and J. Jeremias, v [1956], vi [1961]). O n Billerbeck see R. Deines, Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101, Tübingen, 1997), pp. 257-9. 7 6 C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London, 1930), pp. xv-xx (noting H. Loewe's concurrence on the accuracy of the translations).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

163

O n e major question for biblical exegetes then and since has been that of the relative importance for N e w Testament interpretation of the ancient Jewish literature preserved by the church and the Jewish community, respectively. U n der another aspect it is the question of primary sources for a description of ancient Judaism in the early Roman period. At the beginning of the twentieth century Schiirer took a characteristically balanced view, in which all are taken into account - a view developed by J . H . A . Hart with echoes and modifications of Schechter's concept of a world-wide 'catholick Judaism'. 7 7 Wilhelm Bousset ( 1 8 6 5 - 1 9 2 0 ) , however, a leader in the school of Religionsgeschicbte

and a con-

troversial but brilliant interpreter of ancient Jewish and Christian religion, contended especially for the significance of the Septuagint and Philo, the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha - a view all the more attractive because, as noted already, some of this material was echoed in or contemporary with the N e w Testament, and was likewise current in Greek. 7 8 T h e rabbinic texts, on the other hand, had indeed long been recognized as exegetically indispensable - Israel Abrahams recalled J o h n Lightfoot's dictum at the Westminster Assembly (1643) that 'there are divers things in the N e w Testament, which we must be beholden to the Rabbins for the understanding of, or else we know not what to make of them'; 7 9 and yet rabbinic texts were later than the N e w Testament, and their Christian explorers had often assessed them in ways from which Jews demurred - so Israel Abrahams, again, had differed from 'Professor Schiirer on Life under the Jewish Law'. 8 0 Doubts were answered succinctly by Abrahams, in an essay addressed especially to exegetes (n. 71, above), and Bousset's view was countered in a defence of the prior claims of rabbinic sources by G . Kittel. 8 1 A more extended answer was given in the U.S.A. by G.F. Moore, who condemned polemic in Christian exegesis, and urged in his b o o k Judaism

that the Mishnah and contemporary

Jewish tradition provided the framework within which both the earlier Jewish writings and the N e w Testament could best be understood. 8 2 Within the ecclesiastical and theological context a 'liberal' attitude sometimes turned instinctively towards Philo and the Greek sources, a more 'conservative' one to the 7 7 J . H . A . Hart, The Hope of Catholick Judaism: an Essay towards Orientation [Oxford and London, 1910], pp. 23-30. 78 W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd edn, ed. H. Gressmann, Tübingen, 1926). 7 9 I. Abrahams, 'Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis', in Swete, Essays on some Biblical Questions of the Day, pp. 159-92(180). 8 0 Abrahams reviewed Schiirer under this title in JQR xi (1899), pp. 6 2 6 - 4 2 . 81 G. Kittel, Die Probleme des palästinischen Spätjudentums und das Urchristentum (Stuttgart, 1926), pp. 2 - 4 , 71-87. 82 G. F. Moore, 'Christian Writers on Judaism', HTR xiv (1921), pp. 197-254; id., Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (3 vols., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1927-30).

164

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

rabbis. This debate overlapped with discussion of the influence on Judaism and Christianity of Hellenism in general. In the upshot, although historical reconstruction of Jewish religion and theology continued to vary, the necessity of rabbinic texts for N e w Testament exegesis was widely admitted. As Stephen Neill w r y l y put it, 'in this bright post-Strack-Billerbeck epoch, we are all Rabbinic experts, though at second hand'. 8 3 This development was perhaps aided by the skilful use of rabbinic knowledge in the commentaries (1929 onwards) written late in life by Adolf Schlatter, whose emphasis on the N e w Testament as revelation won increasing sympathy. 8 4 The exploration of Jewish literature for N e w Testament exegesis was concurrent with concern for Palestinian material, drawn from the languages, literature, topography, customs and antiquities of the land. Study of these subjects for biblical research was among the purposes of various national institutes in Jerusalem, including the Ecole Biblique mentioned already. Here archaeology, history and N e w Testament work were combined especially by L.-H. Vincent and F.M. Abel, for example in their great study of Emmaus, beginning from the excavation of the ancient Judaean Nicopolis. 8 5 At the end of the nineteenth century topographical w o r k was classically embodied in Scotland in Sir George A d a m Smith's Historical Geography of the Holy Land (1894; 4th edn, London, 1896). This repeatedly reprinted book served the N e w Testament as well as the Old, and in the campaign which ended Turkish rule in 1917 it interpreted the biblical data for General Allenby. 8 6 M a n y themes of Palestinian research were combined in the w o r k of Gustav Dalman of Greifswald (1858-1941) on Aramaic grammar and the language of Jesus, the divine and messianic titles in the sayings of Jesus, and the topography and customs presupposed in the gospels. 87 Work encouraged by Dalman includes a pioneering corpus of Palestinian Jewish inscriptions, with many from N e w Testament times, by Samuel Klein, who became Professor of Palestinology at the

83 Neill, with footnote by Wright, in Neill & Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, p. 313. 84 Schlatter began to prepare his exegetical notes for publication on the advice of Gerhard Kittel; see P. Stuhlmacher, 'Adolf Schlatter's Interpretation of Scripture', NTS xxiv (1978), pp. 433-46 (437). 85 L.-H. Vincent & F.-M. Abel, Emmaiis, sa basilique et son histoire (Paris, 1932). 86 'Two books he consulted almost daily, the Bible and George Adam Smith's Historical Geography of the Holy Land': A.P. Wavell, The Palestine Campaigns (3rd edn, London, 1931), p. 3. Smith considered the future of the land at the time of Allenby's advance in his pamphlet Syria and the Holy Land (London, 1918). 87 G. Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (2nd edn, Leipzig, 1905); id., Die Worte Jesu (2nd edn, Leipzig, 1930); i d J e s u s - J e s c h u a (Gütersloh, 1922, E.T. by P.P. Levertoff, London, 1929); id., Orte und Wege Jesu (3rd edn, Gütersloh, 1924), E.T. by P.P. Levertoff of expanded text Sacred Sites and Ways (London, 1935); id., Jerusalem und seine Gelände (Gütersloh, 1929).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

165

Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 8 8 Dalman's own continuator was in many ways Joachim Jeremias, whose Jerusalem

in the Time ofJesus first appeared be-

tween 1923 and 1937. 89 These Palestinian studies could be linked with work on diaspora Judaism in such areas as epigraphy and synagogue archaeology, bringing together parts of the N e w Testament setting which were often viewed separately. 90 Meanwhile an approach to the gospels with emphasis on rabbinic and Palestinian sources (and on the contrast with rabbinic moderation which could be discerned, it was suggested, in the rigorous historical Jesus) had been sponsored in Jerusalem by Joseph Klausner, whose Jesus of Nazareth

(1922) was translated from modern

Hebrew into English by Herbert Danby, at that time canon of St George's, Jerusalem. 91 In Britain topography had been brought into special connection with the gospels and the life of Jesus by Sanday, and British Academy Schweich Lectures of the 1920's reflect a post-1917 intensification of concern with the Palestinian setting of biblical history. 9 2 The language and thought of Jesus and the gospels was further illuminated by the Old Testament scholar C.F. Burney, in two books on the Aramaic substratum of the gospels, including J o h n (here his work converged with that of Adolf Schlatter); these were followed up by a study of J o h n in the light of mystical rabbinic texts by H . Odeberg, inspired by G . H . B o x . 9 3 In the background of these books was the penetrating consideration of Aramaic in Wellhausen's work on the gospels. A lasting contribution in the convergence of Palestinian and rabbinic study was made by Danby, the translator of Klausner, in his pioneering English translation of the Mishnah; Danby's judicious discussion of N e w Testament interpretation in the light of rabbinic texts is a complement to the weighty but decided opinions of G.F. M o o r e . 9 4 88 S. Klein, Jüdisch-palästinisches Corpus Inscriptionum (Ossuar-, Grab- und Synagogeninschriften) (Vienna & Berlin, 1920); Dalman contributed notes and additions. 8 9 J . Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (3rd edn, Göttingen, 1962), E.T. of revised text by F.H. & C.H. Cave (London, 1969); id., Golgotha (Angelos-Beiheft 1, Leipzig, 1926). 9 0 For example, J . - B . Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (2 vols., Rome, 1936, 1952), proceeding from Rome and Europe to Palestine and the Middle East; E.L. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (Schweich Lectures 1930, London, 1934). 91 J . Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, his Life, Times, and Teaching, translated by H. Danby (London, 1925). 9 2 W. Sanday, with the assistance of P. Waterhouse, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford, 1903); I. Abrahams, Campaigns in Palestine from Alexander the Great (Schweich Lectures 1922, London, 1927); T.H. Robinson, J.W. Hunkin & F.C. Burkitt, Palestine in General History (Schweich Lectures 1926, London, 1929). 9 3 A. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (Gütersloh, 1902); C.F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1922) (he did not know Schlatter's work until his own was far advanced); id., The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925); H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and the Hellenistic-Oriental World (Uppsala, 1926). 9 4 H. Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933 and reprints); on the problems and history of

166

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

Christianity in the setting of Greece and Rome Finally, a third pervasive trend was to interpret the earliest Christianity with special regard to its Greek and Roman setting. Such interpretation arose readily from the classical training already mentioned, and it could range from language through history to religion and theology. All these were within the spectrum of what was commonly called in English 'the G r a e c o - R o m a n world' or 'GraecoRoman culture', but in German with greater precision, as in the title of a famous early twentieth-century aid to N e w Testament study, 'die hellenistisch-römische Kultur'. 9 5 T h e term 'Hellenistic' had been applied to civilization as well as literature since J . G . Droysen in the early nineteenth century, and it drew attention to special characteristics of the post-classical 'Hellenism' which colonized vast regions under Alexander the Great, and issued in a Greek-speaking Judaism and Christianity and a Hellenized Roman literature and culture. 9 6 Interpretation in the context of Hellenism became important in study of the Fourth Gospel and other books, but it had a natural prominence in the case of Acts and Paul. In this period these were the foci of outstanding N e w Testament work by classical scholars, and of a struggle in the theological faculties over the relative importance of Judaism and Hellenism in Paul. T h e prime need in Acts for the special knowledge of the philologist (in the broad sense) rather the theologian had been stressed in a philological commentary by Friedrich Blass, and Eduard Norden somewhat comparably related how, when discussing the Areopagus speech in the seventeenth chapter, he and other professed students of Classics were determined that here at least, in a scene set in Athens, they would not submit themselves to the judgment of their fellow-Grecians from the theological faculty. 97 Norden himself distinguished the Paul of Romans from the Paul of Acts xvii (here in contrast with Harnack,

interpreting the New Testament in the light of rabbinic literature see H. Danby, Tractate Sanhedrim Mishnah and Tosefta (London, 1919), pp.ix-xvi; id., Gentile Interest in Post-Biblical Hebrew Literature (Jerusalem, n. d.), also published in N. Bentwich & H. Sacher (edd.), The Jewish Review iii (December 1932-March 1933), pp. 18-34. Danby's use of rabbinic and later Jewish literature when he was Regius Professor of Hebrew in Oxford is sketched by J.A. Emerton, 'Godfrey Rolles Driver, 1892-1975', PBA lxiii (1977), pp. 345-62 (361-2). 95 P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum (Tübingen, 1907); the English phrases are exemplified in W.R. Inge, 'The Theology of the Fourth Gospel', in Swete, Essays on some Biblical Questions of the Day , pp. 2 5 1 88 (255-7), in connection with 'European civilization'. 96 How far 'Hellenism' can be judged to culminate in Christianity and a Hellenized Rome is discussed by A. Demandt, 'Hellenismus - die moderne Zeit des Altertums?' and G. Dobesch, 'Die römische Kaiserzeit - eine Fortsetzung des Hellenismus?' in B. Funck (ed.), Hellenismus: Beiträge zur Erforschung von Akkulturation und politischer Ordnung in den Staaten des hellenistischen Zeitalters (Tübingen, 1996), 17-27, 561-609. 97 F. Blass, Acta apostolorum (Göttingen, 1895), p. vi; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Studien zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig & Berlin, 1913), p. v.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

167

for whom the affectionate Hellenism of the Areopagus speech was quintessentially Pauline); 98 but he set them both within a Hellenistic literary tradition of Stoically-influenced propaganda which was used by Jews and could attain great heights, as it did in Acts xvii. To a third classical witness, the ancient historian and archaeologist Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939), it seemed at the time that most scholars were 'sentient only of the Judaic element' in Paul, and, despite their classical training, insufficiently familiar with just that post-classical Hellenism noted above. Leading up to a treatment of 'St. Paul and Hellenism', he complained that 'I rarely find in them any sympathy with, or understanding of, hardly any thought about, the Hellenism that overran the world of Western Asia ...

but if we ap-

proach Paul from that side, he added, 'we shall feel everywhere in his work the spirit of the Tarsian Hellene'. 9 9 Ramsay could note exceptions, such as E . L . Hicks, editor of Ephesian and Coan inscriptions, and later on bishop of Lincoln, who stressed the Hellenism of Paul's thought; but in any case the atmosphere was changing. 1 0 0 Edwin Hatch, read with enthusiasm by Harnack, had exhibited Christian constitutional arrangements as forms of those usual in Hellenistic guilds (1881), and had brought out The Influence

of Greek

Ideas

on Christianity

(1889); 1 0 1 these per-

ceptions had worked in parallel with Harnack's own thesis of the Hellenization of Christianity, and with the encouragement given by inscriptions and papyri, and brilliantly expressed by J . H . Moulton, towards classifying N e w Testament Greek as Hellenistic rather than Semitic or biblical - to touch on two proposals which were to be debated throughout the century. 102 Sanday had warned in his obituary of Hatch against the positing of Hellenistic influence on Christian origins, but Hicks wrote 'Let us beware of post-dating the influence of Hellenism

98 Karl Barth as a student wrote a paper for Harnack's seminar, concluding that 'Acts is and remains a secondary source for Pauline doctrine'; Harnack wrote in the margin 'I would say, a primary source' (E. Busch, Karl Barth: His life from letters and autobiographical texts (E.T. by John Bowden, 1976), 39). 99 W. M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul: their Influence on his Life and Thought (London, 1907), pp. 6 - 9 . 100 E.L. Hicks, 'St. Paul and Hellenism', Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, iv (Oxford, 1896), pp. 1-14 (stressing influence on thought, but rejecting Hellenistic derivation of sacramental practice). 101 E. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (London, 1881, and later editions), discussed by O . Linton, Das Problem der Urkirche in der neueren Forschung (Uppsala, 1932), pp. 20-22, 3 1 - 9 and W.G. Kümmel, The New Testament', The History of the Investigation of its Problems (E.T. London, 1973), pp. 212-3; E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (London, 1889), discussed by Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 147-50, and J.Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine (London, 1990), pp. 59-62. 102 J . H . Moulton, 'New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery', in Swete, Essays on some Biblical Questions of the Day , pp. 461-505, developing the Prolegomena (1906) of his Grammar of the New Testament Greek.

168

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

on Christian thought'. 103 Much indeed tended to suggest that Hellenism would already have been a force in Christian origins, perhaps especially (but here again debate arose) through Hellenized Judaism. Ramsay is remembered for his eminence as Anatolian explorer and archaeologist, and for his eagerness to show the accuracy of Luke-Acts; but he was also a powerful advocate of a 'HellenisticRoman' Paul, an apostle who was mentally a Hellene, and endowed with an almost mystical and thoroughly Hellenistic sense of the significance of Roman world-empire. 104 In Germany the case for understanding Paul in particular as Hellene was vigorously put by representatives of Religionsgeschicbte. In biblical work this school of thought concentrated on religion rather than doctrine, and on religion viewed in its historical setting, with special attention to mythology, the undercurrents of religious feeling, and the interaction between Jewish or Christian religion and other cults. Later in the century its influence was evident in the importance of mythology and gnosis for Rudolf Bultmann, despite his opposition to the liberal theology associated with the school, and in Gershom Scholem's rehabilitation of Jewish mysticism. 105 Now together with Bousset, mentioned above, a leader of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule was the great Old and New Testament scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), best-known for work on biblical myth in Genesis and Revelation and on poetic form in the Psalms. Gunkel's first book had related Paulinism to Hellenistic polydaemonism, and he now urged that those Pauline teachings which have no clear Old Testament analogy, such as mystical union with Christ, should be compared not only with the Greek mysteries but also with the dying and rising of oriental gods. 106 The widespread Syrian, Egyptian or eastern mystery cults like those of Adonis, Isis and Osiris, and Mithras were identified as the heart of gentile religiosity in Paul's time, and the Greek Hermetic literature, linked with the cult of ThothHermes, was examined as a great clue to pre-Christian gentile anticipations of Gnosticism. 107 The Pauline interpretation of religion, above all the Christ-cult with the rites of baptism and 'the Lord's Supper' (a phrase which in this context sounded like an echo of a gentile cult), then appeared as a link in a chain which stretched back 103 W. Sanday, 'In memoriam Dr. Edwin Hatch', The Expositor, Fourth Series, i (1890), pp. 93-111 (107-9); Hicks, 'St. Paul and Hellenism', p. 12. 104 On Ramsay see W.H.C. Frend, The Archaeology of Early Christianity: a History (London, 1996), 93-5. 105 On Scholem as a 'child of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule' see E. Hamacher, Gershom Scholem und die Allgemeine Religionsgeschichte (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, 45; Berlin & New York, 1999), pp. 73-104. 106 H. Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verständnis des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 1903). 107 R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres: Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig, 1904).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

169

into Hellenistic observance and towards oriental religion. It seemed that gentile Christianity had been influenced not simply by Greek tradition, important though this influence was, but by a mingling of Hellenic and oriental religion which could already be identified as Gnosticism. This religio-historical approach coincided with widespread work on Hellenistic and Roman cults, notably in English classical study and anthropology by Jane Harrison (1850— 1928) on Orphism and J . G . Frazer (1854-1941) on Adonis, Attis and Osiris, in German Old Testament study by W.W. Baudissin (1847-1926) on Adonis and Esmun, and in ancient history in Belgium by F. Cumont (1868-1947) on Mithraism and other oriental cults in the Greek and Roman world. 1 0 8 O f special note, however, were one big book and one little one. In his great history of early christology Wilhelm Bousset derived the Pauline cult of Kyrios Iesous Cbristos from pagan cult likewise directed towards a divine Kyrios (1913); 1 0 9 and Richard Reitzenstein (1861-1931), a classical scholar with theological training, gave a vivid brief sketch of 'the Hellenistic mystery-religions', presenting Paul as a mystic whose experience fully belonged to the pattern of Hellenistic religion (1909). 1 1 0 O t t o Pfleiderer (1839-1908), who was among the last of those taught by F.C. Baur, integrated such views into a rounded presentation of Paulinism. 111 F o r him, Paul at Tarsus learns not only Judaism but also Stoic philosophy and pagan religion, including Mithraism; on the way to Damascus Paul has an ecstatic experience comparable with the 'visions and revelations' of II Cor. 12:1, and feels himself to be a 'new creature' (II Cor. 5:17); reflection on the questions which now move his soul forms Pauline theology, in which an intuition (Gal. 1:12) bound up with Jewish apocalyptic thought reveals Christ as spirit and heavenly son of God; Paul's understanding of union with Christ, baptism and the Supper is shaped not just by the Mithraism of Tarsus, but also by the cult of Adonis at Antioch; Pauline eschatology remains Jewish, but includes the apocalyptic and 1 0 8 J . E . Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1903); J . G . Frazer, Adonis, Attis, Osiris (2nd edn, London, 1907); W.W. Baudissin, Adonis und Esmun, eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte des Glaubens an Auferstehungsgötter und an Heilsgötter (Leipzig, 1911); F. Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (2nd edn, Paris, 1909); Dieterich, Norden, and Maass, as cited in n. 62, above. 109 Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (FRLANT 21 [1913], 2nd edn, Göttingen, 1921, repr. 1926), pp. 9 0 104, 117-29. 1 1 0 R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen: Vortrag ursprünglich gehalten in dem Wissenschaftlichen Predigerverein für Elsass-Lothringen den 11. November 1909 (2nd, revised, edn, Leipzig & Berlin, 1920), pp. 4 7 66, 185-244, 2 5 6 - 6 0 (adding over sixty pages on Paul to the twenty relevant pages of the first edition). 111 O . Pfleiderer, Die Entstehung des Christentums (Munich, 1905), E.T. Christian Origins (New York, 1906), pp. 155-90; for discussion see E. Hirsch, Geschichte der neuern evangelischen Theologie, v (Gütersloh, 1954), p. 563; Smith, Drudgery Divine, pp. 89-98.

170

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

Hellenistic hope of a blessed afterlife (n. 61, above). Tarsus and its religion, prominent in such reconstructions, were studied by others too with Paul as a 'Tarsian Hellene' in mind. 112 It was of course realized that resemblances could be over-interpreted. Thus P. Wendland's handbook, already mentioned, notes the Judaism of Paul himself and the limits of his Hellenism - although the final emphasis lies on the importance of the oriental cults for Paul both directly and through their influence on Judaism. 113 Perhaps the most important reaction, however, was formed by another approach which could arguably also do justice to the phenomena, namely an interpretation of Paul and his communities through the Greek literature and epigraphy of Judaism. Among the classical scholars this route was followed by E. Norden, who criticized undiscriminating claims for Hellenistic influence (praising Hicks for restraint), mocked over-emphasis on Tarsus, brought out Paul's often strikingly 'un-Hellenic' Greek style, and stressed the importance of Greek Jewish literature for his interpretation. 114 From within New Testament study and Religionsgeschichte A. Deissmann took a similar line. He gave prominence to the Septuagint, in the setting of the papyri and the gentile and Jewish inscriptions which brought 'light from the east' upon the language of the New Testament; and he had a strong sense not only for the Hellenized Jews but also for the Judaized Hellenes in the orbit of the Pauline communities. He portrayed the Apostle as a Septuagintajude, who indeed preached a cult like the gentile cults of rulers and deities, but did so in a way which suited gentiles already affected by Judaism presented in accord with that cosmopolitan bible, the Septuagint. 115 Albert Schweitzer in 1911 reacted against all these reconstructions - and implicitly against Hicks and Ramsay - with the motto 'Nothing Greek in Paulinism'; thus he insisted on the awkwardness of the tension between Judaism and Hellenism in Pfleiderer's Paul. 116 He eloquently pressed a widespread contemporary contrast not just between Jew and Greek, but between Hellenized and non-Hellenized Jews. 117 At the same time, however, a Hellenistic Paul was

112 Ramsay, Cities, pp. 84-244; H. Böhlig, Die Geisteskultur von Tarsos im augusteischen Zeitalter mit Berücksichtigung derpaulinischen Schriften (FRLANT 19, Göttingen, 1913). 113 Wendland, Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur, pp. 138-43, 177-9. 114 E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance (2nd edn, 2 vols., Leipzig & Berlin, 1909, repr. 1923), ii, pp. 465-79, 492-502. 115 A. Deissmann, Paulus: eine Kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Skizze (Tübingen, 1911, 2nd edn, 1925), E.T. Paul: a Study in Social and Religious History (London, 1912), pp.89, 101-3, 1 6 5 - 7 0 , 2 1 0 - 1 1 . 116 Schweitzer, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung, pp. 52-8, E.T. 66-74; p. 187, headline 'Nichts Griechisches im Paulinismus', not reproduced over the translation of the relevant passage, E.T. p. 240. 117 This can perhaps be related to the strong distinction drawn by both Jews and gentiles at this time between traditional Jews from eastern Europe, and assimilated Jews in the west - a

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

171

finding considerable acceptance in Britain, where the impact of Reitzenstein was strengthened by the influence of Hatch and Ramsay and of the broader interest in Hellenistic cults noted above. 1 1 8 Kirsopp Lake presented a Paulinism influenced by the mystery religions in his searching critical study of the evidence for Paul's earlier life and teaching (1911). Lake judged that in Pauline teaching gentiles 'saw every reason for equating the Lord with the Redeemer-God of the Mystery Religions', and that in baptism and the eucharist they 'found "mysteries" which could immediately be equated with the other "mysteries", and that 'Gnostic ideas are earlier, not later, than Christianity'. 1 1 9 H e integrated the 'godfearers' into his work, making these gentile adherents of Judaism who figure prominently in Acts into an example of the penumbra of sympathizers acquired by many oriental cults in the Roman empire. H e took these studies further in The Beginnings

of

Christianity,

outlined above. Yet for him the attraction of Judaism in the age of Paul was still primarily that of 'a deeply ethical and spiritual austerity', lacking the aesthetic and mystical appeal found in other cults and now incorporated into Pauline Christianity. 1 2 0 Here there was room for discussion of the character of Judaism in the early Roman empire. T h e sacraments and Hellenism in Paul became a focus of British biblical and theological debate, against the background of this movement in scholarship and also of the rise of the liturgical movement in the church. 1 2 1 Overseas the same shift of interest was exemplified by the liturgical theme of Hans Lietzmann, Messe und Herrenmahl

(1926), rooted in the Pauline discussion just noted, and

later translated into English and supplemented by R . D . Richardson. B y contrast with resistance to the association of N e w Testament sacraments with pagan mysteries, an influential combination of Hellenistic interpretation with the

Leitmotiv of the periodical Ost und West: Illustrierte Monatsschrift fur Modernes Judentum (1901-28). 118 Thus distinctive features of Paul were emphasized in reaction to Reitzenstein and Pfleiderer, before the publication of Bousset's Kyrios Christos, in Edwyn Bevan's essay 'The Gnostic Redeemer', reprinted in E. Bevan, Hellenism and Christianity (London, 1921), pp. 89-108. 119 Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, their Motive and Origin (London, 1911), pp. 44, 46; for the impact of the book see Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 178-9. 120 Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 37-45, 4 2 8 - 3 6 (quotation from p. 43). 121 N.P. Williams, 'The Origins of the Sacraments' (with a section headed 'A Critique of the "Mystery" Hypothesis') and W. Spens, 'The Eucharist', in Selwyn (ed.), Essays Catholic and Critical, pp. 367-423, 4 2 5 - 4 8 ; W.R. Halliday, The Pagan Background of Early Christianity (Liverpool & London, 1925); J. W. C. Wand, The Development of Sacramentalism (London, 1928); A.D. Nock, 'Early Gentile Christianity and its Hellenistic Background', in A.E.J. Rawlinson (ed.), Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation by Members of the Anglican Communion (London, 1928), pp. 53-156; from the U.S.A., F. Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments (London, 1928).

172

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

liturgical movement was developed by O. Casel at the abbey of Maria Laach. 122 In an amused English comment from the early Twenties on interpretative fashion: 'Bible, creed, ministry, all are derived from the worship of the faithful, and part of that from the earlier worship of the pagan: it is Kyrios Christos everywhere'. 1 2 3 The measure of sympathy in this comment hints at the theological and liturgical illumination which could be found through Hellenistic renderings of Paul. Comparison of Pauline sacraments with the mysteries was questioned, however, especially by H. A. A. Kennedy in Edinburgh. The strength of his argument against Lake lay not only in his assertion of Paul's Septuagintal inheritance, but also in his fuller appreciation of the mystical aspect of Jewish religion in the Hellenistic age. 124 A measured reaction to these movements of thought can be seen in C . H . Dodd's first book, The Meaning of Paul for To-day (1920), in which a biblical and Hellenic, yet also Roman Paul is presented with what seems a considerable debt to Ramsay. Like Ramsay, Dodd begins from Paul's philosophy of history as expressed in Rom. viii, stresses Paul's combination of a biblical sense of hope with a classical sense of universal degeneration, and presents the Pauline ideal as that of a Christianized society with analogies both to the freedom of the Hellenic city and the universality of the Roman empire. A more detailed response to the approaches represented by Deissmann and Reitzenstein, respectively, was made by Wilfred Knox (1925); he argued in two close-packed studies for Paul's debt to the Hellenized Jewish teaching best known from Philo, and for a modified acceptance of Reitzenstein's view of the influence of Hellenistic religious conceptions on Paul - and, he adds elsewhere, on gentile Christian perceptions of the eucharist, although he stresses that the Pauline rite itself will not have been an innovation. 1 2 5 These views were then later followed in the confrontation of Acts xvii and the Epistles with Greek and above all Philonic and other Hellenistic Jewish material in his St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939). In Germany G. Kittel pointed out (1926) that Paul's 'I received from the Lord' (I Cor. 11:23), with its eucharistic reference, could be related not only to mystical concentration on the exalted Christ, but also to Judaean Jewish tradi-

122 O. Casel, Das christliche Kultmysterium (Regensburg, 1932), E.T. in Casel, ed. B. Neunheuser, The Mystery of Christian Worship, and other Writings (London, 1962), discussed by H. Rahner, Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung (Zürich, 1945), pp. 29-30, E.T. Greek Myth and Christian Mystery (London, 1963), pp. 10-11. 123 A. Nairne, review of H. StJ. Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (Schweich Lectures 1920, London, 1921), JTS xxiii (1922), pp. 88-91 (91). 124 H.A.A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (London, 1913); id., Philo's Contribution to Religion (London, 1919). 125 W.L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 1925), pp. 126-36 (Hellenistic Judaism), 136-49 (Hellenistic religion), 372-85 (the eucharist).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

173

tion formulae such as are met later on in the Mishnah. 1 2 6 Caution over the identifying of sacraments as mysteries was soon reinforced by A.D. N o c k (n. 121, above). Bousset's Hellenic derivation of Christology was opposed, with reference to the Aramaic phrase Maranatha (I Cor. 16:22), by scholars including J . Weiss, Burkitt, and L. Cerfaux. 127 Similarly, the biblical background of Pauline mysterion was brought out by K. Prumm and others. 128 Finally, Hellenistic interpretation of Paul was totally resisted by Albert Schweitzer in his Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, largely complete in 1911 but issued finally in 1930. He urged that although Paul soon received a Hellenistic interpretation, his own wholly Jewish and non-Hellenist 'eschatological mysticism' linked him closely with the apocalypses and the historical Jesus. Paul's Supper-narrative was tradition, as Kittel's point suggested, rather than new revelation, and the heart of his religion was eschatologically-oriented union with Christ. 1 2 9 Hard though it is to follow Schweitzer's dismissal of the impact of Hellenized Judaism on Paul, his vigorous book has had long-term influence, for example on E.P. Sanders's work (section 4, below). To this discussion, although it did not appear until 1935, belongs C . H . Dodd's The Bible and the Greeks, a re-assertion of the prime importance of Hellenistic Judaism for early Christianity. In the first part Dodd examines theological terms in the Septuagint, including nomos and dikaiosyne, to show how Septuagintal usage is followed by Paul and other Christian writers. In the second he reconsiders the Hermetic treatise Poimandres studied by Reitzenstein, urging that it represents not simply the compound of Hellenism and Iranian religion which Reitzenstein emphasized, but a non-Jewish author's interest in the Septuagint and Judaism. The mingling of popular philosophy with Jewish tradition in Philo or Paul then appears as not far from the interest shown in Judaism from the standpoint of popular philosophy in Poimandres. Three further examples of the interpretation of early Christianity with special regard to the Greek and Roman world deserve notice in conclusion. First, the ancient historian Eduard Meyer, renowned for near eastern as well as classical learning, set Christian origins in the context of Jewish, Greek and Roman 126 Kittel, Die Probleme des palästinischen Spätjudentums und das Urchristentum, pp. 6 3 - 4 . 127 J . Weiss, ed. R. Knopf, Das Urchristentum (Göttingen, 1917), pp. 26-7; F.C. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings (London, 1924), pp. 4 4 - 5 2 ; articles of 1922, 1923, and 1931 reprinted in Recueil Lucien Cerfaux (Gembloux, 1954), i, pp. 3 - 6 3 , 136-72. 128 K. Prümm, '"Mysterion" von Paulus bis Origenes: Ein Bericht und ein Beitrag', Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie lxi (1937), pp. 391-425; more recent literature is discussed by M.N.A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (WUNT 2.36, Tübingen, 1990). 129 A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen, 1930), E.T. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London, 1931), discussed by Wright in Neill & Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 404-8.

174

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

history in a three-volume work, much of which was an examination of the gospels, the Acts, and Paul. 1 3 0 Meyer's Jesus, like Wellhausen's, is Pharisaic. Meyer's Paul has a superficial Hellenism, but Judaism is more important for his mentality, and in his time Hellenism itself is being overwhelmed by the tendency to mystery cults and turning from philosophy towards religion; in this setting the Pauline Christian rites too are mysteries. 131 Meyer's N e w Testament criticism, not least his detection of sources and his reassertion against Wellhausen of the historical value of the Marcan narrative, was influential in Britain especially in the work of Wilfred Knox, Vincent Taylor and T.W. Manson; in J e rusalem Klausner both criticized and followed Meyer on Jesus and Paul. Secondly, from 1907 there appeared the Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie (15 vols., Paris, 1907-53), a work initiated under Benedictine auspices and edited jointly by F. Cabrol and H . Leclercq, both resident in England, but very largely written by the latter. 132 This compendium set the earliest Christian writings in the context of the otherwise almost unsearchable riches of the material remains of Christianity in the Roman empire, including Palestine, and the great body of work on liturgy. A famous instance of pursuit of a biblical and liturgical theme through such material was E. Peterson, Heis Theos ( F R L A N T 41, Gôttingen, 1926), on the acclamation ' O n e G o d ' among pagans, Christians, and Jews. Lastly E - J . Dôlger, professor in the Roman Catholic faculty in Breslau and then in Bonn, began in 1929 to issue a series of studies under the heading Antike und Christentum. His confrontation of Christian texts with pagan literature and inscriptions often bore on the N e w Testament. 1 3 3 Dôlger initiated this approach in his vast study of Christian fish-symbolism, I X 0 Y 2 (1910 onwards), and his work culminated in the great Reallexikon fiir Antike und Christentum, still in progress. Its publication was begun by T. Klauser after his death but on the lines which he had planned (1941 onwards; the first volume was completed in 1950). As this instance may suggest, the three trends now outlined did not lose their importance in the later years of the century; it was never possible to study the N e w Testament in any depth without encountering versions and apocrypha, J u 130 Meyer is called 'perhaps the most learned ancient historian who has ever lived' by H. Lloyd-Jones in his Introduction to U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, History of Classical Scholarship (E.T. London, 1982), p. xvi. 131 E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums (3 vols., Berlin, 1921-3), iii, 3 0 8 338. 132 T. Klauser, Henri Leclercq 1869-1945: von Autodidakten zum Kompilator grossen Stils (JAC Ergänzungsband 5, Münster, 1977), reviewed by W.H.C. Frend, JTS N.S. xxx (1979), pp. 320-24. 133 See for example F.-J. Dölger, 'Der Feuertod ohne die Liebe. Antike Selbstverbrennung und christlicher Martyrium-Enthusiasmus. Ein Beitrag zu I Korinther 13, 3', in id., Antike und Christentum, i (1929), pp. 254-70.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

175

daism and Palestine, and Hellenistic-Roman culture. Yet a certain change in atmosphere was perceived by contemporary scholars during the Thirties, and some of those whose work had given early twentieth-century New Testament study its character died in this decade, including Turner, Burkitt, Charles, Harnack, Reitzenstein and Lagrange. At least two ideals typical of classical training had been to the fore, on the one hand to range freely over all ancient literature from Homer to Gregory the Great - 'the ambition was to read everything', M.R. James said of himself as an undergraduate;134 and on the other hand to attain akribeia, to be accurate, critical and scholarly. Biblical commentary in this context was marked by 'its predilection for quotations from the ancient commentators skilfully selected and worked in, its careful technical treatment of textual criticism, and its abundant illustration also from ancient sources'. 135 This tradition of Stadia bíblica et ecclesiastica, to quote a series title stemming from these years, flowered in work such as that of C.H. Turner, textual critic, patristic as well as New Testament scholar, ecclesiastical historian, and student of canon law. It had long come together with the Hebrew and rabbinic study noted above, which had repeatedly opened a door to the interrelationship between Christianity and Judaism. Now it was also fruitfully combined with the new insights and approaches from art and archaeology, Semitic and oriental research, and the history of religion, in a New Testament study which had affinities with the conception of Altertumswissenschaft in its broadest sense.136 Typical figures, then, despite their intense individuality, were F.C. Conybeare, outstanding in Armenian and patristic study, interpreter of Therapeutic asceticism and New Testament demonology, and a chivalrous supporter of the Rationalist Press Association; and J.H. Moulton, Hellenist and Iranist, reinterpreter of New Testament Greek and historian of Zoroastrianism, a devoted Methodist teacher and Manchester professor who died as a result of submarine action in the Mediterranean. Among the pillars of New Testament study, F.C. Burkitt was comparably also a Hebraist and Semitist, an Old Testament scholar and a student of Gnosticism, the interpreter not only of the Latin and Syriac versions but also of the Syriac-speaking church, the religion of the Manichees, and Franciscan tradition. The impressive cross-disciplinary concentration of scholars working on Christianity in its ancient setting was mirrored among present and future members of the British Academy at this time; Sanday, Coneybeare, Charles, Burkitt, Turner, Dodd, T.W. Manson and Wilfred Knox were M.R.James, Eton and King's (London, 1926), pp. 140-41. W. Sanday's remark on H.B. Swete's commentaries, quoted from JTS viii (1907), p. 483 in Henry Barclay Swete, A Remembrance, 106. 136 This conception as formulated by Wilamowitz, involving union of studies in literature, history, religion, art, and archaeology, is discussed and criticized by Lloyd-Jones in his Introduction to Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, History of Classical Scholarship, pp. xiii-xiv, xvii. 134

135

176

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

flanked among the classicists and ancient historians by J.E.B. M a y o r , F.G. Kenyon, A . C . C l a r k , Souter, A . D . N o c k , E d w y n Bevan, and M.P. Charlesworth. The w o r k reviewed f r o m this first period shows something of the depth and potential of N e w Testament philological study. At the same time its concurrent theological interest has emerged, for example in the differing Christ-portraits of Burkitt, Streeter and Bacon, in the glimpses of religious impulse and church life in the versions and apocrypha, in the sense of the local and national specificity of the earliest Christianity conveyed b y rabbinic and Palestinian study, and in the mystical and liturgical appeal of the Hellenistic Paul. In the following period (1932-77) philological breadth did not disappear, but new prominence w a s attained b y concern for theology and the church.

3. 1932-77 A book w h i c h marks this change is the Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, completed under the editorship of G. Friedrich in 1973. Its first volume (1932) w a s edited by Gerhard Kittel and significantly dedicated to Adolf Schlatter. Its approach to N e w Testament vocabulary w a s shared in England b y Sir E d w y n H o s k y n s . A sketch of H o s k y n s , intended to show something of the new outlook, leads below to comment on three features of the f o r t y - f i v e years f r o m 1932: f o r m criticism, the trend f r o m Hellenic towards J e w i s h interpretation, and the trend towards N e w Testament theology. E. C. Hoskyns and the Language

of the New

Testament

' N o less than thirty-four competent N e w Testament scholars', w r o t e H o s k y n s , 'have combined to produce a "Theological Lexicon to the N e w Testament" the emphasis lies on the w o r d "Theological".' In this review of the first volume he added that the lexicon built on increased recent k n o w l e d g e of Hellenistic Greek - here he implies a contrast w i t h J . H . Moulton's understanding of N e w Testament Greek as ordinary Greek of the d a y (n.103, above) 1 3 7 - to show h o w w o r d s in the N e w Testament m a y be deflected f r o m meanings found elsewhere. 'It is difficult to think', he wrote, 'that the deflection is not a consequence of the specific theme of the N e w Testament writers - namely, the relation between God and man'. 1 3 8

137 J.H. Moulton & G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-literary Sources (London, 1914-30) had recently been completed. 138 E.C. Hoskyns, 'A Theological Lexicon to the New Testament', Theology xxvi (1933), pp. 82-7 (83).

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

177

J u s t such readiness to link semantic deflection with the theme of divinehuman relationship has grated on subsequent users o f the Worterbucb,

especial-

ly since J a m e s Barr's critique of its tendency to speak as if seemingly distinctive aspects o f biblical and N e w Testament usage were b o u n d up with theology. 1 3 9 In 1933 C . H . D o d d already w r o t e that 'the theological tone of the w o r k is (as they say in G e r m a n y ) " s e h r positiv"

and he noted a trace of Barthian cliche. 1 4 0

Yet, although linguistic phenomena cannot be derived simply f r o m a theological theme, they may attest the influence of J e w i s h usage and of the H e b r e w scriptures which treat that theme. T h u s the Septuagintal and N e w Testament attestation o f doxa in the unusual sense of 'glory,' associated with biblical H e b r e w kabod,

can be treated as a characteristic arising f r o m bilingualism, in this case in

the setting of biblical translation. 1 4 1 T h e lexicon has remained an invaluable indicator o f the H e b r a i c as well as Hellenic setting o f N e w Testament themes and language; as B a r r allowed, 'its attention to O T and L X X usage (though uneven in parts) is one o f the great things to its credit'. 1 4 2 It is p r o b a b l y also often valued for what can be regarded as a fault, the characteristic extension of its purview f r o m vocabulary to subject-matter. T h e reader needs to l o o k out f o r continuity in an atmosphere of contrast, but many articles c o n v e y the sense o f having been excited b y the N e w Testament. In 1932 the avowedly theological emphasis o f the project was stirring and refreshing to many. In German-speaking scholarship the prominence increasingly given in the Twenties to faith and revelation, grace and sin had a c o n t e m p o r a r y dimension, such that the writers concerned and outside observers t o o could link it with G e r m a n social and political circumstances; N.P. Williams associated the rise of dialectical theology with 'the bitter scarcity and distress' in G e r m a n y at the time, and Karl B a r t h in 1924 - writing s o o n after the F r e n c h invasion of the R u h r and G e r m a n and Swiss devaluation - had indeed presented the tension of faith perceived in Paul as the only counter to 'the tensions of human life, of which t o - d a y we again k n o w m o r e than other times have d o n e ' . 1 4 3 In these years Barth had issued three remarkable N e w Testament commentaries, on R o mans (1919; 2 n d edn, 1922, translated into English b y H o s k y n s ) , I Corinthians xv (quoted above), and Philippians (1927). His exegesis formed 'an unequalled

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), especially pp. 206-62. C.H. Dodd, reviewing TWNT i in J TS xxxiv (1933), pp. 280-5 (281, 283). 141 This line is followed on New Testament doxa, in agreement with Barr that the Wörterbuch made too much of etymology, but in disagreement with his reluctance to accept that Septuagintal and New Testament Greek words could have received an additional or technical sense, by C. Mohrmann, Etudes sur le latin des chrétiens, iv (Storia e letteratura cxliii, Rome, 1977), pp. 180-2, 198-201. 142 Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, p. 241. 143 Williams, 'What is Theology?', p. 57, cf. p. 82; K. Barth, Die Auferstehung der Toten (Munich, 1924), p. 125. 139 140

178

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

assertion of the priority and "otherness" of God'. 1 4 4 'I had to foist all this teaching on Paul', he wrote later. 'But I didn't just foist it on him. It's there in Romans. But I was the one w h o first drew out those threads'. 1 4 5 Barth was sui generis, but his biblical work signalled a mood found among a number especially of younger (and not necessarily Barthian) exegetes, involving revitalized reverence for scripture and a rejection of liberal rapprochements with western culture. This mood, however, despite what appeared to be its special links with central European crisis, was to some extent shared in British N e w Testament study, perhaps above all by Hoskyns and his friends and pupils. Hoskyns's lectures in this period were exciting, A.M. Ramsey wrote, because of 'the clash between the discovery of the N e w Testament which Hoskyns was making for us and the general ethos of religious culture which his hearers shared'. 1 4 6 The serene integration of religion and culture represented by Harnack in Germany or Streeter and Bethune-Baker in England was provocatively called into question. Common feeling among at least some German and English scholars in this matter had become clear in the 1927-31 series of Anglo-German theological conferences noted above. 1 4 7 Regular N e w Testament members included Hoskyns, C. H. Dodd, A. E.J. Rawlinson, A. Deissmann, K. L. Schmidt, and Gerhard Kittel (not in 1931). The successive subjects were the kingdom of God, Christology (these papers were published under the title Mysterium Christi) and Corpus Christi. The tendency towards N e w Testament theology is clear, and the papers could display not only international concord (n.37, above), but also national variations on the same theme, for example in the contrasting fortunes of 'kingdom of God' in Germany and America. 1 4 8 The conferences highlight the international context of Kittel's collaborative enterprise. For the first volume of the Worterbuch he gathered scholars including Bultmann, Jeremias, Peterson, H. Sasse, K.L. Schmidt, and H. von Soden 'a massive combination', as Hoskyns said. In the past Kittel had also urged and practised similar co-operation with Jewish scholars, notably in the editing of rabbinic texts. 149 It was a bitter irony that, when Hitler came to power, Kittel 144 145

R.S. Barbour, 'Karl Barth: The Epistle to the Romans', ETxc (1979), pp. 264-8 (267). K. Barth, Der Götze wackelt (Zollikon, 1961), p. 112, quoted by Busch, Karl Barth,

p. 120. 146 A. M. Ramsey, From Gore to Temple: The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War 1889-1939 (London, 1960), p. 133. 147 Reports and papers were published in Theology xiv (1927), pp. 247-96; xvii (1928), pp. 182-260; xxii (1931), pp. 301-46. 148 H. Frick, 'The Idea of the Kingdom of God from Luther to the Present Day', Theology xiv (1927), pp. 280-86 (283). 149 Kittel, Die Probleme des palästinischen Spätjudentums und das Urchristentum (1926), pp. 19-21, on the 'necessity that the Christian and Jewish scholar should work hand in hand'; the book is dedicated to the memory of I.I. Kahan.

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

179

argued f o r the segregation o f J e w s in his 1933 lecture Die Judenfrage

(3rd edn,

Stuttgart, 1934). 1 5 0 T h i s grievous instance of la trahison

has over-

shadowed the impetus given b y the "Wörterbuch

des clercs

towards setting exegesis in a

biblical and Jewish as well as Hellenic context. H o s k y n s died aged f i f t y - t w o in 1937. H e had been D e a n of Chapel of C o r p u s Christi College, C a m b r i d g e , since 1919, and his sermons witness to his N e w Testament w o r k . H e is one of a few British N e w Testament scholars in c o n n e c tion with w h o m it is possible to envisage something like a school o f thought. His inspiration emerges in theologians and exegetes including A . M . R a m s e y (quoted above), C.F. Evans, and C . K . Barrett. D i f f e r e n t as these are (and although all three went to his lectures, only Evans was a pupil o f H o s k y n s ) , they all convey that sense of the N e w Testament as 'peculiarly related to truth and to human life' which Evans ascribes to H o s k y n s . 1 5 1 Particularly close to H o s k y n s was his gifted pupil E N . D a v e y ( 1 9 0 4 - 7 3 ) , jointly with w h o m he wrote The Riddle

of the New

Testament

( L o n d o n , 1931),

often reprinted; in 1959 F a b e r put it in their n e w series of 'paper-covered editions', between William Golding's Lord and

Mehitabel.152

of the Flies and D o n Marquis's

Archy

T h e 'riddle' was the relationship of Jesus to the primitive

church; did the life and death o f Jesus control the life o f the church, which is k n o w n to us from the N e w Testament documents; or was his life and death, not so certainly k n o w n to us, submerged by a piety and faith w h o l l y b e y o n d his h o r i z o n ? T h e answer was that christological interpretation has not been imposed upon an un-christological history; Jesus was not a humanitarian teacher, but a messiah working on an O l d Testament pattern to inaugurate the kingdom of G o d . 1 5 3 H o s k y n s summed up some of the history of study considered here in his o w n development from a catholic modernism, influenced by L o i s y and concentrated on religious experience, to a position which when over-stated could provoke

150 After reading this A. Marmorstein withdrew his collaboration with Kittel in editorship of a series of rabbinic texts, despite two letters from Kittel begging him to reconsider, as related by Marmorstein's son Emile in A. Marmorstein, Studies in Jewish Theology (London, 1950), xxii. On the argument and reception of the tract see R.J.C. Gutteridge, Open thy Mouth for the Dumb: the German Evangelical Church and the Jews, 1919-1950 (Oxford, 1976), 111-14. 151 C.F. Evans, 'Crucifixion-Resurrection: Some Reflections on Sir Edwyn Hoskyns as Theologian', reprinted from Epworth Review x.2 (May, 1983), p. 15. 152 For assessment from differing viewpoints see C.F D. Moule, 'Revised Reviews: IV Sir Edwyn Hoskyns and Noel Davey: The Riddle of the New Testament', Theology lxiv (1961), pp. 144-6; B.S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (London, 1984), pp. 150-1. On Davey see C.K. Barrett, The Gospel ofJohn and Judaism (E.T. London, 1975), pp. viii-ix; Barrett, 'Hoskyns and Davey', in id., Jesus and the Word (Edinburgh, 1995), pp. 55-62. 153 Hoskyns and Davey, Riddle, pp. 14, 206-7.

180

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

the response 'surely the Bible itself cannot be quite so Biblical'. 154 In the collegiate setting which helped to shape his thought his departure from Loisy was expressed in a question which he put to the young C.F. Evans, 'Is there not a dagger pointed at the heart of the Master's position?' - the Master of Corpus, Sir Will Spens (n. 121, above), being then, in Evans's words, 'the most subtle and formidable exponent' of argument from religious experience for a rational faith, on catholic modernist lines. The 'dagger' would have been formed by the lack of criteria for assessing experience which ensues upon a submergence of Jesus in the church. 155 Throughout this development, however, Hoskyns's insight as well as his vulnerability was bound up with his feeling for words. The study of vocabulary which he saluted in the Worterbuch had long been central in his own teaching. Initially he connected it with the religious experience of the Christians. 156 This study is the subject of the first chapter of the Riddle; here the Jewish scriptures and the Semitic-language substratum of the New Testament are identified as contributory causes of its linguistic peculiarity, but awareness of divine action in history is now the creative element, as in the 1933 article quoted above, and this seems already to have been characteristic of Hoskyns's thought for some time. 157 As he came back to the theme of vocabulary in sermons from the time of the issue of the Worterbuch , to some extent he brought together the contrasting emphases on experience and on divine action in his contention that the New Testament spoke 'the language of the church'; through wrestling with such biblical words and themes as tribulation and comfort, crucifixion and resurrection, one could learn what might be called a biblical and ecclesiastical humanism: 'where the Lord was crucified, the whole world - please notice, the whole world - comes back to us in all its vigorous energy'. 158 Hoskyns's fascination with New Testament Greek as a distinctive biblical 'language of the church' could find scholarly support, for example, in the indications of Pauline 'Septuagintalism' gathered by Deissmann and Dodd. It was in any case an instance of a more widely attested contemporary concern with the impression left on language by culture and religion, typically pursued at that time with vocabulary to the fore (a heroic example of this approach is the study

O . e . Quick, The Gospel of Divine Action (London, 1933), p. 109. Evans, 'Crucifixion-Resurrection', p. 6. 156 'We were given a fascinating discussion of New Testament Greek, shewing how the religious experience had affected the character of the language': Ramsey, From Gore to Temple, p. 133 (on lectures by Hoskyns c. 1925-6). 157 G.S. Wakefield in E.C. Hoskyns & F.N. Davey, Crucifixion-Resurrection: The Pattern of the Theology and Ethics of the New Testament, edited with a Biographical Introduction by G.S. Wakefield (London, 1981), p. 57. 158 The two quotations are from a 1932 sermon on 'The Language of the Church', in E.C. Hoskyns, Cambridge Sermons (London, 1938), pp. 90, 93. 154 155

7. British New Testament Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

181

of the language of the Third Reich, Lingua Tertii Imperii, undertaken at his peril by the Romance philologist Victor Klemperer). 159 Thus in 1929 Erik Peterson, soon to contribute to the Wörterbuch, was studying in the manner also followed by Hoskyns the 'history of meaning' (Bedeutungsgeschichte) of a watchword of Christian liberty, JtaQQr|aia.160 This concern emerged not only in the Wörterbuch and with regard to Christian Greek but also in study of the earliest Christian Latin. Thus in 1932 J. Schrijnen issued a programme for the study of Christian Latin as the language of a community - a line pursued by his disciples, above all Christine Mohrmann, cited above, with allusion to the comparable questions of the background of New Testament Greek. 161 The Wörterbuch articles converged not only with their writings but also with the theologicallyoriented articles of the Patristic Greek Lexicon planned by H.B. Swete and completed under the editorship of G.W.H. Lampe (n.272, below). Much of Hoskyns's view would later reappear, against the background of the Wörterbuch, in G. von Rad's declaration that, despite the difference between Hebrew and Greek, 'in a deeper sense the language of the Old Testament and the New are the same'. 162 Hoskyns did not show the constant overt attention to semantic theory evident in Schrijnen, but he shared with Schrijnen, Mohrmann, Peterson and others an interest in semasiology. This term could then cover the whole range of semantics, but it has sometimes been specialized in the area concerned here, a study of significations which begins from words which express them. Any tendency in Hoskyns to theologize semantics was at least partly countered by his characteristic emphasis on the church; the vocabulary of the New Testament for him always belonged to the language of a community. Hoskyns has been important in another way as a precursor of the Biblical Theology movement which flourished in the U.S.A., Britain and Scandinavia after his death, and of a broader and more lasting concern with biblical theology. 163 He insists both on the theological nature of New Testament work, and on New Testament study as the central work of theology. 164 He anticipates some features of the Biblical Theology movement in particular, notably an em159 V. Klemperer, LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen (dedication dated Christmas, 1946; 3rd edn, Halle, 1957, reprinted Leipzig, 1975). 160 E. Peterson, 'Zur Bedeutungsgeschichte von jiappriaLa' Reinbold-Seeberg-Festschrift i (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 283-97. 161 J. Schrijnen, Charakteristik des Altchristlichen Latein (Nijmegen, 1932); C. Mohrmann, Etudes sur le latin des chrétiens, i (Rome, 1961), pp. 129-30. 162 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (E.T., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1962, 1965), ii, p. 354. 163 B.S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 54; Neill in Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, p. 234. 164 These emphases correspond to the first two of the prominent aspects of modern biblical theology, in the broader sense, picked out by J. Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology: an Old Testament Perspective (London, 1999), pp. 5-17.

182

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

phasis on the importance of the Old Testament for the New and on the distinctiveness of biblical conceptions, and a style of exegesis which is theological without neglect of the historical; but his sense for the restlessness and particularity of New Testament thought, his ecclesiastical and humanist aspects, and his combination of depth with a fundamental merriment, all help to single him out. 165 Formgeschichte

in Britain

As befits the insular standpoint of this study, I have deferred until now any extended comment on the New Testament form criticism (Formgeschichte) which had taken shape in Germany from 1919 onwards in books by K.L. Schmidt, M. Dibelius and R. Bultmann. 166 Among those who thought with the young Karl Barth it was an exciting theological event, securing the gospels from adoption by Harnackian liberalism. 167 In other circles on the continent and in Britain it was often viewed primarily as a new critical method, leading to results which could seem debatable as well as beneficial. In Britain 1932 was still almost within the time 'before the form critics came to power', to use C.N.L. Brooke's phrase. 168 Hoskyns and Davey did not mention Formgeschichte in the Riddle, although they verged on it with regard to the tradition reshaped in gospel documents. 169 It had indeed already been used and noted in England, as in the U.S.A. and France, but it attained wider British discussion mainly in the Thirties. This process was linked especially with three members of C.H. Turner's seminar on St Mark: A.E.J. Rawlinson (later bishop of Derby), R.H. Lightfoot (later professor in Oxford) and C.H. Dodd (later professor in Manchester and Cambridge). 170 In 1925 Rawlinson in his Marcan commentary urged, following Schmidt, that the chronological order of the nar-

165 Evans, 'Crucifixion-Resurrection', pp. 7-8, 16 differentiates Hoskyns from the Biblical Theology movement, and picks out 'the delightful divine merriness of the Christians', from Hoskyns on John 15:10-13, as the phrase which brought the lineaments of Hoskyns again most clearly before him. 166 K.L. Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919); M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen, 1919); R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921; 2nd edn, 1931, repr. Göttingen, 1964). 167 K. Barth, 'Rudolf Bultmann - an Attempt to Understand Him' (1952), in H.W. Bartsch (ed.) & R.H. Fuller (trans.), Kerygma and Myth: a Theological Debate, ii (E.T. London, 1962), pp. 83-132 (89), on 'the lead we had been given by the form critics' in 'a new appreciation of the objective character of the New Testament documents'. 168 Brooke, A History of the University of Cambridge, iv, 1870-1990, p. 147. 169 Hoskyns & Davey, Riddle, pp. 107-110, 162-207; the latter section was developed in an explicitly form-critical study by C.H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (London, 1938), pp. 92-110. 170 Bate, 'Cuthbert Hamilton Turner: A Memoir', p. 53.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

183

rative was largely valueless, in 1932 Dodd challenged this position, and from 1934 Schmidt and Dibelius were championed by Lightfoot. 1 7 1 M. Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (1919) was issued in English translation in 1934, and R. Bultmann, Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (1921) in 1963. These English publications roughly mark, respectively, a stage when the achievement of the form critics was first being digested, and a later stage when it was chewed like cud in Bultmann's theological heyday. By this time, however, those who fully endorsed form criticism, both inside and outside Germany, had begun to complement it by emphasis on the creativity of editors and evangelists and by a reconsideration of the historical Jesus. In the Seventies, when interpretative method in general was debated, form-critical approaches received renewed criticism. 1 7 2 They had then been current in N e w Testament work for over fifty years. Throughout this time they posed the question of the setting in life (Sitz im Leben) of literary and oral forms, and so underlined the importance of a church setting for the origins and development of gospel traditions. By the end of the nineteenth century Gunkel's work on Genesis and the Psalms had brought literary forms and their Sitz im Leben to the fore in the history of Israelite literature, which in areas like prophecy and psalmody included N e w Testament material. 173 An English by-product of this interest was R . G . Moulton's The Literary Study of the Bible (London, 1896), subtitled 'an account of the leading forms of literature represented in the sacred writings', and a foreunner of many attempts to bring some reflection of differing forms into the printing of the English Bible. Gunkel's Old Testament approach converged among New Testament scholars with broader interest in pre-literary tradition, for example in the concern with a primitive catechetical 'form of teaching' (Rom. 6:17) which had been intensified by the publication of the Didache. 1 7 4 The forms of early Christian literature had been viewed in the setting 171 A.E.J. Rawlinson, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Westminster Commentaries; London, 1925), discussed by C . H . Dodd, 'The Framework of the Gospel Narratives', £ T x l i i i (1932), pp. 3 9 6 - 4 0 0 , reprinted in Dodd, New Testament Studies (Manchester, 1953), pp. 1-11. The critique of Dodd's study by D.E. Nineham, 'The Order of Events in St. Mark's Gospel an Examination of Dr. Dodd's Hypothesis', in Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory ofR.H. Lightfoot (Oxford, 1955), pp. 2 2 3 - 3 9 is itself criticized by C.F.D. Moule, reviewing Studies in the Gospels, JTS N.S. vii (1956), pp. 280-82. 172 For example M.D. Hooker, ' O n Using the Wrong Tool', Theology lxxv (1972), pp. 571-81; G . N . Stanton, Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (Cambridge, 1974); G.B. Caird, 'A Re-assessment of Form Criticism', f T l x x x v i i (1975), pp. 137-41. 173 For example, H. Gunkel, 'Literaturgeschichte Israels', RGC i (1909), cols. 1189-94, speaking of 'die Erforschung der Formensprache' and 'die Betrachtung der Formen' without using the term 'Formgeschichte'. 174 The importance of A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig, 1903) as a precursor of form criticism is noted by Kümmel, The New Testament: the History of the Investigation of its Problems, p. 450, n. 404; comparison with rabbinic and Greek Jewish instruc-

184

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

of Greek literature and tradition by N o r d e n (n. 114, above), with special reference to style, and P. Wendland, for whom, as for some later form critics, Mark was not a writer, but a collector of traditions with sparse knowledge of the outline of events. 175 Then, however, this work was taken up with special regard to the Christian community before and during the completion of the gospels, by K . L . Schmidt and M. Dibelius, in books published independently of one another in 1919 (n. 166, above). Dibelius brought out a continuity between Jesus, the traditions from his circle, and further development; but discontinuity between Jesus and the gospels marked the larger study of the synoptic tradition by R . Bultmann which followed in 1921. As he later put it, the community tradition showed no interest in the human personality of Jesus, or the course of his life, and these cannot now be reconstructed. 1 7 6 This critical stance matched Bultmann's theological aversion from the quest of the historical Jesus as an attempt to know Christ after the flesh (II Cor. 5:16) - an aversion recalling Luther on justification by faith. 'I am deliberately renouncing' (Bultmann later wrote) 'any form of encounter with a phenomenon of past history, including an encounter with the Christ after the flesh, in order to encounter the Christ proclaimed in the kerygma'. 1 7 7 A contrasting form-critical study by M. Albertz (1921), showing the influence of Gunkel, on the significance of the synoptic dialogues for the historical Jesus, was prefaced by a protest against Bultmann's sceptical application of the method. 1 7 8 G. Bertram (1922) treated the Passion narrative form-critically as a document of the Christ-cult, underlining the formative potential of biblical testimonia for narrative. 179 In 1924 E. Fascher examined all these books, criticizing Dibelius and Bultmann for their separation from source criticism and neglect of possible settings in the life of Jesus. 1 8 0 His comments found response in Germany in Lietzmann's tion was added by G. Klein, Der älteste christliche Katechismus und die jüdische PropagandaLiteratur (Berlin, 1909). 175 P. Wendland, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literaturformen (Tübingen, 1912),

pp. 262-3, 267. 176

R. Bultmann, 'Reich Gottes und Menschensohn', Theologische

Rundschau

N.F. ix

(1937), pp. 1-35 (1-2). 177 R. Bultmann, 'A Reply to the Theses of J. Schniewind' (1944), translated by R.H. Fuller in H.W. Bartsch (ed.), Kerygma and Myth: a Theological Debate (E.T. London, 1953), pp. 102-23 (117); God 'makes none rich save the poor', a comment of Luther on Rom. 10:19, is quoted by Bultmann, 'Bultmann Replies to his Critics', ibid., pp. 190-211 (206), without special reference to the historical Jesus but in a general defence of his position. 178 M. Albertz, Die synoptischen Streitgespräche: ein Beitrag zur Formengeschichte des Urchristentums (Berlin, 1921), pp. v-vi. 179 G. Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und die Christuskult, eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen, 1922). 180 E. Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode: eine Darstellung und Kritik. Zugleich

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

185

judgment, noted below, in the continuing source-critical w o r k of W. Bussmann, and in a famous presentation of Jesus as a numinous healer b y R u d o l f O t t o , from the Religionsgeschicbtliche

Schule

and a senior M a r b u r g colleague of B u l t -

mann. 1 8 1 Fascher's criticisms were also influential in Britain. Yet everywhere they were swimming against a strong tide. G o s p e l form criticism could be taken, as B u l t m a n n held, to strengthen Wellhausen's scepticism on the historical value o f M a r k . T h e gospel could n o w seem to be the piecing together, without chronological discrimination, of a n u m b e r o f c o m m u n a l l y rounded narratives. This view, echoed in Britain b y Rawlinson, was advocated by R . H . Lightfoot, closely following Dibelius. H e was opposed especially to F.C. Burkitt's praise f o r the historical guidance afforded by Mark's f r a m e w o r k , but he increasingly affirmed the significance of the evangelists as teachers, here in line with E . L o h m e y e r on the doctrinal aspect of gospel geography and C . H . D o d d on apostolic preaching and realized eschatology. 1 8 2 In Scotland William M a n s o n had reasserted the historical value of the messianic gospel depiction of Jesus, with an appeal to Fascher; and the method was critically reviewed b y Vincent T a y l o r and judiciously employed, together with source criticism, in his big c o m m e n t a r y on M a r k (1952), with a by then unfashionable stress on historical questions. 1 8 3 Lightfoot's view was defended, however, b y his pupil D . E . N i n e h a m , whose influential Pelican c o m m e n t a r y on M a r k ( 1 9 6 3 ) sharply differs from Taylor in its stress on the sparseness o f the gospel's historical yield; Formgescbichte

was m o r e critically viewed in the c o m -

mentary on L u k e ( 1 9 6 3 ) in the same Pelican series b y G . B . Caird ( 1 9 1 7 - 8 4 ) . 1 8 4 In wider church and theological circles a general sympathy with form criticism as echoed by R . H . L i g h t f o o t had been encouraged since the Forties b y the w o r k o f Austin Farrer, well k n o w n as a philosophical theologian and an intuitive interpreter of Christian life. H e w a r m l y endorsed Lightfoot's apprehension of M a r k as a creative theologian, and his o w n w o r k on M a r k and M a t t h e w anticipated study of Redaktionsgeschichte,

in G e r m a n y b y H . C o n z e l m a n n and

ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des synoptischen Problems (BZNW 2, Giessen, 1924), pp. 54, 21234. 181 W. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien (3 vols., Halle, 1925, 1929, 1931); R. Otto, Reich Gottes und Menschensohn (1934), E.T. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (London, 1938), reviewed by Bultmann, 'Reich Gottes und Menschensohn'. 182 R.H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, 1934); id., Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London, 1938), pp. ix-x, 18-23,108-111; id., The Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford, 1953). 183 Wil]i am Manson, Jesus the Messiah. The Synoptic Tradition of the Revelation of God in Christ: with special reference to Form-criticism (London, 1943), pp. 20-32; V. Taylor, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London, 1952), pp. 17-20; review of Taylor by C.F.D. Moule, JTS N.S. iv (1953), pp. 68-73. 184 Contrast D.E. Nineham, Saint Mark (Harmondsworth, 1963), pp. 27-9 with G.B. Caird, Saint Luke (Harmondsworth, 1963), pp. 21-2.

186

Part II: Modern

New

Testament

Study

others, and in French-speaking scholarship by J. Dupont in Belgium. 185 Farrer's own view of Formgeschichte, however, favoured Fascher. 186 He urged that Mark's theological scheme also evinced an historically plausible sequence; here he strikingly differed from both Lightfoot and Nineham. 187 Through treatment of imagery as well as narrative he also emphasized those links between biblical work and the criticism of literature which were integral to form criticism, and would come to the fore again in the second half of the century; 'I wish to show', he wrote, 'that the sort of criticism of most use for getting to the bottom of the New Testament is often more like the criticism we apply to poetry than we might incline to expect'. 188 Farrer's brilliance and versatility could seem exasperatingly playful. This aspect of his work injured it among biblical students, but his books were widely found fascinating, and they helped to commend form criticism by showing that it could cohere with imaginative exploration of the gospels, both for theology and for an historical approach to the ministry of Jesus. Two modes of more critical response to form criticism in England had been marked by special depth and creativity. One, represented by C.H. Dodd and then by C.F.D. Moule, consisted in further exploration of the potential of the form-critical method itself, so as to show among other things its capacity for shedding light both on the historical Jesus and on early formulations of teaching and apologetic - seen not simply as developed in the church but also as connecting Jesus with the New Testament. In a paragraph on the fruitfulness of form criticism Dodd significantly picked out Schmidt and Dibelius as the founders, without mentioning Bultmann. 189 He developed these form-critical links between the New Testament, the church and Jesus in papers for his Cambridge seminar (1936-49) and in a remarkable series of short books, treating in turn the parables, the apostolic kerygma, the Passion narrative, and the morality of the epistles, and crowned by a many-sided reinterpretation of testimonia from the

1 8 5 A.M. Farrer, The Glass of Vision (Westminster, 1948), pp. 5 2 - 4 , 1 3 6 - 4 6 ; id., A Study in St Mark (Westminster, 1951), pp. 6 - 7 ; H . Conzelmann, Die Mitte der Zeit (2nd edn, 1957), E.T. The Theology of Saint Luke (London, 1960), pp. 9 - 1 7 ; J. Dupont, Les Béatitudes. Le problème littéraire, le message doctrinal (Louvain, 1954). 186

A.M. Farrer, review of A.E.J. Rawlinson, Christ in the Gospels

(1944), JTS xlvii (1946),

77-8. 1 8 7 Farrer, A Study in St Mark, 7, 1 8 6 - 2 0 2 ; id., St Matthew and St Mark (Westminster, 1954), 159, 228. 188 p a r r e r > fhe Glass of Vision, p. 136. His thought on imagery was developed with reference to the Apocalypse in A Rebirth of Images (Westminster, 1950) and his commentary The Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford, 1964). 1 8 9 Dodd, Christian Beginnings (n. 18, above), p. 14; his silence here on Bultmann was not simply expedient in response to the more sceptical Barnes, but true to the importance of Schmidt and Dibelius as founders and to Dodd's own consistently positive response to their discernment of communal continuity.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

187

Old Testament in the New. 1 9 0 In a final work, the second of a pair of big books on John, he studied Johannine narratives form-critically, here in contrast with the source-critical approach to John followed by Emanuel Hirsch and Rudolf Bultmann in Germany. 1 9 1 Paradoxically, Dodd's work is perhaps the single widest-ranging British contribution to Formgeschichte. A second response, represented especially by Wilfred Knox, a leading contributor to Dodd's seminar, consisted partly in questioning - most famously when Knox urged, against R.H. Lightfoot, that precisely from a form-critical perspective an ending at M a r k 16:8 would be unexpected. 1 9 2 Farrer, who had made a lively defence of Lightfoot's view, came to prefer the hypothesis that a sentence had been lost after verse 8; deliberate suppression of an ending was suggested, with reference to Knox, by C.S.C. Williams. 1 9 3 Such questions were complemented, however, by further extended study of the literary source criticism of the synoptic tradition. Developing the approach of Eduard Meyer, Knox argued in detail that the gospels were compiled from a number of shorter tracts, such as would have been in use between the late thirties and the early fifties; these would have been composed for the sake of preaching the gospel, but sometimes primitive and valuable historical material can be discerned in them. 194 The differing responses of Dodd and Knox had both been envisaged in principle by Fascher. 195 Knox's argument for early written sources was soon paralleled in Sweden by H. Riesenfeld and Birger Gerhardsson, on the likelihood of a relatively fixed pre-gospel oral tradition; Gerhardsson supported this proposal from study of oral tradition in rabbinic Judaism. 1 9 6

190 C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935), pp. 43-51, 111-32, 175202; id, The Apostolic Preaching and its Development (London, 1936), pp. 104-118; id, Histor y and the Gospel (London, 1938), pp. 90-101, seen as showing that criticism could after all reach towards the historical personality of Jesus by D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ (2nd edn, London, 1955), pp. 57-8; Dodd, Gospel and Law (Cambridge, 1951); id., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952). G.M. Styler has kindly made the minutes of Dodd's seminar available to me. 191 C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963). 192 W.L. Knox, 'The Ending of St. Mark's Gospel', HTR xxxv (1942), pp. 13-23. 193 Farrer, The Glass of Vision, pp. 136-46; id., St Matthew and St Mark, pp. 144-59; C.S.C. Williams, Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp. 40-45. 194 W.L. Knox, edited by Henry Chadwick, The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (2 vols., Cambridge, 1953, 1957). 195 Fascher, Die formgeschichtliche Methode, pp. 220-23, 233-4. 196 H. Riesenfeld, The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of 'Formgeschichte' (London, 1957), and B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Uppsala, 1961), sympathetically criticized by W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 464-80.

188

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

The position from which Dodd, Knox and others in Britain began seems broadly comparable with that taken in Germany by Hans Lietzmann, who combined a measured welcome to form-critical insights with re-affirmation of the value of Harnack's source-criticism. 197 Dodd and Moule, however, were also keenly aware of an exegetical and theological dimension of the question; historical criticism must retain its place in gospel study, and the New Testament should not be presented as an indivisible whole of revelation, but it was also necessary to avoid a historicism which took no interpretative account of the biblical intertwining of faith and history. 198 This issue was to recur in later debate on interpretative method. In Britain form criticism, with Dodd's study of apostolic kerygma, had now helped to revive interest in Jewish and Christian catechesis and apologetic (n.174, above), for example in G.D. Kilpatrick's suggestion that the special Matthaean material represented expansion current in liturgical use of the gospel; the liturgical line of inquiry continued to attract attention. 199 Notable studies of catechesis, on a pattern of instruction discerned in the epistles, were published from 1940 onwards by Philip Carrington, E.G. Selwyn, and David Daube. 200 Carrington sketched a sympathetic picture of old Jewish piety as typically marked by realized eschatology, and judged that much of this piety emerged in the epistles. Daube, from the Jewish side, was perhaps the first to follow a formcritical approach in a large-scale study of the New Testament in the light of rabbinic literature. 201 The atmosphere of creative Jewish-Christian interaction evident in this group of writings on form criticism and catechesis can also be felt in the contemporary series Judaism and Christianity edited by W.O.E. Oesterley, H. 197 H. Lietzmann, The Beginnings of the Christian Church (London, 1961), pp. 45-60, from E.T. by B.L. Woolf of H. Lietzmann, Geschichte der Alten Kirche, 1. Die Anfänge (2nd edn, Berlin, 1937). 198 Dodd, 'The New Testament', in Kirk, The Study of Theology, pp. 219-46 (240-41); id., 'A Problem of Interpretation', Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Bulletin, ii (1951), pp. 7 18; Moule, review of Taylor, The Gospel according to Saint Mark, p. 69, and 'Jesus in New Testament Kerygma', reprinted from O. Böcher & K. Haacker, Verborum Veritas, Festschrift für G. Stählin (Wuppertal, 1970) in C.F.D. Moule, New Testament Essays (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 37-49. 199 G.D. Kilpatrick, The Origins of the Gospel according to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946); P. Carrington, The Primitive Christian Calendar (Cambridge, 1952); Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960); M.D. Goulder (n.222, below). 200 Philip Carrington, The Primitive Christian Catechism: A Study in the Epistles (Cambridge, 1940); E.G. Selwyn, 'On the Inter-relation of I Peter and other N.T. Epistles' (beginning with pages on '"Formgeschichte" and its Application to the Epistles' and continuing on 'Baptismal Forms' and 'Catechetical Material'), in id., The First Epistle of St. Peter (London, 1947), pp. 363-466; D. Daube, 'Participle and Imperative in I Peter', in Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, pp. 467-88. 201 See especially the section entitled 'Legislative and Narrative Forms' in D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

189

Loewe and E.I.J. Rosenthal, with contributors including Wilfred Knox; and Carrington's view of Jewish piety was perhaps not far from that held by Dodd when he judged that the Fourth Gospel was akin in thought not only to Philo (here Dodd was close to Knox) but also to rabbinic literature. 2 0 2 Moule at the same time was approaching the birth of the N e w Testament form-critically, interpreting it as a response to catechetical and apologetic needs, and urging, against the pervasive influence of Bultmann's disciples, that in this context the evangelists will have wished to provide a reliable narrative of events. 203 In its insistence on this point the book strikingly contrasts not only with Bultmann, but also with a late w o r k of Alfred Loisy which had comparably treated the growth of the N e w Testament as the development of catechesis. 204 Daube and Moule, each an unmistakably independent scholar, both attended Dodd's seminar and shared his concern with the catechetical aspect of form criticism - Moule coming particularly close to Dodd's sense for links between Jesus, the church and the N e w Testament. Especially in Germany it could seem that research into the historical Jesus had been frozen by Formgeschichte in combination with Bultmannian theology. The phrase Leben Jesu, 'life of Jesus' was now widely dismissed as suggesting an unattainable and undesirable biographical aim. This dismissal was taken for granted in the far-flung school of Bultmann, which was powerful not only in Germany but also, through scholars like D. Georgi, H. Koester and J.M. Robinson, in the U.S.A. A Bultmannian like G. Bornkamm could indeed call the time before the form critics 'the life-of-Jesus era'. 2 0 5 Yet form criticism led in time to renewal of a study of the historical Jesus which had never been entirely given up. So in the Thirties and Forties Jesus and his eschatology were treated not only by Otto, as noted above, but also by Jeremias and W.G. Kummel. 2 0 6 In 1957 the Bultmannian E. Kasemann noted that E. 202 Judaism and Christianity, 3 vols., i, W.O.E. Oesterley (ed.), The Age of Transition (London, 1937); ii, H. Loewe (ed.), The Contact of Pharisaism with other Cultures (London, 1937); iii, E.I.J. Rosenthal (ed.), Law and Religion (London, 1938), all reprinted in one volume with Prolegomenon by E. Rivkin (New York, 1969); C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 73-5; W.L. Knox, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity (Schweich Lectures 1942, London, 1944), pp. 42-90 (John and Philo). 203 C.F.D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962; 3rd edn, revised and rewritten, London, 1981); id., 'The Intention of the Evangelists', reprinted from A.J.B. Higgins (ed.), New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of T.W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), pp. 165-79 in C.F.D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London, 1967), pp. 100-114; Moule, as cited in n. 183, above. 204 A. Loisy, Les origines du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1936, E.T. London, 1950). 205 G. Bornkamm, 'In Memoriam Rudolf Bultmann, 1884-1976', NTS xxiii (1977), pp. 235-42 ('Leben-Jesu-Aera', p. 237). 206 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltwollender (Gütersloh, 1930); W.G. Kümmel, Verheissung und Erfüllung. Untersuchungen zur eschatologischen Verkündigung Jesu (Zürich, 1946, 3rd edn 1956), E.T. Promise and Fulfilment (London, 1957).

190

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

Stauffer had indeed issued a life of Jesus, and that Jeremias had long engaged with interpretation of N e w Testament life and thought as a reflection of Jesus's work; moreover - here Kasemann looked towards a development in Bultmannian scholarship which Bultmann did not approve - E. Fuchs and G. Bornkamm as well as Kasemann himself had all been (not writing biographies of Jesus, but) reviewing the significance of the historical Jesus for faith. 2 0 7 Dodd and his comparably influential friend T.W. Manson were among several British scholars working in this context towards a life of Jesus. A contrast with Germany emerges in Manson's unabashed use of the phrase 'life of Jesus', and in Dodd's claim, without apology, to give a reading of personality and career. 208 Manson's seminal The Teaching of Jesus (1931), later complemented by an outline life, The Servant-Messiah (1953), can be set beside Dodd's relatively brief and often dependent Parables (1935) and his Founder (its first draft was written for public lectures given in 1954). Dodd was above all a form critic (in the distinctive manner just described), but Manson was a source critic, for w h o m the great post-First World War German w o r k was that of Eduard Meyer. 2 0 9 Moreover, Dodd was essentially a Hellenist, but Manson was a Hebraist with an Old Testament training; he took seriously the Aramaic origin and poetic form of the sayings of Jesus, as highlighted by Burney, and he used the Palestinian and rabbinic gospel interpretation of Dalman, Billerbeck, Abrahams and Klausner. T.W. Manson therefore illuminated important aspects of gospel tradition which are less prominent in Dodd, for example the biblical context of parable. He viewed Jesus's messianic consciousness as shaped by biblical depictions of a faithful minority in Israel, including the servant of God in Second Isaiah, understood collectively (Mark 10:45); correspondingly, the phrase 'Son of man', for Manson (here following Dalman), echoed the canonical Daniel rather than the extraneous Enoch or II Esdras, and by it (here Manson's distinctive view appears) Jesus identified himself with the faithful minority, the suffering but vindicated saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:13-18, 24-8). 2 1 0 This view, accepted by

2 0 7 E. Käsemann, ' N e u t e s t a m e n t l i c h e Fragen von heute' (1957), reprinted in id., Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, ii (Göttingen, 1964), pp. 11-31 (21), E.T. in id., New Testament Questions of Today ( L o n d o n , 1969), p. 12; G. B o r n k a m m , Jesus von Nazareth (Stuttgart, 1956, E.T. L o n d o n , 1960); E. Stauffer, Jesus. Gestalt und Geschichte (Bern, 1957), E.T.Jesus and His Story ( L o n d o n , 1960) - free in speculation, but notable for use of pagan and J e w i s h sources; E. Fuchs, Zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus. Gesammelte Aufsätze, ii ( T ü b i n g e n , 1960). 2 0 8 D o d d , The Founder of Christianity ( N e w Y o r k & Toronto, 1970; L o n d o n , 1971), p. 36; T.W. M a n s o n , ' M a t e r i a l s for a Life of J e s u s ' , reprinted in id., ed. M . Black, Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester, 1962), pp. 3 - 1 4 5 . 2 0 9 See for example T.W. M a n s o n , T h e Servant-Messiah ( C a m b r i d g e , 1953),pp. 7 , 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 7 ; id., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, pp. 14, 227. 2 1 0 T.W. M a n s o n , The Teaching of Jesus ( C a m b r i d g e , 1931), pp. 4 5 - 8 6 , 2 1 1 - 3 6 , 324-7; his

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

191

Dodd and in Germany by Jeremias, was developed as regards the Son of man by Moule and Morna Hooker, although J. A. Emerton showed that ancient mythological tradition, illuminated by the Syrian legends preserved in Ugaritic, lay behind Daniel and continued to influence the later extra-canonical texts; and Hooker also demonstrated that allusion to the Isaianic servant in the teaching of Jesus was less clear than Manson, Dodd and Jeremias believed. 211 The ground common to Dodd and Manson included realized eschatology; both set the apocalypses in the broader context of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on the kingdom, but Manson made the point from detailed study of these sources. 212 Here they were both close to a trend in German study exemplified above by Kittel, but also found in Jeremias and E. Stauffer. 213 Yet for Dodd, by contrast with Manson, messianic hopes at the time of Jesus were varied and imprecise; with a characteristic sense for the Hellenistic-Roman setting Dodd introduces them as an equivalent of ruler-cult, and sees the realized eschatology of the kingdom preaching as genuinely bringing, to individuals and to the community, that sense of 'present deity' which was sought in the cult. 214 Similarly, where Manson's Jesus embodies 'the true Israelite ideal', Dodd, for whom the Old Testament also matters, lays stress on the originality of Jesus and the emergence of a new community. 2 1 5 Towards the end of the form-critical era, therefore, Dodd and Manson exemplify the continuous British study of the historical Jesus, which was continuously countered at home by the form-critical questioning of Lightfoot, Nineham, and others, but was now being matched by a certain revival of concern with the historical Jesus in Germany. Manson stands with Knox for continuous British acceptance and development of source criticism of the synoptic gospels. Dodd, on the other hand, is indeed a form critic, but he does not endorse Bultmann's view of synoptic tradition, and can therefore share Manson's historical reconstruction. Yet there remains a difference between the unified biblical emphasis of Manson and the biblical yet primarily N e w Testament outlook of Dodd, with its experiential, ecclesiastical and Hellenic aspects. This difference developments of this view and their reception were surveyed by F.H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (London, 1967), pp. 48-50. 211 J. Jeremias, Neutestamentliche Theologie I. Teil: Die Verkündigung Jesu (Gütersloh, 1971), E.T. New Testament Theology, i (London, 1971), §§ 23-4; C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977); J.A. Emerton, 'The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery', JTS N.S. ix (1958), 225-42; M.D. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant (London, 1959), reviewed by J. Jeremias, JTS N.S. xi (1960), 140-44; ead., The Son of Man in Mark (London, 1967). 212 Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 14-15, 135-41, 244-60; Dodd, 'The New Testament', in Kirk, The Study of Theology, p. 234. 213 Dodd is discussed together with Jeremias and Stauffer by O. Cullmann, Heil als GeExistenz im Neuen Testament (1965), E.T. Salvation in History schichte: Heilsgeschichtliche (London, 1967), pp. 33-6. 214 Dodd, The Founder of Christianity, pp. 81-5. 215 T.W. Manson, The Servant-Messiah, pp. 21 n. 1, 73-4.

192

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

can be related to two trends of these years exemplified in Manson, towards a Jewish interpretation and towards a biblical theology. Dodd, like Manson, partook in both trends; but he did so with reservation, remaining attached above all to Hellenism and the N e w Testament.

Towards New Testament interpretation

in a Jewish

setting

T h e strength of Septuagintal, Philonic, apocalyptic and rabbinic interpretation of the N e w Testament in the earlier years of the century has emerged in connection with such names as Deissmann, Knox, Burkitt and Dalman. Awareness of an ever-increasing mass of N e w Testament interpretation from Jewish sources led, however, to a sense of new movement, as regards the setting envisaged for the N e w Testament, away from Hellenism towards Judaism. 'In recent years the balance has been redressed', wrote C . H . Dodd in 1950, referring to an earlier predominance of Hellenism in the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. 2 1 6 Dodd himself could say this partly because he set Philo, closely linked with J o h n by himself and many earlier writers including Knox, within Hellenism as regards the history of religion; but to illustrate the shift in balance he also pointed to much fresh study of the Semitic-language setting of the gospels, represented by Burney, Schlatter, C . C . Torrey and Matthew Black, and of rabbinic sources, represented by Moore, Billerbeck, Abrahams and H . Loewe. In Pauline study the same trend from Philonic towards rabbinic work stood out in Britain, and within Dodd's seminar, through a comparison between Knox's Philonic St. Paul and the Church Judaism

of the Gentiles

(1939) and W.D. Davies, Paul and

(1948). The often-reprinted Rabbinic

Anthology,

Rabbinic

jointly edited by

C . G . Montefiore and H . Loewe, had appeared in 1938, the series Judaism Christianity,

and

mentioned already, was then in progress, and after 1939 came the

work on Jewish and N e w Testament catechesis noted above, by Carrington, Selwyn and Daube. Rabbinic study was part of the atmosphere for a number of Christian students, and it became natural to view the Septuagint and Philo within the Jewish interpretative tradition also represented by the Targums and rabbinic haggadah. 217 This trend in scholarship in the Thirties and thereafter was strengthened by the centrality of the Jewish community in contemporary European and Middle Eastern history; but N e w Testament interpretation through the medium of ancient Jewish literature was of very long standing, as noted above, with roots in patristic and mediaeval exegesis, and a notable early twentieth-century efflorescence. N o w it was also encouraged by two major Levantine discoveries. 2 1 6 Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 74. The Preface is dated 4th January 1950, with a postscript dated 4th June 1952. 217 Thus R.A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study (Edinburgh, 1961); he recalls (p. xi) how he began rabbinic reading as a student in 1943.

7. British

New

Testament

Study

in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

193

First, remains of a church and synagogue from early third-century Syria, each with figurative wall decoration, had emerged in excavation carried on until 1937 at Dura Europus on the Euphrates. Finds included a Greek uncial papyrus fragment from the Passion narrative of a gospel harmony (0212 = P. Dura 10), which with Greek papyrus finds in Egypt cast light on the third-century and earlier period of N e w Testament textual tradition, hitherto approached indirectly through the Old Latin and the Old Syriac. Even this papyrus, however, and even the church paintings of the Good Shepherd and other subjects, were outshone in N e w Testament significance by the elaborate synagogue depictions of biblical figures and scenes. Diaspora Judaism in this age, it appeared, could indeed exert the aesthetic appeal which had often been judged, as in Kirsopp Lake on Paul, more characteristic of pagan and Christian cult. E.R. Goodenough combined the Dura synagogue paintings with his interpretation of Philo as witness to a mystical Judaism focused on the living spiritual figures of Moses and the patriarchs, and in a debate which still continues it was asked if the paintings had a messianic theme like that drawn out by treatments of the exodus in the N e w Testament. 218 Thus from this angle too Philo came to look more clearly Jewish, as did parts of the N e w Testament with Philonic affinity, notably Paul, John, and Hebrews. It was characteristic of twentieth-century concern with Hellenism and Judaism successively that the addressees of Hebrews, traditionally understood as people of Jewish descent, had been reassessed in James Moffatt's commentary (1924) as gentiles, but were now once again taken to be Jewish, in commentaries by C. Spicq (1952) and F.F. Bruce (1965). Secondly, famous finds of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts were made from 1947 onwards in caves near the western shore of the Dead Sea, at the mouth of the Wadi Qumran. In most cases the copying of the texts could be assigned to the period from the Maccabaean age to the time of Christian origins. They showed that in these years in Judaea the books now comprising the Hebrew Bible could be read in Hebrew and in both Aramaic and Greek translation, a point of significance for assessment of the local settings of the N e w Testament books in Greek, and that they were interpreted through a penumbra of other texts written in the biblical manner, including books known from the Old Testament Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Another set of texts, scripturallygrounded Hebrew rules for communal life accompanied by hymnodic prayers and praises, reflected what was evidently the - Essene or Essene-like - community known since 1910 from the Damascus Document (n.74, above), and these touched the discussion of N e w Testament ethics, catechesis and liturgy already noted. Moreover, a series of Hebrew expositions in commentary form, marked 218 E.R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Haven, 1935), pp. 9, 209-10, 262, and elsewhere; E. Stauffer, New Testament E.T. London, 1955), p. 19.

Judaism Theology

(New (1941;

194

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

b y use of the w o r d pesher,

'interpretation', explained the scriptures as foretell-

ing the c o m m u n i t y ' s special history. T h i s exegesis was related to study o f the O l d Testament in the N e w , above all in Sweden b y K . Stendahl on the quotations introduced b y a fulfilment formula in Matthew. 2 1 9 T h e theology o f the c o m m u n i t y literature as a whole was viewed together with that o f the N e w Testament in the controversy over identification of the community, notably b y G . R . Driver, and in N e w Testament exegesis, notably, among many others, by two prominent Aramaists, Matthew Black in St. A n drews and J . A . F i t z m y e r in Chicago; and study of the new texts, b y G e z a Vermes, formed perhaps the biggest single series of insertions (other comparable series dealt with Jewish epigraphy and G r e e k Jewish literature) into a new E n g lish translation and revision o f Schiirer's own last revision of his History.220

The

extent of this material was perhaps a factor in turning some N e w Testament interpreters, notably Fitzmyer, away from rabbinic texts towards earlier Jewish sources; but this move is questioned (see ch. 8, below) by the importance o f rabbinic material f o r Q u m r a n i c as well as N e w Testament interpretation. Yet another impulse towards interpretation in the light o f J e w i s h tradition was given b y A . D i e z M a c h o ' s 1956 identification of a complete Pentateuchal Targum o f the type current among J e w s in B y z a n t i n e Palestine, the so-called J e rusalem Targum, in the R o m a n manuscript N e o f i t i l. 2 2 1 T h i s discovery c o m p l e mented texts already k n o w n , but it also drew renewed attention to the i n c o r p o ration of rich new matter of importance for exegesis and c o m m u n a l life into biblical translation, in a fashion already discernible in the Septuagint and Q u m ran exegesis and in the rendering of the O l d Testament in the New. N e w Testament study of the Targumic tradition became widespread in Britain and Ireland, and intensified existing interest in the relation between the N e w Testament and midrashic interpretation. 2 2 2

2 , 9 K. Stendahl, The School of St Matthew (Lund, 1954); E.E. Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 141-7; Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, pp. 13-16; Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3rd edn, 1982), pp. 74-106. 220 M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961); H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran (Philadelphia, 1963); G.R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (Oxford, 1965); E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3rd-4th edn, Leipzig, 1901-9); E.T. of 2nd edn (1886-90), The History of the Jewish People in the Age ofJesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1890-91); E.T. of 3rd-4th edn, revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, M. Goodman & P. Vermes (Edinburgh, i, 1973; ii, 1981; iii.l, 1986; iii.2, 1987), discussed by Hengel (n.66, above). 221 A. Diez Macho, 'The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum', SVT vii (1959), pp. 222-45; id., Neophyti 1 (5 vols., Madrid, 1969-78). 222 For example M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd edn, Oxford, 1967); M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, 1965); M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966); J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge, 1969); G. Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975); M.D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London, 1974); A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (TSAJ 14, Tübingen, 1986).

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

195

T h e trend towards interpretation in the light of Judaism could also be seen in study of a m a j o r Egyptian discovery in the fields of apocrypha and G n o s t i c i s m . P r o b a b l y f o u r t h - c e n t u r y C o p t i c copies of apocryphal gospels, apocalypses and other treatises were found in 1945 in the northern Thebaid, not far f r o m modern N a g H a m m a d i but across the N i l e on the right bank, near ancient C h e n o boskion, w h e r e Pachomius had begun his monastic life in a setting which included Meletians and Marcionites. 2 2 3 T h e B o d m e r papyri, including early thirdcentury G r e e k texts o f L u k e and J o h n and a third- or f o u r t h - c e n t u r y text of the Protevangelium of J a m e s , are also said to have been found in this area. 2 2 4 T h e N a g H a m m a d i texts bearing names of O l d and N e w Testament authors are largely hitherto u n k n o w n , but among them is a G o s p e l according to T h o m a s which includes a C o p t i c version o f sayings of Jesus k n o w n in G r e e k f r o m O x y rhynchus papyri published in 1897 and 1904, and has been to the fore in discussion of the synoptic sayings-tradition and the historical J e s u s . 2 2 5 T h e N a g H a m m a d i C o p t i c apocrypha all s h o w G n o s t i c traits, and earlier in the twentieth century would therefore perhaps have been viewed primarily in the setting o f Hellenism, despite their character as biblical pseudepigraphs. N o w their Hellenic aspect was not neglected, but emphasis was laid on the ultimately O l d Testament or J e w i s h influence suggested, f o r example, b y apocalypses under the names of patriarchs, notably a hitherto u n k n o w n Apocalypse of Adam. Philo and Hellenistic J u d a i s m were correspondingly important in discussion o f the N a g H a m m a d i gospels, f o r example by R . M c L . Wilson in St. Andrews which n o w became a centre for study of the Scrolls, the Targums and the N a g H a m m a d i texts alike. Philo was likewise to the fore in review o f patristic reports on named G n o s t i c s like Valentinus b y G . C . Stead and many others, especially in G e r m a n y ; and there was a widespread tendency, represented b y such scholars as E . Peterson and K . R u d o l p h in G e r m a n y and G.W. M a c R a e in the U . S . A . , to find J e w i s h roots f o r G n o s t i c i s m as a w h o l e . 2 2 6 Parallels between G n o s t i c and Jewish mysticism had long been noted, for example in Marcus Magus as de-

D.J. Chitty, The Desert a City (Oxford, 1966), p. 8. B. Van Elderen, 'Nag Hammadi', in E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, iv (New York & Oxford, 1997), pp. 87-9. 225 Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 355-433; C.M. Tuckett, ed. J. Riches, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition. Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library (Edinburgh, 1986). 226 For example R. McL. Wilson, Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (London, 1960); K. Rudolph, Die Gnosis (Leipzig and Göttingen, 1977, E.T. Edinburgh, 1983); G.W. MacRae, 'Why the Church rejected Gnosticism' and B.A. Pearson, 'Jewish Elements in Gnosticism and the Development of Gnostic Self-Definition', in E.P. Sanders (ed.), Jewish and Christian SelfDefinition, i (London, 1980), pp. 126-33, 151-60, respectively; G.C. Stead, 'The Valentinian Myth of Sophia', JTS N.S. xx (1969), pp. 75-104; C. Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticusf (WUNT 65, Tübingen, 1992), reviewed by A.H.B. Logan, JTS N.S. xlv (1994), pp. 310-13. 223 224

196

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

scribed b y Irenaeus. 2 2 7 T h e part played in G n o s t i c origins b y Christian mediation of J e w i s h tradition was correspondingly debated. 2 2 8 Study of N a g H a m m a d i apocrypha in the light o f Judaism here converged with existing tendencies away from the treatment o f gnosticism as Hellenistic mysticism. In w o r k on Paul, f o r example, W . D . Davies had urged, against Reitzenstein, that 'spirit' was linked with the O l d Testament and Judaism rather than a Hellenistic gnosticism, and J . D u p o n t argued that Pauline conceptions of gnosis arose from the O l d Testament, and that even gentile gnosis had its roots in Alexandrian Judaism. 2 2 9 R e n e w e d awareness of Judaism as the prime setting of Christian origins could be seen not only in the discussion of G n o s t i c i s m and the N e w Testament, but also in another trend o f this period, towards N e w Testament theology within revived interest in biblical theology in general.

New Testament Theology and Biblical

Theology

J . de Zwaan, speaking expressly against the background o f the recently ended Second W o r l d War, had appealed at the first General Meeting o f Studiorum N o v i Testamenti Societas in 1947 f o r union in study of the N e w Testament as exemplifying and evoking faith. 2 3 0 H e caught the m o o d which was emerging in 1932 and had crossed national and ecclesiastical frontiers; thus in c o n t e m p o r a r y Uppsala A . Fridrichsen's teaching over the last twenty years was thought to have restored biblical t h e o l o g y to its place of honour, 2 3 1 and since Divino flante

Spiritu

af-

R o m a n C a t h o l i c biblical theology, especially in F r e n c h , G e r m a n ,

Spanish, and Italian, had arisen like a giant refreshed. T h e ' A n g l o - S a x o n Biblical T h e o l o g y M o v e m e n t ' was near its zenith, but there was also the broader c o n cern with biblical theology noted above. 2 3 2 T h r o u g h o u t the second half of the

227 G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941; 2nd edn, repr. London, 1955), p. 65; id., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1960); cf. H. Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin, 1846, repr. Farnborough, 1971), pp. 104-9. Hellenic links are brought out by N. Förster, Markus Magus (WUNT 114, Tübingen, 1999). 228 The importance of Christian mediation is emphasized by A.H.B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism (Edinburgh, 1996). 229 W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1948; 4th edn, 1981, reprinted with Foreword by E.P. Sanders and Biographical Overview by D.C. Allison, Jr, Mifflintown, Pennsylvania, 1998), pp. 191-200; J. Dupont, La connaissance religieuse dans les Epitres de Saint Paul (Paris, 1949), reviewed by R. Bultmann, 'Gnosis', JTS N.S. iii (1952), pp. 10-26. 230 de Zwaan, 'The Unity of Purpose in New Testament Studies', pp. 134-6. 231 E. Heen, Anton Fridrichsen (1888-1953): a Bibliography (University of Oslo Faculty of Theology Bibliography Series 5, Oslo, 1993), p. 15; see A. Fridrichsen and others, The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology (Westminster, 1953). 232 H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century (E.T. London, 1986), pp. 1-9 ('the Anglo-Saxon "Biblical Theology Movement" '); J. Barr, The

7. British New

Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

197

century awareness of this international field was promoted in Britain by scholar-translators, above all J.S. Bowden, and by scholars who linked Germany, Britain and the U.S.A., such as R . H . Fuller and Norman Perrin. N e w Testament theology blossomed throughout Europe and North America. Both regions were represented in a series which evokes the British atmosphere, the Studies in Biblical Theology published by the S C M Press from 1950 onwards, with an Anglo-American group of advisers including two pillars of Biblical Theology in the specialized sense, Floyd V. Filson and G. Ernest Wright. Here work on the theology of particular books and biblical themes came together with word-studies, some taken from Kittels Wörterbuch; and also in 1950 the same press issued A Theological Word Book of the Bible, edited by Alan Richardson, later professor at Nottingham and dean of York, and author of a well-known introduction to New Testament theology. 2 3 3 The strength of biblical theology appears yet more clearly in Bavaria at the same time. Here the series Münchener Theologische Studien, also issued from 1950 onwards but covering the whole range of theology, already by 1955 included one 'study in Pauline theology', two books subtitled 'a contribution to biblical theology', another on 'the basic theological question of Hebrews', and another on Ps. cxix 'and its theology'. 2 3 4 Roots of the variously-interpreted discipline of biblical theology were now being traced by G. Ebeling in Pietism as well as the Enlightenment, and this perception of origins matched the sense that New Testament theology was not simply a rationalistic exercise. 235 The trend towards theology cohered to a great Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London, 1999), pp. 5 2 - 6 1 (biblical theology more broadly considered); P.-M. Tragan, 'La théologie biblique. Origine, développement, perspectives (avec appendice et complément bibliographique)', in E. Vilanova, Histoire des théologies chrétiennes (3 vols., Paris, 1997), i, pp. 17-133 (enlarged translation of work first issued by Tragan in Vilanova, Histôria de la Teologia cristiana, i (Barcelona, 1984), 21-73). 2 3 3 A. Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London, 1958), systematically arranged under topics, with emphasis on the church and sacraments. 2 3 4 R. Schnackenburg, Das Heilsgeschehen hei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus. Eine Studie zur paulinischen Theologie (Munich, 1950), E.T. Baptism in the Thought of St Paul (Oxford, 1964); F. Mussner, Z W H , Die Anschauung vom 'Leben' im vierten Evangelium unter Berücksichtigung der Johannesbriefe. Ein Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (Munich, 1952); E. Pax, Epiphaneia. Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (Munich, 1955); E J . Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung. Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebräerbriefes (Munich, 1955); A. Deissler, Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie (Munich, 1955). 2 3 5 G. Ebeling, ' T h e Meaning of "Biblical T h e o l o g y ' " , JTS N.S. vi (1955), pp. 2 1 0 - 2 2 5 ; Enlightenment roots, above all in the work of J.P. Gabler, had been mentioned by T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, p. 4; de Zwaan, ' T h e Unity of Purpose in N e w Testament Studies', pp. 130-1. See also L.T. Stuckenbruck, 'J.P. Gabler and the Delineation of Biblical T h e o l o g y ' , SJT Iii (1999), pp. 139-57; K.-W. Niebuhr & C . Böttrich (edd.) Johann Philipp Gabler 17531826 zum 250. Geburtstag (Leipzig, 2003).

198

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

extent with interpretation of the N e w Testament in the setting of Judaism, but it was naturally accompanied by revived debate on the Hellenic contribution to ancient Jewish and Christian theology, on early Christian responses to the nonChristian Jewish community and its traditions, and on the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. T h e Hellenic question had been lively in the movement away from Greek derivation of Paulinism, primitive christology and the sacraments noted above from the Twenties. 'The message of the N e w Testament is in the Hebrew tradition as against the Greek tradition' became a characteristic claim in the Biblical Theology movement. 2 3 6 A continuing high valuation of Greek myth and mystery and corresponding elements in Christianity was exemplified, however, in work by H . Rahner and J . Daniélou on patristic interpretation of N e w Testament sacramental and ecclesiological themes, and in the religio-historical aspect of such biblical-theological studies as those of E. Pax or H . Riesenfeld. 2 3 7 In Britain there was comparable argument for Greek influence on Jewish eschatology, by T.F. Glasson, and for valuable Hellenic aspects of the N e w Testament, by C . H . Dodd and F.F. Bruce. 2 3 8 Sharp distinctions between Judaism and Hellenism, and between Palestinian and Hellenistic strains within Judaism and within Christianity, remained influential through Bultmann and Jeremias; but they were now questioned again, as they had been by Schürer, notably in Martin Hengel's study of Judaism and Hellenism, showing the extent to which both Judaism and Christianity, even in Judaea, were part and parcel of a Hellenized culture. 2 3 9 Early responses to Judaism, which had formed an important theme for Harnack, were now studied in abidingly important British work from the Thirties by James Parkes and Lukyn Williams, manifesting the concerns also seen in the series Judaism

and

Christianity

mentioned above, and then in Switzerland and

France by Bernhard Blumenkranz and Marcel Simon. 2 4 0 Their reminders of the continuing vigour and prestige of the Jewish community in the Roman empire 2 3 6 The quotation is from N . H . Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London, 1944), p. 159. 2 3 7 H. Rahner, Griechische Mythen in christlicher Deutung, E.T. Greek Myth and Christian Mystery (n.122, above), pp. 6 - 1 5 ; J . Daniélou, Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux lie et lile siecles (Tournai, 1961), E.T. with postscript by J . A . Baker, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (London, 1973); Pax, Epiphaneia; H. Riesenfeld, Jésus transfiguré (Copenhagen & Lund, 1947). 2 3 8 T.F. Glasson, Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (London, 1961); C . H . Dodd, According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), pp. 135-8; F.F. Bruce, 'The New Testament and Classical Studies', NTS xxii (1976), pp. 2 2 9 - 4 2 . 2 3 9 M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (Tübingen, 1969; 2nd edn, 1973, E . T . J u d a i s m and Hellenism, 2 vols., London, 1974). 2 4 0 J. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (London, 1934); A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Judaeos (Cambridge, 1935); B. Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdisch-christlichen Beziehungen in den ersten Jahr-

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

199

were taken up in New Testament work, for example by Henry Chadwick on Ephesians as an attempt to claim something of this prestige for the Christians. 2 4 1 The integral link between the Jewish and the Christian communities was widely taken to be important, for instance in suggestions that the New Testament reflected the Jewish calendar (nn. 199, 222, above). The negative aspects of N e w Testament response, however, formed the focus of lively debate from the Fifties onwards, against the background of the Nuremberg and later war crime trials, under such headings as 'Anti-Semitism in the Gospels' (1965) and Faith and Fratricide (1974). 2 4 2 These writings, including discussion whether 'antiSemitism' or 'anti-Judaism' is the more appropriate term for early Christian hostility towards the larger non-Christian Jewish body, were flanked in Britain as elsewhere by intensive work on the trial of Jesus. 2 4 3 In these areas of scholarship Jewish members of the Christian community made a special contribution, seen at its most profound in the interpretation of the Passion narrative by Ulrich Simon, A Theology of Auschwitz (London, 1967). Fresh attempts at Christian theologies of Judaism 2 4 4 were matched by Jewish study of biblical conceptions of importance in the New Testament. 2 4 5 New Testament scholars displayed lively concern with Judaism as a continuing tradition. An outstanding example was W.D. Davies, who pursued rabbinicallyoriented work towards a N e w Testament interpretation which held both tradihunderten (Basel, 1946, repr. Paris, 1973); M. Simon, Verus Israel (Paris, 1948, repr. with 'Post-scriptum', 1964; E.T. Oxford, 1986). 2 4 1 H. Chadwick, 'Die Absicht des Epheserbriefes', ZNW li (1960), pp. 145-53. 2 4 2 L. Goppelt, Christentum und Judentum im ersten und zweiten Jahrhundert (Gütersloh, 1954); W.D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964); G.G. O'Collins, 'Anti-Semitism in the Gospels', Theological Studies xxvi (1965), pp. 663-666; W.P. Eckert et al, Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? (Munich, 1967); D.R.A. Hare, The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (Cambridge, 1967); R.R. Ruether, Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York, 1974); R. Kampling, Das Blut Christi und die Juden. Mt 27,25 bei den lateinsprachigen christlichen Autoren bis zu Leo dem Grossen (Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen N.F. 16, Münster, 1984). 243 p Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961, 2nd edn, revised and edited by T.A. Burkill & G. Vermes, 1973); E. Bammel (ed.), The Trial of Jesus (London, 1970); D.R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus: a Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Leiden, 1971); further literature from 1966-80 on the trial in Kümmel, Dreissig Jahre Jesusforschung, pp. 375-419. 2 4 4 J- J o c z > A Theology of Election: Israel and the Church (London, 1958), reviewed by R.J.Z. Werblowsky, JJS ix (1958), pp. 2 2 5 - 6 ; P. Schneider, Sweeter than Honey: Christian Presence amid Judaism (London, 1966); C. Thoma, Christliche Theologie des Judentums (Aschaffenburg, 1978), E.T. A Christian Theology of Judaism (New York, 1980); F. Mussner, Traktat über die Juden (Munich, 1979); H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century, pp. 64-132. 2 4 5 For example R.J.Z. Werblowsky, 'Faith, Hope, and Trust: a Study in the Concept of Bittahon', in J . G . Weiss (ed.), Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies, London, i (Jerusalem, 1964), 95-139; R. Loewe, '"Salvation" is not of the Jews', JTS N.S. xxxii (1981), 341-68.

200

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

tional and contemporary Jewish positions in view. His prolonged study of New Testament understandings of the teaching of Christ as new messianic law touched a great theme of mediaeval and later Jewish-Christian debate, and he made a New Testament approach to the sources of non-secular Zionism. 246 Comparable interest was evident in the concern for the Zealots and their outlook, with varying degrees of readiness to affirm its influence on early Christianity, shown by such scholars as Bo Reicke in Sweden, W.R. Farmer in the U.S.A., M. Hengel in Germany, and Cecil Roth, G.R. Driver, G.B. Caird and S.G.F. Brandon in England. 247 The related theme of martyrdom was reconsidered, for example by W.H.C. Frend, with fresh attention to continuities between Jewish and Christian martyr-theology. 248 The question of relating the Old Testament and the New, noted already in the contrast between C.H. Dodd and T.W. Manson, also emerged in connection with biblical interpretation, both in the New Testament and in present-day exegesis. The use of the Old Testament in the New was now being viewed in the context of a broader Jewish interpretative tradition, which had been in development from the Persian period onwards. This outlook, going back to A. Geiger and the nineteenth-century Wissenschaft des Judentums, was reinvigorated in Britain perhaps especially through the work of Paul Kahle, Renée Bloch and Geza Vermes; Kahle integrated study of the Old and New Testament text and versions, including Qumran material, as forms of interpretation, and Bloch and Vermes both significantly applied to Judaism a phrase with Christian resonance, 'Scripture and tradition'. 249

246 W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 71-2, 142-6; id., Torah in the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come (1952); id., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. 109-90, 353-66, 446-50; id., The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley, Los Angeles & London, 1974); id., The Territorial Dimension of Judaism (Berkeley, Los Angeles & London, 1982). 247 B. Reicke, Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier (Uppsala, 1951); W.R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York, 1956) (when he read a paper at C.H. Dodd's seminar, 27th April 1949, his main thesis [of New Testament links with Maccabaean sentiment] was welcomed, despite criticisms of detail, according to the minutes); M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden, 1961, E.T. Edinburgh, 1989); Driver, The Judaean Scrolls (in agreement with C. Roth, The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Oxford, 1958]); G.B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewish Nation (London, 1965); S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967). 248 W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford, 1965). 249 A. Geiger, Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der Innern Entwicklung des Juden thums (Breslau, 1857; 2nd edn, with introduction by Paul Kahle, Frankfurt am Main, 1938); P.E. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (Schweich Lectures 1941, London, 1947; 2nd edn Oxford, 1959); R. Bloch, 'Ecriture et tradition dans le judai'sme', Cahiers sioniens viii.l (1954), pp. 9-34; G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Leiden, 1961, 2nd edn 1973).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

201

T h e N e w Testament now took its place within a continuous interpretative tradition which also contributed to the earliest patristic Old and N e w Testament interpretation, then being studied intensively in France and England by such scholars as J . Daniélou, H . de Lubac, J . N . Sanders, R.P.C. Hanson and M.F. Wiles. 2 5 0 Lively debate against this background on the N e w Testament rôle and contemporary viability of typology and allegory involved names as varied as Bultmann, Daniélou, de Lubac, G.W.H. Lampe, and F.F. Bruce, among others. 2 5 1 In Britain Beryl Smalley had shown that the literal sense too received continuous attention in patristic and mediaeval exegesis. 2 5 2 F o r the N e w Testament itself a similar point was made by C . H . Dodd, who discerned attention to the context and general drift of scriptural passages, in many cases on lines continuous with what may be regarded as their original scope, in the kerygmatic interpretation of the O l d Testament in the New; this was a creative but also an historical exegesis. 2 5 3 T h e question of relationship between the Old Testament and the N e w also posed itself in the background of the theologies of the N e w Testament which began to appear again in Germany and became central in British study. Bultmann's ( 1 9 4 8 - 5 1 , E.T. 1 9 5 2 - 5 ) was of prime importance. D o u b t as well as discipleship could indeed arise from the very order and clarity of his historical progression from the briefly described proclamation of a primitive church in J u daea, through a fuller account of a Hellenistic church theology with integral gnostic motifs, to Paul and then to J o h n . T.W. Manson, having voiced his admiration of the first volume, added: 'The evidence which has come down to us about the ministry of Jesus and the faith and life of the first Christians in Palestine is so drastically treated that there is sadly little left to say about these vi2 5 0 Daniélou and de Lubac, as cited in the following footnote; J . N . Sanders, The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1943); R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event (London, 1959); M.F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge, 1960); id., The Divine Apostle (Cambridge, 1967). 2 5 1 L. Goppelt, Typos: Die typologische Deutung des Alten Testaments im Neuen (Gütersloh, 1939; E.T. Grand Rapids, 1982); R. Bultmann, 'Ursprung und Sinn der Typologie als hermeneutischer Methode', reprinted from Festschrift G. van der Leeuw (Nijkerk, 1950), pp. 89-100 in Bultmann, Exegetica (Tübingen, 1967), pp. 369-80, and J . Daniélou, Sacramentum Futuri: Etudes sur les origines de la typologie biblique (Paris, 1950), both reviewed by C.F. Evans, JTS N.S. ii (1951), pp. 90-95; H. de Lubac, Histoire et esprit: l'intelligence de l'Écriture d'après Origene (Paris, 1950), reviewed by H. Chadwick, JTS N.S. ii (1951), pp. 102-4; G.W.H. Lampe & K.J. Woollcombe, Essays on Typology (London, 1957); F.F. Bruce, This is That (Exeter, 1968); H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century, pp. 14-37. 2 5 2 B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1941; 2nd edn, 1952; 3rd edn, 1983). 2 5 3 Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 130-133, endorsed and developed by Caird (Barr, 'George Bradford Caird', pp. 508, 515); Bruce, This is That-, id., 'The Theology and Interpretation of the Old Testament', in G.W. Anderson (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (Oxford, 1979), pp. 3 8 5 - 4 1 6 (413).

202

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

tally important topics. As compensation we are given an imaginary picture of the beliefs and practices of a hypothetical Hellenistic community.' 2 5 4 Bultmann gripped a succession of readers, however, by his exposition of Paul and John as theologians of human existence, whose word of faith can be apprehended apart from the mythology of their thought-world, through demythologization (Entmythologisierung). Hermeneutical debate evoked by this programme extended over the next thirty years. Focal points were myth (for example in the collection cited in n.167, above) and the nature of language and communication, especially in the parables (for example in work by E. Fuchs and his pupils, taken up by Norman Perrin). 2 5 5 British work on New Testament interpretation was very widely affected by this debate, partly echoed in popular discussion of The Myth of God Incarnate (1977; n.19, above), and G.B. Caird's studies of language and imagery constitute one vigorous long-term response. 2 5 6 Bultmann's links between the New Testament and the existentialism of Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger, left implicit in the Theology, matched his explicit concluding stress on the connection between thinking and living in the N e w Testament writers and ourselves. Bultmann considered the Old Testament at earlier points in the work, but not in this conclusion, and in other writings he treated it not without admiration, but as contributing to Christian faith mainly through a version (with a Kierkegaardian air) of the conflict between law and gospel. 2 5 7 This position contrasted with the affirmation of a history of redemption (.Heilsgeschichte) which shaped the connection of Old Testament and New for E. Stauffer, O . Cullmann and (in Old Testament theology) G. von Rad. This approach again had its roots in Pietism, and it also had patristic analogies in the catechetical narration and the liturgical remembrances which bound Old Testament and N e w together in a single sequence; within the New Testament it could 254 -pyy Manson, in a review of the first volume of R. Bultmann, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1948-51 [E.T. 1952-5]),/TS 1 (1949), pp. 2 0 2 - 6 (203). 2 5 5 E. Fuchs, Studies of the Historical Jesus (1960, E.T. London, 1964); E. Linnemann, Parables ofJesus (1961, E.T. London, 1966); E. Jiingel, Paulus und Jesus (Tübingen, 1962); N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London, 1967). 2 5 6 G.B. Caird, 'Towards a Lexicon of the Septuagint',/TS N.S. xix (1968), pp. 453-75; xx (1969), pp. 2 1 - 4 0 ; id., The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London, 1980). 2 5 7 R. Bultmann, 'The Significance of the Old Testament for the Christian Faith' (1933), E.T. in B.W. Anderson (ed.), The Old Testament and Christian Faith (London, 1964), pp. 8 35; id. 'Adam, Where art Thou?' (1945), 'Prophecy and Fulfilment' (1949), 'Christianity as a Religion of East and West' (1949), and 'The Significance of Jewish Old Testament Tradition for the Christian West' (lecture delivered in 1949), E.T. in R. Bultmann, Essays Philosophical and Theological (London, 1955), pp. 119-32, 182-208, 209-33, 262-72, respectively; cf. M. Oeming, Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart (Stuttgart, 1985), pp. 17-18 (estimates of Bultmann's view have ranged from neo-Marcionism to affirmation of Old Testament and Jewish tradition); F. Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Edinburgh, 1997), pp. 153-69 (neo-Marcionism); Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, pp. 6 8 , 1 8 3 - 4 , 328, 460.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

203

appeal especially to Luke and Acts, and its emphasis on the church as well as the Old Testament helped it ecumenically. 258 E. Stauffer had begun his New Testament theology (1941, E.T. 1955) with the continuity between Old Testament and New as mediated by the Septuagint and pseudepigrapha, and had also vividly realized the nascent church and its summaries of Heilsgeschichte, with reference to archaeology and art. 2 5 9 Then the Old Testament and the church were comparably important in the interpretation organized by O. Cullmann (1946, 1957, 1965) around the theme of Heilsgeschichte, for him a linear history (contrasted with circular views of time associated with Hellenism) in which Christ is central, but to which the Old Testament and the post-apostolic church also in different ways belong. 2 6 0 Cullmann's view was adapted in H . U . von Balthasar's rich New Testament theology of doxa, for which the Old Testament is fundamental. 261 Jeremias's unfinished work, turning the Dalman tradition into a fascinating theology, was concentrated on the historical Jesus and his originality; but a larger biblical dimension to some extent emerged here too, focused in the affirmation that Jesus 'lived in the Old Testament' - although out of love he dared to radicalize and criticize the written Torah. 2 6 2 By contrast with both Bultmann and Cullmann, and despite indebtedness to both, much contemporary British New Testament theology could seem unselfconsciously historical and theological at the same time, reflecting the view that critical exegesis is a theological enterprise of importance for the church. As C . K . Barrett put it, 'When applied to the N e w Testament critical and historical study itself becomes a theological operation'. 2 6 3 Thus G . B . Caird intertwines historical re-evaluation and C . H . Dodd-like theological restatement, with a debt also

2 5 8 G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 vols., E.T., Edinburgh, 1962, 1965 [from originals issued 1957, I960]), ii, pp.viii, 3 8 2 - 4 ; J . Daniélou, 'The New Testament and the Theology of History', reprinted from Studia Evangelica ( T U lxxiii [1958]) in K. Aland and others, The Gospels Reconsidered (Oxford, 1960), 58-67; Oeming, Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart, 159-61; cf. Apostolic Constitutions vii 39; Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus, 3 (5)-(6). 2 5 9 Stauffer, New Testament Theology (n. 215, above), pp. 18-19, 5 1 - 5 , 78-9, 239-41 (on Heilsgeschichte and its summaries). 2 6 0 O. Cullmann, Christus und die Zeit (1946), E.T. Christ and Time (London, 1951); id., Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (1957, E.T. London, 1959), reviewed by C.K. Barrett, JTS N.S. x (1959), pp. 376-9; id., Heil als Geschichte (1965), E.T. Salvation in History (London, 1967). 2 6 1 H.U. von Balthasar, Herrlichkeit: Eine theologische Ästhetik, iii.2, Theologie, Teil 2, Neuer Bund (Einsiedeln, 1969), E.T. The Glory of the Lord: a Theological Aesthetics, vii: Theology: the New Covenant (Edinburgh, 1989). 2 6 2 J.Jeremias, New Testament Theology, i (E.T. London, 1971), pp. 205-7. 2 6 3 C.K. Barrett, 'What is New Testament Theology? Some Reflections', reprinted from D.Y. Hadidian (ed.), Intergerini Parietis Septum (Eph. 2.14) (Pittsburgh, 1981), pp. 1-22 in Barrett, Jesus and the Word, pp. 241-58 (250).

204

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

to Stauffer and a response to B u l t m a n n , when he interprets

apocalyptic

language as metaphor, used in the manner of the prophets with regard to imminent historical crisis. 2 6 4 M a n y studies were devoted to N e w Testament themes which bear immediately on Christian life, such as the Pauline imagery o f the church, the death of Christ, the spirit and its gifts, and the eucharist; here British scholars like C . F . D . M o u l e , J . A . T . R o b i n s o n , and E . B e s t were in discussion with American and E u r o p e a n colleagues such as J o h n K n o x , L . Cerfaux, and E . Käsemann. 2 6 5 T o single out one such theme, in The

Origin

of Christology

(1977) Moule

gathered up much of his earlier w o r k in viewing 'all the various estimates o f Jesus reflected in the N e w Testament as, in essence, only attempts to describe what was already there f r o m the beginning'. 2 6 6 This 'developmental' view to some extent recalls Sanday on the F o u r t h Gospel, H o s k y n s and D a v e y in the Riddle,

and D o d d in According

to the Scriptures;

but it stands out f o r Moule's

emphasis on organic growth as the model, in accord with the importance o f nature in his thought, and f o r his demonstration of the christological weight of Pauline language on the church. 2 6 7 T h i s b o o k , soon complemented b y Moule's The Holy

Spirit

(1978), was followed b y christological w o r k f r o m his pupil

J . D . G . D u n n on Unity and Diversity logy in the Making

in the New

Testament

( 1 9 7 7 ) and

Christo-

(1980). T h e second b o o k departed f r o m M o u l e in judging

the concept o f Christ's pre-existence to be relatively late (here Dunn's argument was part of a discussion o f J e w i s h pneumatology and messianism which still continues), yet in the end supported Moule's main contention; the prime stimulus towards the doctrine of the Incarnation was taken to be specifically Christian wisdom christology, itself arising f r o m experience of Jesus as a revelation of G o d . 2 6 8 Large-scale treatment of N e w Testament interpretation as a central w o r k of t h e o l o g y can be exemplified from C . K . Barrett, in the succession o f H o s k y n s and D a v e y and with indebtedness to B u l t m a n n , and G . W . H . L a m p e , w h o acknowledged a debt rather to the writings o f the liberal Charles Raven (n.38, 264 G.B. Caird, Principalities and Powers (London, 1956); id., The Revelation of St John the Divine (London, 1966); id., New Testament Theology, completed by L.D. Hurst (Oxford, 1994); cf. n. 256, above; Barr, 'George Bradford Caird, 1917-1984', PBA lxxi (1985), pp. 493521 (515). 265 For example C.F.D. Moule, Essays in New Testament Interpretation (Cambridge, 1982); J.A.T. Robinson, The Body (London, 1952); E. Best, One Body in Christ (London, 1955); J. Knox, The Death of Christ (London, 1959); L. Cerfaux, La Théologie de l'Eglise suivant Saint Paul (Paris, 1947); E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (E.T. London, 1969). 266 C.F.D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 2-3. 267 For these aspects of his thought see C.F.D. Moule, Man and Nature in the New Testament: Some Reflections on Biblical Ecology (Ethel M. Wood Lecture; London, 1964); id., The Phenomenon of the New Testament (London, 1967). 268 Dunn, Christology in the Making, pp. 258-63.

7. British New Testament Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

205

above). Barrett came to envisage N e w Testament theology as a releasing of the theological content of the N e w Testament, with all its authentic difficulty, into a form which can confront contemporaries; this theology will be related to the immediate and personal in religion, but will bear the intrinsic authority of the N e w Testament as the decisive witness to Jesus. 2 6 9 These aspects stand out in Barrett's study in Pauline theology, From First Adam of Heilsgeschichte

to Last, with its rejection

in favour of a dialectical interpretation of the Pauline role of

Old Testament figures, and in his Pauline commentaries, with the prefatory comment that, 'like most people, I sometimes wonder if Christianity is true; but I think I never doubt that, if it is true, it is truest in the form it takes with Paul, and, after him, with such interpreters of his as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Barth'. 2 7 0 Lampe (1912-1980), who combined patristic and N e w Testament scholarship (p. 182 & n.251, above), presented a reshaping of Chalcedonian doctrines of G o d and Christ mainly in the form of a N e w Testament theology focused on spirit; trinity gives way to one loving spirit, incarnation to inspiration. 271 Lampe's historical N e w Testament work, for example on discipline and persecution and on the theology of Luke-Acts, had gone side by side with N e w Testament treatments of such vexed doctrinal topics as baptism and justification. 2 7 2 His God as Spirit (Oxford, 1977) begins with an argument that the best way of expressing traditional belief that the historical Christ remains a present Lord is through N e w Testament apprehensions of the abiding presence of the kingdom of G o d (here Lampe was close to Dodd and T.W. Manson) and the spirit of God. With attention to the synoptics, Acts, Paul and J o h n , it is concluded that the subtle and manifold N e w Testament presentation of spirit in connection with Jesus Christ can express all that is signified by confession of the descent and ascension of a pre-existent Christ (here there is Bultmann-like demythologization). Lampe offers not only a doctrinal proposal, but also a fresh integration of N e w Testament theology. This b o o k indeed recalls the E n lightenment roots of biblical theology, seen in England in such a book as Samuel

Barrett, 'What is N e w Testament Theology? Some Reflections', pp. 2 5 3 - 5 . C . K . Barrett, From First Adam to Last: A Study in Pauline Theology (London, 1962), pp. 4 - 6 , 111; id., The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1973), p. vii, discussed by R. Morgan, 'The Significance of "Paulinism"', in M.D. H o o k e r & S.G. Wilson (edd.), Paul and Paulinism: Essays m Honour of C.K. Barrett (London, 1982), pp. 3 2 0 - 3 8 ; cf. Barrett, Acts (2 vols., Edinburgh, 1994, 1998), ii, p. cxvi 'Is Luke's Theology true?' 269

270

271 A remarkable summary of his proposal is G.W.H. Lampe, 'The Essence of Christianity: a Personal View', £7*lxxxvii (1976), pp. 132-7, reprinted in G.W.H. Lampe, ed. G.M. Newlands, Explorations in Theology (London, 1981), pp. 119-29. 2 7 2 C.F.D. Moule, 'Geoffrey William H u g o Lampe, 1 9 1 2 - 1 9 8 0 ' , PBA lxvii (1981), pp. 3 9 9 - 4 0 9 (402-5); for Lampe's bibliography see G.M. Newlands in Lampe, Explorations in Theology, pp. 1 3 8 - 4 2 , supplemented by C.F.D. Moule in Moule (ed.), G.W.H. Lampe: Christian, Scholar, Churchman. A Memoir by Friends (London & Oxford, 1982), pp. 3 - 4 .

206

Part II: Modern New Testament

Clarke's The Scripture-Doctrine

of the Trinity

Study

( L o n d o n , 1712), and the attempt

to gain through scripture a 'better dogmatics', as de Zwaan put it (n.230, above); but, like Barrett's w o r k , it also has to an impressive degree the quality o f personal religion. 2 7 3 In Britain the attraction o f N e w Testament t h e o l o g y was perhaps m o r e o b vious than reflection on its method, but methods were discussed, with regard especially to Heilsgeschichte

and the contrast between historical and theological

interpretation, and this discussion merged with the broader debate on biblical interpretation noticed above. 2 7 4 Particularly important in the end was a change in atmosphere, felt in all study of ancient literature, which meant that empathy with the biblical writers n o w seemed harder to attain. T h e mythical character of their thinking was indeed widely accepted in the w o r k just surveyed, and B u l t mann's response to it, although not widely accepted in toto, was by n o means w i t h o u t influence; but there was also a strong sense of the immediacy and perspicuity o f scripture, such that - not by facile historicism, but through critical exegesis - the N e w Testament writers could address us directly. B a r r w r o t e that f o r Caird 'the apostles were not remote beings f r o m another p l a n e t ; . . . provided that one could listen sympathetically, one could be very close to them', and this also seems true of M o u l e , L a m p e , and others (but a stress on distance appears in B a r r e t t ) . 2 7 5 Yet anthropological awareness of the limits o f our understanding of other cultures was just one factor in a growing sense o f dissociation f r o m ancient writers, voiced in Britain especially b y D . E . N i n e h a m . 2 7 6 N e w Testament t h e o l o g y such as that just discussed may itself implicitly question notions of radical dissociation, but opinion in the Seventies was m o v ing in the other direction. T h e almost seamless robe o f an exegesis at o n c e both philological and theological, and interpretation through themes like 'spirit' or Heilsgeschichte

which could be held to arise f r o m the texts, gave w a y to intense

consideration o f interpretative theory, and to exegesis which was m o r e decidedly in a philological or a theological mode.

273 Clarke's work too had depth and piety as well as learning; see M.F. Wiles, Archetypal Heresy: Arianism through the Centuries (Oxford, 1996), pp. 110, 125. 274 Dodd, History and the Gospel; A. Richardson, History Sacred and Profane (London, 1964), discussed by A. M. Farrer, Faith and Speculation (London, 1967), pp. 86-103; R. Morgan, The Nature of New Testament Theology (London, 1973); D.E. Nineham, The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change (London, 1976); C.F. Evans, Explorations in Theology (London, 1977). 275 Barr, 'George Bradford Caird', p. 507; contrast Barrett, 'What is New Testament Theology?', p. 252: 'Yet, when all is done, we are not contemporaries of the apostles'. 276 See discussion of Nineham, The Use and Abuse of the Bible by R.P.C. Hanson, 'Are we cut off from the past?' (1981), reprinted in id., Studies in Christian Antiquity (Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 3-21; the anthropological observation is applied to New Testament theology, with reference to E. Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion (Oxford, 1965), by Heen, Anton Fridrichsen, pp. 26-8.

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

4.

207

1977-2002

Paul and Judaism T h e eventful publishing year 1977 also saw the appearance of Paul and ian Judaism:

A Comparison

of Patterns

of Religion,

Palestin-

b y E.P. Sanders, a Texan

scholar, in his o w n words 'a liberal, modern, secularized Protestant', w h o became professor in O x f o r d and then in D u k e University, N o r t h Carolina. 2 7 7 T h i s b o o k signalled further changes o f atmosphere in placing Judaism and Paulinism side b y side, and in rejecting some respected earlier interpretation of the N e w Testament through rabbinic literature. It also represents the importance of N o r t h American as well as European scholarship f o r British study in this last period. Sanders shares W . D . Davies's deep love and knowledge of rabbinic literature. Davies, however, was concerned with the question o f the Judaism or Hellenism o f Pauline thought. Paul, he judged, was a Pharisee w h o had c o m e to hold that Jesus was messiah, and the Pauline gospel was a Christian Pharisaism with a messianic law. Sanders, by contrast, was comparing Paul and Judaism. H e agreed that the sources of Paul's thought were J e w i s h , but he urged that Paul was n o w possessed b y his new conviction o f salvation b y participation in Christ. Paul attacked his native faith - which was a 'covenantal n o m i s m ' presupposing divine grace - not because of any shortcomings c o m m o n l y yet debatably found in Judaism b y Christian scholars, but simply f o r one important characteristic: Judaism presented law rather than C h r i s t as necessary to salvation. 2 7 8 T h u s f o r Davies there were strong bonds of unity between Judaism and Paul, and m o r e o v e r Paul, when interpreted with attention to his historical setting in the J e w i s h community, emerged with fresh force as a c o n t e m p o r a r y teacher o f Christianity. T h e s e aspects o f Davies's w o r k seem typical of the period just described. In Sanders, however, despite his admiration f o r Paul as well as Judaism, Paul is most prominently related to Judaism as a sweeping critic w h o n o w attacks it because it is not Christianity, and Pauline Christianity as a w a y of salvation differs essentially f r o m Judaism. H e n c e in Sanders Paulinism and Judaism seem largely independent, and continuity between them moves into the background. This discernment of two independent patterns of religion placed side b y side posed a question to biblical-theological claims f o r continuity between the O l d E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London, 1985), 334. E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, 1977), amplified in his Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, 1983) and in Sanders's warmly appreciative 'Foreword to the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition', in Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (1998), pp. vii-xvii (xii-xvii). 277

278

208

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

Testament and the New, and also suited the late twentieth-century educational context of the study of various world religions concomitantly. 279 Sanders, echoing G.F. Moore, sharply rejects exegesis by those Christian students of rabbinic literature whom he judges to misrepresent Judaism by presenting it as a religion of works. This critique is bound up with much detailed argument, especially against Billerbeck and Jeremías (whose writings none the less remain rewarding when used with discrimination). 280 Sanders roots his own work, however, in a broader discussion of the scholarly tradition, attaching himself especially to Schweitzer's assertion of the centrality of participation in Christ (rather than justification by faith) in Pauline thought (n.129, above). Sanders complemented his Pauline works with equally notable studies of Jesus and ancient Judaism. 281 These books together constituted a fresh historical approach to the New Testament and Judaism, with a challenge particularly to some strands of scholarship within the Lutheran tradition and biblical theology. Especially fascinating was Sanders's rehabilitation of Josephus, read together with rabbinic texts, as a great source for Judaism at the time of Christian origins, a method in which one of his predecessors was Adolf Schlatter (n.75, above). Discussion of Sanders's monumental oeuvre was central in the debate on all aspects of the relation between the New Testament and Judaism which marked the closing years of the century. 282 This included topics which are less prominent in Sanders, for instance the mysticism and eschatological hope attested in the apocalypses, picked out as the mother of all Christian theology by Kásemann. 283 Whereas Kásemann reopened German discussion, the reconsideration of apocalypses by scholars such as C. Rowland, Margaret Barker, J . J . Collins 279 J.K. Riches suggests that the book 'can be seen as a reaction to the cultural over-confidence of American Protestantism and an attempt to give a reading of the New Testament which reflects more nearly the multicultural environment in which religions are studied in American Liberal Arts colleges and schools' (Riches, A Century of New Testament Study, P-116). 280 Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 4-12, 234-5, with reference to the strictures of G.F. Moore; E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE (London, 1992) can almost be called an extended dialogue with Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (n. 91, above). 281 E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London, 1985); id., Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London, 1990) and Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 BCE-66 CE (London, 1992), reviewed jointly by M. Hengel, 'E.P. Sanders' "Common Judaism", Jesus, and the Pharisees', JTS N.S. xlvi (1995), 1-70; E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London, 1993). 282 For example C. Rowland, Christian Origins: An Account of the Setting and Character of the most Important Messianic Sect of Judaism (London, 1985; 2nd edn, 2002); M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (Cambridge, 1991); J . D . G . Dunn (ed.), Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135 (WUNT 66, Tübingen, 1992); J.P.M. Sweet & J.M.G. Barclay (edd.), Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Setting (Cambridge, 1996); J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE117 CE) (Edinburgh, 1996). 283

Kasemann, 'The Beginnings of Christian Theology', translated from a text first pub-

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

209

and R . B a u c k h a m continued an English-language tradition o f apocalyptic study which had been u n b r o k e n since the time o f Charles and B u r k i t t . 2 8 4 T h e specifically Pauline discussion renewed b y Sanders centred on the place o f the law in Paul, traditionally understood more negatively by Lutherans but affirmed in R e f o r m e d interpretation. British contributions on this topic were made, f o r example b y C . E . B . Cranfield, N . T . Wright and J . D . G . D u n n - w h o wrote of a ' n e w perspective' being opened on Paul and the doctrine of justification. 2 8 5 Pauline ethics m o r e generally were reconsidered, with debate on their G r e e k or J e w i s h character which showed that the controversies o f the early twentieth century were still alive. 2 8 6 Sanders' w o r k also helped to reactivate broader debate, to which J e w s as well as n o n - J e w s contributed, on Paul's understanding of his w o r k , its social and e c o n o m i c setting, and seemingly gentile aspects of his o u t l o o k ; in Britain subjects which had interested R a m s a y and Deissmann were n o w taken up b y scholars such as A . J . M . Wedderburn, H y a m M a c coby, and J . J . Meggitt. 2 8 7 Lastly, this broader dimension of Pauline study converged with fresh perceptions o f the N e w Testament in the context o f what was n o w m o r e widely seen as a continuing interrelationship, within the Hellenic and R o m a n environment, between the a n t e - N i c e n e church and the J e w i s h community. In Britain a series lished in ZTK lvii (1960), pp. 162-85 in id., New Testament Questions of Today, pp. 82-107 (102). 284 For example C. Rowland, The Open Heaven (London, 1982); M. Barker, The Older Testament (London, 1987); J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination (London, 1989); R.J. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh, 1998); earlier British links in the chain of apocalyptic study include T.W. Manson, H.H. Rowley, S.B. Frost, T.F. Glasson, and D.S. Russell. 285 C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans (International Critical Commentary, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1975, 1979), discussed together with Sanders by Wright in Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament, pp. 421-30; Wright, The Climax of the Covenant'. Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh, 1991); J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids and Edinburgh, 1998), with earlier publications considered in P. Stuhlmacher, with an essay by D. A. Hagner, Revisiting Paul's Doctrine of Justification: a Challenge to the New Perspective (Downers Grove, Illinois, 2001). 286 On biblical and Jewish elements see for example B.S. Rosner, Paul Scripture and Ethics: A Study of I Corinthians 5-7 (Leiden, 1994); M. Bockmuehl,/raJis/> Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh, 2000); on continuity with earlier debate see T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in his Hellenistic Context (Edinburgh, 1994), xvii-xviii. 287 G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (E.T. Edinburgh, 1982) and W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven, 1983), both critically discussed by J.J. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival (Edinburgh, 1998); A.J.M. Wedderburn, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against Its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT 44, Tübingen, 1987); H. Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism (London, 1991), dedicated to E.P. Sanders; M.D. Goodman, Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1994), discussed by J. Carleton Paget, 'Jewish Proselytism at the Time of Christian Origins: Chimera or RealityP'./SNT lxii (1996), 65-103.

210

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

of studies by Henry Chadwick (n. 241, above) have helped to evoke much further work in this area. 288 Jesus and, the New

Testament

A second great question of this period was that of continuity and discontinuity between Jesus and the New Testament, once again given fresh impetus by Sanders but already being reconsidered in the Sixties and Seventies. It was then sharply posed in Britain by S.G.F. Brandon (n.247, above), for whom Jesus was at the heart of anti-Roman resistance, and Geza Vermes, for whom Jesus was a spiritual teacher and healer after the likeness of those called 'the ancient pious men' in the Mishnah (Berakhoth v 1, and elsewhere), but in contrast with the Christ of the New Testament and the later church. 289 Meanwhile in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem the same question was implied, with a feeling also for continuities, in David Flusser, Jesus (Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1968, E.T. New York, 1969; rewritten and augmented English text, with R.S. Notley, Jerusalem, 1997, 3rd edn 2001). Brandon's theme was important for the stronger lines of biblical interpretation linked with Marxian history and liberation theology, influentially presented in France by F. Belo on Mark - who in his debt to the structuralism of R. Barthes also exemplifies the literary approaches noted further below. 290 These books heralded what has become a celebrated outburst of writing on the historical Jesus in the last quarter of the century. The succession of North American and British contributors has included Morton Smith in New York (1978) on Jesus as magician, recalling Stauffer in the use of hostile accounts of Jesus, but in outlook at the opposite pole; B.F. Meyer in Ontario (1979), on the aims of Jesus as at least partly fulfilled by the church; and in Britain John Riches (1980), uniting theology with anthropology to present Jesus as, through his teaching and way of life, an effective symbol of transformation in Judaism. Then 288 p o r e x a m p l e H. Chadwick, The Circle and the Ellipse : Rival Concepts of Authority in the Early Church(Oxford, 1961) - on Jerusalem and Rome - reprinted with other studies in id., History and Thought of the Early Church (Aldershot, 1982); id., The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2001); among other authors R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: a Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 1974); Goodman (n.287, above); J . Lieu, Image and Reality: the Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century (Edinburgh, 1996); J . Carleton Paget, 'Josephus and Christianity', JTS N.S. Iii (2001), 539-624. 2 8 9 G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London, 1973); cf. A. Büchler, Types of Jewish-Palestinan Piety from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.: the Ancient Pious Men (London, 1922), presenting the piety with which Vermes links Jesus. 2 9 0 F. Belo, Lecture matérialiste de l'évangile de Marc. Récit, pratique, idéologie (Paris, 1974), discussed by Trocmé, 'Exégèse scientifique et idéologie: de l'Ecole de Tubingue aux historiens français des origines chrétiennes', pp. 461-2, and Riches, A Century of New Testament Study, pp. 171-4.

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

211

A.E. Harvey (1982) sketched a prophetic teacher and healer, and E.P. Sanders (1985) set Jesus more firmly than Riches within Jewish opinion, as (not messiah, but) viceroy of the heavenly king in national restoration, a view sometimes recalling B.W. Bacon (n.37, above). B. L. Mack (1988) found, by contrast, a sapiential Jesus, a Cynic-like Galilaean, and J.D. Crossan (1991, 1998) 'a peasant Jewish Cynic'; here Jesus is a sage, detached from apocalyptic prophecy, but Judaism and especially its wisdom literature remains important as his setting. With renewed concentration on the synoptics and Jewish eschatology J. P. Meier (1991 onwards) displayed a teacher and miracle-worker, and G. Vermes (1993, 2000) - complementing/es^s the Jew and at times recalling Otto (n. 181, above) - a numinous Jewish teacher of individual imitatio Patris. J. C. O'Neill (1995) presented a Jesus who thought of himself as messiah designate and so as eternal son of God, N.T. Wright (1996) - in a large-scale integration of this inquiry with New Testament theology - one inwardly moved to be messianic king, and P. Fredriksen (1999) a prophet of the coming kingdom. 291 Among all these, Mack and Crossan, with R.W. Funk and others, were linked with the Jesus Seminar, in which Q and the Gospel of Thomas was taken to offer two early presentations of Jesus as sage. 292 Crossan and Funk were well-known representatives of the literary approaches to exegesis noted below. Despite emphasis in this group on a new start, their approach is in broad continuity with Harnack and with important elements in Dodd's reconstruction, notably his Hellenic awareness and realized eschatology. As J. Carleton Paget puts it, 'Harnack and his ilk stalk the land in the garb of late twentieth-century American liberals.' 293 These scholars have been described by N.T. Wright as renewing the Bultmann-influenced 'new quest' inaugurated by Kasemann (n. 207, above), whereas Vermes, Sanders, Wright and others for whom Judaism and Jewish 291 M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York, 1978); B.F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London, 1979); J. Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London, 1980); A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (London, 1982), reviewed by C.F.D. Moule, JTS N.S. Mark and xxxiv (1983), pp. 241-7; Sanders (n.281, above); B.L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Christian Origins (Philadelphia, 1988); id., 'The Christ and Jewish Wisdom', in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis, 1992), pp. 192-221; J.D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus (1991, repr. Edinburgh, 1993) and The Birth of Christianity (1998, repr. Edinburgh, 1999); J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York, 1991—); G. Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew (London, 1993), reviewed by J.K. Riches, JTS N.S. xlvii (1996), pp. 201-8; G. Vermes, The Changing Faces ofJesus (London, 2000); J.C. O'Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden, 1995); N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London, 1996); Fredriksen (n.20, above). 292 Thomas was translated with the four canonical gospels in The Five Gospels. The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New Translation and Commentary by R.W. Funk, R.W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar (New York, 1993); on Q and Thomas see for example Crossan, Birth, pp. 239-56. 293 J. Carleton Paget, 'Quests for the Historical Jesus', in M. Bockmuehl (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 138-55 (148, with n. 30).

212

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

hope are primary form a 'third quest' in the line of Albert Schweitzer; the same groups are contrasted by Sanders simply as those who oppose and accept, respectively, an understanding of Jesus in the light of Jewish eschatology, and this formulation implicitly recalls the importance of - non-eschatological - Judaism for interpreters such as Mack. 2 9 4 From this side of the Atlantic F.G. Downing on Cynicism comes near to Mack and Crossan, but others question their use of sources and their view of conditions in Galilee. 295 Again, when Mack interprets Mark as Christian myth, in a manner recalling D.F. Strauss and Bruno Bauer, his English counterparts include Brandon on the synoptics and J. Enoch Powell on Matthew, although they (especially Powell) give fuller and more precise historical and philological discussion; and there is also some convergence with views of the gospels as free compositions put forward by Goulder and Drury. 296 On the other hand Riches, Harvey and Vermes all view Jesus within Judaism and the synoptic tradition, but like Crossan they stress his work as teacher and his realized eschatology. For O'Neill and Wright, still from a 'third quest' perspective, the crucifixion is central, and Jesus voluntarily dies as messianic king. O'Neill judges that he held himself to be messiah designate and therefore the eternal son of God; the implied Trinitarian reconstruction of ancient Judaism, even if over-pressed, draws on some widely recognized aspects of Jewish theology and angelology, studied in Britain by Rowland, Hurtado and others. 297 For Wright Jesus represents Israel as prophet and messiah (compare T.W. Manson), and stress is laid again, with Caird and Dodd and against Schweitzer, on his realized eschatology and the symbolic character of apocalyptic prophecy. A third contrast thus begins to emerge, this time among those who can be linked with Wright's 'third quest'. Sanders and Fredriksen see Jesus's expectation of suffering and death as a church creation, but for B.F. Meyer, O'Neill and Wright it is genuine and historically central, and it is also significant for Brandon, Vermes and Riches, widely as they differ from one another. The relatively matter-of-fact figure presented by Sanders thus differs not only from reconstructions closer to the theme of Christus victor, but also from the numinous spiritual teacher envisaged by Vermes. 2 9 4 Wright, Victory, pp. 83-4; W.D. Davies & E.P. Sanders, 'Jesus: from the Jewish Point of View', in William Horbury, W.D. Davies and John Sturdy (edd.), The Cambridge History of Judaism, iii (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 618-77 (624, n. 13). 2 9 5 F.G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh, 1992); C.M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (Edinburgh, 1996); S. Freyne, Galilee and the Gospel: Collected Essays (WUNT 125, Tübingen, 2000). 296 Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, pp. 221-321; Mack, Myth; J. Enoch Powell, The Evolution of the Gospel (New Haven and London, 1994). 2 9 7 Rowland, The Open Heaven-, L.W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord (2nd edn, Edinburgh, 1998); William Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London, 1998); R.J. Bauckham, God Crucified (London, 1998).

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

213

British contribution to this w o r k on the historical Jesus has therefore been far f r o m uniform, but has included emphasis on the primacy of J e w i s h tradition and the synoptics, on Jesus as teacher against this background, and on the significance f o r Jesus and Judaism o f the mentality o f martyrdom, on the importance of the many as well as the one in O l d Testament and J e w i s h conceptions o f deity, and on theological dimensions of the historical enterprise. 2 9 8 T o put it broadly, in British scholarship the quest of the historical Jesus has been clearly linked not o n l y with R o m a n Galilee and Judaea, but also with the study of the O l d and N e w Testaments as a whole.

Exegesis

and its

Principles

T h e late twentieth century abounded both in exegesis and in exegetical theory. Associated study o f the text and versions, notably once more the Latin and the Syriac, continued to flourish, encouraged especially b y M . Black (n.222, above), H . F . D . Sparks (n.46, above), and S.P. B r o c k . 2 9 9 T h e stream of early N e w Testament papyri permitted important attempts to reconstruct Christian b o o k - c u l ture. 3 0 0 A b o v e all, however, these were years of exposition, including in Britain contributions to the International Critical C o m m e n t a r y and large-scale exegetical studies. 3 0 1 C o m m e n t a t o r s not picked out as such so far include W . D . Davies and D . Allison on M a t t h e w ( 1 9 8 8 - 9 7 ) , J . Marcus on M a r k ( 1 9 9 9 - ) , C.F. Evans on L u k e (1990), T . L . B r o d i e on J o h n (1993), Justin Taylor on Acts ( 1 9 9 4 2000), A . C . Thiselton on I Corinthians (2001), Margaret Thrall on II C o r i n thians ( 1 9 9 4 - 2 0 0 0 ) , A. L i n c o l n ( 1 9 9 0 ) and E . Best ( 1 9 9 8 ) on Ephesians, M . B o c k m u e h l on Philippians (1998), I . H . Marshall, with P.H. Towner, on the Pastoral Epistles (1999), P. Ellingworth on H e b r e w s (1993), and J . P . M . Sweet on

298 This last point is brought out by R. Morgan, 'From Reimarus to Sanders: the Kingdom of God, Jesus, and the Judaisms of His Day', in R.S. Barbour (ed.), The Kingdom of God and Human Society (Edinburgh, 1993), pp. 80-139 (134-5). 299 See among others J. Neville Birdsall, 'The New Testament Text', in Lampe (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, i (1970), 308-77; J.K. Elliott (ed.), Studies in New Testament Language and Text (Leiden, 1976) [in honour of G.D. Kilpatrick]; S.P. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity (London, 1984); D.C. Parker, Codex Bezae (Cambridge, 1992); D.G.K. Taylor (ed.), Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts (Birmingham, 1999); P. Burton, The Old Latin Gospels (Oxford, 2001). 300 For example, E.G. Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Pennsylvania, 1977); C.H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (Schweich Lectures; London, 1979); C.H. Roberts and T.C. Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (London, 1983). 301 Studies include G.N. Stanton, A Gospel for a New People (Edinburgh, 1992); D.R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh, 1993); J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford, 1991); M.G.W. Stibbe, John as Storyteller (Cambridge, 1992); B.W. Winter and others (edd.), The Book of Acts in its Historical Setting (6 vols., Grand Rapids, 1992-7); J.M.G. Barclay, Obeying the Truth (Edinburgh, 1988); J. Lieu, The Second and Third Epistles of John (Edinburgh, 1986).

214

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

the Revelation (1979). Much of this w o r k was summed up in the one-volume Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (2001). Its mainstream was formed by critical interpretation of the kind familiar throughout the twentieth century; but divergence in aim is also obvious, for example in the literary approach of Brodie on John, in Taylor's historical treatment of Acts, and in the appreciation of both canonical and literary emphases offered by Davies and Allison in a commendation of their own historical criticism of Matthew. 3 0 2 Yet these remarks give but a pale reflection of the fierce hermeneutical debate. It had a continuity with the recent past which was sometimes neglected, perhaps because of a strong sense of reorientation. Recent debate, however, had likewise involved a questioning of the sufficiency of historical exegesis. This was an element, as noted above, in discussion of Bultmann's biblical interpretation and of typology and allegory; and it had been matched by fresh emphasis not only on the N e w Testament roots of the latter, but also on the continuity of present-day historical exegesis too with strands of interpretation in mediaeval and patristic exegesis and in the N e w Testament itself. In the Seventies continued questioning in Britain was exemplified in the w o r k of C.F. Evans and D.E. Nineham, and Bruce (1979), having discussed N e w Testament interpretation of the Old, judged that 'the adoption of the historical method does not exclude the validity of a sensus plenior - although this must be rooted 'in the primary meaning of the text, established by the historical method'. 3 0 3 In 1977 R.C. Morgan seeks freedom for theological exegesis, but still takes historical exegesis to be prevalent; Hughes in 1979 takes note of long-standing and now renewed protest against its primacy; and at the same time in the systematic field in Germany a theological exegesis in the form of 'Trinitarian hermeneutics', in some tension with Bruce's criterion, is freely applied to the New Testament by J. Moltmann. 3 0 4 In non-biblical literary study a movement away from historical interpretation had underlined the importance of the text as received, and was now converging with postmodern perceptions of the fluidity of signification in texts. Within biblical study doubt concerning the ideal of objectivity and the prime importance of authorial intention had been similarly matched for some time by

302 W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Matthew (I.C.C., 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1988,1991,1997), i, pp. 1-5. 303 Bruce, 'The Theology and Interpretation of the Old Testament', p. 414; cf. R.E. Brown, The 'Sensus Plenior' of Sacred Scripture (Baltimore, 1955), reviewed by J.M.T. Barton, JTS N.S. vii (1956), pp. 294-5. 304 R.C. Morgan, 'A Straussian Question to "New Testament Theology"', NTS xxiii (1977), pp. 243-65; G. Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 114,1845 (nn. 29-30); J. Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (1980, E.T. London, 1981), pp. 61-96.

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting, 1902-2002

215

appreciation of the part played b y the subjectivity of those w h o receive, transmit and interpret texts, and of the importance o f the text itself. Attempts to integrate such appreciation into N e w Testament study are illustrated in Canadian w o r k in the Seventies when the interpreter's subjectivity is treated very positively, but in the course o f a quest f o r objectivity which is still not thought to be futile, in the theological method o f Bernard Lonergan followed b y B.F. M e y e r (n.276, above). Correspondingly, in liberation theology and feminist theology, biblical interpretation b y various methods could n o w be practised advisedly f r o m the point of view of the interpreter and of the disadvantaged, and with keen awareness, as in Belo's structuralism, of the political dimensions of exegesis. T h e value o f historical exegesis was particularly questioned, however, in argument f o r literary and canonical approaches to the O l d and N e w Testaments. In c o m b i n a t i o n they could help, as F. Watson put it with some relish, 'to wrest the text from the grip o f historical-critical

hypo-

thesizing'. 3 0 5 Literary approaches gained N e w Testament p r o m i n e n c e especially in c o n nection with the parables, already at the centre o f the hermeneutic o f E . Fuchs, and they continued the literary element in form and redaction criticism which has already been noted; F. K e r m o d e on M a r k saluted Austin Farrer. 3 0 6 Typically, however, these approaches were viewed b y their earlier sponsors in the U . S . A . (to quote J . D . Crossan, w h o allowed the legitimacy of historical criticism) as an American challenge to 'the m o n o l i t h i c ascendancy o f historical criticism in biblical studies'; he noted ironically that in the literary approach historical criticism could be Oedipally viewed either as the father to be slain, or the m o t h e r to be embraced in an abhorrent marriage. 3 0 7 Later forms of this 'theoretical challenge' were presented with particular zest b y S . D . M o o r e , linking D u b l i n , Sheffield and the U . S . A . 3 0 8 T h e i r ' s y n c h r o n i c ' reading of the text as transmitted was c o m m o n l y joined with eschewal of 'diachronic' attention to its history and historical setting. 3 0 9 T h e y have ranged

305 p Watson, Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh, 1994), p. 77. 306 F. Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1979), pp. 60-4, 70-2; the point was stressed by J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament (London, 1984), p. 219, n. 17. 307 J.D. Crossan, Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges (New York and London, 1976), pp.xiii-xiv; he associates the Oedipal alternatives with Germany and America, respectively. 308 S.D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels: The Theoretical Challenge (New Haven and London, 1989). 309 Landmarks in German and American literary approaches to the gospels were surveyed by R.C. Morgan, 'From Reimarus to Sanders: the Kingdom of God, Jesus, and the Judaisms of His Day', in R.S. Barbour (ed.), The Kingdom of God and Human Society (Edinburgh, 1993), pp. 80-139 (125-9).

216

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

from structuralist concern with encoded meaning and with exegesis as an exercise of power to postmodern perception of fluidity. In gospel study they bore especially on the interpretation of narrative, and contributed to reassignment of the gospels to the genre of Greek and Roman biography; in work on the epistles they rekindled interest in rhetorical and epistolary convention, and in the patristic exegesis written when such convention still prevailed. 310 The importance of the canon as a dimension of interpretation had been underlined in the context of New Testament theology by E. Käsemann and others, but in the closing years of the twentieth century canonical approaches received their major specifically New Testament impulse from Brevard Childs. 311 His The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (London, 1984) shows how an approach to the New Testament in general and to each separate book and its exegesis can be re-shaped by canonical considerations; emphasis now falls on the biblical text as received and on its continuous reception and understanding in the church. Childs presents this approach as a challenge to any claim that historical exegesis always has priority, but also as a complement to the indispensable insights of such exegesis; it is not intended as an alternative method. 312 An important aspect of canonical concern reflected in Britain was renewed historical study of the biblical canon. 313 In exegesis its influence, with that of other theologically-oriented methods, can be seen in F. Watson and M. Bockmuehl. 314 Watson exemplifies not simply a rejection of historical-critical in favour of literary and canonical approaches, but the involvement of both Old Testament and systematic theology in a Trinitarian New Testament exegesis which starts from the final form of the text. The development of theological exegesis into a major dimension of recent British interpretation was also to 310 R.A. Burridge, What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Cambridge, 1992), reviewed by F.G. Downing,JTS N.S. xliv (1993), pp.2 38-40; M. Bockmuehl, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (London, 1997), pp. 38-9. 311 Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, pp. 378-95; with Barr's vigorous critique of Childs compare the warm appreciation by R.W.L. Moberly, 'The Church's Use of the Bible: The Work of Brevard Childs', ETxcix (1988), pp. 104-9. 312 See especially Childs, The New Testament as Canon, pp. 34-47. 313 J. Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Oxford, 1983); R. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London, 1985); J. Barton, Oracles of God (London, 1986); id., The Spirit and the Letter: Studies in the Biblical Canon (London, 1997); G.M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Tragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford, 1992). Beckwith's view that the books now found in the Hebrew Bible were authoritative for New Testament writers contrasts with arguments for fluidity by Barton and Hahneman, but can appeal to the number of twenty-two or twenty-four books given in Josephus and II Esdras; a supernumerary group of approved books such as Ecclesiasticus should also probably be envisaged. 314 Bockmuehl, Philippians, 42-5; id., '"To Be Or Not To Be": the Possible Futures of New Testament Scholarship', SJT li (1998), 271-306 (289-91,295,299); Watson, Text, Church, and World, 16-17, 30-45; id., Text and Truth, 209-19; id., Agape, Eros, Gender. Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic (Cambridge, 2000).

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

217

some extent a counterpart of German movement from those New Testament theologies described above which could seem detached from the Old Testament, towards a 'biblical theology of the New Testament' (a title used by both H. Hübner and P. Stuhlmacher), in which the interconnection of Old and New has become integral, following G. von Rad and H. Gese; in English and from the Old Testament side Brevard Childs moved at the same time towards a Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments,315 The end of the twentieth century was marked by a need for lists of the proliferating current exegetical methods. 316 Some methods, for instance the socialscientific approaches exemplified in Theissen, Meeks, or Freyne (nn. 287, 295, above) and continuing earlier socio-economic New Testament work, can be called lines of inquiry as much as modes of exegesis. In any case, it has been argued that the main methods are not so varied as may appear. Thus John Barton has repeatedly recalled that the newer literary approaches and the older source criticism and Formgeschichte are, all alike, manifestations of the study of literature. 317 Various combinations of historical, literary and theological interpretation have been mooted and practised. 318 Historical exegesis has consistently received an important but subordinate role in proposals developed over many years by R.C. Morgan; it is needed to correct interpretative flights of fancy, but literary readings are singled out as those with which theology can primarily engage. 319 Somewhat comparably, but with a sense for historical interpretation as 315 H. Hübner, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (2 vols., Göttingen, 1990, 1993); P. Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments , i (Göttingen, 1992), discussed by Oeming, Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart, 119-34; B.S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (London, 1992); H. Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Century, pp. 145-78. 316 A list of six was needed by U. Schnelle et al., 'Bibelkritik II. Methoden der Bibelkritik im Neuen Testament', RGG4 i (1998), cols. 1480-86; more are often distinguished. 317 Barton, Reading the Old Testament, pp. 3, 141; id., 'Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There any Common Ground?', in S.E. Porter, P. Joyce and D.E. Orton (edd.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden, 1994), pp. 3-15; Barton, 'Historical-critical Approaches', in id. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 9-20; cf. Riches, A Century of New Testament Study, p. 226, on historical interpretation as illuminating the present literary context of exegesis. 318 Watson, Text and Truth, pp. 95-126, notes an indifferentism, manifest in loss of the primacy of the literal sense and authorial intention, which can accompany 'interpretative pluralism'; proposals noted below, like that of F.F. Bruce (n.303, above), seek to avoid this pitfall. 319 R.C. Morgan, '"Nothing more negative ..." A Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Historical Research on the Trial of Jesus', in Bammel, The Trial of Jesus (n.243, above), pp. 135-46 (141); id., 'A Straussian Question to "New Testament Theology'" (theological and historical interpretation should be separate, but the latter should retain a corrective function); id., with J. Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford, 1988), pp. 177-200, 286-8 (literary rather than historical work should form the frame), discussed by Riches, A Century of New Testament Study, pp. 222-6; R.C. Morgan, 'The Bible and Christian Theology', in Barton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, pp. 114-27 (126).

218

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

m o r e than simply corrective, M . B o c k m u e h l endorsed the need for history, and in practice regarded an historical exegesis as important; he suggested, however, that historical interpretation w i t h o u t hermeneutical reflection cannot f o r m a focus of N e w Testament study, and f o r this looked rather to theological interpretation linked with literary approaches and investigation of the history of the impact of the text ( W i r k u n g s g e s c h i c h t e ) . 3 2 0 A t the end of the century a broad significance for historical interpretation was widely recognized, as the exegetical w o r k noted above suggests. J a m e s B a r r urged that the adjective 'historical' was t o o limiting a description o f what was also and pre-eminently a literary and linguistic enterprise - a philological interpretation, in the vocabulary employed above. 3 2 1 Such criticism, as others emphasized, is sometimes narrowly envisaged and inappropriately

identified

simply with the Enlightenment, whereas it has continuities with older exegesis; 3 2 2 and in an earlier phase of debate, as noted above, these were found to extend to interpretation presented in the N e w Testament itself. B a r t o n urged with force that a broadly conceived critical exegesis is the way to an independent interpretation, which can meet pressures like those noted at the beginning of this chapter. 3 2 3

5. Prospect T h e struggle o f a classical sense of degeneration with a biblical sense o f hope which R a m s a y and D o d d saw in Paul, and the conflict between linear and circular views of time which was presented b y C u l l m a n n , can both readily occur to anyone w h o looks back over this century o f N e w Testament w o r k . T h u s it is tempting to say that the most recent period, in its lively diversity and in the p r o m i n e n c e of religion, society and nihilism as well as theology, closes the circle with the similarly diverse beginning of the twentieth century. O n the other hand, the designation of the early twentieth century as a golden age, f o r its varied achievement fostered b y the classical culture o f scholarship, inevitably suggests the thought o f later degeneration - which the m o r e unified theological achievement of the following period then at once calls into question. Again, in recent years the ecumenical theological interest which was a force f o r unity in

Bockmuehl, Philippians, pp. 42-5; id., "'To Be Or Not To Be'", pp. 295-302. Barr, Holy Scripture, pp. 105-7. 322 Barton, 'Historical-critical Approaches', pp. 12-15; from within Jewish scholarship, F.E. Greenspahn, 'How Modern are Modern Biblical Studies?', in M. Brettler and M. Fishbane (edd.), Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nabum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday (JSOT Supplement Series 154, Sheffield, 1993), pp. 164-82. 323 Barton, 'Historical-critical Approaches', pp. 18-19; cf. Barr, Holy Scripture, pp. 107114. 320 321

7. British New Testament

Study in its International

Setting,

1902-2002

219

study remained effective in continental Europe, but in North America and Britain came rather to suggest a contrast with secularized exegesis; yet in all these regions New Testament work has continued in its full breadth, theological as well as philogical. Some room is then left for hope, but can it be associated with particular characteristics of British work? Contrasts between Britain and elsewhere are often debatable, even in respect of Formgeschicbte, and overseas developments have regularly been formative for Britain. One or two clearer differences in the short term have emerged. Thus in Britain in the first half of the century a particular strength in study of the text and versions was perceptible (n. 45, above), and in the second half the influence of Bultmann and his school was less marked than in Germany and the U.S.A., although it was by no means absent. Again, from about 1920 to 1960 the apocalypses were more central in British than in German study. This example points to a characteristic of greater long-term significance. In Britain the New Testament has usually been studied not just in a Jewish and Greek setting, but in relation with the Old Testament before it and the church fathers and early Christian writers after it. Throughout there have been scholars who combined New Testament with patristic and early Christian study, exemplified by Salmon, C.H. Turner, Burkitt, Lampe, and Wilson. Others have worked in both the Old and the New Testaments or have brought to the New Testament an Old Testament and Semitic training, including Burkitt once more, T.W. Manson, Black, Bruce, and Caird. These interconnections of study in areas that are indeed integrally related have countered the inward-looking tendency sometimes associated with demarcation of the subject, as noted above, and they can perhaps be claimed as a characteristic strength of British work. This feature can in turn play a part in hope, but hope for fruitful development is based essentially on the subject-matter of New Testament study, a body of texts and associated archaeological and epigraphic remains. To express such hope primarily in philological terms, these texts, like any other influential body of texts from antiquity, require and evoke continuous re-appropriation. The intrinsic fascination of this task in the case of the New Testament books lies especially in their interconnection with the whole context to which British scholarship has characteristically been sensitive - with the Old Testament in its full Septuagintal extent, with Philo, Josephus and the rabbinic tradition, with the Greek and Latin culture of the Hellenistic age and the Roman empire, and with early Christian authors from the Apostolic Fathers, Valentinus and Basilides down to Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius and Ephrem Syrus. The sourcematerial for study is itself constantly shifting and expanding, not merely through great discoveries like those on the western shore of the Dead Sea but also through the continual accretion of new excavations, papyri and inscriptions. Continuous reassessment is needed, within the whole context just out-

220

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

lined, from the O l d Testament to rabbinic Judaism and early Christian literature and doctrine. This in turn will continue to demand the feeling f o r the sources exemplified by W . D . Davies and Wilfred K n o x in rabbinic and Philonic interpretation, respectively. T o identify some N e w Testament w o r k o f this kind as ' o n l y ' philological is unduly to reduce the dimensions o f philology, as these have appeared f r o m Eduard N o r d e n and F . C . B u r k i t t to Martin Hengel or H e n r y C h a d w i c k . T h e significance of theology f o r these studies, bound up as it is with the content o f the texts, has continued to find recognition. H o p e can perhaps l o o k also f o r renewed engagement in the philological enterprise, envisaged in its fulness. 3 2 4

324 I am most grateful for help received in discussion with M.N.A. Bockmuehl, J.N.B. Carleton Paget, J.A. Emerton, N. Förster, M.D. Hooker and G.M. Styler.

8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament Interpretation N e w Testament study customarily seeks the aid of rabbinic study. There are 'things in the N e w Testament which we must be beholden to the Rabbis for the explanation of them', as John Lightfoot said in the seventeenth century. 1 As in his time, however, the value of rabbinic literature is questioned by some N e w Testament exegetes. A factor in present-day doubt is probably a one-sided esteem for earlier Jewish sources, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls, but caution is needed in fixing on one single rival enthusiasm. An advocate of Septuagintal study can indeed discern over-preoccupation with Qumran texts, but a Qumranologue can judge that concern for the Scrolls in N e w Testament w o r k itself fluctuates over the years. 2 In any case, a general emphasis on the Second Temple period in N e w Testament study stands out. It seems then worth recalling some reasons w h y the custom of consulting rabbinic literature has persisted among N e w Testament interpreters, despite the relatively late date of the main rabbinic texts. At the same time some arguments which can call this custom into question require notice. To begin with a chronological sketch, the composition of the N e w Testament books lies roughly in the seventy years from 30 to 100. The historical period of special concern for their interpretation is therefore the Herodian age. This can be held to begin with the nomination of Herod the Great as king of the Jews by the Roman senate in 40 B.C., and to end, after the death of his great-grandson Agrippa II about A.D. 100, with the Bar Kokhba uprising of 132-5. This period of political history includes the destruction of the temple in 70, and the same is true of the shorter period within it, during which the N e w Testament books were composed. The century from the teaching of Jesus to Bar Kokhba's rule embraces early stages in the development of tradition now found in the Mishnah, the earliest great rabbinic text, and in the Talmud, the midrash, and the Targums; but the major impulses in the redaction and completion of the Mishnah came after Bar J. Strype, in John Lightfoot, Works (2 vols., London, 1684), i, p.xxvii. R. T. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids & Cambridge, 2003), p. 173; G. J. Brooke, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament: Essays in Mutual Illumination (London, 2005), pp. 3-18, a chapter on 'The Qumran Scrolls and the Study of the New Testament', reprinted from R. A. Kugler & E. M. Schuller (edd.), The Dead Sea Scrolls at F i f t y (Atlanta, 1999), pp. 61-76. 1

2

222

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

Kokhba, at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third. The question of the value of the Targums and rabbinic literature for N e w Testament exegesis overlaps with the broader question of their value for interpretation of the life and literature of the Herodian age.

1. Utilization and Debate An obvious argument for valuing rabbinic literature and the Targums in N e w Testament w o r k is one that sounds obscurantist: simply to note, following Lightfoot, that this material has always been found necessary by exegetes. Thus a continuity in its use can be perceived throughout the last hundred years of N e w Testament study. There have been high points in the 1920's (Dalman, Abrahams, Moore, Billerbeck, Danby), the 1940's (H. Loewe, Daube, Davies), and the 1960s and 1970's - when a strong existing concern with rabbinic interpretation was further encouraged by publication of the Pentateuchal Targum of Codex Neofiti 1 (Jeremias, Diez Macho, Vermes, Gerhardsson, Le Deaut, Sanders, Flusser). 3 At the beginning of the new century rabbinically-oriented N e w Testament work was being published in considerable variety. This continuity can be perceived from a distance, but at the time it may well have seemed tenuous or broken, as can appear to be the case at present. So, near the beginning of the century just surveyed, Israel Abrahams held that the value of rabbinic study 'for the exegesis of the N e w Testament ideas' had been fully accepted a hundred years before his time, but now required argument in its favour. 4 Correspondingly, in the great waves of twentieth-century scholarship associated with Wilhelm Bousset and then, in the mid-century, with Rudolf Bultmann, rabbinic N e w Testament interpretation could retreat in the face of keen interest in Hellenism or Gnosticism - and, within a concern for Jewish sources, before the contention put forward by Bousset that apocryphal writings, including the Damascus Document, with Philo and Josephus, formed an earlier and surer clue to Herodian Judaism than the later rabbinic texts. 5 Bousset held that the destruction of the old political order and the rise of Christianity would have provoked profound changes in the post-Herodian Judaism within which rabbinic literature was shaped. 3 On these scholars in relation to trends in study see M. McNamara, M.S.C., The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome, 1966), pp. 22-33; W. Horbury, 'The New Testament', in E. W. Nicholson (ed.), A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain (Oxford, 2003), pp. 51-134 (70-76, 100-101, 104-9, 111-13, 120-23), reprinted above, pp. 161-6, 189-90, 193-7, 199-201,208-211. 4 I. Abrahams, 'Rabbinic Aids to Exegesis', in H. B. Swete (ed.), Essays on some Biblical Questions of the Day, by Members of the University of Cambridge (London, 1909), pp. 16192 (179). 5 So W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd edn, ed.

8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament

Interpretation

223

Similarly, even when a widespread interest in the N e w Testament b o o k s as Jewish literature prevailed towards the end of the twentieth century, the Talmud and midrash and the Targums could be eclipsed by concentration on older Jewish sources. N e w Testament interpretation could sometimes focus accordingly on the literature o f the Second Temple period, and on ' S e c o n d Temple J u daism'. 6 T h e implications of this designation deserve further thought, but in any case, pre-eminent among the earlier J e w i s h writings to which appeal is made in N e w Testament study have been the Q u m r a n texts, published b y stages f r o m 1950 onwards and n o w providing a fuller context f o r the Damascus D o c u m e n t ; and, once more, the O l d Testament A p o c r y p h a and pseudepigrapha, collected again in English translation in the m i d - 1 9 8 0 s by J . H . Charlesworth and H . F. D . Sparks. 7 Correspondingly, to move nearer to the present time of writing, both m o r e and less cheerful conclusions about the fortune of rabbinic sources in N e w Testament study could be drawn f r o m response to what has been called the 'new perspective' on Paul, with its questions to the Pauline representation of ancient J e w i s h piety. T h e s e questions have arisen especially f r o m E . P. Sanders's Paul and Palestinian

Judaism

(1977), a comparison o f Pauline religion with ' P a -

lestinian J u d a i s m ' as attested not only b y apocryphal writings and the Scrolls, but also and especially b y rabbinic texts. Sanders's rabbinically-oriented c o m parison itself presupposed W. D . Davies's Paul and Rabbinic Judaism

(1948,4th

edn reprinted 1998); but it has led to decisively n o n - r a b b i n i c as well as rabbinic response. In the lively ongoing critique of the ' n e w perspective' the importance of the apocryphal literature and the Scrolls, on the one hand, as well as rabbinic material, on the other, has been obvious. 8 N o doubt many w o u l d wish, like Sanders himself, to use all these sources in the endeavour to place Paul within the Judaism o f his age; but some would rule rabbinic material out, as mainly post-Pauline in date. 9

H. Gressmann, Tiibingen, 1926), pp. 40-41 (rabbinic texts can at most serve to supplement the picture formed on the basis of earlier sources). 6 In a judicious review of recent attempts to describe the Judaism of the time of Jesus the term 'Second Temple Judaism' is ultimately preferred (without any rejection of rabbinic sources) by J. D. G. Dunn,/es«s Remembered (Grand Rapids & Cambridge, 2003), pp. 25560. 7 J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols., London, 1983, 1985); H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford, 1984). 8 See for example F. Avemarie, Tora und Leben (TSAJ 55, Tübingen, 1996); D.A. Carson, P.T. O'Brien & M.A. Seifrid (edd.), Justification and Vareigated Nomism, i (Tiibingen & Grand Rapids, 2001). 9 Exclusion of rabbinic evidence as later than the New Testament is identified as a typical

224

Part II: Modern

New Testament

2. The Qumran

Study

Texts

This objection on the ground of date, when made with special reference to modern finds of ancient literature, can of course give an obscurantist air to any argument from the practice of earlier New Testament exegetes. They may have relied on rabbinic literature (it might now be said); but they did so perforce, when there was little earlier Hebrew and Aramaic material to hand - the Ben Sira fragments, the Damascus Document, and the Nash Papyrus, all available in the early twentieth century, form the exception which proves the rule. Now, by contrast (the objection would go on), we have many Hebrew or Aramaic texts which antedate or are contemporary with the New Testament, made known through the Qumran discoveries and other finds, and we should give these the preference. This argument has been consistently advanced by J. A. Fitzmyer, sometimes on behalf of the special value of Aramaic texts from the Qumran and other finds for the reconstruction of Palestinian Aramaic of the time of Jesus, but also more broadly, to show 'the advantage that the Qumran material has had over the later rabbinic material in illustrating New Testament issues'. 10 Fitzmyer stresses the consideration of date, but the potential importance of the Scrolls in particular has also been underlined by increasing recognition of their non-sectarian aspects. The finds include biblical and apocryphal texts which were shared with other Jews, and a good deal of hitherto unknown material that is not marked by the characteristic sectarian vocabulary; and even what seems distinctively sectarian may reflect more widespread custom. Like the New Testament books themselves, the Qumran texts show the impress both of a sect and of Jewish religion more generally. Nevertheless, Fitzmyer's argument remains open to question on its negative side. The importance of the Scrolls for New Testament exegesis emerges clearly from his work, but it seems less clear that rabbinic literature is relatively unimportant. Thus he takes his comparison of the formulae introducing biblical quotations in the New Testament, the Qumran texts and the Mishnah, to show that later rabbinic material is at a disadvantage (n.10, above). In this comparison he shows striking similarities, less completely paralleled in the Mishnah, between some New Testament and Qumran formulae. Nevertheless, he allows that sigreaction in this scholarly context by S. J. Gathercole, Where is Boasting? Early Jewish Soteriology and Paul's Response in Romans 1-5 (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 2002), p. 28. 10 See for example J. A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament (London, 1971; reprinted with id., A Wandering Aramaean [Missoula, 1979] as The Semitic of the New Testament [Grand Rapids & Livonia, Mich., 1997]), p. 3-4, in an Background essay on 'The use of explicit Old Testament quotations in Qumran literature and in the New Testament', reprinted from NTS vii (1960-61), pp. 297-333; id., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids & Cambridge, 2000), pp. 8—11, 14 (quoted in the text above, and including citation of this essay to exemplify 'the advantage that the Qumran material has had' in the illustration of New Testament issues).

8. Rabbinic

Literature

in New Testament

Interpretation

225

nificant N e w Testament formulae have parallels in the Mishnah, but not in the Qumran material he surveys; he picks out as examples the use of the term 'the scripture', and the question 'how do y o u read? (Luke 10:26). 11 These instances could have been increased if he had included rabbinic material outside the Mishnah. Thus, as he says, his Qumranic material strikingly offers no close correspondence to the N e w Testament 'to be fulfilled', used in the famous Matthaean series of fulfilment formulae (Matt. 1:22, etc.); but there is such a correspondence, which he does not mention, in early rabbinic use of passive forms of qiyyem 'confirm, fulfil' to refer to prophecies being fulfilled. 1 2 Similarly, the N e w Testament formula wherein the H o l y Spirit says or said a biblical verse (Acts 1:16,28:5-6; Heb. 3:7) is not among those which he illustrates from Q u m ran material, but it appears in the midrash. 1 3 It seems therefore in this case not to be clear that rabbinic literature is at some disadvantage, as compared with Qumran literature, in illustrating the N e w Testament formulae. Rather, the N e w Testament formulae overlap both with the usage reflected in Qumran texts, and with that reflected in rabbinic literature. Some significant N e w Testament usages not illustrated in this discussion from Qumran texts are indeed attested in rabbinic literature, and both bodies of literature contribute to and are needed for this N e w Testament topic. The very idea of competition can be a distraction, because the earlier sources and the rabbinic literature are in fact all of value, and should be used together. With regard to other early Hebrew and Aramaic material, including ossuary inscriptions, G. Vermes similarly questions Fitzmyer's preference for epigraphic evidence for use of the term Qorban (Mark 7:9-13) over Mishnaic material. The Mishnaic passage especially in view is Ned. ii 3, in which it appears to be assumed (by contrast with the strict interpretation criticized in the N e w Testament) that family members are not deprived through a Qorban vow, but there does remain a question whether associates of the family are affected. Vermes notes the value of Josephus as well as the inscriptions here, but adds that within the whole range of evidence the implication that family members may be deprived, which is the main issue in Mark 7:9-13, otherwise comes to the fore only in the Mishnah. 1 4

F i t z m y e r , Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament, pp. 7 - 1 6 . W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (I. Teil, Leipzig, 1899, II. Teil, Leipzig, 1905, repr. in one vol., Darmstadt, 1965), i, p. 171 and n. 1, q u o t i n g passages including Sifre Deut. 43, on 11:15 (ed. L. Finkelstein [Berlin, 1939], p.95), and noting T a r g u m i c use of A r a m a i c qayyem to render biblical H e b r e w mille ' f u l f i l ' (I Kings 2:27 and elsewhere), w i t h c o m p a r i s o n of M a t t h a e a n and other N e w Testament usage. 13 Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur, ii, pp. 2 0 2 - 3 , w i t h examples including 'the H o l y Spirit said b y D a v i d ' , Pes. R. xlii (ed. M . F r i e d m a n n [Vienna, 1880], f. 175b); 'the H o l y Spirit s a y s ' , Ber. R . lxxx 8, on Gen. 34:13. 14 G. Vermes, ' J e w i s h L i t e r a t u r e and N e w Testament Exegesis: Reflections on M e t h o 11

12

226

Part II: Modern New Testament

Study

O n e further aspect of the Q u m r a n texts in particular should be noted here. T h e y too are interpreted w i t h the help of rabbinic literature. This has been the case ever since the first publication of the Damascus Document, even though the Q u m r a n texts are still earlier than the N e w Testament - broadly speaking, Hasmonaean rather than H e r o d i a n in origin. The value of rabbinic sources for Q u m r a n study has been re-emphasized especially since the edition of the halakhic letter 4 Q M M T in 1994. T h u s in this Q u m r a n text the positions advanced in legal debate on streams of liquid and on the Red Heifer are mentioned in the Mishnah as views taken b y Sadducees in debate w i t h Pharisees (Mishnah, Yadaim iv 6 - 8 , Parah iii 7); similarly, some of the legal t e r m i n o l o g y of 4 Q M M T w a s hitherto only k n o w n f r o m rabbinic literature. 1 5 A s a Talmudic scholar puts it, here 'the rabbinic sources and the Dead Sea Scrolls complement and illuminate each other'. 1 6 As w i t h the N e w Testament, then, so w i t h even earlier material f r o m the Scrolls, rabbinic literature contributes vitally to interpretation. It is then not surprising that t w o of the foremost students of the Q u m r a n texts in relation w i t h early Christianity, David Flusser and Geza Vermes, have also insisted on the importance of rabbinic texts for the interpretation of the N e w Testament, the gospels above all. 'Talmudic literature remains our principal source for the interpretation of the synoptic Gospels' (Flusser); 'rabbinic literature, judiciously and sensitively handled, can throw valuable and sometimes unique light on the study of the Gospels' (Vermes). 1 7 Despite their date, therefore, rabbinic texts can offer illumination for the N e w Testament w h i c h is not to be found in earlier H e b r e w and A r a m a i c sources; and the interpretation of one important group of these earlier sources, the Dead Sea Scrolls, is itself likewise indebted to rabbinic literature. Yet the value of rabbinic literature for N e w Testament exegesis can also be questioned on other grounds. Thus, although argument on behalf of the Scrolls against recourse to rabbinic texts has appeared to be misconceived, a similar argument for preference on the ground of date could be mounted on behalf of m a n y Greek J e w i s h sources, as w a s done b y Bousset. Moreover, to turn to the rabbinic literature itself, study of the redaction of the Mishnah and other rabbinic texts has tended to highlight their distinctiveness and individuality, rather than their reflection of a broad range of earlier tradition. These t w o further lines of potential questioning need brief consideration. dology',//S xxxiii (1982), pp. 361-76 (365-6), reprinted in id., Jesus and the World of Judaism (London, 1983), pp. 74-88 (78-9); id., The Religion of Jesus the Jew (London, 1993), pp. 66-7. 15 E. Qimron & J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4. V, Miqsat ma'ase ha-torah (DJD x, Oxford, 1994), pp. 131-2, 141-2; see p. 134, above, on tohorah. 16 Y. Sussmann, in Qimron & Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V, Miqsat ma'ase ha-torah,

p. 198.

17 D. Flusser, 'The Dead Sea Sect and pre-Pauline Christianity', in C. Rabin & Y. Yadin (edd.), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Scripta Hierosolymitana iv, Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 21566 (216); Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew, p. 7.

8. Rabbinic

Literature

in New Testament

3. Greek Jewish

Interpretation

227

Sources

Greek Jewish sources may be suspect because they have been transmitted to the modern world mainly by the Christian church rather than the Jewish community, and because in some cases they may represent diaspora rather than Judaean culture - although this in itself is not necessarily a drawback for the study of the N e w Testament. Nevertheless, continuing discoveries of ancient Jewish Greek inscriptions and manuscripts have underlined the importance of Greek as a Jewish language, inside as well as outside the confines of Roman Judaea. The Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures, the Greek Apocrypha and very many Greek pseudepigrapha, and the writings of Philo and Josephus, all antedate or are contemporary with the period of Christian origins. Philo and Josephus, the two great Jewish authors of the Herodian age, particularly stand out in N e w Testament study. Philo was writing in Alexandria a few years after the crucifixion, and his works constitute a body of Jewish elucidation of the Pentateuch, together with treatises on morality and contemporary Jewish history. Josephus stands out comparably for the N e w Testament interpreter, as a Jerusalem priest, a younger contemporary of St Paul, offering large-scale interpretation of the history and religion of the Jews. Should not these Greek sources likewise have priority, for N e w Testament study, over Talmud, midrash, and Targum? An archaeologically-reinforced form of this argument was put forward, with special reference to Philo, by E. R. Goodenough. Inspired especially by the spectacular Syrian find of the Dura-Europus synagogue wall-paintings in the early 1930s, he suggested that Philo and other Greek Jewish sources, together with the Jewish art attested from the early third century onwards, offered indications of popular religion, especially in the diaspora, which could hardly be gained from the rabbinic literature. 1 8 Three or four centuries are in view here, and the question is not simply the date of the rabbinic literature, but its representative character; does it fully mirror Judaism, even in the later Roman empire? M a y not Philonic religion, treated by Bousset as the influential yet transitory piety of an élite circle, in fact complement the rabbinic texts, and even form a better clue to the popular religion of Jews in late antiquity? Goodenough's question was soon sharpened by form-critical study of the Mishnah and other rabbinic texts, which could emphasize the purposefulness of final redaction, and suggest the relation of the works to special groups rather than a wider community. Thus the intensive Mishnaic study of Jacob Neusner,

as summed up in his Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (1981), presented 18 E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: the Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (New Haven, Conn., 1935); id., Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols., New York & Princeton, N . J . , 1953-68).

228

Part II: Modern

New Testament

Study

the Mishnah less as a reservoir of earlier tradition (although that aspect came to the fore in his reconstruction of its antecedents) than as a revolutionary philosophy and system of Judaism, concentrated on observance which could be carried out in daily life; the Mishnah so interpreted stood in contrast both with the revival of old hopes in the late Herodian apocalypses (II Esdras, II Baruch), and with the despair concerning the created world and the Mosaic revelation evident in second-century Christian Gnosticism. The contributions of Goodenough and Neusner, both made on the grand scale, have been a factor in assessment of rabbinic literature as, from the viewpoint of New Testament study, both late and unrepresentative. These scholars both differ in important ways from Bousset, yet they reactivate the sense of change and conflict within Judaism which he detected. The Mishnah especially can then emerge as standing for practice and belief essentially subsequent to, and different from, the 'Second Temple Judaism' mentioned above, and its possible later continuation among many Jews. Yet reception of these two major contributions has also tended to modify the negativity of such assessment towards rabbinic literature. Thus, discussion of Goodenough in the light of continuing archaeological discovery, notably of Galilaean synagogue mosaics, has lessened the contrast between archaeological finds and rabbinic literature; it has brought out the links between synagogue art and midrash, and the breadth and variety of biblical interpretation reflected in rabbinic texts. 19 This richness and breadth, by contrast with the relatively limited extent of the Qumran material, is an important aspect of the general utility of the Targums and rabbinic literature for interpretation of such earlier Greek Jewish writings as Philo and the New Testament. 20 With regard to Philo, Goodenough's assertion of the abiding importance of Philonic piety has received implicit support, but with greater recognition of its kinship with strands of rabbinic piety, from recognition of the Hellenic aspect of Mishnah and midrash. The rabbinic literature of Judaea and Galilee, like the earlier literature of Hasmonaean and Herodian Judaea, is itself from a Greek as well as an Aramaic and Hebrew culture; the hakhamim with their mishnayoth were at the same time sophoi with their deuteroseis,21 For the period of Christian 19 M.Goodman, 'Early Judaism', in Nicholson (ed.), A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britain, pp. 135-51 (143-5). 20 G. Vermes, 'Jewish Studies and New Testament Interpretation', JJS xxi (1980), pp. 1-17 (12-13), reprinted in id., Jesus and the World of Judaism , pp. 58-73 (68-9). 21 Much work on this aspect was brought together and developed, mainly for the earlier period, by M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (E.T., 2 vols, London, 1974); id. & C. Markschies, 'Das Problem der "Hellenisierung" Judäas im 1. Jahrhundert nach Christus', in M. Hengel, Judaica et Hellenistica: Kleine Schriften I (WUNT 90, Tübingen, 1996), pp. 1-90; M. Hengel, 'Qumran and Hellenism', in J. J. Collins & R. A. Kugler (edd.), Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids & Cambridge, 2000), pp. 46-56; for the later period, by N. R. M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1976).

8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament

Interpretation

229

origins, especially through E . P. Sanders's reaffirmation of a ' c o m m o n J u d a i s m ' , there has been greater emphasis on the spiritual unity binding together J e w i s h communities in Judaea and the diaspora; so already Bousset, having noted differences between Judaean and diaspora piety, had none the less exclaimed ' H o w much they have spiritually and intellectually in c o m m o n ! ' 2 2 T h e r e has been corresponding notice o f the resemblances between Philo's writings and rabbinic biblical interpretation. 2 3 T h u s Philo, among the J e w i s h authors o f the H e r o d i a n age, is the one w h o most strikingly anticipates the f o r m and m o o d o f rabbinic midrash; and there are agreements between Philo and the midrash on the narratives of the exodus and their legal and non-legal implications, and between Philo and the Targums, on the prophecies o f Balaam. 2 4 Philo, like the N e w Testament, can often be connected with a range of earlier and later J e w i s h sources; but this range includes rabbinic literature, rabbinic literature aids the interpretation of Philo, and the Philonic-rabbinic interconnections can best be explained b y the positing o f a midrashic tradition which is taken up b o t h in Philo and in rabbinic literature. 2 5 Awareness o f such tradition is also fundamental to interpretation of the N e w Testament itself. W i t h regard to the particularity o f the Mishnah, reflection on Neusner's Mishnaic w o r k , with its emphasis on this particularity, has b r o u g h t to the fore again his o w n concern with the pre-Mishnaic stages o f tradition, his recognition that Targum, Talmud, midrash and J e w i s h liturgy all include some material f r o m before A . D . 200, and his affirmation that the kind o f Judaism expressed in the Mishnah (with explicit disagreement with other opinion, as noted already) did begin to take shape in the middle of the first century. 2 6 It has also been suggested that, although Pharisaism will have been a great focus o f the Torah-study which came to be reflected in rabbinic literature, the origins of this literature lie

22 E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66 CE (London & Philadelphia, 1992), pp. 47-8; cf. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, p. 435 'Und neben jenen Unterschieden, wie viel geistige Gemeinsamkeit!'. 23 S. Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1940); N. G. Cohen, Philo Judaeus: His Universe of Discourse (Frankfurt am Main, 1995). 24 Examples of interpretation of the exodus narrative shared by Philo and the halakhic midrashim include: the song at the Sea recited by Moses and Miriam for the men and women, respectively: Philo, Agric. 79-82 and Mekhilta, Beshallah, Shirata x, on Exod. 15:21; women present in the assembly at Sinai: Philo, Dec. 32 and Mekhilta, Yithro, Bahodesh ii, on Exod. 19:3; the ten words of God were seen as fire: Philo, Dec. 46-7 and Mekhilta, Yithro, Bahodesh ix, on Exod. 20:18; the gatherer of sticks on the sabbath disregarded the overseers, Philo, Spec. Leg. ii 250 and Sifre Num. 113, on Num. 15:32; on the Targums, see C. T. R. Hayward, 'Balaam's Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the Aramaic Targums of the Pentateuch', in P. J. Harland & C. T. R. Hayward (edd.), New Heaven and New Earth: Prophecy and the Millennium. Essays in honour of Anthony Gelston (Leiden, Boston & Köln, 1999), pp. 19-36. 25 Cohen, Philo Judaeus, pp. 33-7, 278-87. 26 J. Neusner, Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago & London, 1981), pp.2, 25.

230

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

in a non-Pharisaic as well as Pharisaic practice of study, in which, as the N e w Testament would indicate, the title ' R a b b i ' was being used before the destruction o f the temple. ' T h e year 70 does not seem to have constituted a m a j o r break with regard to the meaning and usage of the term'. 2 7 Developments in study o f early rabbinic literature such as these f o r m the background o f D . InstoneBrewer's large-scale collection o f Mishnaic and other passages which p r o b a b l y retain a reflection o f conditions from the time before the destruction of Jerusalem b y Titus. 2 8 In sum, therefore, as in the case o f the Scrolls, it seems mistaken to prefer early G r e e k J e w i s h sources over rabbinic sources in N e w Testament interpretation. B o t h are wanted. R a b b i n i c literature itself contributes to the interpretation of H e r o d i a n - a g e G r e e k J e w i s h texts, and is needed with them f o r N e w Testament exegesis. Further, although study of the redaction of the M i s h n a h and other rabbinic texts can suggest their distinctiveness and individuality, it has not removed awareness of their breadth as repositories of tradition. Lastly, one Herodian-age author, Philo, highlights a consideration of importance f o r relating the N e w Testament to rabbinic literature: the understanding o f H a s monaean, H e r o d i a n , and rabbinic writings as a series o f witnesses to an old and ongoing tradition of biblical interpretation.

4. Exegetical

Tradition

A s these considerations show, the argument is not simply about dates. T h e Scrolls and the G r e e k sources are c o m m e n d e d not only because they are early, but because they have t h r o w n light on ancient Judaism in general and the N e w Testament in particular. W h a t should be noted in response is not o n l y the presence of early material in rabbinic sources, but also their extent and richness, and the light which they shed on J e w i s h texts of the H e r o d i a n and even the H a s monaean age - and the benefit o f combining this with light from other sources. T h e fruitfulness o f this operation suggests a further point which has just been noted, the continuity of exegetical tradition in the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y through its late H e r o d i a n and p o s t - H e r o d i a n political changes. T h u s , to take one further example o f the c o m b i n a t i o n of rabbinic and earlier sources, the value o f using rabbinic texts together with J o s e p h u s b e c o m e s particularly obvious in E . P. Sanders's reconstruction of Judaism from the R o m a n conquest o f Judaea b y P o m p e y to the outbreak of revolt against R o m e under

27 C. Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine (TSAJ 66, Tübingen, 1997), p. 55. 28 D. Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testament, i, Prayer and Agriculture (Grand Rapids & Cambridge, 2004), pp. 28-9.

8. Rabbinic

Literature

in New Testament

Interpretation

231

Nero. His book Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66 CE, cited already, is an outstanding example of the critical and constructive use of Josephus; but he also constantly uses rabbinic texts. He takes a cautious view of rabbinic evidence, relying mainly on material generally accepted as reflecting tradition from before or shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, making more sparing use of tradition from later in the second century, and emphasizing that rabbinic texts often reflect opinion rather than general practice. Nevertheless, his description of 'practice and belief' in an era including the life of Jesus and half the period of the composition of the N e w Testament books depends above all upon Josephus and rabbinic literature. 2 9 Here one sees clearly the importance of early rabbinic material, viewed together with Greek sources, both for N e w Testament interpretation and for the reconstruction of the Judaism of the Herodian age. E. P. Sanders can then be grouped with Flusser and Vermes as a student of ancient Judaism and the N e w Testament who has immersed himself in earlier Jewish sources, but also emphasizes the value of rabbinic texts. This coherence of early rabbinic material with Josephus and the N e w Testament draws attention to one limited but important aspect of continuity in Jewish opinion. The N e w Testament is particularly close, both positively and negatively, to the Pharisaic school of thought in Judaism. 3 0 The gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are concerned with the teaching of the Pharisees and their attitude to Christianity, and Paul mentions that he had been a Pharisee (Phil, iii 5), and is presented in this light in Acts. Pharisaic opinions which are highlighted in these books include an emphasis on non-biblical tradition and on belief in resurrection. Early rabbinic sources include traditions which exhibit the same emphases, and when Pharisaic views are expressly contrasted with others in these sources the rabbinic tradents can side with the Pharisees. That is to say, early rabbinic texts attest and echo Pharisaic views recognizably continuous with those reflected in the N e w Testament. Both the N e w Testament and early rabbinic literature include reflection of non-Pharisaic strands in Jewish opinion, but the importance of Pharisaism stands out in each body of writings, and the continuing impact of Pharisaic views is evident in rabbinic literature. These observations have underlined the value of early rabbinic traditions in N e w Testament study, and their witness to a continuity of tradition maintained through political change. They do not, however, preclude attention to the wealth of later rabbinic material, from teachers of the third, fourth, and early fifth centuries, which stands out in the Talmud, midrash, and Targum, and is then taken up in the Hebrew and Aramaic p i y y u t i m of Byzantine Palestine. On

Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66 CE, pp. 10-11. This point was re-emphasized by R. Deines, Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101, Tübingen, 1997), p. 555. 29

30

232

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

its exegetical side it is especially associated with Tiberias and other centres of learning in Galilee. T h i s rich rabbinic interpretation of the H e b r e w scriptures can often give a clue to combinations o f texts, lines o f exegesis, and attitudes to scripture which were already important before the time o f the Mishnah, and which emerge in such earlier sources as the Scrolls, Philo, J o s e p h u s , and the N e w Testament. A n example noted already is the midrashic use of the formula of scriptural reference met also in the N e w Testament, 'the holy spirit says'. A t the same time this rabbinic interpretation is chronologically parallel with the Christian tradition o f patristic O l d Testament interpretation, with which it is sometimes p r o b a b l y linked. B o t h the later Christian and the rabbinic interpretation help to illuminate the exegesis w h i c h is reflected in the N e w Testament. Yet, as Vermes shows, it is important not to think simply in terms of help towards the interpretation of the N e w Testament. Rather, it should be recognized that the N e w Testament belongs to a series of developments o f J e w i s h interpretative tradition, running f r o m the Septuagint and the Scrolls to the Targums and rabbinic literature. 3 1 T h e transmission o f the J e w i s h biblical b o o k s together with such an interpretative tradition has long been recognized. 3 2 T h i s tradition can be glimpsed f o r example through N e w Testament application o f passages on a herald o f good tidings, in Isa. lii 7 and elsewhere, to the Baptist and Jesus; these interpretations f o l l o w earlier associations o f the herald with the announcer of jubilee in Lev. xxv 9 - 1 0 and the returning Melchizedech, and precede midrashic associations o f the herald with Elijah, the high priest, or the messianic king. 3 3 T h e value o f combining rabbinic and earlier J e w i s h evidence is then seen in practice in many instances. C o m p a r i s o n o f pre-rabbinic and rabbinic material also suggests that continuity can be recognized in the transmission of Pharisaic opinion from N e w Testament t o Mishnaic times and, m o r e broadly, in the tradition of biblical interpretation from the G r e e k age onwards. T h e s e observations again implicitly question the simple dismissal of rabbinic evidence as late, but they also tend to mitigate the strong contrast which is sometimes drawn between 'early J u d a i s m ' or ' S e c o n d Temple Judaism', on the one hand, and 'rabbinic Judaism', on the other.

31 G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, 1961, revised impression 1973); id., 'Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis', in P.R. Ackroyd & C.F. Evans (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Bible, i (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 199-231; G. Vermes, 'Jewish Literature and New Testament Exegesis: Reflections on Methodology', pp. 370-75, reprinted in id., Jesus and the World of Judaism, pp. 82-7. 32 See for example the scholars, from L. Zunz to J. L. Kugel, cited by Cohen, Philo Judaeus, pp. 33-7. 33 W. Horbury, '"Gospel" in Herodian Judaea', in M. Bockmuehl & D. A. Hagner (edd.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 7-30, reprinted above, pp. 81-104.

8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament Interpretation

233

5. 'Early Judaism' and 'Rabbinic Judaism' T h e continuity of J e w i s h exegetical development, from H a s m o n a e a n times, through the H e r o d i a n age and the period of Christian origins, to midrash and Targum in later R o m a n Judaea, is then one of the phenomena which discourage t o o absolute an interpretation of the concepts of 'early J u d a i s m ' and 'Second Temple J u d a i s m ' . T h e emphasis on the political turbulence o f the period from J o s e p h u s to B a r - K o k h b a and the compilation o f the Mishnah, noticed above in B o u s s e t and often recurrent, should be balanced b y recognition o f the continuity and resilience o f J e w i s h religion in these years. T h i s continuity is exemplified by, but is not restricted to, the continuation of Pharisaic opinion noted above. Needless to say, in the realm of politics, the change ensuing on the death o f Agrippa II and then B a r - K o k h b a ' s rule and its suppression makes it reasonable, in retrospect, to mark a turning-point in J e w i s h history in the second century. Moreover, there are indeed important differences of emphasis as between rabbinic midrash and the literature of the H e r o d i a n age, both in the interpretation o f law and in the haggadic exegesis which conveys much moral and theological tradition. A n example is formed b y the contrast between earlier salutation of the deity as supreme governor o f a pantheon of great spirits, a ' G o d o f the spirits and all flesh' ( N u m . xxvii 16 L X X ) or a ' F a t h e r o f spirits' ( H e b . xii 9), and rabbinic divine titulature stressing G o d ' s sole rule - although the importance o f the heavenly host has b y no means disappeared in rabbinic literature, and on the other hand an emphasis on ' G o d without mediators' is already attested in the Septuagint of Isaiah (63:9). 3 4 T h e s e changes in political circumstances and interpretative emphasis should not, however, obscure the continuities in J e w i s h religion in this period. T h e contrast is often not simply between earlier and later times, but rather, as in the example just given, between differing streams of opinion which have been long been current. T h e formula 'Second Temple J u d a i s m ' implicitly perhaps overstresses the destruction o f the temple in the year 70. This destruction was of course a grievous blow. It began to stand out as a landmark o f deterioration, in academic standards as in other things: 'since the day that the temple was destroyed, the sages have begun to be like schoolmasters . . . ' (Mishnah, Sotah ix 15). ' T h e [days of the] Second Temple' could serve as a division o f time in postTalmudic J e w i s h chronography. 3 5 T h e designation has passed into modern 34 W. Horbury, 'Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age', in L.T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. North (edd.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 263, London & New York, 2004), pp. 16-44, reprinted above, pp. 1-32. 35 So in the twelfth century Abraham ibn Daud, Dibre malkhey yisra'el be-bayyith sheni, discussed by G. D. Cohen, The Book of Tradition (Sefer ha-Qabbalah) of Abraham ibn Daud (London, 1967), pp. xxxiv-xxxv.

234

Part II: Modern New Testament Study

historiography as 'the Second Temple period', whence the formula 'Second Temple J u d a i s m ' . Yet, to return to the first and second centuries, for a long time the loss o f the temple had remained one that might well be remedied, and not in itself necessarily a fatal b l o w to the ancestral Jewish polity of high priesthood and kingship. T h a t the attention given to the temple, the high priest and the king in the traditions embodied in the Mishnah should be understood against a background of s e c o n d - c e n t u r y trust in the possibility o f revival is suggested b y the B a r K o k h b a coinage, with its reflection o f the claims o f priestly as well as princely authority. T h e r e is no need to suppose that the great schools of thought reflected in the N e w Testament and Josephus, the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, instantly disappeared when the temple was destroyed; continuing Pharisaic influence has already been noticed. In the second century and later, Justin M a r t y r lists Pharisees with other J e w i s h sects, and rabbinic texts mention Sadducees, Pharisees, and other groups. 3 6 T h e N e w Testament b o o k s themselves represent a continuity of development between about 30 and 100, and there is no reason to regard such continuity as peculiar to J e w s with Christian loyalties, and their gentile adherents. O n the contrary, it is paralleled by the Mishnaic assumption o f continuity between those w h o taught before 70 and their successors, and b y the ability o f J o s e p h u s to present Judaism serenely, in his b o o k against A p i o n , without any suggestion that the disaster o f 70 has impaired the ancestral constitution or its spiritual power. Correspondingly, the origins of rabbinic literature have been sought in p r e - 7 0 customs o f study with use o f the title ' R a b b i ' , as noted above. N e w Testament interpreters are then reminded by the N e w Testament itself that the Judaism o f the period from Philo to the Mishnah can be viewed as a continuum, despite the suggestion o f a radical break which the formula 'Second Temple J u d a i s m ' can convey. Similar reservations apply to the phrase 'early J u daism', w h e n it is used f o r Judaism from E z r a to B a r K o k h b a , in contrast with a 'rabbinic J u d a i s m ' which is viewed as other and later. 37 O n c e again the implication of a great disjunction between the t w o should be avoided, together with the c o n c o m i t a n t marginalization o f rabbinic sources.

36 M. Goodman, 'Sadducees and Essenes after 70 C.E.', in S. E. Porter, P. Joyce & D. E. Orton (edd.), Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder (Leiden, New York & Cologne, 1994), pp. 347-56; similarly Hezser, The Social Structure of the Rabbinic Movement in Roman Palestine, p. 77, on the probable continuation for a time of sectarian affiliations among post-70 rabbis. 37 See for example G. W. E. Nickelsburg, with R. A. Kraft, 'Introduction: the Modern Study of Early Judaism', in R. A. Kraft & G. W. E. Nickelsburg (edd.), Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta, 1986), pp. 1-32 (2).

8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament

Interpretation

235

6. Conclusion The value of rabbinic literature for N e w Testament interpretation in particular has n o w received some illustration, initially in connection w i t h the claim that earlier sources are more useful. The point being stressed w a s the fact that, in practice, rabbinic material has been and remains illuminating for N e w Testament study. It w a s noted that scholars w h o have immersed themselves deeply in earlier J e w i s h texts, notably Flusser and Vermes in the case of the Scrolls and E. P. Sanders in the case of Josephus, can unite in stressing the value of rabbinic sources for the understanding of the N e w Testament and the J u d a i s m of its time. The process of illustration has inevitably led to broader issues: the relation of rabbinic tradition to other J e w i s h writings of the H e r o d i a n age, Greek as well as H e b r e w and Aramaic, and the implications of c o m m o n attempts to periodize the history of J e w i s h religion. Discussion has suggested the futility of staging a competition among J e w i s h texts for the fairest source of all, f r o m the standpoint of N e w Testament study; the interpreter of the gospels and epistles constantly needs both earlier and later J e w i s h texts, including rabbinic material. The same is true for the interpreter of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of the t w o great bodies of Herodian-age Greek J e w i s h literature w h i c h flank the N e w Testament, the w o r k s of Philo and Josephus. The Targums and rabbinic literature, despite their late date, contribute vitally to the interpretation of the Scrolls and the literature of the H e r o d i a n age, including of course the N e w Testament itself. Contrasts which are sometimes d r a w n between 'Second Temple J u d a i s m ' or 'early J u d a i s m ' , on the one side, and 'rabbinic J u d a i s m ' , on the other, have probably encouraged dismissal of rabbinic evidence as not only late but also essentially different; but these contrasts, if pressed, obscure the continuities in J e w i s h religion over the y e a r s between Jesus and the Mishnah. O n e such continuity can be seen in the ongoing influence of Pharisaism, and p r o b a b l y also of other J e w i s h schools of thought. A broader continuity, of particular significance for rabbinic literature and the N e w Testament, is formed b y the interpretative tradition handed d o w n w i t h the J e w i s h biblical books. The light w h i c h rabbinic literature so often sheds on the N e w Testament, the 'things in the N e w Testament w h i c h w e must be beholden to the Rabbis for the explanation of them', can be associated especially w i t h the place of both the N e w Testament and rabbinic midrash within a series of developments of this old interpretative tradition.

Particulars of First Publication 1. Jewish and Christian Monotheism in the Herodian Age from L.T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. N o r t h (edd.), Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNT Supplement Series 263, London & N e w York, 2004), pp. 16-44 2. Moses and the Covenant in the Assumption of Moses and the Pentateuch from A.D.H. Mayes & R.B. Salter (edd.), Covenant as Context (Oxford, 2003), pp. 191-208 3. The Books of Solomon in Ancient Mysticism from D.F. Ford & G.N. Stanton (edd.), Scripture and Theology: Texts, Seeking Wisdom (London, 2003), pp. 185-201

Reading

4. Der Tempel hei Vergil und im herodianischen Judentum from B. Ego, A. Lange & P. Pilhofer, with K. Ehlers (edd.), Gemeinde Tempel (WUNT 118, Tübingen, 1999), pp. 149-68

ohne

5. 'Gospel' in Herodian Judaea from M. Bockmuehl & D.A. Hagner (edd.), The Written Gospel (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 7-30 6. Cena Pura and Lord's Supper from J. Pastor & M. Mor (edd.), The Beginnings of Christianity 2005), pp. 219-65

(Jerusalem,

7. British New Testament Study in its International Setting (1902-2002) from E.W. Nicholson & O. O'Donovan (edd.), Theological and Religious Studies since 1900 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 51-134 8. Rabbinic Literature in New Testament first published in this volume

Interpretation

Index of References Old

Testament

Genesis 1:1 1:14-18 1:15 1:17 1:26 3:22 6:3 9:4 11:7 12:10-20 28:2

49 27 26 26 17 17 39 132 17 57 57

Exodus 2:11-4 3:2 3:2-14 3:13 4:5 LXX 4:8 LXX 4:9 LXX 4:16 7:1 8:13 8:31 12:11 12:27 12:28 14:31 15:11 15:11 LXX 15:17 15:17 LXX 16:23 16:25 19:9

42 92 80 36 44 44 44 20 20,21,25,28,30,41,45 41, 42 41,42 124 124 4 44 9 9 71, 77 75 118 114 36, 44

20:8 20:11 20:18 20:18-21 20:18-21 20:19 20:21 22:27 LXX 23:12 24 24:7 24:10 24:12 24:26 25:9 LXX 25:23-30 28:28 31:3 32-4 32:15 33:2 34 34:5-10 34:10 LXX 34:10-26 34:13 34:27 34:27-34 34:27-35 34:29 35:3 35:31 LXX 37:10-16 40:22-3

114, 131 131 40n 44 36 41 40n 24 92 44 36 115n 40n 37 40n 131 96 LXX 55 38,40 41 92 44-6, 71 40n 44 45 24 36, 45 42 44-6 41 118 55 131 131

Leviticus 17:10-14 23:2-3

132 115

240 24:5-9 24:8 24:15 25:9-10 25:10 26:46

Index of References 131 131 24 97, 98, 99, 232 103 36

34:7 34:10

39 38

Joshua 5:13 6:16 22:22 LXX

13 90 9

Judges

52

13:3

90

Ruth

52

Numbers 11-12

11:16-29 12:7-8 12:8 13-14 15:32-6 16:22 LXX 27:16 27:16 LXX 28:8-9 31:19 33:52

44 42 42 38 80 118 7 56 7,233 115 130 24

Deuteronomy 4:9 4:14 4:19 5:5 5:12 5:15 LXX 7:5 7:25 8:10 9:15 9:17 10:3 10:17 12 12:3 17:3 21:9 29:25[26] 31:2 32:8 32:8-9 32:8-9 LXX 33:4

55 41 lOn, 20,21,22,23, 26, 27, 30 36 131 131 24 24 126 41 41 41 7, 22 71 24 21,22,26 92 21,22,26 39 21 5 28 36

1 Samuel 21:2-7(1-6)

131

2 Samuel

80

4:10 18:20 18:20-7 18:22 18:25 18:27 18:31

88 88-90 89 88-90 85, 88-9 88-90 89-90

1 Kings 2:27 16:34

225n 90

2 Kings

80

7:9 1 Chronicles 28:5 29:23

96 96

2 Chronicles 6:13-21 13:8 36:15-6

48 96 92

Nehemiah 13:3

Index of References Job

5

22:28 33:23 38:7

42 37 21

Psalms 2:2 23(24):4 LXX 40:10 50(49):1 LXX 68:11 68:12 68(67):12 LXX 68(67):12 Vulg. 69 72:10 72:17 78(77):53f. 82 82:1 82:1-2 89:8 93(92) LXX 95:3 95(96):5 LXX 95:11 106:23 132(131):4-5 136:2 145:13

7 130, 140 80 7,9 92 80 91 81 197 71 86n 71 5 25n 98 9 111 7, 22, 94 129 80 41 71, 77 7 96

Proverbs

47-50

3 8 8-9 8:22 8:30 9:3 LXX 20:27

55 55 55 49, 56, 57 49, 57 56 40n

Ecclesiastes

47,52

2:8-13 2:9 2:12 2:14 3:11 5:2 5:10-16 6:9 6:9-10 LXX

241 98 51 100 51 52 51 54 51 51

Isaiah 1:13-4 2:20 11:11 40:3 40:6 40:9 40:9 Vulg. 41:27 41:27 Vulg. 42:2 42:19 44:26 52:7 58:13 60:4 61:1 61:1-2 63:9 LXX 66:1

115 20 86n 96, 100, 103 97, 100 80, 87, 92, 96, 97 81 80,87 81 97n, 100 92 92 80, 82, 86, 87, 91, 95, 96 97,98, 99, 100, 103, 232 115, 116, 118 97 80, 88, 97, 98, 99, 103 95, 98, 99 8,233 76

Jeremiah

52

16:7 LXX 16:19 17:5

126 20 13

Lamentations

52

2:6

115

Ezekiel 20:20

114n

Song of Solomon

47-54

Daniel

11

2:1-2 2:8

51 100

2:47 3:33(4:3)

7 96

242 4:34(37) 7:9 7:13-18 7:24-28 10:13-21 11:36

Index of References 94 7 190 190 5 7

Hosea 2:13(11)

115

Joel 3:5 (2:32) LXX 80, 91 Obadiah 1

87

Nahum 1:15 LXX 80 2:1(1:15) 80, 86, 100 2:1(1:15) Vulg. 81 Haggai 1:13 2:7-9

92 71

Zechariab 2:3(1:20)

98

Malachi 1:7 1:11 1:12 2:7 3:1

135 126, 135 135 92, 100 37,92

Apocrypha Judith 8:6

108, 112, 113, 114

Rest of Esther 14:7 14:12

8 7

Wisdom of Solomon

48, 5 0 - 1 , 5 3 -

3:7 7-9 7:10 7:12 7:22 7:22-8:1 7:27 8:2 8:3 8:4 8:9 8:18 9:4 9:10 10:16-17 13:6-8 14:12-21

97 55, 57 55 56 13 58 53 57 57 13 57 57 13 13 13 22 18

Ecclesiasticus

34, 48,50-1,

6:18-31 15:2 17:17 24 24:2 24:4 24:18 24:19 24:23 24:24 45:1-5 45:2 45:3 45:4 45:5 51 51:13-30 51:23-7

56 56 5 55, 58 13 13 8, 56 55, 56 36, 42, 49, 55 8 41 21,25,42 42 43 43 58 55 56

Baruch 3:9-4:4 4:1 4:36-5:9

55 49 97

Index of References 2 Maccabees 3:24 8:26 12:38

3 Enoch 7 111 130, 131

1 Esdras 4:46

94 94

4:58 2 Esdras (= 4 Ezra)

5, 6, 54

5:24 5:26 6:46 14:44-5

51 51 26-7 52

Pseudepigrapha Assumption of Moses

4-5, 34-5

1:13 3:12 6:6-7 10:1 10:1-2 11:16 11:16-17

35,38, 39,43, 46 35, 43 35 152 95, 99 39 38-9, 43, 46, 95

2 Baruch

49n 49n 49n

Jubilees

11,34

1:5 2:21 2:29 2:31 11:4-5 15:31-2 50:8 50:9 50:9-10 50:12

36 114 117 114, 118 28 28 117

86, 90 86, 90

of

Baruch)

5, 16-17

16 131-8 135-7 138 140

11,20 17 19 20 18

Life of Adam and Eve 43:3

11, 51

Parables of Enoch (ch 37-71) 5,6 37:2 46:1 48:5 62:9 91:13

7 6 6 6 26

115

Maccabees

6:36 7:18-20

121 121

Odes of

1 Enoch

115 114 114

Letter of Aristeas

3 (Syriac Apocalypse 5, 6

46:6 77:12

9:1 12:1-5 15:1-2

159

Solomon

55

33 Paraleipomena 3:11 5:21 Psalms of 11:1

of

Jeremiah

90 90 Solomon 90,97,98,99

244

Index of References

Sibylline Oracles

70

3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 8 8 8

71, 77 71, 77 74 71 73 73-4, 75 74 78 74 74 74, 75 74 74 75 74 74 74 6 73 135n 134-5 135n

Sib 213f. Sib 266 Sib 619-24 Sib 703f. Sib 4 - 8 Sib 10 Sib 27-8 Sib 115 Sib 115f. Sib 115-39 Sib 116 Sib 117f. Sib 125-6 Sib 126 Sib 130f. Sib 135f. Sib 187-92 Sib Sib 414-33 Sib. 402 Sib. 403 Sib. 442

Testament iv 4

ofJoseph 18n

New Testament Matthew

82n, 83

1:22 9:34 11:5 11:29 23:24 27:62

225 158 80, 98, 99 56 56 108, 112, 113

Mark

83, 86

1:1 1:15 6:20 6:41 7:9-13 8:6 10:45

85n 85n 95 127 225 126 190

14:22 14:23 15:42

127 126 108, 112, 113

Luke

5, 83

1:19 3:18 4:18 4:18-9 7:22 7:35 10:26 11:49 22:19b-20 23:48 23:54

83, 90 90 80 88 80, 98, 99 56 225 56 123n 158 108, 109n, 112, 113

John 5:22-3 6:12 10:35 12:41 13:1 13:10-11 13:34-35 19:14 19:31 19:41 19:42

14 126 13 13 136 136 136 108, 109, 112, 113 108, 112, 113 109 108, 109, 112, 113

Acts

5, 83

1:16 2:21 2:42 2:42-6 7:48 9:33-5 10:9-11:18 10:39 13:43 13:50 15:19 15:20 15:29 16:14 17 17:4

225 80,91 126 126 68, 76 64n 130 80 18n 18n 135 130 130, 135 18n 166-7, 172 18n

Index of References 17:17 17:22-9 17:24 17:26-30 17:27 17:28 17:28-9 18:7 18:18 20:7 20:7-12 20:16 21:25 21:26f. 22:17 28:5-6

18n 18 77 22 22 17 15 18n 77 123n 122, 124, 126, 132 77 135 77 77 225

Romans 1:1 1:20 1:28 6:17 8 10:15 14:2 14:21 16:10

86n-87n 22 28 183 172 80, 91 133 133 5

12:3 13 16:1-2 16:22 2

245 6 126 122 6, 124

Corinthians

3:6-7 5:16 5:17 12:1

45-6 184 169 169

Galatians

34

1:4 1:12 3:19 3:19-20 4:8-10 4:10

28 169 37 36, 37n, 46 12, 32 110

Ephesians 2:17

80

6:15 Philippians 231

3:5 Colossians

1

Corinthians

2:6

8:5 8:13 10:4 10:9 10:14-22 10:16 10:20-21 10:21 11 11 17-20 11 17-34 11 20 11 21 11 23 11 23-6 11 24-5 11 27

2:18 28 21 133 13 13 122 126 129 128, 135 126 122 122 122 125 124, 172 123 123 122

1

12

Thessalonians

2:14

124

1 Timothy 2:5

37n

Titus 2:11-13

14

Hebrews 3:1-2 3:7 4:2 4:6 7:3 7:22

34, 45 38 225 80, 93 80 99 36

Index of References

246 8:6 9:10 9:15 10:9 12:9 12:24 13:8

36, 37n 76 36, 37n 76 7,233 36, 37n 14

Philo

51,56

Abr. 92-102

57

Aet. 17-19

15

1 Peter 1:18 3:20-1

20 122n

Agric. 79-82

229n

2 John 1

51

Conf 170 173

Jude 12

126

Revelation

54

1:10 3:20 10:7 14:6

122,123 51 90 90, 102

17 7,22

Contempl. 66 73 81 Dec. 32

NT Apocrypha Acts of John

159

77

14n

94-6

53

Acts of Thomas

159

1:6-7

55

Apocryphal Gospel of John

56

7:25

158

Preaching of Peter frg. 4

12

229n 40n,229n

46-7 Ehr. 30-31

Gospel of Peter

132 132,135 131,132

57

Flacc. 39

6

Fug. 49-52 Gig.

57 41

19 24-8 24-9 55-6

39 42 39 39

Her. 175

131

Index of References

Josephus

Hypoth. ii 1 2 - 1 3

118

vi 7

71

xi 5

120

Immut. 92

57

Legat. 99-102 151

i 37-42

51

ii 1 6 8 - 9

15

ii 281

15

Ant. iii 123

69

iii 179

13

72

iii 182

131

iv 1 9 9 - 2 0 0

71

i 147

4

i 158

25

ii 40

5

ii 72

71

ii 203

24

Prob. 120

Qu. Gen. ii 62

Ap.

94n

Mos.

86

51

13

iv 201

24

iv 207

24

v 24

90

v 277

90

vii 67

74n

viii 107

76

viii 114

76

xii 22

11, 16

xii 107-10

5

xiv 110

18n

xiv 2 1 4 - 6

118, 128

xiv 2 1 5 - 6

119, 129

xiv 248

64n

97

57

xiv 412

72

143

57

xv 380

72

145-6

57

xv 385f.

72

xv 4 2 1 - 3

95

xvi 163

112, 119

Somn. i 133-43

41

Spec. Leg.

xvi 164

119

xvii 200

95

xvii 328

62 n

xx 41

18n

i 13-20

22

i 52-3

20n

i 66

76

B.J.

i 72

72

i 414

i 73

72

ii 81

70

i 172

131

ii 1 0 1 - 5

62n

ii 3 9 - 4 1

115

ii 128

13

ii 6 1 - 2

118

ii 1 2 9 - 1 3 1

132

ii 150

229n

ii 148

13

ii 161

131

ii 162

6

Virt.

72n

ii 2 1 2 - 4

13

ii 463

4

62

56

iii 433ff.

64

214

10

iv 618

90, 95

248 iv 656 v 326-8 v 458f. vi 110 vi 122 vi 267

Index of References 95 64n 76 74n 74n 72

Vita 279

117

Aristohulus

17

Ezekiel Tragicus

17

Cicero Att. 2.3.1 N. D. i 1 5 - 1 6 N. D. i 4 1 - 4 2 N. D. iii 16 N. D. iii 56 N. D. iii 40-42 N. D. iii 38 N. D. iii 91 Diogenes Laertius Pythagoras 13

De significatu verborum

39-40

Horace

62 n 62 n

Carmen Saeculare Ep. 2.2.184 Od. i 2, 41-4 Od. iii 5, 1 - 3

Inscriptions

Epitaph of Abercius 13-14

136

IG 12 (5).235

94

Priene

84-5, 89-90

Rheneia

7

Classical Authors

Metaph. xii 1076a, 3

17

70 66n 94n 12n

Juvenal Sat. xiv 96-100

20n

Lydus De Mensibus

16

Persius Sat.v

179-84

Philodemus

Aristotle

108

Homer II. ii 204-5

CIJ 556 CIJ 561

132

Festus

Ps.-Philo, Bibl. Ant. 9:8

89 15n 15n 12 19 12 15n 15n

121 62

Pliny 16 Ep. x 96, 7

123n

Cassius Dio 76.10,2

63

Plutarch Deforac. 426 BC Is. Os. 45, 369B

lln 15n

Index of References Qu. Conv. iv 6, 671E-672A

116,121

Propertius Elegiae 3,29,11

70

Georg. Georg. Georg. Georg.

iii iii iv iv

12-6 19-20 563ff. 564ff.

66 66 62 62n 62

Vita

Seneca Dial, xi, 5

63

Suetonius 76.4 Augustus Nero 54

117 63n

Statius

Authors

Aristides Apology (Syriac) xiii 16n Athenagoras

Silvae v 1, 37-8

12n

Varrò Ant. r. d. i

16

Virgil Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen. Aen.

Christian

i 5-6 iii 371f. iii 530 iv 9 iv 173-90 vi 9-10 vi 9-11 vi 64-6 vi 69-70 vi 724-6 vi 724-7 vi 725-6 vi 800 viii 12 viii 398 viii 715f. viii 720-2 xi 371ff.

61,69,71 68 70 65, 77 64 74 69 69 70 59 68 59 66 69 6n 70 70 63

Catalepton v 9 Catalepton viii Iff.

62 62

Eel. iii 60

68

Georg, Georg, Georg, Georg,

68 72 n 65 77

i 10 i 29-30 iii 9 iii 12

Leg. v-vii Leg. xxiv

16n 16n

Augustine

50

Cons, i

16n

Serm. ccxxi

110

Tract. Ev. Jo. iii 19 116 Tract. Ev. Jo. cxvii 2 109, 110 Tract. Ev. Jo. cxx 5 109, 110 Epistle of 15:1 15:6-8 15:9 15:11 16:2

Barnabas

159 130 130 122, 123, 138 131 76

Chrysostom Horn. 1 on Lazarus 717B

116

1 Clement 42:1 44:5 64:1

159 82 127 7

2 Clement 8:5 14

159 83n 56

Clement of Alexandria

53, 127

Index of

250 Strom. Strom, Strom, Strom,

Ì 22,150 vi 5, 41 vi 14, 110 vii 32

Cyprian

17 12 23 132

Haer. Haer. Haer. Haer.

53, 127

Jerome

53

Justin Martyr

53, 126-7, 234

I Apol. xx 3 Dial, xxvii 1 Dial, xxix 3 Dial, viii 3 Dial, xli Dial. Iv 1 Dial. Ivi 4 Dial. Ivi 11 Dial, lxi 1 Dial, lxx Dial, cxvi-cxvii Dial, cxxi 2 Dial, cxxviii 2 - 4

16n 118 118 13 134 23 13 13 13 135 135 23 14n

Ep. lxiii 16

127n

Didache 8:1 8:2 9:1 10:1 11:3 14 14:1 14:2-3 15:3-4

159 106, 112 83n 122n - 123n,126 126 83n 135 122,138 127 83n

Eusebius H. E. iii 27, 3 P.E. i 9 , 15 P.E. i 9 , 19 P.E. ix 6 P. E. ix 27, 3 - 9 P. E. xiii 12, 7

References

14 23 19 17 19 17

Gelasius Cyzicenus (attributed to)

iv 18, 1 - 4 iv 33, 2 v 23, 2 v 33, 2-3

135 115 109 126n

Lactantius D. D. D. D. D.

I. I. I. I. I.

59 59 59

i, 5 ii, 4 v, 10 viii, 3 Epitome

3

59

H. E. ii 17, 16-7

35n

Gregory of Nyssa

50

Hippolytus

53

Ref. vii 36 Ref. x 24 Trad. Ap.

99 99 127-8

Minucius Felix Oct. x 2 Oct. xxxii 1 - 9

69 69

Ignatius

126

Origen

50,53

Smyrn. 5:1 S w y r « . 7:2

83n 83n

c

Irenaeus

53, 56

C. Cels. vi 61 Comm. in Job.

115 ii 24-7

Haer. Haer. Haer. Haer.

109 21 115 135

Prol. Cant.

47

Melito of Sardis Peri Pascha

i 8,7 iii 6, 5 iv 16, 1 iv 17, 5

9-10

C. Cels. i 26, v 6 Ce/j y 25_32

14n

13 2g

23

251

Index of References Photius Bihliotheca

Qumran 97

Shepherd of

63

Hermas 159

Tertullian

53, 127

Apol. vii 1 Apol. xxxix 15 Apol. xxxix 16 Fug. Marc, iii 23, 6 - 7 Marc, i v 11, 8 Marc, v 4, 6 Nat. i, 13,4 Nat. ii, 9 Or. 28 Sped. 13 Ux. ii 4, 2

134 118 128, 134 128 135 53 110 110, 116 59 126 128 128, 134,

Aut. i 14 Aut. ii 37-8

16n 16n

Tripartite Tractate I, 5

14

Tyconius Reg-

109

Papyri Murabba'at M u r 18 M u r 115

4 4

P. D u r a 10

193

P. Oxy. 50.3554 840

63 161

PSI 1307

8

l Q a p G e n ar xx 7

57

l Q H a xviiifx] 8

7, 8n, 9

l Q H a x x i i i 11-14

96-7

1QS iv 6

97

1QS iv 6 - 7

98

1QS iv 19

97

1QS iv 26

97

1QS vi 16-17

133

2 Q 2 4 frg. 4

131

4Q212 iv 18

26

4Q216 i 14

36

4Q266 3 ii, 8

36

4Q271 frg. 5 i, 1

117n

4Q374 6

25

4Q374 frg. 6 - 7

37

4Q377 frg. 1 recto,

Theophilus

Nag Hammadi

l Q a p G e n ar xii 17

65

ii 10-11

25

4Q400 2, 1

115n

4Q400 2, 2

8

4Q400 2, 5

7, 115n

4Q403 1, 3

115n

4Q403 1, 7

115n

4Q403 1 ii, 2 5 - 6

115n

4Q521 frg. 2 ii 11-12

98, 99

4 Q D e u t i 32:8 4QMMT 4 Q M M T B65 4QShirShabb a 11Q5 xxi 11-xxii 1 11Q10 xxx 5 11Q13Ü 4 - 7 11Q13 ii 9 11Q13 ii 9-12 11Q13 ii 13 11Q13 ii 15ff. 11Q13 ii 18 11Q13 ii 23-5 11Q18 frg. 20 11Q19 i-ii CD CD v21 C D x 14-17

21 226 133 51 55 21n 98, 99 98, 99 98 98, 99 98 98 99 131 45, 71 34 36 112

252 CD CD CD CD

Index of References xi 3 xi 4 xi 22-3 xv 8 - 9

130, 133 117 117 37

Erubin vi 6

119

Hagigah ii 1

49

Targums Fragment Tg. Gen. 1:1

49

ii 3

225

Parah

N e o f i t i Gen. 21:7 49:21

Nedarim

91 91

iii 7

226

Sanhédrin

Onkelos N u m . 9

iv 5

Ps.-Jonathan

Gen.

Shabbath

21:7 49:21

91 91

i 10-iv 2

Ps.-Jonathan

Exod.

7:1

25

8, 15n

112

Sotah

Tg. Isa. 58:13

92 233

Taanith 116

Tg. Lam. 2:22

ix 6 ix 15

iv 8

52

Yadayim 87n

iii 5 iv 6 - 8

52 226

Mishnah

A b o d a h Zarah i8 iv 1 - 2 iv 4

24 94n 24

Tosefta A b o d a h Zarah v 5

24

Berakhot v1 vii 1 vii 3

210 119n 119

Demai ii 3

Berakhot i1

104n 104

Demai 133

ii 20-22

133

Index of References Kelim, Baba Mezia

Shabbath

iv 8

25b 116a 117b 118b Sotah 11a, f o o t

24

Sanhédrin xii 10

52

Babylonian

Talmud

A b o d a h Zarah 51b Baba Bathra 4a Besah 16a

86n-87n

74n

Minor Tractates A b o t h de-Rabbi N a t h a n

7, 54 131

version A, i 1 version B, 31

36 24

Sopherim

Hullin 13b

52

114n

Hagigah 14a 26b

72

Yoma 9b

Gittin 56b

92

Taanith 31a

72

131, 132 83n 114n 116

Sukkah 51b

24

253

27

i8

26n

Palestinian

26n

Megillah 9b

Talmud

Menahot 29a

131

Berakhoth i 1,2a

104

Pesahim 100a 102a

x 1, 37b

111

viii 2, 26b

120

Shabbath

Sanhédrin 38b

104

Sanhédrin

Rosh Hashanah 31a

Pesahim

104 104

7

xv 3, 15a

114

254

Index of References

Midrash

Yithro Bahodesh ix o n E x o d . 20:18

Bereshith Rabbah i 1 on Gen. 1:1 xi 4 on Gen. 2:3

49 120

xxvi 6, end, on Gen. 6:3

39n

lxv 16 lxxx 8 on Gen. 34:13

104n, 120n 225

87n 114n 132

132

Exodus Rabbah i l l o n E x o d . 1:12 iii 5 on Exod. 3:13 viii 1-2 on Exod. 7:1 xxi 2 on Exod. 14:15 xlvi on Exod. 34:1 xlvii 1 & 7 on

92 37 25 42n 45

Exod. 34:27

45

Lamentations Rabbah i5 iii 5 on Lam. 3:14 Proem 17

114n

Pesikta de-Rab Kahana v9 xi 23

98,100 118n

x, 38b xlii 119b

37n 225n 120n

Sifre

Esther Rabbah iii 13 on 1:11

Mekhilta of Simeon ben Yohai Yithro on Exod 20:8

Pesikta Rabbathi

Canticles Rabbah on 2:13 vi 4 on 5:16 vili 14, 1 on 8:13

40, 229n

N u m 113 on N u m . 15:32

229n

N u m . 135 on Deut. 3:26

42n

Deut. 43 on 11:15 Deut. 61 on 12:3 Deut. 148 on 17:3

225n 24 26

Megillath

Taanith

12

86

87, 95 116 116, 118n

Passover

Haggadah

Mekhilta de R. Ishmael Beshallah Shirata viii o n E x o d . 15:11

9

Beshallah Shirata x o n E x o d . 15:21

229n

Piyyut

Beshallah Wayyassa iv o n E x o d . 16:25 114n Yithro Bahodesh ii on Exod. 19:3

229n

Yithro Bahodesh vii on Exod 20:8

114n

Anonymous Az be-eyn kol 570-1

lOOn

Kalir Az mi-lipbne be-reshith

86n-87n, 87n

Index of References Yehudah p o e m xxv 3, line 6 p o e m xxx 6, line 41

Yose ben Yose lOOn lOOn

Anusah le-ezrah 25 Azkirgeburoth 269

lOOn lOOn

Index of Authors Abel, F.-M. 164 Abraham ibn D a u d 233n Abrahams, I. 161, 163, 165n, 190, 192, 222 A c k r o y d , P. R. 232n Adolph, K. 82n, 162n Aland, K. 79, 203n Albeck, C h . 104n Albertz, M. 184 Alexander, P. S. 54n Alfaric, P. 145,146,151 Allison, Jnr, D . C. 56n, 196n, 213-4 Allix, P. 2n, 30-1 Anderson, B. W. 202n Anderson, G. W. 201n Ashton, J. 213n Athanassiadi, P. 6n, 12n Avemarie, F. 25n, 40n, 42n, 223n

Bacher, W. 85, 88, 92, 105, 132, 225n Bacon, B.W. 153,211 Baehrens, W. A. 47n Bailey, C. 6n, 68n, 73n, 78 Baillet, M. 52n Baillie, D. M. 187n Baillie, J. 153n Baker, J. A. 198n Baldwin, B. 61n, 78 von Balthasar, H . U . 203 Bammel, E. 19n, 153n, 199n, 217n Barbour, R. S. 178n, 213n, 215n Barclay, ]. M. G. 17, 18n, 20n, 208n, 213n, 78 Barker, M. 208-9 Barnes, E. W. 148 Barnes, J. 148,186 Barnes, T. D. 59n, 78, 110 Barns, J . W . B . 159

Barr, J. 177, 181, 196n-197n, 202n, 204n, 206, 216n,218 Barrett, C. K. 150n, 179, 203-6 Barth, K. 167n, 177-8, 182 Barthes, R. 210 Barton, J. 25n, 214, 215n, 216n, 217-8 Barton, J. M. T. 214n Bartsch, H . W . 182n, 184n Bäte, H . N . 156n, 182n Bauckham, R. J. 2n, 31 n, 79, 114n, 209, 212n Baudissin, W. W. 169 Bauer, B. 212 Bauer, W. 159-60 Baur, F. C. 169 Beattie, D. R. G. 91n Beckwith, R. 216n Bekhor Shor, Joseph 27 van Bekkum, W. J. lOOn Belkin, S. 229n Bell, G. K. A. 147n, 154 Bell, H . I. 155 Belo, F. 210,215 Benoit, P. 4n Bensly, R. L. 157n Bentwich, N . 165n-166n Berger, S. 156 Bertram, G. 184 Best, E. 204,213 Bethune-Baker, J. F. 150,178 Betz, O . 39n, 123-4 Bevan, E. R. 162, 171 n, 176 Biesenthal, J. H . R. 37,46 Bi(c)kerman, E. 84n Billerbeck, P. 31, 82n, 85-7, 89, 114n, 162, 164, 190, 192, 208, 222 Bingham, J. 116n-117n Biondi, A. 89n Black, M. 190n, 192, 194, 213, 219

Index of Authors Blass, F. 155, 166 Bloch, R. 200 Bloedhorn, H . 119n Blondheim, D. S. 106, 108n, 110, 111 Blumenkranz, B. 110,198 Böcher, O . 188n Bockmuehl, M. N . A. 59n, 173n, 209n, 21 In, 213, 216, 218, 220n, 232n Böhlig, H . 170n Boobyer, G. H . 143n Bornkamm, G. 189-90 Borsch, F. H . 190n-191n Botte, B. 128n, 135n Böttrich, C. 197n Bousset, W. 29-30, 83n, 84n, 93, 163, 168, 169, 173,222-3, 226-9, 233 Bowden, J. S. 167n, 197 Bowker, J. 194n Bowman, A. K. 65n, 78 Box, G. H . 162n, 165 Brandon, S. G. F. 200, 210, 212 Brann, M. 104n Braun, M. 19n Brent, A. 127n Brettler, M. 218n Bright, W. 135n Brightman, F. E. 150 Brock, S. P. 83n, 155n-156n, 213 Brodie, T. L. 213-4 Brody, R. 24n, 54n Brooke, A. E. 88n, 89n Brooke, C. N . L. 149n, 182 Brooke, G. J. 22 l n Brown, R. E. 214n Bruce, F. F. 157, 193, 198, 201, 214, 217n, 219 de Bruyne, D. 109 Buchanan, E. S. 156 Büchler, A. 161n, 210n Bultmann, R. 124, 153, 168, 178, 182-7, 189-91, 196n, 198, 201-6, 211, 214, 219, 222 Bürge, H . M. 147n Burkhardt, H . 42n Burkill, T. A. 199n Burkitt, F. C. 109n, 146-7, 150, 152-3, 154, 155n, 156, 157-8, 161, 165n, 173, 175, 185, 192,209,219-20

257

Burney, C. F. 165, 192 Burridge, R. A. 216n Burton, P. 113n, 213n Busch, E. 167n, 178n Bussmann, W. 185 Busto Saiz, J. R. 89 Buxtorf,J. 87 Cabrol, F. 174 Caird, G. B. 183n, 185, 200, 201n, 202, 203-4,206,212,219 Carleton Paget, J. 130n, 209n, 21 On, 211, 220n Carrington, P. 188-9,192 Carson, D. A. 223n Casel, O . 172 Casey, M. 208n Casey, P. M. 2n Catchpole, D. R. 199n, 213n Cave, C. H . 165 Cave, F. H . 165 Cerfaux, L. 173,204 Chadwick, H . l l n , 109n, 187n, 199, 20ln, 210, 220 Chadwick, O . 145n Chapman, M. D. 152n Charles, R. H . 147, 159, 161, 162, 175, 209 Charlesworth, J. H . 21 ln, 223 Charlesworth, M. P. 176 Chase, F. H . 154n Chavel, H . D. 27n Chester, A. N . 9n, 31n, 71 n, 73, 75n, 78, 194n Childs, B. S. 36n, 44n, 46n, 179n, 181n, 216-7 Chitty, D . J . 195n Clark, A . C . 155,176 Clarke, S. 205-6 Clausen, W. 78 Clines, D. J. A. 37n, 86n-87n, 133n Cohen, G. D. 233n Cohen, N . G. 229n, 232n Cohen, S.J. D. 119n Collins, J. J. 25n, 73, 75n, 208-9, 228n Conybeare, F. C. 145, 146n, 161, 175 Conzelmann, H . 185-6 Cook, A. B. l l n , 17n Cook, E. M. 91n

258

Index of

Authors

C o t t o n , H . M . 65n, 78

Droysen, J . G. 166

Couchoud, P.-L. 146

D r u r y , J . 212

Courcelle, P. 59n, 69, 78

Duncan, J . A. 21n

Cowley, A. E. 53n

Dunlop Gibson, M. 157

C o x , M . 158n

Dunn, J . D . G. 158n, 204, 208n, 209, 223n

Cranfield, C . E. B. 209

Dupont, J .

Cremer, H .

186,196

82,84

Cross, F. M . 21n

Ebeling, G. 197

Crossan, J . D . 2 1 1 - 1 2 , 2 1 5

Ebener, D . 78

Cullmann, O . 191n, 2 0 2 - 3 , 218

Eckert, W. P. 199n

Cumont, F. 169

Edersheim, A. 160

Cureton, W. 157

Efroymson, C . W. 2n Eisler, R . 105n, 162

Dalman, G . 85-7, 100, 102, 1 6 4 - 5 , 190, Danby, H .

165,222

Danielou, J .

Elbogen, I. 104n Ellingworth, P. 213

1 9 2 , 2 0 3 , 222 198,201,203n

Daube, D . 161, 1 8 8 - 9 , 192, 222

Elliott, J . K. 159, 213n Elliott, M. W. 53, 54n Ellis, E. E. 20n, 194n

Davey, F. N . 151n, 179, 180n, 182, 204

Elmslie, W. A. L. 94n

Davies, W. D . 56n, 187n, 192, 196, 1 9 9 -

Elwolde, J . 86n-87n

200, 207, 212n, 2 1 3 - 4 , 220, 222, 223

Emerton, J . A. 165n-166n, 191, 220n

Davila, J . R. 2n, 3n, 95n

Engberg-Pedersen, T. 209n

Deines, R . 30n, 162n, 2 3 I n

Evans, C . F. 179, 180, 182n, 201n, 206n, 2 1 3 - 1 4 , 232n

Deissler, A. 197n Deissmann, A. 84, 88, 154, 161, 170, 172,

Evans-Pritchard, E. 206n

178, 180, 1 9 2 , 2 0 9 Delcor, M. 97n

Farmer, W. R. 200

Delitzsch, F. 3 7 , 4 6

Farrer, A. 1 8 5 - 6 , 187, 206n, 215

Demandt, A. 166n

Fascher, E. 1 8 4 - 6 , 187

D i S e g n i , L. 12n, 104n

Feldman, L. H . 18n, 117

Dibelius, M .

Fernandez Marcos, N . 89

182-3,184-5,186

Dieterich, W. 159n, 169n

Filson, F. V. 197

Diez Macho, A.

Finkelstein, L. 26n, 225n

194,222

Dillistone, F. W. 155n

Fishbane, M. 218n

Dobesch, G. 166n

Fitzmyer, J . A. 194, 195n, 2 2 4 - 5

von Dobschütz, E. 160

Fletcher-Louis, C . H . T. 25n, 35n, 39n,

Dodd, C. H . 91n, 147, 148, 149n, 153, 154n, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 180, 1 8 2 3, 185-92, 198, 200, 201, 2 0 3 - 5 , 206n, 211-12,218 Doering, L. 112n, 118n Dogniez, C . 21n, 22n Dölger, F.-J.

105,106,174

Donadoni, S. 66n, 78 Donaldson, S. A. 128n Donato, R. lOn Downing, F. G . 212, 216n Driver, G. R .

194,200

42n Flusser, D .

210,222,226,231,235

Foakes Jackson, F. J . 152 Förster, N . 59n, 196n, 220n Frankenberg, W. 97n Frazer, J . G . 169 Frede, M. 6n, 12n Fredriksen, P. 1 4 8 - 9 , 2 1 1 - 1 2 Frend, W. H . C . 168n, 174n, 200 Freudenthal, J . 19n, 20 Frey, J . - B . 165n Freyne, S. 212n, 217

Index of Frick, H. 178n Fridrichsen, A. 196 Friedmann, M. 225n Friedrich, G. 82n, 85, 89, 176 Frost, S. B. 209n Fuchs, E. 1 9 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 1 5 Fuller, R. H. 182n, 184n, 197 Funck, B. 166n Funk, R. W. 211 Gabler, J. P. 197n Galinsky, K. 70n, 78 Garcia Martinez, F. 96n, 98n, 99n, 115n Gathercole, S. J . 223n-224n Gavin, F. 119n, 171n Geffcken, J. 15n Geiger, A. 9, lOn, 22n, 26n, 200 Geiger, J . 65n, 78 Georgi, D . 189 Gerhardsson, B. 187,222 Gese, H. 217 Gianotto, C . 99n Gigante, M. 62n, 63n, 64n, 65n, 78 Gilat, Y. D. 118n Ginsburg, C . D . 45n Ginzberg, L. 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 4 Glare, P. G. W. 82n, 94n Glasson, T. F. 198,209n Goguel, M. 146 Goldin, J. 36n Golding, W. 179 Goldschmidt, [E.] D. 86n-87n Goldstein, J . A. 130 Goodenough, E. R. 29, 57, 105, 106, 124, 126, 193, 2 2 7 - 8 Goodman, M. D . 20n, 27, 194n, 209n, 21 On, 228n, 234n Goppelt, L. 199n, 2 0 I n Gore, C. 147 Görg, M. 19n Goulder, M. D. 148n, 188n, 194n, 212 Graetz, H. 196n Graf Reventlow, H. 196n, 201 n, 217n Green, J. 104n Greenspahn, F. E. 218n Gregg, J . A. F. 150-1 Gressmann, H. 60, 78, 163n, 222n-223n Grotius, H. 8 1 n - 8 2 n , 82, 86, 102

Authors

259

Gruen, E. S. 17, 18n, 19n Guilding, A. 188n Gunkel, H. 93, 168, 183, 184 Gutteridge, R. J. C. 179n Gwynn, J . 157 Haacker, K. 39n, 42n, 188n Hadassi, Judah 130n Hadidian, D . Y. 203n Hafeman, S. J. 35n Hagner, D . A. 209n, 232n Hahneman, G. M. 216n Hall, S. G. 14n Halliday, W. R. 171n Hamacher, E. 168n Handley, H. 147n Hansen, G. C . 35n Hanson, R. P. C. 201, 206n Hare, D. R. A. 199n Harl, M. 21n, 22n Harland, P.J. 229n Harnack, A. 14n, 83n, 85-7, 89, 102, 122n-123n, 127n, 144, 145, 147, 151, 153, 157, 166-7, 175, 178, 182, 188, 198, 211 Harrison, B. 149n Harrison, J. 169 Harrison, S. J. 79 Hart, J. H. A. 155n, 161, 163 Harvey, A. E. 211-12 Hatch, E. 151n, 167, 171 Hay ward, C. T. R. 229n Heen, E. 196n,206n Heidegger, M. 202 Heinemann, J. 120n Hengel, M. l l n , 18n, 39n, 51, 85, 87, 89, 94n, 115n, 119, 125n, 142n, 194n, 198, 200, 208n, 220, 228n Hennecke, E. 159 Herr, M. D. 24n, 54n Hezekiah b. Manoah 27 Hezser, C. 230n, 234n Hick, J. H. 148 Hicks, E. L. 1 6 7 - 8 , 1 7 0 Higgins, A. J. B. 189n Hilgenfeld, A. 105, 108n Hirsch, E. 124, 169n, 187 Hoffman, N . J . 34

260

Index of

Holm-Nielsen, S. 97n Holtzmann, O. 119n Hooker, M. D . 183n, 191, 205n, 220n Hoover, R. W. 21 In Hopkins, K. lOn Horbury, W. 3n, 6n, 7n, 8n, l l n - 1 2 n , 40n, 67n, 71n, 72n, 75n, 78, 82n, 94n, 95n, 96n, 121n, 212n, 222n, 232n, 233n Horner, G. W. 155n Horovitz, H . S. 114n Horsfall, N . 62, 63, 65n, 68n, 78 Horsley, G. H . R. 84n Hort, F . J . A. 123n, 149n, 154-5, 158 Hoskyns, E. C. 147, 151, 152, 176-82, 204 Houtin, A. 147n Hubbard, M. 94n Hübner, H. 217 Hübner, R. M. 14 Hughes, G. 214 Hunkin, J . W. 165n Hunter, A. M. 142n Hurst, L. D. 204n Hurtado, L. W. 3 1 n , 2 1 2 Idei, M. 49n Inge, W. R. 47, 58, 166n Instone Brewer, D. 114n, 230 D'Ippolito, G. 63, 64n, 78 Jacobs, I. 37n, 42n Jacobson, H. 39n, 40n James, M. R. 1 5 8 - 6 0 , 1 7 5 Jeremias, J. 35n, 82n, 87-8, 123n, 125n, 153,162n, 165n, 178, 189-91, 198, 203, 208, 222 Jocz, J. 199n Jones, H. S. 82, 94n Joyce, P. 217n, 234n Jüngel, E. 202n Junod, E. 14n Kaestli, J . - D . 14n Kahan, I. I. 178n Kahle, P. E. 200 Kampling, R. 199n Käsemann, E. 189-90, 204, 208, 211, 216 Kaufmann, Y. 2n, 3 I n Kenyon, F. G. 1 5 5 , 1 7 6

Authors Kermode, F. 215 Kierkegaard, S. 202 Kilpatrick, G. D . 188 Kirk, K. E. 148n Kister, M. 36n Kittel, G. 142, 153, 154n, 163, 164n, 1 7 2 3, 176-81, 191, 197 Kemp, E. W. 148n Kennedy, H. A. A. 172 Kirk, K. E. 191n Klauser, T. 174 Klausner, J . 1 6 5 , 1 7 4 , 1 9 0 Klein, G. 183n-184n Klein, S. 164-5 Klemperer, V. 181 Knopf, R. 173n Knox, J. 204 Knox, W. L. 23, 56n, 60, 69n, 79, 147, 172, 174, 175, 187-9, 191, 1 9 2 , 2 2 0 Koester, H. 84n, 189 Kögel, J. 8 4 , 8 5 Kohler, K. 31n, 161 Kokkinos, N . 3n, 81n van der Kooij, A. 51n Kraft, R. A. 234n Krauss, S. 120n, 161 Kugel, J. L. 232n Kugler, R. A. 2 2 1 n , 2 2 8 n Kümmel, W. G. 167n, 183n, 189, 199n Lagrange, M.-J. 83n, 84-5, 145, 146, 155n, 157n, 175 Lake, K. 152, 155, 171, 172, 193 Lampe, G. W. H. 83n, 122n, 127n, 181, 201, 2 0 4 - 6 , 213n 219 de Lange, N . R. M. 228n Laurence, R. 30 Lauterbach, J . Z. 9n Le Boulluec A. 9n L e D e a u t , R. 222 Leclercq, H. 174 Leith, M . J . W. 94n Leonhardt, J. 59n Leusden, J. 81n-82n Levertoff, P. P. 164n Levi, P. 61n, 79 Levine, L. I. 119n Levinskaya, I. 18n

Index of

261

Authors

Levison, J . R . 40n

McLean, N . 88n, 89n

Lewis, G . S. 2n, 3n, 95n

McNamara, M . J . 91n, 194n, 222n

Lichtenberger, H . 25n, 40n, 42n

Meeks, W. 2 0 9 n , 2 1 7

Liddell, H . G . 82, 94n

M e g g i t t , J . J . 209

Lieberman, S. 104n

Meier, J . P. 211

Lierman, J . D . 34n

Merx, A. 158, 1 5 9 - 6 0

Lietzmann, H . 59n, 60, 79, 106, 121n,

Meyer, B. F. 2 1 0 - 1 2 , 2 1 5

124, 125, 126, 142n, 171, 1 8 4 - 5 , 188

Meyer, E.

173-4,187,190

Lieu, J . 210n, 213n

Meyers, E. M. 195n

Lightfoot, J . B. 160, 162, 163, 221, 222

Mignot, M.

Lightfoot, R . H . 182-3, 185, 186, 187, 191 Lincoln, A. 213

Millar, F. 4, 6n, 67n, 79, 93n, 194n Milne, C . H . 156n

Lindars 194n Lindsay, W. M. 108n Linnemann, E. 202n Linton, O . 167n Lloyd-Jones, H . 174n, 175n Loewe, H .

145,151

Milik, J . T. 4n, 52n

161,188-9,192,222

Loewe, R. 161, 199n Logan, A. H . B. 56n, 195n, 196n Lohmeyer, E. 84n, 185 Loisy, A. 1 4 5 - 6 , 147, 151, 153, 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 189 Lonergan, B. 215

Mirsky, S. lOOn Mitchell, S. 12n, 84n Mittmann, S. 51n Moberly, R . W. L. 216n Moffatt, J . 193 Mohrman, C . 83n, 177, 181 Moltmann, J . 214 Momigliano, A. 10 Montefiore, C . G . 161, 162, 192 Moore, G. F. 2 9 - 3 2 , 163, 165, 192, 208, 222

de Lubac, H . 201

Moore, S. D . 215

Lyonnet, S. 155n

Morgan, R . 160n, 205n, 206n, 213n, 214,

Maass, E. 159n, 169n

Morray-Jones, C . R. A. 49n

Maccoby, H . 2n, 124, 209

Moule, C . F. D . 76, 79, 123n, 179n, 183n,

215n

Mach, M . 3, 11

185n, 186, 188-9, 191, 194n, 204, 205n,

Mack, B. L. 2 1 1 - 1 2

206, 21 In

MacRae, G . W. 195

Moulton, J . H . 167, 175, 176, 183

Maier, J . 9n

Muddiman, J . 25n, 214

Major, H . D . A. 147

Murray, R . 21 On

Manns, F. 1 0 6 , 1 3 2

Mussner, F. 197n, 199n

Manson, T. W. 147, 174, 175, 1 9 0 - 2 , 197n,

Mynors, R. A. B. 66n, 79

200, 2 0 1 - 2 , 205, 209n, 212, 219 Manson, W. 185

Nairne, A. 172n

Marcus, J . 213

N e b o , Y. 27n

Markschies, C . 94n, 195n, 228n

Neill, S. C . 151n, 164, 167n, 171n, 173n,

Marmorstein, A. 8, 3 I n , 179n

181n, 209n

Marquis, D . 179

Neubauer, A. 53, 160n

Marshall, I. H . 213

Neunheuser, B. 172n

Mayor, J . E . B .

Neusner, J . 2 2 7 - 9

147,156-7,176

M c G i n g , B. C . 79

Neville Birdsall, J . 158n, 213n

M c G o w a n , A. 126n

Newlands, G. M. 205n

McKenzie, R. 82n, 94n

Newman, C . C . 2n, 3n, 95n

McLay, R . T. 221n

Nicholson, E. W. 34n, 36n, 45n, 222n

262

Index of Authors

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. 234n Niebuhr, K.-W. 197n Nikiprowetzky, V. 73n, 74n, 75n, 79 Nilsson, M. P. l l n Nineham, D. E. 183n, 185, 186, 191, 206, 214 Nisbet, R. G. M. 60, 66n, 79, 94n Nock, A . D . 171n, 173, 176 Norden, E. 60, 70n, 79, 159n, 166-7, 169n, 170, 184, 220 N o r t h , W. E. S. 7n-8n, 233n Notley, R. S. 210 Noy, D. 62n, 79 O'Brien, P. T. 223n O'Collins, G. G. 199n Odeberg, H . 165 Oeming, M. 202n, 203n, 217n Oesterley, W. O. E. 188-9 O'Neill, J. C. 2n, 211-12 Orrieux, C. lOn O r t o n , D. E. 217n, 234n O t t o , R. 185, 189,211 Painchaud, L. 14n Parke, H . W. 60,79 Parker, D. C. 213n Parkes, J. 198 Parsons 66n Pax, E. 197n, 198 Pearson, B. A. 195n Perrin, N o r m a n 197,202 Pesce, M. 8 Peterson, E. 1 In, 174, 178, 181, 195 Pfaff, R. W. 158n, 159n Pfleiderer, O . 169, 170, 171n Pilhofer, P. 19n Poole (Pole), M. 81-2 Porter, S. E. 217n, 234n Powell, J. E. 212 Preuschen, E. 55n, 143 Priimm, K. 173 Puech, E. 98 Qimron, E. 226n Quick, O . C . 180n Rabin, C. 226n

Rabin, I. A. 114n v o n R a d , G. 181,202-3,217 Rahlfs, A. 89n Rahner, H. 172n, 198 Ramsay, W. 167, 170-1, 172, 209, 218 Ramsey, A. M. 178, 179, 180n Raven, C. 155n, 204 Rawlinson, A. E . J . 147, 171n, 178, 182, 183n, 185, 186n Reeve, D. H . G. 121n Reicke, B. 136n,200 Reitzenstein, R. 168n, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 196 Renan, E. 160n Rendel Harris, J. 157n, 159 Richardson, A. 197, 206n Richardson, R. D. 121n, 124n, 125n, 171 Riches, J. K. 153n, 195n, 208n, 210-12, 217n Riesenfeld, H . 123n, 187, 198 Ringgren, H . 8n, 194n Rivkin, E. 189n Roberts, C. H . 213n Robinson, F. 158-9 Robinson, J. A. T. 204 Robinson, J. M. 189 Robinson, T. H . 165n Ronsch, H . 113n Rordorf, W. 122n, 123n Rosenthal, E. I. J. 189 Rosner, B. S. 209n Rost, L. 162n Roth, C. 200 Rowland, C. C. 2n, 208-9, 212 Rowley, H . H . 209n Rudolph, K. 195n Ruether, R. R. 199n Russell, D. S. 209n Rutgers, L. V. 11 In Sacher, H . 165n-166n Salmon, G. 152,219 Salvesen, A. 9n, 20n, 23n, 25n, 26n Sanday, W. 147, 150-1, 153, 156, 160, 162, 165, 167, 168, 175, 204 Sanders, E. P. 2n, 31-2, 142, 173, 195n, 196n, 207-12, 222, 223, 229, 230-1, 235 Sanders, J. A. 55n

Index of Authors Sanders, J. N . 201 Sandevoir, P. 9n Sasse, H . 178 Scagliarini Colräita, D. 69n, 70n, 79 Scaliger, J. J. 108,111 Schäfer, P. 39n, 42n, 54n, 56n, 57n Schechter, S. 36n, 161, 162, 163 Scheftelowitz, I. 105n Schierse, F. J. 197n Schlatter, A. 162, 164, 165, 176, 192, 208 Schmidt, K. L. 178, 182-3, 184, 186 Schmiedel, P. W. 151 Schnackenburg, R. 197n Schneider, P. 199n Schnelle, U . 217n Schoeps, H . J. 3 I n Schoettgen, C. 162 Scholem, G. 47, 49, 54n, 168, 196n Schrijnen, J. 181 Schuller, E. M. 221n Schürer, E. 105, 160, 163, 194, 198 Schwartz, S. 93 Schweitzer, A. 144, 145n-146n, 152-3, 170, 173, 208,212 Schwemer, A. M. 42n, 5In, 87, 94n, 115n Scott, R. 82, 94n Scrivener, F. H . 113n Seaver, G. 150n, 151n Seeberg, A. 183n Segal, A. F. 8n Seifrid, M. A. 223n Selwyn, E. G. 147, 171n, 188, 192 Semeria, J.(G.) 145n Shiller-Szinessy, S. M. 160 Simon, M. 73, 75, 79, 198 Simon, U . 199 Skarsaune, O . 2n, 13, 14n, 23n Skeat, T. C . 213n Skeat, W. W. 147 Smalley, B. 201 Smith, D. E. 106n, 123n Smith, G. A. 164 Smith, J. Z. 167n, 169n Smith, M. 210-11 Smith Lewis, A. 157 Snaith, N . H . 198n von Soden, H . 113n, 156, 178 Sokoloff, M. lOOn

263

Solin, H . 65n, 79 Souter, A. 156-7, 176 Sparks, H . F. D. 155,213,223 Spens, W. 171n, 180 Spicq, C. 193 Stanton, G. N . 83n, 84n, 85, 103n, 183n, 213n Stanton, V. N . 151 Stauffer, E. 189-91, 193n, 202-4, 210 Stead, G. C. 195 Stec, D. 37n Stemberger, G. 74n, 79 Stendahl, K. 194 Stern, M. 16n, 60, 66n, 79 Stewart, R. A. 192n Stibbe, M. G. W. 213n Strack, H . L. 82n, 83n, 87n, 114n, 162, 164 Strauss, D . F. 212 Strecker, G. 84n Streeter, B. H . 147, 150n, 151, 153, 178 Stroumsa, G. G. 54n Strugnell, J. 226n Strype.J. 221 Stuckenbruck, L. T. 7n-8n, 197n, 233n Stuhlmacher, P. 84n, 87, 89n, 90n, 91, 102, 164n, 209n, 217 Stummer, F. 156n Sturdy, J. 212n Styler, G. M. 187n, 220n Sukenik, E. L. 165n Swain, S. 64n, 79 Sweet, J. P. M. 78, 208n, 213-4 Swete, H . B. 89n, 161, 163n, 166n, 167n, 175n, 181, 222n Sykes, S.W. 147n Taylor, D. G. K. 213n Taylor, J. 122n, 123n, 132, 2 1 3 - 4 Taylor, V. 174, 185, 188n Teixidor,J. 10-11 Tennyson, A. 61 Thackeray, H . StJ. 64, 79, 88n, 89n, 162, 172n Theissen, G. 209n, 217 Theodor, J. 104n Thiselton, A. C. 213 Thoma, C. 199n

264

Index of Authors

Thomas, J. D. 65n, 78 Thomassen, E. 14n, 15n Thompson, A. A. 94n Thornton, T. C. G. 12 Thrall, M. 213 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 96n, 98n, 99n, 115n Tischendorf, C. 109n Tollinton, R. B. 53n van den Toorn, K. 51n Torrey, C. C. 192 Tov, E. 51, 52n Towner, P. H . 213 Tragan, P.-M. 196n-197n Trocme, E. 146n, 21 On Tromp, J. 34n, 38n, 39n, 42n Tsafrir, Y. 104n Tuckett, C. M. 195n, 212n Turner, C. H . 147, 151n, 154, 155, 156, 158, 175, 182, 219 Turner, E. G. 213n Ulrich, E. 21n van Unnik, W. C. 20n Urbach, E. E. 24-5, 54n Vaganay, L. 158n Van Elderen, B. 195n de Vaux, R. 4n, 52n Veltri, G. 26n Vermes, G. 194, 199n, 200, 210, 211-12, 222, 225, 226, 228n, 231, 232, 235 Vermes, P. 194n Vidler, A. R. 146n, 147n Vilanova, E. 196n-197n Vincent, L.-H. 164 Vinzent, M. 14n Vogel, C. 105-6 Wagner, M. L. 109n Wakefield, G. S. 180n Wand, J. W. C. 171n Waterhouse, P. 165n Watson, E. W. 127n, 155n-156n Watson, F. 202n, 215, 216, 217n Wavell, A. P. 164n

Weber, W. 60, 73n, 79 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 209 Weinfeld, M. 2In, 64n, 79, 119n Weiss, J. 152-3,173 Weiss, J. G. 199n Wellhausen, J. 83n, 84n, 85, 89, 102, 151, 153, 165, 174, 185 Wendland, P. 22, 166n, 170, 184 Wenschkewitz, H . 69n, 79 Werblowsky, R. J. Z. 199n West, M. L. 7n Westcott, B. F. 60-61, 79, 154, 155n, 158 White, H. A. 160n White, H . J . 155-7 von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 174n, 175n Wilcox, M. 20n, 194n Wiles, M. F. 201, 206n Will, E. lOn Williams, C. S. C. 123n, 187 Williams, L. 198 Williams, M. H . 64n, 79 Williams, N . P. 148, 171n, 177 Wilson, R. McL. 195,219 Wilson, S. G. 205n Winter, B.W. 213n Winter, P. 199n Woollcombe, K. J. 201n Woolf, B. L. 188n Wordsworth, J. 155-7 van der Woude, A. S. 98n, 99n Wrede, W. 160 Wright, G. E. 197 Wright, N . T. 151n, 164n, 167n, 171n, 173n, 181n, 209,211-12 Yadin, Y. 226n Yahalom, J. lOOn Yarbro Collins, A. 95n Zahn, T. 122n von Zahn-Harnack, A. 144n Zunz, L. 232n de Zwaan, J. 142n, 143n, 196, 197n, 206

Index of Subjects Aeneas 59,67,69-70 Agape - as a Christian common meal 125-8, 136, 140 Allegory 17,52-3,55-7,201 Angelology 12-13,29,94,212 Antiochus IV 86 Apocrypha, study of 154, 158-60, 161, 174-6, 195 Apollo 73-4 - See also 'Temple' Apologetic - Jewish directed toward Gentiles 1012, 13-17, 19-20, 132-4, 137, 140 - Christian directed toward Jews 12-13, 23 - Christian directed toward pagans 15, 134-5, 140 - pagan directed toward Jews 13 Aramaic 4-6, 11-12, 124,224 - See also 'Gospel' in Aramaic Archelaus 95 Cambridge, University of 146, 147, 14950, 152, 160, 179-80, 182, 186-7 Canon - Hebrew 51-2 - and New Testament exegesis 215-7 Cena pura - and fish symbolism 105-7 - and the Lord's Supper 104-8, 121-9, 134, 136-40 - and Sabbath dining customs 113-22, 137-40 - as name of day of week 104-13,121-2, 138-9 - and purity 108, 129-40 Christ, cult of 13-4, 50, 58, 95n, 124-5, 128-9, 137, 139, 152, 168-9, 184

Christ-myth 145 Christology - Ebionite 14,33 - monarchian 14, 33, 99 - subordinationist 14, 32 Covenant theology 34, 93 Durham, University of 146 Ebionites 14 Edinburgh, University of 172 Elijah 100, 103 Enoch - as Metatron 49 Essenes 132, 136 Eucharist 126-7, 138 - See also Cena Pura; Lord's Supper Eulogia - and the Lord's Supper 127 First World War 142, 157 Fish symbolism 174 - connected with cena pura

105-7

Gifts and benefactions 96 Gnosticism - hymns in 55—6 - wisdom and 55-6 - See also New Testament Studies, Gnosticism God-fearers 18, 171 'Gospel' - in Aramaic 83-67, 91-3, 95, 100-103 - connected with birth and/or victory 82-4, 88, 96 - connected with divine or prophetic announcement 90-93,96-103 - connected with good news generally 82-3, 85, 88

266 -

Index of Subjects

connected with ruler or kingship 84, 86-8, 94-7, 102-3, 232 in Greek 81-103 passim in the Hebrew Bible 80-2, 86-90, 92-3 in the LXX 80-2, 85-90, 102-3 in the New Testament 80-88,90-93, 95-6, 98, 99, 101-3,232 in rabbinic literature 92, 98, 100-103 in Qumran 96-9, 101-3 inSyriac 82,90 in the Vulgate 81

Hasmonaeans 5 Hermes 94-5 Herod Antipas 5, 88, 95 Herod Agrippa I 4, 5, 6 Herod Agrippa II 3,5,81,221,233 Herod the Great 3, 5, 81, 84, 93, 95, 96, 101, 221

Herodian Age 3-5, 11-15, 18, 22-33, 46, 51, 53, 60-1, 66-7, 71-2, 75-7, 81, 1013, 133,221-2, 227-35 Idolatry - Jewish views toward 24, 73—7, 130-4 - Christian views toward 28,130 Intermediaries 29-32 Jesus Seminar 211-12 Jesus, study of and quest of the historical 144, 152-3, 158, 160, 162, 165, 183-4, 186-9, 195, 203-5, 208, 210-13 Jewish-Gentile relations 4, 18, 19-20, 2729, 198-9 Joshua 38-9 Jubilee - linked to Isaianic herald 97, 232 Kingdom of God 94-6, 102-3, 115, 205 Kings College, London 146 Law 93, 200, 202-3, 207-9, 226, 229, 233 Lord's Supper 104-8, 121-9, 134-40, 168-9, 171, 172-3 LXX See Septuagint Manchester, University of 146, 147, 175, 182

Melchizedek 98-101,103,232 Messianism - and'gospel' 87,99-103 - and the Lord's Supper 128 - royal figures 6-7,14,87,100-103 - See also Son of Man; Ruler cult Modalism 14 Monotheism 2-3 - Christian inclusive versus exclusive 14,28, 32-3 - Jewish inclusive 5-12,31-3,94 - Jewish exclusive 9, 10, 12 - among Gentiles 5-6,11-12,15-18 Moses - as focus for mysticism 49-50 - as 'god' for Pharaoh 25-6 - as Hermes-like messenger in the Assumption of 94-5 - as mediator of the covenant 34-46 - and purity 130 - as spirit 39-46 - praise for 38-46 - identified with Musaeus 19-20 - relationship to Egyptian religion 2022

Mysticism 47-8 - and the figure of wisdom 50, 54-8 - focal texts 49-50 - and Gnosticism 195-6 - and Hellenism 168 - relationship to biblical interpretation 48-9, 57-8 - Torah mysticism 49 - variation between Christian and Jewish expressions 47-50 Mythology - and early Christianity 168-9,202 - Greek 93-4, 168-9 - Jewish biblical 93-6, 102-3, 168 New English Bible 148 New Testament, Hebrew translations of 37-8, 46 New Testament Studies - and archaeology 164-5, 175, 193, 203, 219, 227-8 - in Britain 142-220 - and the Church of England 146-7

Index of Subjects -

267

and Classics 143, 155, 166, 169, 173, 175-6 and eschatology 152-3,169-70,172-3, 185, 188-9, 191, 198, 208,211-2 and form criticism 176,182-92,215, 217 and Gnosticism 168-9, 171, 175, 195-

divine appointment of gods to the Gentiles 5,20-29 - tolerance of by Jews 19-29,94 - later rabbinic attitudes toward 24-28 - See also Monotheism, Jewish inclusive Purity 108, 129-40, 161

6, 201, 222, 228

'Q' 151-2,211 Queens College(University), Belfast 146 Quest of the Historical Jesus See Jesus

-

and the Greek and Roman setting of early Christianity 166-76, 198, 201-2, 209-13, 219, 222 - and Heilsgeschichte 202-3,205-6 - hermeneutics 213-8 - in Israel 164-5,174,210 - and the Jewish context of early Christianity 143, 146, 160-7, 170-6, 188-9, 192-6, 198-213, 219, 221-35 - and the Lutheran tradition 208-9 - and Modernism 147-51,179 - and philology 142-3,149,154,166-7, 176-82, 197, 206, 212, 218-20 - and postmodernism 214-6 - and Religious Studies 142, 148-9, 208 - and the Roman Catholic church 1446, 174, 196 - and source criticism 184-5,187-91, 217 - and textual criticism 154-8,175,219 - and theology 176-82, 185-6, 188, 196208, 213-20 - and the versions 154-8, 161, 170, 1746, 177,213,219 - See also Paul, study of Nottingham, University of 197 Oxford, University of 146, 147, 149-51, 153, 182, 207 Paul - study of 166-74, 177, 180, 201-2, 20710, 223 - view of the temple in Acts 76-8 - compared with Aeneas 77-8 Pentecost 131-2 Pharisees and Pharisaism 229-34 Pius X 145, 146 Pius XII 146 Polytheism 10-11,15,18-29

-

Rabbinic literature in biblical studies 160-5, 175, 178, 188-9, 194, 207-8, 219-20, 221-35 Religionsgeschichtliche Schule 163, 16870, 185-6 Revolt, Jewish - 66-70 C . E . 4, 25, 221,230-1,233 - in the diaspora 115 C. E. 4 - Bar-Kokhba (132-5 C. E.) 4, 81, 83, 221-2, 233-4 Ruler-cult 3, 6, 12, 14, 84-5, 87-8, 94-6, 101-2, 136, 139, 168-71, 191 Sabbath 104-22, 130-4 Sacrificium - and the Lord's Supper 127-8 St. Andrews, University of 194, 195 'Second Temple Judaism' 223, 228, 232-5 - See also Herodian Age Second Vatican Council 148 Second World War 142, 146, 148, 196 Septuagint 5, 7, 9, 17, 42, 44-5, 48, 53, 55, 71, 80-2, 85-90, 102-3, 111-112, 1301, 170, 172-3, 177, 180, 219, 221, 232 Sheffield, University of 215 Son of Man 6 Song of Solomon - interpretation of 47—54, 57 Temple - of Apollo 69-70, 73 - comparison of restoration schemes of Herod and Augustus 71-2, 95 - critique of pagan temples in 4 Sib 72-8 - in Jerusalem 71-8 - in the New Testament 76—8 - of Minerva 70

268

Index of Subjects

- in the Sibylline Oracles 70, 72-78 - Solomon's 71-2, 75-6 - in Virgil 6 1 , 6 8 - 7 2 , 75 Therapeutae 122n-123n, 132, 134, 161 Titles for God 7-10, 16, 94, 96, 233 Trinitarianism 2 , 2 1 2 , 2 1 5 , 2 1 6 Trinity College, Dublin 146, 150, 215 Virgil - as a 'Christian vates' 59 - geography of his life 61-2 - reception in Greek and the eastern provinces 61-7 - relationship to early Judaism 59-61, 64, 66-8

- and the Sibylline Oracles 61 - See also Temple, in Virgil Vulgate 81 Wisdom - focus for mysticism 50, 54-8 - and St. John's Gospel 150-1 - personified as spirit 13 - as the pre-existent Christ 13,56 World Council of Churches 148 Zeus 11,16-18

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Alphabetical Index of the First and Second Series

Ädna, jostein: Jesu Stellung zum Tempel. 2000. Volume 11/119. - (Ed.): The Formation of the Early Church. 2005. Volume 183. - and Kvalbein, Hans (Ed.): The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. 2000. Volume 127. Alkier, Stefan: Wunder und Wirklichkeit in den Briefen des Apostels Paulus. 2001. Volume 134. Anderson, Paul N.: The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. 1996. Volume III 78. Appold, Mark L.: The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. 1976. Volume 11/1. Arnold, Clinton E.: The Colossian Syncretism. 1995. Volume 11/77. Ascough, Riebard S.: Paul's Macedonian Associations. 2003. Volume II/161. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin: Johannine Sabbath Conflicts As Juridical Controversy. 2001. Volume 11/132. Avemarie, Friedrich: Die Tauferzählungen der Apostelgeschichte. 2002. Volume 139. Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Uchtenherger (Ed.): Auferstehung - Ressurection. 2001. Volume 135. Avemarie, Friedrich and Hermann Uchtenherger (Ed.): Bund und Tora. 1996. Volume 92. Baarlink, Heinrich: Verkündigtes Heil. 2004. Volume 168. Bachmann, Michael: Sünder oder Übertreter. 1992. Volume 59. Bachmann, Michael (Ed.): Lutherische und Neue Paulusperspektive. 2005. Volume 182. Back, Frances: Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus. 2002. Volume 11/153. Baker, William R.: Personal Speech-Ethics in the Epistle of James. 1995. Volume 11/68. Bakke, Odd Magne: 'Concord and Peace'. 2001. Volume 11/143. Baldwin, Matthew C.: Whose Acts of Peter? 2005. Volume 11/196. Balla, Peter: Challenges to New Testament Theology. 1997. Volume 11/95. - The Child-Parent Relationship in the New Testament and its Environment. 2003. Volume 155. Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. Volume I 1986. Volume 37. - Volume II 1997. Volume 91.

Bash, Anthony: Ambassadors for Christ. 1997. Volume il/92. Bauertifeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Volume 22. Baum, Armin Daniel: Pseudepigraphie und literarische Fälschung im frühen Christentum. 2001. Volume 11/138. Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection. 1986. Volume 11/20. Becker, Eve-Marie and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Biographie und Persönlichkeit des Paulus. 2005. Volume 187. Becker, Michael: Wunder und Wundertäter im früh-rabbinischen Judentum. 2002. Volume 11/144. Bell, Richard H.: The Irrevocable Call of God. 2005. Volume 184. - No One Seeks for God. 1998. Volume 106. - Provoked to Jealousy. 1994. Volume 11/63. Bennema, Cornells: The Power of Saving Wisdom. 2002. Volume 11/148. Bergman, Jan: see Kiejfer, René Bergmeier, Roland: Das Gesetz im Römerbrief und andere Studien zum Neuen Testament. 2000. Volume 121. Bet% Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987. Volume 42. - Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Volume 52. Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magus und die chrisdiche Gnosis. 1974. Volume 16. Bittner, Wolfgang ].: Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. 1987. Volume 11/26. Bjerkelund, Carl J.: Tauta Egeneto. 1987. Volume 40. Blackburn, Barry Fee: Theios Ane- r and the Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991. Volume 11/40. Bock, Darreil L.: Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus. 1998. Volume 11/106. Bockmuehl, Markus NA.: Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 1990. Volume 11/36. Bee, Sverre: Gog and Magog. 2001. Volume 11/135. Böhlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus. Teil 1 1989. Volume 47 - Teil 2 1989. Volume 48.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

Böhm, Martina: Samarien und die Samaritai bei Lukas. 1999. Volume II/111. Böttrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit — Menschheitsethik - Urkult. 1992. Volume 11/50. Bolyki, Jânos: Jesu Tischgemeinschaften. 1997. Volume 11/96. Bosman, Philip: Conscience in Philo and Paul. 2003. Volume II/166. Bovon, François: Studies in Early Christianity. 2003. Volume 161. Brocke, Christoph vom: Thessaloniki — Stadt des Kassander und Gemeinde des Paulus. 2001. Volume II/125. Brunson, Andrew: Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John. 2003. Volume 11/158. Büchli, Jörg: Der Poimandres — ein paganisiertes Evangelium. 1987. Volume 11/27. Bühner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. 1977. Volume II/2. Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Volume 8. — Studien zur Theologie, Sprache und Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Ed. von D. Sänger. 1998. Volume 107. Burnett, Richard: Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis. 2001. Volume II/145. Byron, John: Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity. 2003. Volume II/162. Byrskog, Samuel: Story as History — History as Story. 2000. Volume 123. Candk, Hubert (Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Volume 33. Capes, David B.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Paul's Christology. 1992. Volume 11/47. Caragounis, Chrys C.: The Development of Greek and the New Testament. 2004. Volume 167. — The Son of Man. 1986. Volume 38. — see Fridrichsen, Anton. Carleton Paget, James: The Episde of Barnabas. 1994. Volume 11/64. Carson, DA., O 'Brien, Peter T. and Mark Seifrid (Ed.): Justification and Variegated Nomism. Volume 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism. 2001. Volume 11/140. Volume 2: The Paradoxes of Paul. 2004. Volume 11/181. Ciampa, Roy E.: The Presence and Function of Scripture in Galatians 1 and 2. 1998. Volume 11/102. Classen, Carl Joachim: Rhetorical Critic s m of the New Testament. 2000. Volume 128. Colpe, Carsten: Iranier — Aramäer — Hebräer — Hellenen. 2003. Volume 154. Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992. Volume 11/49.

%um Neuen

Testament

Dahl, Nils Alstrup: Studies in Ephesians. 2000. Volume 131. Deines, Roland: Die Gerechtigkeit der Tora im Reich des Messias. 2004. Volume 177. — Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. 1993. Volume 11/52. — Die Pharisäer. 1997. Volume 101. — and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Philo und das Neue Testament. 2004. Volume 172. Dettwiler, Andreas and Jean Zum stein (Ed.): Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament. 2002. Volume 151. Dickson, John P.: Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities. 2003. Volume II/159. Diettfelbinger, Christian: Der Abschied des Kommenden. 1997. Volume 95. Dimitrov, Ivan Z., James D.G. Dunn, Ulrich Lu^ and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. 2004. Volume 174. Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube als Teilhabe. 1987. Volume 11/22. Du Toit, David S.: Theios Anthropos. 1997. Volume 11/91 Dübbers, Michael: Christologie und Existenz im Kolosserbrief. 2005. Volume II/191. Dunn, James D.G.: The New Perspective on Paul. 2005. Volume 185. Dunn , James D.G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. 1992. Volume 66. — Paul and the Mosaic Law. 1996. Volume 89. — see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. Dunn, James D.G., Hans Klein, Ulrich Lu% and Vasile Mihoc (Ed.): Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. 2000. Volume 130. Ebel, Eva: Die Attraktivität früher christlicher Gemeinden. 2004. Volume 11/178. Ebert% Michael N.: Das Charisma des Gekreuzigten. 1987. Volume 45. Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff Syneidesis bei Paulus. 1983. Volume 11/10. — Verheißung und Gesetz. 1996. Volume 86. Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie auf Erden. 1989. Volume 11/34 Ego, Beate, Armin hange and Peter Pilhofer (Ed.): Gemeinde ohne Tempel — Community without Temple. 1999. Volume 118. — und Helmut Merkel (Ed.): Religiöses Lernen in der biblischen, frühjüdischen und früh-christlichen Überlieferung. 2005. Volume 180. Eisen, Ute E.: see Paulsen, Henning. EJledge, C.D.: Life after Death in Early Judaism. 2006. Volume 11/208.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. 1978. Volume 18. — The Old Testament in Early Christianity. 1991. Volume 54. Endo, Masanobw. Creation and Christology. 2002. Volume 149. Ennulat, Andreas: Die 'Minor Agreements'. 1994. Volume 11/62. Ensor, Peter W.: Jesus and His "Works'. 1996. Volume 11/85. Eskola, Timo: Messiah and the Throne. 2001. Volume 11/142. — Theodicy and Predestination in Pauline Soteriology. 1998. Volume II/100. Fatehi, Mehrdad: The Spirit's Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul. 2000. Volume 11/128. Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. 1987. Volume 11/21. — Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Volume 64. Feldmeier, Reinhard and Ulrich Meckel (Ed.): Die Heiden. 1994. Volume 70. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T.: Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology. 1997. Volume 11/94. Förster, Niclas: Marcus Magus. 1999. Volume 114. Forbes, Christopher Brian: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment. 1995. Volume 11/75. Fornberg, Tord: see Fridrichsen, Anton. Fossum, Jarl E.: The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. 1985. Volume 36. Foster, Paul: Community, Law and Mission in Matthew's Gospel. Volume II/177. Fotopoulos, John: Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth. 2003. Volume 11/151. Frenschkomki, Marco: Offenbarung und Epiphanie. Volume 1 1995. Volume 11/79 Volume 2 1997. Volume 11/80. Frey, Jörg: Eugen Drewermann und die biblische Exegese. 1995. Volume 11/71. — Die johanneische Eschatologie. Volume I. 1997. Volume 96. - Volume II. 1998. Volume 110. — Volume III. 2000. Volume 117. Frey, Jörg and Udo Schnelle (Ed.): Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. 2004. Volume 175. — and Jens Schröter (Ed.): Deutungen des Todes Jesu im Neuen Testament. 2005. Volume 181. Freyne, Sean: Galüee and Gospel. 2000. Volume 125. Fridrichsen, Anton: Exegetical Writings. Edited by C.C. Caragounis and T. Fornberg. 1994. Volume 76. Gackle, Volker: Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom. 2005. Volume 200.

%um Neuen

Testament

Garlington, Don B.: 'The Obedience of Faith'. 1991. Volume 11/38. — Faith, Obedience, and Perseverance. 1994. Volume 79. Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Volume 11/3. Gemünden, Petra von (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette. Gese, Michael: Das Vermächtnis des Apostels. 1997. Volume 11/99. Gheorghita, Radu: The Role of the Septuagint in Hebrews. 2003. Volume 11/160. Grabe, Petrus J.: The Power of God in Paul's Letters. 2000. Volume 11/123. Größer, Erich: Der Alte Bund im Neuen. 1985. Volume 35. — Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte. 2001. Volume 137. Green, Joel B.: The Death of Jesus. 1988. Volume 11/33. Gregg, Brian Han: The Historical Jesus and the Final Judgment Sayings in Q. 2005. Volume 11/207. Gregory, Andrew: The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period before Irenaeus. 2003. Volume 11/169. Grindheim, Sigurd: The Crux of Election. 2005. Volume 11/202. Gundry, Robert H.: The Old is Better. 2005. Volume 178. Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance. 1990. Volume II/37. Hafemann, Scott J.: Suffering and the Spirit. 1986. Volume 11/19. — Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel. 1995. Volume 81. Hahn, Ferdinand: Studien zum Neuen Testament. Vol. I: Grundsatzfragen, Jesusforschung, Evangelien. 2006. Volume 191. Vol. II: Bekenntnisbildung und Theologie in urchristlicher Zeit. 2006. Volume 192. Hahn, Johannes (Ed.): Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. 2002. Volume 147. Hannah, Darrel D.: Michael and Christ. 1999. Volume 11/109. Hamid-Khani, Saeed: Relevation and Concealment of Christ. 2000. Volume 11/120. Harrison; James R.: Paul's Language of Grace in Its Graeco-Roman Context. 2003. Volume 11/172. Hartman, Ears: Text-Centered New Testament Studies. Ed. von D. Hellholm. 1997. Volume 102. Hartog, Paul: Polycarp and the New Testament. 2001. Volume 11/134. Heckel, Theo K.: Der Innere Mensch. 1993. Volume 11/53.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

— Vom Evangelium des Markus zum vielgestaltigen Evangelium. 1999. Volume 120. Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993. Volume III 56. — Der Segen im Neuen Testament. 2002. Volume 150. — see Feldmeier, Reinhard. — see Hengel, Martin. Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983. Volume 11/ 9. Hellholm, D.: see Hartman, Lars. Hemer, Colin J.: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. 1989. Volume 49. Hengel, Martin: J u d e n t u m und Hellenismus. 1969, '1988. Volume 10. — Die johanneische Frage. 1993. Volume 67. — Judaica et Hellenistica. Kleine Schriften I. 1996. Volume 90. — Judaica, Hellenistica et Christiana. Kleine Schriften II. 1999. Volume 109. — Paulus und Jakobus. Kleine Schriften III. 2002. Volume 141. Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus und das antike Judentum. 1991. Volume 58. Hengel, Martin and Hermut Lohr (Ed.): Schriftauslegung im antiken J u d e n t u m und im Urchristentum. 1994. Volume 73. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Scbwemer: Paulus zwischen Damaskus und Antiochien. 1998. Volume 108. — Der messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfange der Christologie. 2001. Volume 138. Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult. 1991. Volume 55. — Die Septuaginta. 1994. Volume 72. Hengel, Martin; Siegfried Mittmann and Anna Maria Schmmer (Ed.): La Cité de Dieu / Die Stadt Gottes. 2000. Volume 129. Herrenbrück, I 'nt?: Jesus und die Zöllner. 1990. Volume U/41. Herker, Jens: Paulus oder Petrus? 1998. Volume 103. Hill, Charles E.: From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp. 2005. Volume 186. Hoegen-Rohls, Christina: Der nachösterliche Johannes. 1996. Volume 11/84. Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard: The Destroyer and the Lamb. 2005. Volume 11/203. Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Volume 11. — Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972. Volume 14. — Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,6-11. 1976, 2 1991. Volume 17. — Paulusstudien. 1989, 2 1994. Volume 51.

7um Neuen

Testament

— Neutestamentliche Studien. 2000. Volume 132. — Paulusstudien II. 2002. Volume 143. Hofius, Otfried and Hans-Christian Kammler: Johannesstudien. 1996. Volume 88. Holt^j Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums. 1991. Volume 57. Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Volume 1 1983. Volume 31 - Volume 2 1984. Volume 32. Horburj, William: Herodian Judaism and New Testament Study. 2006. Volume 193. Hvalvik, Reidar: The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. 1996. Volume 11/82. Jauhiainen, Marko: The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. 2005. Volume 11/199. Johns, Loren L: The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John. 2003. Volume 11/167. Joubert, Stephan: Paul as Benefactor. 2000. Volume 11/124. Jungbauer, Harry: „Ehre Vater und Mutter". 2002. Volume 11/146. Kahler, Christoph: Jesu Gleichnisse als Poesie und Therapie. 1995. Volume 78. Kamiah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. 1964. Volume 7. Kammler, Hans-Christian: Christologie und Eschatologie. 2000. Volume 126. — Kreuz und Weisheit. 2003. Volume 159. — see Hofius, Otfried. Kelhoffer, James A.: The Diet of John the Baptist. 2005. Volume 176. — Miracle and Mission. 1999. Volume 11/112. Kieffer, René and Jan Bergman (Bd.): La Main de Dieu / Die Hand Gottes. 1997. Volume 94. Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel. 1981, 2 1984. Volume 11/4. — Paul and the New Perspective. 2002. Volume 140. — "The 'Son of Man'" as the Son of God. 1983. Volume 30. Klauck, Hans-Josef: Religion und Gesellschaft im frühen Christentum. 2003. Volume 152. Klein, Hans: see Dunn, James D.G.. Kleinknecht, Karl Tb.: Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. 1984, 2 1988. Volume 11/13. Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 1988. Volume 11/32. Koch, Michael: Drachenkampf und Sonnenfrau. 2004. Volume 11/184. Koch, Stefan: Rechtliche Regelung von Konflikten im frühen Christentum. 2004. Volume 11/174. Köhler, Wolf Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987. Volume 11/24. Köhn, Andreas: Der Neutestamender Ernst Lohmeyer. 2004. Volume 11/180.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

Kooten, George H. van: Cosmic Christology in Paul and the Pauline School. 2003. Volume U/171. Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in verändertet Zeit. 1993. Volume 11/51. Koskenniemi, Erkki: Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese. 1994. Volume 11/61. The Old Testament Miracle-Workers in Early Judaism. 2005. Volume 11/206. Kraus, Thomas ].: Sprache, Stil und historischer Ort des zweiten Petrusbriefes. 2001. Volume 11/136. Kraus, Wolfgang: Das Volk Gottes. 1996. Volume 85. — and Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr (Ed.): Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. 2003. Volume 162. — see Walter, Nikolaus. Kreplin, Matthias: Das Selbstverständnis Jesu. 2001. Volume U/141. Kuhn, Karl G.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim. 1950. Volume 1. Kvalbein, Hans: see Adna, Jostein. Kwon, Yon-Gjong: Eschatology in Galatians. 2004. Volume U/m. Laansma, Jon: I Will Give You Rest. 1997. Volume 11/98. Labahn, Michael: Offenbarung in Zeichen und Wort. 2000. Volume 11/117. Lambers-Petry, Doris: see Tomson, Peter J. Lange, Armin: see Ego, Beate. Lampe, Peter: Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987, 2 1989. Volume 11/18. Landmesser, Christof: Wahrheit als Grundbegriff neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft. 1999. Volume 113. — J ü n g e r b e r u f u n g und Z u w e n d u n g zu Gott. 2000. Volume 133. Lau, Andrew: Manifest in Flesh. 1996. Volume 11/86. Laurence, Louise: An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew. 2003. Volume 11/165. Lee, Aquila H.I.: From Messiah to Preexistent Son. 2005. Volume 11/192. Lee, Pilchan: The New Jerusalem in the Book of Relevation. 2000. Volume 11/129. Uchtenberger, Hermann: see Avemarie, Friedrich. Uchtenberger, Hermann: Das Ich Adams und das Ich der Menschheit. 2004. Volume 164. Uerman, John: The New Testament Moses. 2004. Volume 11/173. Lieu, Samuel N.C.: Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 2 1992. Volume 63. Lindgärd, Fredrik: Paul's Line of Thought in 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:10. 2004. Volume 11/189.

%um Neuen

Testament

Loader, William KG.: Jesus' Attitude Towards the Law. 1997. Volume 11/97. Lohr, Gebhard: Verherrlichung Gottes durch Philosophie. 1997. Volume 97. Lohr, Hermut: Studien zum frühchristlichen und frühjüdischen Gebet. 2003. Volume 160. — see Hengel, Martin. Lohr, Winrich Alfried: Basilides und seine Schule. 1995. Volume 83. Luomanen, Petri: Entering the Kingdom of Heaven. 1998. Volume II/101. Lu% Ulrich: see Dunn, James D.G. Mackay, lan D.: John's Raltionship with Mark. 2004. Volume 11/182. Maier, Gerhard: Mensch und freier Wille. 1971. Volume 12. — Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche. 1981. Volume 25. Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus? 1992. Volume 65. Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians. 1987. Volume 11/23. Mayer, Annemarie: Sprache der Einheit im Epheserbrief und in der Ökumene. 2002. Volume 11/150. Mayordomo, Moisés: Argumentiert Paulus logisch? 2005. Volume 188. McDonough, Sean M.: Y H W H at Patmos: Rev. 1:4 in its Hellenisoc and Early Jewish Setting. 1999. Volume 11/107. McGlynn, Moyna: Divine Judgement and Divine Benevolence in the Book of Wisdom. 2001. Volume 11/139. Meade, David G.: Pseudonymity and Canon. 1986. Volume 39. Meadors, Edward P.: Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation. 1995. Volume 11/72. Meißner, Stefan: Die Heimholung des Ketzers. 1996. Volume 11/87. Meli, Ulrich: Die „anderen" Winzer. 1994. Volume 77. Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief. 1982. Volume U/8. Merkel, Helmut: Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. 1971. Volume 13. — see Ego, Beate. Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. Volume 1 1987. Volume 43. - Volume 2 1998. Volume 105. Mendorf, Christina: Die Tempelaktion Jesu. 2003. Volume 11/168. Methler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des Verzeihens. 1991. Volume U/44. Met^ner, Plainer: Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums im 1. Petrusbrief. 1995. Volume 11/74.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

— Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium. 2000. Volume 122. Mihoc, Vasile: see Dunn, James D.G.. Mineshige, Kiyoshi: Besitzverzicht und Almosen bei Lukas. 2003. Volume U/163. Mittmann, Siegfried: see Hengel, Mariin. Mittmann-Richert, Ulrike: Magnifikat und Benediktus. 1996. Volume 11/90. Mournet, Terence C.: Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency. 2005. Volume 11/195. Mußner, Fran%: Jesus von Nazareth im Umfeld Israels und der Urkirche. Ed. von M. Theobald. 1998. Volume 111. Mutschier, Bernhard: Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenaus von Lyon. 2005. Volume 189. Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paränese. 1987. Volume 11/28. — Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Volume 62. — see Deines, Roland — see Dimitrov, Ivan Z. — see Kraus, Wolfgang Nielsen, Anders E.: "Until it is Fullfilled". 2000. Volume 11/126. Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum. 1974. Volume 15. Noack, Christian: Gottesbewußtsein. 2000. Volume 11/116. Noormann, Rolf: Irenaus als Paulusinterpret. 1994. Volume 11/66. Novakovic, Udija: Messiah, the Healer of the Sick. 2003. Volume 11/170. Obermann, Andreas: Die chris to logische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. 1996. Volume 11/83. Ohler, Markus: Barnabas. 2003. Volume 156. Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mission. 1988. Volume 11/31. Onuki, Takashi: Heil und Erlösung. 2004. Volume 165. Orope^a, B. ].: Paul and Apostasy. 2000. Volume 11/115. Ostmeyer, Karl-Heinrich: Taufe und Typos. 2000. Volume 11/118. Tauisen, Henning: Studien zur Literatur und Geschichte des frühen Christentums. Ed. von Ute E. Eisen. 1997. Volume 99. Pao, David W.: Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. 2000. Volume 11/130. Park, Bung Chun: The Mission Discourse in Matthew's Interpretation. 1995. Volume 11/81. Park, Joseph S.: Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Insriptions. 2000. Volume 11/121. Pate, C. Marvin: The Reverse of the Curse. 2000. Volume 11/114. Peres, Imre: Griechische Grabinschriften und neutestamentliche Eschatologie. 2003. Volume 157.

%um Neuen

Testament

Philip, Finnj: The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology. 2005. Volume 11/194. Philonenko, Marc (Ed.): Le Trone de Dieu. 1993. Volume 69. Pilhofer, Peter: Presbyteron Kreitton. 1990. Volume 11/39. - Philippi. Volume 1 1995. Volume 87. Volume 2 2000. Volume 119. - Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt. 2002. Volume 145. - see Becker, Hve-Marie. - see Ego, Beate. Pitre, Brant: Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile. 2005. Volume 11/204. Plümacher, Eckhard: Geschichte und Geschichten. Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte und zu den Johannesakten. Herausgegeben von Jens Schröter und Ralph Brucker. 2004. Volume 170. Pöhlmann, Wolfgang: Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus. 1993. Volume 68. Pokomj, Petr and Josef B. Soucek: Bibelauslegung als Theologie. 1997. Volume 100. Pokomj, Petr and Jan Roskovec (Ed.): Philosophical Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis. 2002. Volume 153. Popkes, Enno Eduard: Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften. 2005. Volume 11/197. Porter, Stanley E.: The Paul of Acts. 1999. Volume 115. Prieur, Alexander: Die Verkündigung der Gottesherrschaft. 1996. Volume 11/89. Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. Volume 11/45. Riiisänen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983, 2 1987. Volume 29. Rehkopf, Friedrich: Die lukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Volume 5. Rein, Matthias: Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen (Joh 9). 1995. Volume 11/73. Reinmuth, Eckart: Pseudo-Philo und Lukas. 1994. Volume 74. Reiser, Marius: Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984. Volume 11/11. RJjodes, James N.: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition. 2004. Volume 11/188. Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. 1991. Volume 11/42. Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 3 1988. Volume 11/ 7. - Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus. 1994. Volume 71. Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs. 1987. Volume 41. Roskovec, Jan: see Pokomj, Petr.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

Röhser, Günter: Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde. 1987. Volume 11/25. Rose, Christian: Die Wolke der Zeugen. 1994. Volume 11/60. Rothschild, Clare K: Baptist Traditions and Q. 2005. Volume 190. —: Luke Acts and the Rhetoric of History. 2004. Volume 11/175. RJiegger, Hans-UIrich: Verstehen, was Markus erzählt. 2002. Volume 11/155. Rüger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza. 1991. Volume 53. Sänger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien. 1980. Volume 11/5. — Die Verkündigung des Gekreuzigten und Israel. 1994. Volume 75. — see Burchard, Christoph Salier, Willis Hedley: The Rhetorical Impact of the Se-meia in the Gospel of John. 2004. Volume 11/186. Sal^mann, Jorg Christian: Lehren und Ermahnen. 1994. Volume 11/59. Sandnes, Karl Olav: Paul — One of the Prophets? 1991. Volume 11/43. Sato, Migaku: Q und Prophetie. 1988. Volume 11/29. Schäfer, Ruth: Paulus bis zum Apostelkonzil. 2004. Volume 11/179. Schaper, Joachim: Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. 1995. Volume 11/76. Schimanomki, Gottfried: Die himmlische Liturgie in der Apokalypse des Johannes. 2002. Volume 11/154. - Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Volume 11/17. Schlichting, Günter: Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu. 1982. Volume 24. Schnabel, Eckhard J.: Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Volume 11/16. Schnelle, Udo: see Frey, Jörg. Schröter, Jens: see Frey, Jörg. Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter. 1989. Volume 11/30. Schwärt% Daniel R: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. 1992. Volume 60. Schwemer, Anna Maria: see Hengel, Martin Scott, lan W.: Implicit Epistemology in the Letters of Paul. 2005. Volume 77/205. Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God. 1992. Volume 11/48. - Paul and the Nations. 1995. Volume 84. Shum, Shiu-Lun: Paul's Use of Isaiah in Romans. 2002. Volume 11/156. Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten. Teil I 1980. Volume 20 - Teil II 1992. Volume 61. - Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Volume 26. — Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Volume 34.

%um Neuen

Testament

— Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Volume 46. Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux I/II. 1981. Volume 23. Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. 1983. Volume 27. Söding, Thomas: Das Wort vom Kreuz. 1997. Volume 93. Wilhelm. — see Thüsing, Sommer, Urs: Die Passionsgeschichte des Markusevangeliums. 1993. Volume 11/58. Soucek, Josef B.: see Pokornj, Petr. Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen Bundes. 1993. Volume 11/55. Spanje, T.E. van: Inconsistency in Paul? 1999. Volume 11/110. Speyer, Wolfgang: Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld. Volume I: 1989. Volume 50. — Volume II: 1999. Volume 116. Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter. 1980. Volume 11/6. Stenschke, Christoph W: Luke's Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith. Volume 11/108. Sterck-Degueldre, Jean-Pierre: Eine Frau namens Lydia. 2004. Volume 11/176. Stettier, Christian-. Der Kolosserhymnus. 2000. Volume 11/131. Stettier, Hanna: Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe. 1998. Volume 11/105. Stökl Ben E%ra, Daniel: The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity. 2003. Volume 163. Strobel, August: Die Stunde der Wahrheit. 1980. Volume 21. Stroumsa, Guy G.: Barbarian Philosophy. 1999. Volume 112. Stuckenbruck, Loren T.: Angel Veneration and Christology. 1995. Volume 11/70. Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. 1983. Volume 28. — Biblische Theologie und Evangelium. 2002. Volume 146. Sung, Chong-Hyon: Vergebung der Sünden. 1993. Volume 11/57. Tajra, Harry lV.: The Tnal of St. Paul. 1989. Volume 11/35. — The Martyrdom of St.Paul. 1994. Volume 11/67. Theißen, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 1979, M989. Volume 19. Theobald, Michael: Studien zum Römerbrief. 2001. Volume 136. Theobald, Michael: see Mußner, Fran%. Thomton, Claus-Jürgen: Der Zeuge des Zeugen. 1991. Volume 56.

Wissenschaftliche

Untersuchungen

Thü sing, Wilhelm: Studien zur neutes tarnen tlichen Theologie. Ed. von Thomas Söding. 1995. Volume 82. Thurén, Lauri: Derhethorizing Paul. 2000. Volume 124. Tolmie, D. Francois: Persuading the Galatians. 2005. Volume II/190. Tomson, Peter J. and Doris Lambers-Petty (Ed.): The Image of the Judaeo-Christians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature. 2003. Volume 158. Trebilco, Paul: The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. 2004. Volume 166. Treloar, Geoffrey R.: Lightfoot the Historian. 1998. Volume 11/103. Tsuji, Manabu: Glaube zwischen Vollkommenheit und Verweltlichung. 1997. Volume 11/93 Twelftree, Graham H.: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Volume 11/54. Urban, Christina: Das Menschenbild nach dem Johannesevangelium. 2001. Volume 11/137. Visot^ky, Burton L.: Fathers of the World. 1995. Volume 80. Vollenweider, Samuel: Horizonte neutestamentlicher Christologie. 2002. Volume 144. Vos, Johan S.: Die Kunst der Argumentation bei Paulus. 2002. Volume 149. Wagener, Ulrike: Die Ordnung des „Hauses Gottes". 1994. Volume 11/65. Wahlen, Clinton: Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. 2004. Volume 11/185. Walker, Donald D.: Paul's Offer of Leniency (2 Cor 10:1). 2002. Volume 11/152. Walter, Nikolaus: Praeparatio Evangélica. Ed. von Wolfgang Kraus und Florian Wilk. 1997. Volume 98. Wander, Bernd: Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. 1998. Volume 104. Watts, Rikki: Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. 1997. Volume U/88. Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection. 1987. Volume 44.

%um Neuen

Testament

Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. 1985. Volume 11/14. Weissenrieder, Annette: Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke. 2003. Volume 11/164. Friederike Wendt and Petra von Gemünden (Ed.): Picturing the New Testament. 2005. Volume 11/193. Welck, Christian: Erzählte ,Zeichen'. 1994. Volume 11/69. Wendt, Friederike (Ed.): see Weissenrieder, Annette. Wiarda, Timothy: Peter in the Gospels. 2000. Volume 11/127. Wifstrand, Albert: Epochs and Styles. 2005. Volume 179. Wilk, Florian: see Walter, Nikolaus. Williams, Catrin H.: I am He. 2000. Volume 11/113. Wilson, Walter T.: Love without Pretense. 1991. Volume 11/ 46. Wischmeyer, Oda: Von Ben Sir a zu Paulus. 2004. Volume 173. Wisdom, J e f f r e y : Blessing for the Nations and the Curse of the Law. 2001. Volume 11/133. Wold, Benjamin G.: Women, Men, and Angels. 2005. Volume II¡2001. Wright, Archie T.: The Origin of Evil Spirits. 2005. Volume II/198. Wucherpfennig, Ansgar: Heracleon Philologus. 2002. Volume 142. Yeung, Maureen: Faith in Jesus and Paul. 2002. Volume II/147. Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Lehrer. 1984, 2 1988. Volume 11/12. Zimmermann, Johannes: Messianische Texte aus Qumran. 1998. Volume 11/104. Zimmermann, Kuben: Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium. 2004. Volume 171. — Geschlechtermetaphorik und Gottesverhältnis. 2001. Volume 11/122. Zum stein, Jean: see Dettwiler, Andreas Zwiep, Arie W.: Judas and the Choice of Matthias. 2004. Volume II/187.

For a complete catalogue please write to the publisher Mohr Siebeck • P.O. Box 2030 • D-72010 Tübingen/Germany Up-to-date information on the internet at im>u>.mohr.de