Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels 9783631628980, 9783653031522, 3631628986

Citation preview

European Studies in T heolog y, Philosophy and Histor y of Religions Edited by Bartosz Adamczewski

Vol. 3

Bartosz Adamczewski

Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

Cover Design: © Olaf Gloeckler, Atelier Platen, Friedberg

ISSN 2192-1857 ISBN 978-3-631-62898-0 (Print) ISBN 978-3-653-03152-2 (E-Book) DOI 10.3726/978-3-653-03152-2

© Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Frankfurt am Main 2013 All rights reserved. Peter Lang Edition is an Imprint of Peter Lang GmbH All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. www.peterlang.de

Acknowledgments I thank my dear Mother, Jolanta Adamczewska, MSc; my Diocese of Warszawa-Praga; and the community of the Catholic Parish of St Mark in Warsaw for their encouragement and spiritual support during my writing this book. I would also like to thank the fellow scholars who by their thought-provoking questions during my habilitation colloquium helped me to clarify some of the ideas which are contained in this book. My thanks also go to the staff of the Tübingen University Library for their help during my summer bibliographical research. Last but not least, I want to thank Mr Łukasz Gałecki and the members of the staff of the Publisher who helped turn the electronic version of the text into a book.

Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples............................................. 13 1.1 Mk 5:1-20.................................................................................................... 15 1.1.1 Mk 5:1-20 within the sequentially composed hypertext Mk 1:1-5:20 ....................................................................................... 15 1.1.1.1 Mk 1:1-8 cf. Gal 1:1-14........................................................ 16 1.1.1.2 Mk 1:9-45 cf. Gal 1:15-17b.................................................. 18 1.1.1.3 Mk 2-3 cf. Gal 1:17c-20 ....................................................... 19 1.1.1.4 Mk 4:1-5:20 cf. Gal 1:21-24 ................................................ 20 1.1.2 Surprising features of the Marcan story Mk 5:1-20 .......................... 23 1.1.3 Mk 5:1-20 as a hypertextual reworking of Homer’s Odyssey .......... 28 1.2 Lk 11:2-4 (par. Mt 6:9-13) .......................................................................... 33 1.2.1 Lk 11:2-4 within the sequentially composed hypertext Lk 9:51-11:28 .................................................................................... 34 1.2.1.1 Lk 9:51-56 cf. Gal 1:1-14..................................................... 34 1.2.1.2 Lk 9:57-62 cf. Gal 1:15-16................................................... 35 1.2.1.3 Lk 10:1-22 cf. Gal 1:17 ........................................................ 36 1.2.1.4 Lk 10:23-37 cf. Gal 1:18 ...................................................... 37 1.2.1.5 Lk 10:38-11:13 cf. Gal 1:19 ................................................. 39 1.2.1.6 Lk 11:14-26 cf. Gal 1:20-22................................................. 40 1.2.1.7 Lk 11:27-28 cf. Gal 1:23-24................................................. 41 1.2.2 Lk 11:2-4 as a reworking of Mk 11:25 ............................................. 41 1.2.3 Mt 6:9-13 as a reworking of Lk 11:2-4 ............................................. 43 1.3 Mt 2:1-12..................................................................................................... 45 1.3.1 Exegetical problems of the Matthean story Mt 2:1-12...................... 46 1.3.2 Mt 2:1-12 as a hypertextual reworking of Acts 2:1-47 ..................... 48 1.4 Jn 21:1-14.................................................................................................... 53 1.4.1 Jn 21:1-14 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 27:33-28:6.......................................................................................... 54 1.4.2 Jn 21:1-14 as a reworking of other New Testament texts................. 58 1.5 Conclusion: The solution to all exegetical problems? ................................ 60

8

Contents

Chapter 2 The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material................................... 65 2.1 The Old Testament background .................................................................. 65 2.2 Early Christian oral traditions ..................................................................... 71 2.3 Paul the Apostle .......................................................................................... 76 2.4 The illusory ‘Q source’ ............................................................................... 80 2.5 Flavius Josephus and other classical writers............................................... 85 2.5.1 Flavius Josephus................................................................................ 86 2.5.1.1 Ant. 18.63-64 ........................................................................ 86 2.5.1.2 Ant. 20.200 ........................................................................... 89 2.5.1.3 C.Ap. 1.47-56........................................................................ 89 2.5.2 Pliny the Younger.............................................................................. 91 2.5.3 Tacitus ............................................................................................... 92 2.5.4 Suetonius ........................................................................................... 94 2.6 The canonical Gospels ................................................................................ 96 2.6.1 The Gospel of Mark .......................................................................... 97 2.6.2 The Gospel of Luke ......................................................................... 102 2.6.3 The Gospel of Matthew ................................................................... 111 2.6.4 The Gospel of John.......................................................................... 117 2.7 The apocryphal Gospels............................................................................ 123 2.8 Church Fathers .......................................................................................... 123 2.8.1 Ignatius of Antioch .......................................................................... 123 2.8.2 Papias............................................................................................... 124 2.8.3 Irenaeus............................................................................................ 128 2.8.4 Origen .............................................................................................. 129 2.8.5 John Chrysostom ............................................................................. 131 2.8.6 Augustine......................................................................................... 132 2.9 Modern research on the historical Jesus ................................................... 133 2.10 Criteria for reconstructing the historical Jesus.......................................... 135 2.11 A plausible reconstruction of the historical Jesus..................................... 139

Contents

9

Chapter 3 Hypertextuality and historicity in the Gospels from a modern Catholic perspective........................................................................................................ 147 3.1 Divino Afflante Spiritu .............................................................................. 147 3.2 Sancta Mater Ecclesia............................................................................... 150 3.3 Dei Verbum ............................................................................................... 152 3.3.1 General principles............................................................................ 153 3.3.2 New Testament in general............................................................... 156 3.3.3 Historicity of the Gospels................................................................ 158 3.4 L’interprétation de la Bible dans l’Église ................................................. 162 3.4.1 Historical-critical method................................................................ 163 3.4.2 Intertextuality and relectures ........................................................... 165 3.4.3 Canonical approach ......................................................................... 166 3.4.4 Plurality of the literal sense ............................................................. 167 3.4.5 Rejection of fundamentalism........................................................... 169 3.5 Catechism of the Catholic Church ............................................................ 170 3.6 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth......................................................... 172 3.7 Verbum Domini ......................................................................................... 178 3.8 Dark night of faith? ................................................................................... 181 General conclusions .......................................................................................... 185 Bibliography...................................................................................................... 187 Primary sources ................................................................................................. 187 Israelite-Jewish.......................................................................................... 187 Graeco-Roman .......................................................................................... 188 Inscriptions and papyri .................................................................... 188 Literary texts.................................................................................... 188 Early Christian (I-II c. AD) ........................................................................ 189 Church documents..................................................................................... 189 Secondary literature .................................................................................. 190 Index of ancient sources .................................................................................... 221

Introduction The problem of the reconstruction of the course of life, deeds, and words of Jesus Christ is undoubtedly one of the most fascinating issues in modern biblical scholarship. In order to cope with this issue, scholars devised various reconstructive methods and procedures, which are usually presented today under the labels of several ‘quests for the historical Jesus’. 1 In this way, notwithstanding all the differences between various scholarly proposals, a more or less coherent image of the historical Jesus as a particular Jewish religious and social ‘activist’, who lived in first-century Galilee, emerged and became more or less widely accepted in mainstream scholarship. 2 However, all reconstructions of the deeds and words of the historical Jesus, which were presented at various stages of the ‘historical Jesus research’, were formulated on one fundamental assumption, namely that the Gospels more or less directly refer to the life of the historical Jesus. Even if numerous modern scholars regarded various parts of the Gospel material as most probably unhistorical, this basic assumption concerning the referential character of the Gospels was in fact never challenged. Consequently, scholars still generally believe that the Gospels in an at least fundamental way reflect the features of the life and person of the historical Jesus: his early activity in Galilee, his challenging interpretation of the Jewish law, his clashes with the Pharisees, his travel to Jerusalem, his conflict with the chief priests in the Holy City, etc. The most recent research on the hypertextual features of the Gospels has revealed that this basic scholarly assumption is not necessarily true. In general, it can be argued that the Gospels were not written with the aim of recording the

1

2

For recent descriptions of these ‘quests for the historical Jesus’, see e.g. U. Luz, ‘Jesus from a Western Perspective: State of Research. Methodology’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars: Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (WUNT 288; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 41-64 (esp. 43-60); R. Bartnicki, Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (4th edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 437-600. Cf. e.g. J. H. Charlesworth, ‘The Historical Jesus: How to Ask Questions and Remain Inquisitive’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 91-128 (esp. 116-125); P. Pokorný, ‘Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 333-359 (esp. 344347); U. Luz, ‘Jesus’, 55-57.

12

Introduction

course of life, deeds, and words of the historical, ‘fleshly’ Jesus. The Gospels are results of hypertextual reworking of the letters of Paul the Apostle and of other early Christian writings, which were regarded by the evangelists as the sources for the knowledge of the real, ‘spiritual’ Jesus Christ, who came to be known to the world in the course of life, in the person, and in the writings of his particularly chosen Apostle, and who still lives in his Church. The research on the historical Jesus ought to take this basic feature of the Gospels into serious consideration. 3 Consequently, in order to deal with the issue of reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus in a truly scholarly way, the hypertextual features of the Gospels should be properly investigated. Since it is impossible to present all such features in one readable book, only some examples of them will be analysed in the first chapter of this work. They may be treated as an invitation to serious scholarly discussions concerning the phenomenon of hypertextuality in the Gospels. The second chapter will directly refer to the problem of the historicity of the Gospel material. Since the problem is not new, it will be discussed from a both historical and systematic point of view. In particular, the issue of proper interpretation of the sources for reconstructing the historical Jesus, against the background of the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Bible, will be taken into serious consideration. The third chapter will be devoted to the problem of the possibility of reconciling the results of the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Gospels, especially of the resulting therefrom, very limited historicity of the Gospel material, with the principles of the Christian faith. In order to address this problem in a responsible and somehow paradigmatic way, it will be analysed from the perspective of modern teaching of the Catholic Church on the historicity of the contents of the Gospels.

3

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 25, 32-33, 135-145, 153-163.

Chapter 1 Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples Hypertextuality is one of the most fascinating ways in which a given text can be reworked into another one. The notion of hypertextuality was introduced to literary-critical studies by Gérard Genette. This French literary theorist defined hypertextuality as any relationship uniting a text B (which is in such a case called hypertext) to an earlier text A (which is called hypotext), upon which it grafts itself in a manner that is not that of commentary. 1 By definition, hypertextuality is not based on verbatim repetition of the wording of the hypotext. For this reason, the research on hypertextuality should not be limited to the study of rather literal use of a given earlier text in a later text (for example, the use of the Gospel of Mark in the Gospel of Matthew), but it should consist in looking for common (but, on the other hand, creatively transformed) literary themes, ideas, and motifs of both texts, and only additionally in detecting common wording. 2 Moreover, in the case of a truly hypertextual relationship between two given texts, a high degree of literary creativity and imagination on the part of the author of the hypertext should be allowed for. 3 1

2

3

G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 13: ‘Hypertextualité [:] J’entends par là toute relation unissant un texte B (que j’appellerai hypertexte) à un texte antérieur A (que j’appellerai, bien sûr, hypotexte) sur lequel il se greffe d’une manière qui n’est pas celle du commentaire.’ Cf. S. Holthuis, Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993), 91-94, 140-147, 214-215 (esp. 145: ‘Nicht selten […] sind [komplexe Texttransformationen] damit zu verstehen als komplexe “Umdeutungen” oder “semantische Re-Interpretationen”, die allenfalls dem Postulat einer “bedeutungskompatiblen” Transformation folgen’). Cf. also R. Reuter, ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (SESJ 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23-35 (esp. 24-30). For recent examples of the application of Genette’s category of hypertextuality to exegetical studies, see e.g. M.-É. Kiessel, ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,112,11’, ETL 81 (2005) 29-56; D. Ziegler, Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008), passim; F. De Carlo, „Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato?” (Mc 15,34): I Salmi nel racconto della passione di Gesù secondo Marco (AnBib 179; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2009), 316-331, 351-353; S. Butticaz, ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (LNTS 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148-164; J. Descreux,

14

Chapter 1

It seems that the one of the most important criteria for ascertaining the existence of a literary, especially hypertextual, relationship between the biblical works is the criterion of order. If two given works reveal thematic correspondences which follow a sequential pattern, it is reasonable to suppose that the author of one of these works hypertextually reworked the other work, preserving the basic sequence of its themes, ideas, and at least selected literary motifs. 4 This basic criterion is reinforced by the criterion of systematic use of a source, which points to cases in which all or most of the source text was in some way used in the later text, and consequently the later text can be regarded as a systematic reworking of the earlier work. 5 Moreover, the existence and direction of literary dependence between two works can be ascertained with the use of the relatively reliable, deductive criteria of (a) the presence of conflations of originally independent motifs, phrases, etc. which are contained in other literary works; (b) the presence of the vocabulary, phraseology, motifs etc. which are typical of the other work and which only occur in the passages that are structurally paralleled in that other work; (c) the presence of not easily perceivable inconsistencies, logical errors, and somewhat surprising features in the passages which are structurally paralleled in the other work, in which the inconsistency, error, or surprising feature in question is ab-

4

5

‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (BETL 248; Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345-359 (esp. 355-356). Cf. D. R. MacDonald, ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s Imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211-225 (esp. 212); A. M. O’Leary, Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (LNTS 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006), 21; D. P. Wright, Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009), 347. Cf. M. Pfister, ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. SchulteMiddelich (eds.), Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30 (esp. 28: ‘Kriterium der Strukturalität […] während wir uns in dem Maße dem Zentrum maximaler Intensität nähern, in dem ein Prätext zur strukturellen Folie eines ganzen Textes wird’). Cf. also T. L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford University: New York [et al] 2001), 429.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

15

sent; and (d) preferring literary dependence on extant works to that on merely hypothetical ones. In fact, numerous biblical writings were composed with the use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts. In these cases, the order of at least selected themes, ideas, motifs, and vocabulary of the hypotext is generally preserved in the hypertext. This basic rule helps to discover less evident correspondences between the structurally matching fragments of both works, even if some of these correspondences are quite remote from a purely semantic-philological point of view, and for this reason, they are difficult to demonstrate in isolation from the more evident ones. 6 In the present chapter, four examples of hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in various fragments of the Gospels will be presented. These examples were chosen paradigmatically, from all four canonical Gospels. They will be discussed in the order of the composition of the Gospels, namely Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John. 7

1.1 Mk 5:1-20 One of the most interesting examples of the use of the procedure of hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in the Gospels can be found in the Marcan story about the meeting of Jesus with a Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5:1-20). This story reveals great creativity and, on the other hand, strict adherence to order on the part of the evangelist in his use of various highly authoritative writings, especially Paul’ letters and Homer’s Odyssey.

1.1.1 Mk 5:1-20 within the sequentially composed hypertext Mk 1:1-5:20 The most recent research on the thematic order of the contents of the Gospel of Mark has revealed that this order mainly originates from a sequential hypertex-

6

7

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 13-14, 56-59, 62-65, 79-85, 99-102, 118, 130-145, 148, 153-155, 159-162; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 20-22, 25-280. Cf. id., Constructing, 135-145, 153-163.

16

Chapter 1

tual reworking of the contents of the most important letters of Paul the Apostle: Gal 1:1-6:15 (in Mk 1:1-7:37), 1 Cor 1:1-12:27 (in Mk 8:1-10:45), Gal 2:1 thematically combined with Rom 9:1-15:33 (in Mk 10:46-12:44), and Gal 2:2-14 thematically combined with 1 Thes 1:10-5:24 (in Mk 13:1-15:15); the concluding ‘death, burial, and resurrection narrative’ (Mk 15:16-16:8) was composed on the basis of 1 Cor 15:3-4 and Phlp 2:6-11, with the use of several other Pauline texts. 8 For this reason, the introductory section Mk 1:1-5:20 should be regarded as a sequential hypertextual reworking of the introductory part of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1-24). 9

1.1.1.1 Mk 1:1-8 cf. Gal 1:1-14 The opening section of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:1-8) resulted from a reworking of the opening section of the Letter to the Galatians (Gal 1:1-14), which was additionally combined with the opening section of the Letter to the Romans (Rom 1:1-2). The key term εὐαγγέλιον (Mk 1:1) is typically Pauline (cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:6-7.11 etc.). 10 Likewise, the phrase τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is untypical of Mark (only used in Mk 1:1), originates from the Pauline formula τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which was borrowed by the evangelist from the corresponding section of his main hypotext (Gal 1:7; cf. also 1 Thes 3:2 etc.). Similarly, the full title Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is non-Marcan (only used in Mk 1:1), but it is typically Pauline (cf. e.g. Gal 1:1.3.12). 11

8

9 10

11

Cf. id., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 232-266, 269-270; id., Constructing, 136-137. Cf. id., Q or not Q?, 232-243. Cf. O. Wischmeyer, ‘Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century C. E.’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (WUNT 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 355-378 (esp. 365); E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 72, 80; D. E. Aune, ‘The Meaning of Εὐαγγέλιον in the Inscriptiones of the Canonical Gospels’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam [vol. 2] (JSJSup 153/II; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 857-882 (esp. 861). Cf. D. E. Aune, ‘Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, 145-175 (esp. 165).

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

17

The fragment Mk 1:2-8 narratively illustrates the Pauline idea that there is only one gospel of Christ (Gal 1:7; cf. Rom 1:1) by means of suggesting that there was no opposition between the proclamation of John the Baptist (Mk 1:28) and the preaching of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:9-15). According to Paul, the gospel was promised beforehand through God’s prophets in the Holy Scriptures (Rom 1:2). Mark illustrated this idea with the use of two references: first to the scriptural prophet Isaiah (Mk 1:2-3) and then to the ‘historical’ character of John the Baptist, who was surprisingly presented by the evangelist as a prophet (Mk 1:2-6; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.117) and, moreover, as someone whose activity and death preceded those of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:78.14; 6:14-29; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64, 106-124). The reference to Isaiah in Mk 1:2-3 is in fact quite misleading because the text of Is 40:3 LXX (cf. Mk 1:3) was expanded in Mk 1:2 with the use of Exod 23:20 LXX. The attribution of the entire conflated quotation in Mk 1:2-3 to Isaiah is not a Marcan error because no one creates a quotation and then attributes it erroneously to someone else. 12 The expansion of Is 40:3 LXX with the use of Exod 23:20 LXX should rather be explained as resulting from Mark’s use of sequential hypertextuality. In order to illustrate the Pauline idea that no angel (ἄγγελος) should proclaim a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Paul (Gal 1:8), Mark added a reference to God sending an angel (ἄγγελος) before the main character in order to prepare his way (ἰδοὺ… ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου + ὁδός: Exod 23:20 LXX). As a means for introducing the direct scriptural quotation, Mark used the typically Pauline, but in fact not typically Marcan formula καθὼς γέγραπται (only used in this function in Mk 1:2; cf. 2 Cor 9:9; Rom 1:17; 3:4; 4:17; 8:36 etc.). On the other hand, in his strange description of John the Baptist (Mk 1:4-6; cf. also 11:32), Mark conflated various motifs which were borrowed from Josephus’ accounts concerning John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116-119), Theudas (Ἰορδάνης ποταμός, prophet: Ant. 20.97), and anonymous pretenders who led the crowd into the wilderness (*ἔρημ: B.J. 2.259; Ant. 20.167, 188). Each of these motifs, taken separately, well suits its original context in Josephus’ work: (a) John the Baptist as a preacher of moral righteousness and ritual cleanness who was active in the region of Machaerus by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas in that region (c. AD 36-37), (b) Theudas as new Joshua dividing the Jordan Rover, and (c) the Egyptian pretender as both new Moses in the wilderness and new Joshua conquering the Land of Israel. In order to present John 12

Pace M. D. Hooker, ‘Good News about Jesus Christ, the Son of God’, in K. R. Iverson and C. W. Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (SBLRBS 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 165-180 (esp. 169-170).

18

Chapter 1

the Baptist as a prophet who foretold Jesus Christ’s gospel, in line with the Pauline idea which had been expressed in Rom 1:1-2 and which was already adopted in Mk 1:1-3, Mark conflated all these motifs to form an artificial image of John the Baptist as a preacher of repentance who was active as a prophet in the wilderness in Judaea by the Jordan River (Mk 1:4-6). Moreover, the image of John the Baptist as a severe and powerful believer (Mk 1:6-7) alludes to Paul’s pre-conversion conduct as a destructive and zealous Jew (Gal 1:13-14).

1.1.1.2 Mk 1:9-45 cf. Gal 1:15-17b The story about Jesus’ baptism, with its image of a heavenly but, on the other hand, private revelation of Jesus’ divine sonship (ὁ υἱός μου) and of God being gracefully (εὐδόκησα) pleased in him (ἐν σοί: Mk 1:9-11) illustrates Paul’s reference to the graceful (εὐδόκησεν), supernatural, but private revelation of God’s Son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ) in him (ἐν ἐμοί: Gal 1:15-16a; cf. also 2 Cor 12:1-4). 13 Moreover, the account Mk 1:9-15 rhetorically illustrates Paul’s claim to his having been appointed and called by God in a special, personal way before the call of those who became apostles before him (Gal 1:15-17a; cf. Mk 1:16-20). The surprisingly introduced name ‘Nazareth’ (Mk 1:9), which was not attested before the composition of the Marcan Gospel, by means of linguistic assonance illustrates the idea of Jesus’ identity as originally understood merely according to the flesh, in Jewish-messianic terms of the offspring of David (Rom 1:3), which is alluded to by means of the artificial, Hebrew-sounding name ‘Nazareth’ (cf. ‫נצר‬: ‘sprout’ of Jesse: Is 11:1 MT; cf. Rom 15:12). 14 In line with the logic of Rom 1:3-4, this Hebrew-sounding name functions as a background for the fuller, Pauline-style understanding of Jesus as Son of God in power according to the Spirit (Rom 1:4), an idea which is alluded to in the subsequent text Mk 1:10-11. The strange in itself story about Jesus’ being immediately (εὐθύς) driven into the wilderness, and his being there only with animals and angels, and consequently with no other people (Mk 1:12-13), with the use of Scripture-based

13

14

It should be noted that the baptism of Jesus is presented in Mk 1:9-11 in terms of a private revelation, and not of a public one. According to Mk 1:10-11, only Jesus saw the split heavens and the Spirit descending to him, and the voice from heavens was likewise directed only to him. Cf. also P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 138. Cf. also the Markan text Mk 10:47 with its semantic correspondence of the terms ‘Nazareth’ and ‘son of David’, which underlies its narrative logic (ὁ Ναζαρηνός → υἱὲ ∆αυίδ).

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

19

motifs 15 illustrates Paul’s reference to his immediately (εὐθέως) not conferring with any human being (Gal 1:16c), but going to Arabia (Gal 1:17b). 16 The statement concerning the imprisonment of John (Mk 1:14) narratively alludes to Paul’s idea of the end of the era of prophets who preceded the coming of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:2). The statements concerning Jesus’ proclaiming the gospel (*εὐαγγέλ) in Galilee (Mk 1:14-15) allude to Paul’s statement concerning his being called to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 1:16b). The image of Jesus as a solitary preacher (Mk 1:14) probably illustrates Paul’s idea of his not conferring with any human being (Gal 1:16c). The subsequent story about the call of the leading, ‘pillar’ apostles to come after Jesus, and about a day spent with them at Capernaum in Galilee (Mk 1:1634) in a narrative way alludes to Paul’s subsequent idea of his not going up to Jerusalem to those who became apostles before him (Gal 1:17a). The Markan story additionally suggests that the Jerusalem ‘pillar’ apostles were preoccupied with the issues of legal perfection (καταρτίζω: Mk 1:19; cf. Gal 2:12), money (the father Ζεβεδαῖος, μισθωτοί: Mk 1:19-20; cf. Gal 2:10a; Jos. Ant. 5.33-44; 1 Cor 9:17-18), marriage-bound relatives (Mk 1:30; cf. 1 Cor 9:5), and ritual uncleanness (Mk 1:30; cf. Gal 2:12). The subsequent fragment concerning going away (ἀπῆλθεν) to the wilderness and to small towns with unclean people, but not to the city of Jerusalem with its priests (Mk 1:35-45), alludes to Paul’s subsequent remark concerning his going away to Arabia (Gal 1:17b), but not to Jerusalem (Gal 1:17a).

1.1.1.3 Mk 2-3 cf. Gal 1:17c-20 The introductory statement concerning Jesus’ returning to (πάλιν εἰς) the town of Capernaum after some time (Mk 2:1) alludes to Paul’s statement concerning his returning to the city of Damascus (Gal 1:17c). The subsequent section concerning Jesus’ activity which lasted for around two weeks (Mk 2:1-3:6), as it is suggested by the two pericopes which concern the Sabbath day (Mk 2:23-28; 3:1-6), alludes to Paul’s stay with Cephas, which

15 16

Cf. J. Marcus, ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, RB 110 (2003) 38-61, 370-386 (esp. 5556, 373). Cf. M. H. Schulze, Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886), xi; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 139.

20

Chapter 1

lasted for fifteen days (Gal 1:18). The pericopes contained in this section allude to Paul’s plausible disputes with Cephas. According to Mark, inasmuch as they could be deduced from Paul’s letters, these disputes could concern the reality and consequences of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk 2:1-12; cf. 1 Cor 15:5), halfGentile 17 common meals (Mk 2:13-17; cf. Gal 2:12.14), demanding money (Mk 2:14-17; cf. Gal 2:10a), and Jewish laws concerning food (Mk 2:18-27; cf. Gal 2:12.14; cf. also CD 10:22-23 etc.) and concerning restoring to life (Mk 3:16; cf. Gal 2:15-21). The concluding statement concerning the hostility of the Pharisees and of the otherwise unknown supporters of Herod (Mk 3:6) in a narrative way alludes to the abrupt end of Paul’s stay with Cephas (Gal 1:18c). 18 The subsequent fragment, which presents Jesus’ being with the crowds and his readiness to travel to the potentially believing Gentiles across the sea (Mk 3:7-12), 19 but the twelve apostles being gathered on the (holy?) mountain (Mk 3:13-19), alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his relationship with other Jerusalem apostles (Gal 1:19a). The subsequent fragment (Mk 3:20-35) presents Jesus’ not being in a position to eat bread with the apostles (Mk 3:20), having an unwelcoming meeting with his mother and brothers (ἀδελφός: Mk 3:21.31-35), and being drawn into a Jewish-style dispute with the Jerusalem experts in writing (γραμματεῖς) over the issue of not lying in the presence of God (Mk 3:22-30). In a narrative way, this fragment alludes to Paul’s remarks concerning his not having the opportunity to meet the Jerusalem apostles (and presumably to have meal together with them: Gal 1:19a), his only passingly seeing in Jerusalem James the Lord’s brother (ἀδελφός: Gal 1:19b), 20 and his writing (γράφω) that he did not lie in the presence of God (Gal 1:20).

1.1.1.4 Mk 4:1-5:20 cf. Gal 1:21-24 The section Mk 4:1-5:20, with its main ideas of reaping many fruits on the basis of Gentile-style faith (Mk 4:1-34) and of a Gentile-style travel across the sea

17 18

19 20

The surprising naming of Levi the son of Alpha-eus (Mk 2:14) points to half-Jewish and half-Gentile features of this narrative character. It should be noted that in Mk 6:14-29 the character of ‘King Herod’ alludes to Cephas, the most important leader of Jewish Christianity (cf. Gal 2:12-14): cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 244-246. Cf. J. Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (AB 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000), 260. Mk 3:31-35 presents Jesus as parting ways with his Jewish kinsfolk, in order to prepare an allusion to Paul’s travel to the Gentiles (Gal 1:21).

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

21

(Mk 4:35-5:20), alludes to Paul’s statements concerning his travel from Judaea to the Gentile regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21-24). The section Mk 4:1-5:20 is narratively introduced with the use of three consecutive, narratively superfluous remarks concerning a boat (Mk 3:9; 4:1; 4:36). In the first of them, Jesus stands on a seashore (cf. Mk 3:7), but on the water there is a boat, which is kept ready for taking Jesus aboard (Mk 3:9; cf. 3:10). In the second one, Jesus gets into the boat and, somewhat surprisingly, teaches the crowds therefrom (Mk 4:1). 21 The third remark presents Jesus as crossing over in the boat to the other, Gentile side of the sea (Mk 4:35-36; cf. 5:1). All three remarks are therefore connected by a logical scheme of progression, 22 which reveals gradual development of the idea of undertaking a mission on the other side of the sea, among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21-24). The section which presents Jesus as teaching in parables (Mk 4:1-34) introduces the description of Jesus’ initial mission among the Gentiles (Mk 4:355:20). The parables, addressed to the crowds (Mk 4:1-2; cf. 4:34), are by their very nature understandable to every human, even one not knowing the sacred Scriptures of Israel. Moreover, the whole section Mk 4:1-34 is composed with the use of a logical scheme of progression. The parable of the sower (Mk 4:1-9) suggests that good fruits should be awaited with faith, which should surpass the disappointment after ‘proverbial’ three unsuccessful attempts. Besides, missionary success resulting from faith should be awaited rather farther than closer to the hitherto followed path of the sower. 23 Moreover, the degree of success, inasmuch as it is based on faith, may be astonishing, even implausible (a hundred grains in one ear: Mk 4:8). This basic thought is subsequently explained in scriptural terms (a quotation from Isaiah, hearing the word, etc.), which appeal to Jewish mentality (Mk 4:10-20; cf. Gal 1:23). The subsequent parables depict astonishing growth of the fruits of the evangelization based on faith. In the parable of the lamp, missionary success can be overshadowed, but only if someone acts nonsensically, by hiding a burning lamp under a bed (Mk 4:21-23). In the parable of the measure, missionary success based on faith (which comes through hearing: cf. Gal 1:23; cf. also Rom 10:17; Gal 3:2.5) is proportional to human effort, and even surpasses it (Mk 4:24-25). In the parable of the seed in the ground, the motif of sowing the seed (cf. Mk 4:3-9) is reformulated in such a way that the ground brings fruits ‘automati21 22 23

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 156-157. Cf. K. M. Schmidt, Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des Markusevangelium (NTOA 74; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010), 228-229. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 158.

22

Chapter 1

cally’, without any human effort: the faith of the sower suffices (Mk 4:26-29). In the concluding parable of the mustard seed, the motif of sowing the seed is reformulated in yet another way: the success of the mission among the Gentiles, which is based on faith, is enormous, absolutely disproportionate to the effort of the sower (Mk 4:30-32). The subsequent fragment, which describes a storm on the sea (Mk 4:35-41), depicts faith in Christ’s resurrection, presented in Gentile terms. The travel to the other, Gentile side of the sea is undertaken in a surprising manner: at night (when normally no one travels on the lake), among powers of darkness (with no possibility of mooring at night to the steep slopes), in solitude (because other boats somewhere disappear after Mk 4:36), during Jesus’ death-like sleep (καθεύδω: Mk 4:38; cf. 5:39), and when also other disciples perish in the abyss of death (ἀπόλλυμι: Mk 4:38; cf. 1:24; 2:22; 3:6; 8:35; 9:22; 11:18; 12:9). In reaction to this peril of death, Jesus arises (διεγείρω) from the death-like sleep and reveals his divine power and lordship (Mk 4:39.41), demanding obedience (ὑπακούω: Mk 4:41) and faith (πίστις: Mk 4:40) from the disciples. The Marcan story (Mk 4:35-41) is evidently not an historical description of a fishermen’s journey to the other side of the sea. It is a text which allusively depicts the basic theses of Christian doctrine, especially those which were proclaimed in the course of Paul’s mission among the Gentiles: Christ’s resurrection and the requirement of obedience (ὑπακοή) of faith (πίστις) in him as the Son of God and the Lord (cf. Rom 1:4-5 etc.). 24 These fundamental theses of Christian doctrine are illustrated in Mk 4:35-41 with the use of non-Jewish literary motifs, which were borrowed from the cultural world of Gentile people of the sea, especially from Homer’s Odyssey. 25 The Homeric epic, a classical work of Greek literature, provided at least two hypotexts for the Marcan story about a storm on the sea (Mk 4:35-41). The first one is the story about a sea storm during Odysseus’ long-distance travel towards the Greeks (Od. 5.291-393). Not only the main literary motif of a night sea storm (Od. 5.294, 388) but also some key Greek words were borrowed from that classical text to the Marcan story: ἄνεμος (Od. 5.293, 305, 317, 330, 343, 368, 383, 391; Mk 4:37.39), μέγας (Od. 5.296, 298, 313, 320, 327, 355, 366, 393; 24 25

Cf. ibid. 164-165. It should be noted that Homer was by far the most popular Greek author in antiquity. Among classical authors whose works were kept at Oxyrhynchus in I-II c. AD, Homer unquestionably holds the first place (548 fragments published until now), only remotely followed by Demosthenes (76 fr.), Hesiod (68 fr.), Euripides (66 fr.), Menander (59 fr.), Thucydides (57 fr.), and others. Cf. L. H. Blumell, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (NTTSD 39; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 328.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

23

Mk 4:39.41), κῦμα (Od. 5.296, 313, 320, 325, 327, 352-353, 363, 366, 385, 388, 393; Mk 4:37), δειλός (Od. 5.299; Mk 4:40), ἀπόλλυμι (Od. 5.347, 349; cf. 5.305-306, 389; Mk 4:38), and γαλήνη (Od. 5.391; Mk 4:39). 26 The second classical hypotext for Mk 4:35-41 should be identified with Homer’s description of a sea travel and a sea storm, an account which reveals divine power over the power of the sea (Od. 13.70-169). Not only the motif of the main character sleeping in the stern of the ship like in the abyss of death (Od. 13.73-76, 79-80, 92, 117-119) but also some key words and expressions were borrowed from that text to the Marcan story: θάλασσα (Od. 13.70, 85, 88; Mk 4:39.41), *εὕδω (Od. 13.74; Mk 4:38), πρύμνη (Od. 13.75, 84; Mk 4:38), κῦμα (Od. 13.84, 88, 91, 99; Mk 4:37), ἄνεμος (Od. 13.99; Mk 4:37.39.41), and πρὸς ἀλλήλους (Od. 13.165; Mk 4:41). 27 The Marcan story about a night sea storm on the sea (Mk 4:35-41) introduces the scene of the meeting of Jesus with a Gentile Gerasene (Mk 5:1-20) by illustrating the basic content of Pauline-style faith proclaimed to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21), namely Christ’s resurrection and the requirement of believing in him as the Son of God and the Lord, in Homeric, that is distinctively Gentile, mental categories of heroic faith in surviving a sea storm thanks to divine protection. 28

1.1.2 Surprising features of the Marcan story Mk 5:1-20 The Marcan story Mk 5:1-20 contains numerous narrative elements which are, from an historical point of view, rather implausible or at least quite surprising. The first of them is the motif of the sea (θάλασσα: Mk 4:39.41). In difference to Luke, who in agreement with Flavius Josephus (B.J. 1.326; 2.573; 3.57, 463, 506; Ant. 18.28, 36; Vita 349 etc.) and with geographical realities consistently calls Gennesaret ‘lake’ (λίμνη: Lk 5:1-2; 8:22-23.33), Mark evidently insists on calling Gennesaret ‘sea’ (θάλασσα: Mk 1:16; 2:13; 3:7; 4:1.39.41; 5:1.13.21; 6:47-49; 7:31). 29 Taking into consideration the above-discussed allusive meaning of the references to the sea in Mk 4:35-41 etc., it can be argued that the use of the motif of the sea (and not a lake) in the Gospel of Mark is surprising, but not accidental. The Marcan ‘sea’ should be interpreted both as the

26 27 28 29

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000), 60 n. 21. Cf. ibid. 59 n. 18. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Ewangelia według św. Marka jako „opus classicum” literatury chrześcijańskiej Europy’ (forthcoming). Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 57.

24

Chapter 1

Galilean Lake of Gennesaret and, on the allusive level, as the sea which functioned as a gate to the world of the Gentiles, namely the Mediterranean Sea. 30 The second surprising element, which is already contained in the statement that introduces the whole account Mk 5:1-20, consists in the remark concerning the arrival of Jesus and his disciples in the country of the Gerasenes (Mk 5:1). Gerasa (modern Jerash in Jordan) was a big Hellenistic city, one of those which constituted the confederacy of Decapolis (cf. Mk 5:20). Gerasa was located over 50 km from the Lake of Gennesaret (in a straight line, and not along ancient roads). 31 Because of such a distance from the lake, the city had almost nothing to do with it, both in geographical and economic categories. What was therefore the reason for Mark’s calling the opposite, eastern side of the lake ‘the country of the Gerasenes’ (Mk 5:1)? 32 This problem was already perceived by ancient writers, who substituted the original, surprising, but well attested in manuscripts, Marcan remark concerning the Gerasenes (Mk 5:1 ‫*א‬, B et al.; cf. also Lk 8:26.37 p75, B et al.) 33 with a remark concerning the Gadarenes (Mt 8:28 et al.) or even ‘Gergesenes’ (Origen et al., most probably on the basis of Jos. Ant. 1.139), ‘Gergestenes’, and ‘Gergystenes’ (Epiphanius et al.). The Marcan expression evidently does not have a plain biographic meaning, but it allusively points to a region which was distanced from Israel and, in cultural terms, entirely Gentile (cf. Gal 1:21). 34 The remark concerning someone who came out of tombs to meet Jesus (Mk 5:2) is also surprising. Why did this man come to meet Jesus precisely out of tombs? With the use of three, narratively superfluous, remarks concerning tombs, the evangelist evidently highlighted the fact that that strange autochthon had his permanent dwelling place in tombs (Mk 5:2-3.5). Moreover, how many tombs were there, and why were they located in such a deserted place? The additional remark that the man had an unclean spirit (Mk 5:2.8.15) largely explains the matter. The evangelist evidently created an image of an inhabitant of a Gentile region, which was by definition unclean for the Jews (cf. Gal 1:21). This

30 31 32 33

34

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 151. Cf. R. Zimmermann, ‘Auslegungskunst: Sehepunkte zur Wundererzählung vom Besessenen aus Gerasa (Mk 5,1-20)’, BN, NF no. 152 (2012) 87-115 (esp. 90). Cf. A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 263, 266. Cf. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998), 72; A. Y. Collins, Mark, 263-264. Cf. S. T. Rochester, Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel (Peter Lang: Oxford [et al.] 2011), 155-156.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

25

was also the reason for the use of the motif of tombs, which were considered unclean by the Jews (cf. Lk 11:44 etc.), and of the motif of an unclean spirit. 35 Moreover, the recurrent motif of tombs (Mk 5:2-3.5) has an important theological function in the Marcan story. It allusively points to the theme which connects the account of the healing of the Gerasene (Mk 5:1-20) with the preceding account of a night sea storm and of Jesus’ triumph over the powers of darkness (Mk 4:35-41), namely the theme of resurrection and faith (or lack of faith) in it, illustrated in terms understandable to the Gentiles. Jesus’ healing of a man who lived in tombs (together with the variegated reactions to this fact: cf. Mk 5:15-20) allusively depicts conveying the truth of Jesus’ resurrection (presented as going out of the tomb) to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1:21) 36 . Moreover, this healing illustrates another important thesis of the Pauline-Marcan theology, namely the idea of fundamental purification of the people who accept the Christian faith: not by virtue of their fulfilling the precepts of the Mosaic law, but by virtue of Christ’s resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Mk 1:29-31; 2:1-22; 5:22-43 etc.). 37 The next element of the Marcan narrative is also surprising. Why should the man have often been bound with shackles and chains, in order to be tamed (Mk 5:3-4)? Was the solitary man, who lived in deserted tombs, somehow dangerous to other people? Nothing like this results from the initial description of him (Mk 5:2-3). Moreover, the statement that ‘the chains were torn apart by him, and the shackles broken in pieces, and no one could tame him’ (Mk 5:4) suggests an image of a supernatural strongman, possibly a legendary giant, but not an ordinary man (even one possessed by an unclean spirit). 38 Besides, how should the reader understand the Marcan statement that that strange individual ‘was always, night and day, crying out’ (Mk 5:5)? To whom did he cry if he was always alone? Moreover, how could he cry ‘always, night and day’? Besides, how was it possible for him, after such crying which lasted all nights and days, to ‘cry out with a loud voice’ at the sight of Jesus (Mk 5:7)? It is difficult to avoid the impression that the Marcan image of a crying strongman is evidently overdrawn.

35

36 37 38

Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002), 227; S. T. Rochester, Good News, 126; R. von Bendemann, ‘Jesus und die Stadt im Markusevangelium’, in R. von Bendemann and M. Tiwald (eds.), Das frühe Christentum und die Stadt (BWANT 10/18 [198]; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 43-68 (esp. 58). Cf. S. T. Rochester, Good News, 218. Cf. ibid. 203. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 64.

26

Chapter 1

The Marcan statement that the powerful autochthon used to beat (or cut) himself with stones (Mk 5:5) is even more astonishing. Should the reader think that the man took stones and beat himself with them? 39 How should we imagine such an activity, which, according to Mark, lasted for days and nights (Mk 5:5)? The surprising profession of faith of the Gerasene has distinctively Gentile features (cf. Gal 1:21). The man paid a royal-liturgical homage to Jesus (προσκυνέω: Mk 5:6; cf. 1 Cor 14:25 etc.) and confessed him as the Son of God in a Gentile way, namely as the Son of the Most High God (τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου: Mk 5:7). 40 In such a way, namely as the Most High God, the one God could be called by the Gentiles, who did not know God’s true name, as it is shown in the paradigmatic story about Melchizedek, a righteous and peaceful king, who was indeed a Gentile, but nevertheless a priest of the Most High God (τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου), and who blessed Abram in the name of the Most High God, maker of heaven and earth (Gen 14:18-20 LXX). 41 Another surprising element of the Marcan narrative can be found in the question, ‘What is your name?’ (Mk 5:9). The question is unusual because the Marcan Jesus normally asks no one about his name before healing him. At times, the name of the character is given by the narrator (Mk 10:46; cf. 5:22 etc.). However, it never constitutes the content of Jesus’ question addressed to the person who is about to be healed. 42 The related answer, ‘My name is Legion, for we are many’ (Mk 5:9; cf. 5:15) again allusively points to the great Gentile world (cf. Gal 1:21). The Marcan remark concerning pigs (Mk 5:11) evidently illustrates the idea of a non-Jewish, Gentile environment (cf. Gal 1:21). 43 However, the fact that the pigs were feeding on a slope of a mountain (Mk 5:11; cf. 5:13) is astonishing. Normally, mountains are not feeding places of pigs, but rather of sheep and

39

40

41

42 43

Pace S. T. Rochester, Good News, 126, the idea of self-laceration in pagan worship, although certainly insightful in the context of the Gentile setting of Mk 5:1-20, does not fully explain the peculiarities of the Markan image of the demoniac’s use of stones. Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Biblische Texte lesen lernen’, in id. (ed. D. Sänger), Allegorie – Metapher – Mythos – Schrift: Beiträge zur religiösen Sprache im Neuen Testament und in seiner Umwelt (NTOA 90; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2011), 282-299 (esp. 291); R. von Bendemann, ‘Jesus und die Stadt’, 58. Cf. M. D. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (BNTC; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1991), 143; K. Stock, Marco: Commento contestuale al secondo Vangelo (Bibbia e preghiera 47; ADP: Roma 2003), 89; B. Adamczewski, Retelling, 75-77. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 64. Cf. S. T. Rochester, Good News, 126; R. von Bendemann, ‘Jesus und die Stadt’, 58.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

27

goats. Therefore, can the image of pigs feeding in the mountains, and not somewhere in the field (cf. Lk 15:15), be regarded as natural? 44 The request of the ‘legionaries’ that they be allowed to enter the pigs (Mk 5:10.12; cf. 5:9) is similarly surprising. The thematic connection of Gentile soldiers with pigs is rather evident. 45 However, should the reader imagine armed soldiers as entering pigs, and in such a way remaining in the same place? The remark that the herd of pigs numbered around 2000 animals (Mk 5:13) is even more astonishing. How should we imagine 2000 pigs in one place? Great pig farms of our times, for example in northern Germany, usually hold around a thousand pigs. In such cases, they are called factories (Betriebe), they have great surface areas, and they are run with the use of computers. Do we have an example of such a great pig farm in the Marcan story? Obviously, not. Again, the Marcan narrative is here evidently overdrawn. 46 Another astonishing element of the Marcan story consists in the image of pigs running down the cliff to the sea (Mk 5:13). 47 It is obvious that the pigs would break their legs before they could run down the steep, rocky cliff. The Marcan description suits a herd of goats, or perhaps sheep, but certainly not pigs. At this point of the narrative, herdsmen suddenly appear (Mk 5:14). Thus far, the logic of the story suggested that the autochthon who came to meet Jesus was alone. Therefore, the herdsmen appear in the Marcan story completely unexpectedly, as though their existence was necessary only from this point of the story onwards. The next surprising element consists in the remark that people from the city and from the fields came to see what it was that had happened (Mk 5:14). From a psychological point of view, their reaction is understandable: they wanted to satisfy their curiosity. On the other hand, a question arises, what in fact could they see? The pigs which disappeared because they drowned in the sea? Or just a clothed, ordinary man (Mk 5:15)? Consequently, why did the people come, if

44

45 46

47

Pace J. Taylor, The Treatment of Reality in the Gospels: Five Studies (CahRB 78; J. Gabalda: Pende 2011), 131 (cf. ibid. 12), it is not enough to state that ‘the story involves real pigs’ in order to argue that the account historically represents ‘the reality of Jesus as experienced by his contemporaries’. Cf. G. Sellin, ‘Biblische Texte’, 292; R. Zimmermann, ‘Auslegungskunst’, 92-95. Cf. R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1993), 252; D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 70; R. Zimmermann, ‘Auslegungskunst’, 90. Cf. R. Zimmermann, ‘Auslegungskunst’, 90.

28

Chapter 1

in any case their curiosity had to be satisfied with the repeated, oral report of the herdsmen (Mk 5:16)? 48 The conclusion of the Marcan story is also astonishing. Jesus engaged in a dialogue with the healed man not in a situation of direct contact with him (cf. Mk 5:16), but from the boat, at a distance (Mk 5:18). The logic of the Marcan narrative is here quite evident: the converted Gentile should evangelize Gentile countries (here: Decapolis), and not enter the territory of Israel (Mk 5:19-20; cf. Gal 1:21; 2:9). 49 However, the way of holding the dialogue, namely from the boat, at a distance, as though Jesus had no time to speak with the healed Gerasene before (Mk 5:18), is in fact surprising. How can this whole set of surprising, historically not plausible elements of the account of the healing of the Gerasene (Mk 5:1-20) be adequately explained? The key to the understanding of this story can be found in the preceding fragment, namely the description of a night sea storm (Mk 4:35-41), which, as was shown above, has the features of a hypertextual (so very free and creative) reworking of the motifs which were borrowed from Homer’s Odyssey. The Homeric epic also provides the key for the understanding of the account of the healing of the Gerasene (Mk 5:1-20). 50

1.1.3 Mk 5:1-20 as a hypertextual reworking of Homer’s Odyssey The account of the healing of the Gerasene was composed with the use of the motifs which were borrowed from at least two fragments of the Odyssey: the story about the meeting of Odysseus and his companions with the Cyclops Polyphemus (Od. 9.181-542) and the story about the transformation of Odysseus’ warriors into pigs by the witch Circe (Od. 10.238-243). 51 The first of these stories, after an introductory fragment which concerns the arrival of Odysseus’ ships in an island in the land of the Cyclopes (Od. 9.106180), begins with a description of a cave, which was located on the mainland,

48 49

50 51

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 70-71. Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, Mk 1-8,26 (EKK 2/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf / Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998), 207-208; P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 165-166; J. Marcus, Mark, 353-354. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Ewangelia’ (forthcoming). Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 63-76, 175-176.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

29

near the sea (Od. 9.182-183). 52 The motif of a cave on a cliff, on a slope of a mountain (ὄρος: Od. 9.315), is quite natural in the Homeric story. Against this background, the meaning of the surprising Marcan remark concerning tombs, allegedly located in a deserted place on the shore of Lake of Gennesaret, on a slope of a mountain (ὄρος: Mk 5:2-3.5.11), becomes clear. 53 In order to illustrate the halachic idea of uncleanness of the Gentile country and the theological idea of Christ’s resurrection, the evangelist reworked the Homeric motif of a coastal, rocky, mountainous cave into the motif of tombs, regarded as a realm of uncleanness and death. In the Homeric epic, the cave was a place in which a herd of sheep and goats could remain during the night (Od. 9.184). 54 The presence of sheep and goats, generally mountain animals, is perfectly natural in the context of the story about a rocky mountain slope falling down to the seashore. On the other hand, as was noted above, the Marcan remark concerning a herd of pigs feeding on a steep mountain slope (Mk 5:11-13) is rather difficult to explain in terms of purely narrative logic. 55 Critical-intertextual analysis of both texts clearly shows that Mark reworked the Homeric motif of sheep and goats in such a way that it could point to the environment of the Gentiles. Having borrowed the Homeric motif of animals feeding on a mountain, the evangelist substituted sheep and goats with pigs, in order to show Jesus as acting in a purely Gentile environment. Mark could find a precedent for substituting pigs for sheep and goats already in the Homeric epic. The subsequent book of the Odyssey contains a story about Odysseus’ meeting the witch Circe, who transformed his warriors, coming back from Troy, into pigs (Od. 10.238-243). The Homeric idea of transforming brave, valiant warriors into pigs was reworked by the evangelist into the idea of sending a ‘legion’ of unclean spirits into pigs (Mk 5:12-13; cf. 5:9). 56 In the Homeric story about the meeting with the Cyclops, a yard with a high wall made of large stones (λίθοισι) was located beside the cave of Polyphemus (Od. 9.185). With the use of one of such huge stones, Polyphemus blocked the entrance to his cave (Od. 9.240-243, 305, 313-314, 340, 416). Such an image of the yard is quite natural in the context of the Homeric epic. 57 On the other hand, as was noted above, the Marcan image of the Gerasene who beat himself with

52 53 54 55 56 57

Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 2, Books IXXVI (Clarendon: Oxford 1989), 24. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 68-70. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 24. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 70. Cf. ibid. 64-67, 70. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 24, 27, 30.

30

Chapter 1

stones (λίθοις: Mk 5:5) is really surprising. It can therefore be argued that Mark reworked the Homeric description of Polyphemus, who astonishingly moved heavy stones, into the description of the Gerasene, who also strangely moved stones. The next important element of the Homeric story can be found in the description of the giant himself (Od. 9.185). The half-legendary image of a giant is understandable as one of the basic elements of the Homeric story. 58 On the other hand, the Marcan image of a dangerous, supernatural strongman, who in fact resembled a legendary giant (Mk 5:3-4), has no direct relationship with the main thread of the Gospel narrative. The Marcan image should therefore be interpreted as a result of a conscious reworking of the Homeric image of a dangerous cannibal, the giant Polyphemus. 59 In the Homeric epic, Polyphemus was characterized as a loner, who lived away from others and who had the features of a very savage individual (Od. 9.188-192). Such a characterization of the giant suits the logic of the whole story.60 On the other hand, the Marcan description of a solitary, half-savage Gerasene (Mk 5:3-5) has no specific function in the logic of the Gospel narrative. Therefore, it is evidently a result of a literary reworking of the Homeric image of a solitary, savage Cyclops. 61 The Homeric giant had a very loud, penetrating voice (Od. 9.257). 62 Such a feature of the giant is entirely understandable in the context of the Homeric story. On the other hand, the Marcan statements that the Gerasene ‘was always, night and day, crying out’ (Mk 5:5) and that he ‘cried out with a loud voice’ at the sight of Jesus (Mk 5:7) are quite surprising in the Marcan narrative. Evidently, they resulted from an adaptation of the Homeric description of Polyphemus to the needs of the Gospel story about a Gentile who was met by Jesus. The Homeric Cyclops denied any authority of gods over him (Od. 9.275277). Therefore, he was a complete heathen, also from a Greek point of view. 63 Apparently in reaction to this idea, the Marcan Gerasene paid liturgical homage to Jesus and confessed him as the Son of the Most High God (Mk 5:6-7). The Marcan image probably functions here as a reversal of the Homeric idea of savage, barbarian heathenism.

58 59 60 61 62 63

Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 20-21. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 68-69. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 21, 25. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 68-69. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 28. Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 20-21, 29.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

31

One of the key elements of the Homeric story consists in the motif of asking the stranger about his name (ὄνομα: Od. 9.355, 364, 366; cf. 9.414). This motif has an important function in the narrative logic of the whole story about Polyphemus. 64 On the other hand, as was noted above, in the Marcan Gospel the question concerning the name (ὄνομα: Mk 5:9) is superfluous, even surprising. It should therefore be regarded as a result of borrowing and reworking of the Homeric motif to the needs of the Gospel story. Similarly, the enigmatic answer to the question about the name is inadequate and rather non-committal both in the Odyssey (Οὖτις ἐμοί ὄνομα: Od. 9.366) and in the Marcan narrative (λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι: Mk 5:9). 65 The image of the giant Polyphemus as tamed (δαμάζω) with wine (Od. 9.373, 454, 516) constitutes an integral part of the Homeric story. On the other hand, the Marcan statement that no one could tame (δαμάζω) the Gerasene (Mk 5:4) is quite surprising. It should therefore be regarded as another result of the adaptation of the Homeric narrative to the needs of the Gospel story. 66 The Homeric image of the Cyclops as crying with a loud voice (μεγάλʼ: Od. 9.399) is perfectly understandable in the context of the story about poking out of his eye by Odysseus and his companions. On the other hand, the similar image of the Gerasene who, according to the Marcan Gospel, cried out to Jesus (diff. Mk 1:26; 15:34.37) with a loud voice (μεγάλῃ: Mk 5:7) is quite surprising. The same refers to the motif of crying at night (νύκτα: Od. 9.404), which is perfectly understandable in the context of the night struggle between Odysseus and the Cyclops, but rather surprising in the Marcan narrative (νυκτός: Mk 5:5). Again, it turns out that Mark creatively reworked Homeric motifs in order to adapt them to his own aims. In the Homeric epic, other Cyclopes appear in the narrative for an understandable reason, namely because of the loud cry of Polyphemus, who called them for help (Od. 9.399-402). In this context, it is not surprising that they wondered what could have happened (Od. 9.402-406). 67 On the other hand, as was noted above, in the Marcan Gospel the characters of herdsmen, who looked for help, and of other people, who came from the city and from the fields, and who were afraid, having seen the Gerasene (Mk 5:14-15), appear on the stage of the narrative rather unexpectedly. Therefore, it can be argued that the evangelist

64 65 66 67

Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 20, 32-33, 35. Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 69-70. Cf. ibid., 69 n. 23. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 35.

32

Chapter 1

reworked the Homeric image of other Cyclopes into the image of other Gerasenes, which suited the Gospel narrative. 68 The Homeric image of a herd of sheep driven by Odysseus and his companions down the rocky slope to the ships (Od. 9.464-465) is a natural element of the whole story. On the other hand, as was noted above, the Marcan image of a great herd of pigs running down the rocky cliff to the sea (Mk 5:13) is really astonishing. It constitutes therefore one of the elements of the Gospel narrative in which the intertextual dependence on the Homeric epic, creatively reworked in the Marcan narrative, is particularly evident. 69 The concluding dialogue of Odysseus with Polyphemus, which was only held after getting into the ships (εἰσβαίνω: Od. 9.471), so as the hero assumed, from a far distance (Od. 9.473-525), in a significant way develops the main thread of the whole story. Against this background, as was noted above, the Marcan dialogue of the Gerasene with Jesus, who already got into the boat (ἐμβαίνω: Mk 5:18) in order to cross over to the other side of the sea (Mk 5:18-19; cf. 5:21), is quite surprising in the logic of the Gospel narrative. This surprising dialogue at a distance is therefore evidently an echo of the Homeric dialogue, which was reworked by the evangelist in the way which suited the Gospel narrative. 70 The dramatic image of the infuriated Cyclops, who threw a rock at Odysseus’ ship (Od. 9.481-484, 537-541), 71 in a natural way concludes the whole story about the meeting of Odysseus with Polyphemus. On the other hand, as was noted above, the Marcan image of the Gerasene, who was endowed with supernatural power and who beat himself with stones (Mk 5:5), is really astonishing. This element of the Marcan account was therefore probably also borrowed from the Homeric story and reworked in such a way that it could suit the description of a meeting of Jesus with a terrifying, savage heathen. Numerous literary elements of the Homeric stories about the meeting of Odysseus and his companions with the Cyclops Polyphemus (Od. 9.181-542) and about the transformation of Odysseus’ warriors into pigs by the witch Circe (Od. 10.238-243) were therefore creatively, in a hypertextual way reworked in the Marcan story about the healing of a Gentile Gerasene (Mk 5:1-20). These rather easily recognizable Homeric elements illustrate the basic theological content of the Marcan story Mk 5:1-20, namely the proclamation of the gospel about resurrection (so going out of the tomb) to the Gentiles who lived beyond 68 69 70 71

Cf. D. R. MacDonald, Homeric, 71. Cf. ibid., 70. Cf. ibid., 72. Cf. A. Heubeck and A. Hoekstra, Odyssey, vol. 2, 38, 41.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

33

the sea, in typically Gentile, Greek cultural categories, which were borrowed from the classical, widely known Homeric epic. In this way, Mark alluded in Mk 5:1-20 to the main hypotext of this part of his Gospel narrative, namely to Gal 1:21, with its idea of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in the Gentile regions of Syria and Cilicia. The Marcan Jesus, who in a narrative way adapted his salvific activity to the typically Gentile categories of the Gerasenes, has the features of Paul the Apostle, who also had to adapt his evangelistic activity to the realities of the Hellenistic culture of Syria and Cilicia.

1.2 Lk 11:2-4 (par. Mt 6:9-13) The so-called ‘Lord’s prayer’ (Lk 11:2-4 par. Mt 6:9-13) is undoubtedly one of the most important texts of Christianity. In modern exegesis, it is usually regarded as borrowed by the evangelists from the so-called ‘Q source’. 72 Having generally accepted this hypothesis, scholars try to reconstruct the Greek text of the ‘Lord’s prayer’ in the so-called ‘Q source’. 73 At times, assuming that such an important prayer must have been formulated by the historical Jesus, scholars even try to reconstruct its Aramaic original. 74 It is certainly tempting to trace ipsissima vox Jesu in the Gospels, especially taking the example of the so-called ‘Lord’s prayer’. However, the fact that the Gospels contain two versions of this prayer, variants which considerably differ in length (Mt 6:9-13; Lk 11:2-4), and a reference to the disciples’ prayer which appears to witness a third, yet shorter version thereof (Mk 11:25) raises serious doubts over the possibility of reconstructing an original text of this ‘model’ prayer and, what is even more important, of attributing it to the historical Jesus.

72

73

74

Cf. e.g. S. Carruth and A. Garsky (vol. ed. S. D. Anderson), Q 11:2b-4 (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996), passim; H. T. Fleddermann, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005), 454-459; E. Rau, ‘Unser Vater im Himmel: Eine These zur Metaphorik der Rede von Gott in der Logienquelle’, NovT 53 (2011) 222-243 (esp. 230-233). Cf. e.g. J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, and J. S. Kloppenborg (eds.), M. C. Moreland (managing ed.), The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Peeters: Leuven 2000), 206-211. Cf. e.g. J. Luzarraga, El Padrenuestro desde el arameo (AnBib 171; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2008), 256.

34

Chapter 1

In fact, the interpretation of this prayer as an outcome of a hypertextual reworking of earlier texts is much more promising.

1.2.1 Lk 11:2-4 within the sequentially composed hypertext Lk 9:51-11:28 The most recent research on the phenomenon of hypertextuality in the Gospels has revealed that the so-called Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-19:28) in fact resulted from a sequential hypertextual reworking of Paul’s letters to the Galatians (in Lk 9:51-16:17) and to the Romans (in Lk 16:18-19:28). Moreover, as a part of the account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and then towards Rome and towards the heaven (Lk 9:51-24:53, it also alludes to Paul’s reference to his planned travel to Jerusalem and then to Rome, which turned out to be his ultimate destination (Rom 15:25-32). 75 Although the specific links of the Lucan hypertext Lk 9:51-11:28 to its hypotexts are not easily perceivable (in terms of common distinctive vocabulary etc.), their sequential order proves that they were designed by the evangelist, and not by a modern interpreter of the Lucan Gospel. 76

1.2.1.1 Lk 9:51-56 cf. Gal 1:1-14 The initial, ‘conflict’ section of the Lucan ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:51-56) alludes to the initial part of Paul’s reference to his planned travel to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25). In particular, Luke’s account of Jesus’ firm resolve to go to Jerusalem (πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ), which happened at a divinely predestined point in time and which would eventually end his earthly career (Lk 9:51; cf. 9:53), is thematically and linguistically based on Paul’s reference to his firm resolve to go to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25a; cf. 15:30-31), which also happened at a divinely predestined point in time (cf. Gal 2:1-2) and which also in a certain sense ended the Apostle’s evangelistic career (cf. Gal 2:4-14). 77 The main hypotext of the first part of the Lucan ‘travel narrative’, namely the Letter to the Galatians, was introduced by the evangelist in Lk 9:52-53 by means of the idea which is in fact somewhat surprising on the purely historical 75 76 77

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 298-390; id., Constructing, 144-145. Cf. id., Q or not Q?, 301-328. Cf. id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 48-57, 91; id., Constructing, 40-42, 144.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

35

level, namely that of some enigmatic human ‘angels’ (anarthrous ἄγγελοι: Lk 9:52a) who were apparently different from the apostles (cf. Lk 9:54) but who were nevertheless sent similarly to them (*ἀποστ: Lk 9:52) as the representatives of Jesus, who was not received (δέχομαι: Lk 9:53) in a certain half-Gentile place. This particular combination of ideas, literary motifs, and vocabulary also appears in the highly rhetorical, censuring text Gal 1:1.8 (cf. 4:14), in which Paul referred to himself as to the apostle who had initially been received in the Gentile region of Galatia as an angel of God and, moreover, as Jesus Christ himself, but was later rejected there, and therefore threatened with a curse all other ‘angels’ who dared to oppose him. The subsequent section of the Letter to the Galatians, which presents Paul as a former violent and destructive persecutor of Christian ‘heretics’ (Gal 1:13-14), an attitude which did not please God (cf. Gal 1:15), was subsequently reworked by Luke in Lk 9:54-56 with the use of the motif of the most violent and destructive Jewish disciples James and John (‘sons of thunder’: cf. Mk 3:17), who wanted to destroy the Samaritan ‘heretics’ with fire from heaven (Lk 9:54), an attitude which did not please Jesus (Lk 9:55-56).

1.2.1.2 Lk 9:57-62 cf. Gal 1:15-16 The tripartite structure of the subsequent, ‘calling’ section Lk 9:57-62 is rather untypical of Luke, who generally preferred bipartite parallel patterns (Israelite– Gentile, Galilean–Judaean, male–female, old–young, central–marginal, etc.: see e.g. Lk 1:5-2:38). In fact, this tripartite structure betrays Luke’s hypertextual reworking of the subsequent, ‘calling’ section of the Letter to the Galatians, namely Gal 1:15-16. The first of the three stories which are contained in the section Lk 9:57-62 describes someone who (a) felt the need to follow Jesus, although he was not explicitly called to do so, and (b) was told by Jesus that he would have to be set apart from all other people, normally dwelling in their homes (Lk 9:57-58). These two elements of the Lucan story illustrate Paul’s two-element idea that (b') he was set apart by God (a') already from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15ab). Likewise, the semantically vague Gospel title of the Son of Man (Lk 9:58; cf. Mk 2:10 etc.) alludes to the Pauline idea of being born of a woman, with no mention of a particular father (Gal 1:15b; cf. 4:4). The second story, with its three elements of (a) Jesus’ explicit calling, (b) the would-be disciple’s blameworthy excuse concerning his relationship with his earthly father, and (c) Jesus’ call to depart and proclaim (*αγγελ) the kingdom of God (Lk 9:59-60), illustrates Paul’s subsequent, three-element idea of (a') God’s explicit calling, (b') the revelation of God’s Son (and consequently, of a

36

Chapter 1

particular filial relationship with God) in Paul, and (c') the call to proclaim God’s Son among the Gentiles (Gal 1:15c-16b). The third story, again with no explicit Jesus’ calling, but with a blameworthy request to (a) delay the mission in order to (b) express a close relationship with one’s relatives (Lk 9:61-62), illustrates Paul’s subsequent, two-element idea of (a') acting immediately and (b') not conferring with ‘flesh and blood’ (Gal 1:16c).

1.2.1.3 Lk 10:1-22 cf. Gal 1:17 The subsequent, ‘missionary’ section Lk 10:1-22 illustrates the ideas which are contained in the ‘missionary’ text Gal 1:17. The fragment Lk 10:1-16 (cf. also 10:17.20) describes the calling of the people who were supposed to act similarly to the twelve apostles (cf. Mk 6:7-13 par. Lk 9:1-6; cf. also Mk 9:37), but nevertheless they were clearly different from the twelve apostles (esp. Lk 10:1 diff. Mk 6:7). These people were called to proclaim the kingdom of God also outside the land of Israel, among the Gentiles (esp. Lk 10:1.13-15). Accordingly, Luke’s creative use of the Marcan motif narratively illustrates the Pauline idea of not going to the Jerusalem apostles, but rather to the Gentiles (Gal 1:17a; cf. 1:16b.17bc). The subsequent fragment Lk 10:17-20, with its surprisingly used motif of animals of the wilderness, namely serpents and scorpions (Lk 10:19; cf. Deut 8:15 LXX), and with the idea of returning from the wilderness to a safe place (ὑποστρέφω: Lk 10:17; cf. 10:18.20; diff. Mk 6:30), narratively illustrates Paul’s references to his travel to Arabia and his return to Damascus (Gal 1:17bc). Since in the Pauline tradition Arabia was regarded as the location of Mt Sinai (Gal 4:25), Luke used the motif of sending lambs among wolves (Lk 10:3), a motif which in the Animal Apocalypse illustrated the stay of the sons of Israel among the Gentiles in Egypt before the exodus (1 En. 89:12-27). Likewise, in order to allude to Paul’s idea of travelling to Arabia, the region of Mt Sinai (Gal 1:17b; cf. 4:25), Luke surprisingly substituted the Marcan idea of wearing sandals (Mk 6:9), which were elsewhere interpreted by him as natural travel equipment (cf. Acts 12:8), 78 with an explicit prohibition of wearing them (Lk 10:4). For the same reason, Luke substituted the Marcan word σανδάλια with the Septuagintal word ὑποδήματα (Lk 10:4; cf. Exod 3:5 LXX). 78

The prohibition of wearing sandals (Lk 10:4) obviously had nothing to do with the Galilean small distances, population, climate, etc., as it is suggested by numerous scholars, e.g. M. Tiwald, Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (ÖBS 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002), 180.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

37

The fragment Lk 10:21-22, with its idea of God’s pleasing (*εὐδόκ) to reveal his Son (ἀποκαλύψαι + ὁ υἱός) not to the wise and the intelligent (σοφῶν καὶ συνετῶν), again illustrates Paul’s idea of God’s pleasing to reveal his Son to the Gentiles, also those living in Damascus (Gal 1:17c; cf. 1:15-16b; cf. also 1 Cor 1:21), in a particularly Pauline (and not particularly Lucan) way, namely not to the wise and the intelligent (1 Cor 1:19; cf. 1:20.25-27; 3:18-20; diff. Acts 7:22; 13:7 etc.). 79 The placement of the pericope Lk 10:21-22, which evidently alludes to Gal 1:15-16b (the revelation of God’s Son independently of the Jerusalem apostles), after the pericope Lk 10:17-20, which alludes to Gal 1:17bc (the wilderness travel to Mt Sinai and back to Damascus), is intended to persuade the reader that the somewhat enigmatic God’s revelation of his Son in Paul (Gal 1:16a), which was the basis of Paul’s entire, highly controversial, missionary activity, was in fact not a suspect private revelation, but rather a religious experience which could be compared to that of Elijah, who abandoned the unbelieving Israelites and travelled through the wilderness to Mt Horeb, where he met the living God and became an invincible preacher of faith, and thereafter he went back towards Damascus (1 Kgs 19:1-21; cf. 2 Kgs 8:7-15).

1.2.1.4 Lk 10:23-37 cf. Gal 1:18 The ‘neighbour’ section Lk 10:23-37 in a narrative way illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline ‘hosting’ text Gal 1:18. The phrase κατ᾽ ἰδίαν (Lk 10:23) in Gal 2:2 refers to Paul’s private meeting with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’. Consequently, in Lk 10:23 it alludes to Paul’s meeting face to face with Cephas, one of the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 1:18ab). For the same reason, Lk 10:24 refers to ‘many prophets and kings’, characters which point to Jerusalem with its prophetic-royal history (cf. Gal 1:18a). The fragment Lk 10:25-37 contains two pericopes which are connected on the narrative and thematic level. The discussion concerning the greatest commandment (Lk 10:25-28) is followed by the thematically related paradigmatic pericope Lk 10:29-37, which functions as its paradigmatic explanation. In the narrative introduction to the first pericope (Lk 10:25-28), which is a result of a conflation of Mk 12:28-34 with Mk 10:17-18a, 80 the Marcan ‘scribe’ 79 80

Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 87-88. Cf. J. Kiilunen, Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht: Ein redaktionsgeschichtlicher Versuch über Mk 12,28-34 und die Parallelen (STAT/AASF B.250; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1989), 51-77;

38

Chapter 1

(Mk 12:28) was substituted with the Lucan enigmatic ‘expert in the law’ (νομικός: Lk 10:25a). As it is evident from the analysis of the whole Lucan ‘travel narrative’, the Lucan motif of νομικός (cf. Lk 11:45-52; 14:3) on the allusive level refers to the person of Cephas (cf. Gal 1:18b), who enjoyed the authority to give binding expositions of the law to Jesus’ disciples. In fact, the motif of a doubting ‘expert in the law’ (νομικός: cf. also Lk 7:30) was created by Luke with the use of his characteristic technique of shifting the burden of guilt from the members of the Jerusalem community onto some generally criticized Jewish groups. The idea of putting Jesus to a test (ἐκπειράζω: Lk 10:25b) likewise agrees with the Lucan way of reworking the Pauline idea of Cephas’ apparent lack of trust in Paul’s particular revelation and missionary mandate during the Apostle’s first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18; cf. Acts 9:26: πειράζω). The second pericope (Lk 10:29-37) explains the discussion concerning the greatest commandment (Lk 10:25-28) in a particularly Lucan way, which is also thematically dependent on Gal 1:18. The strange character of a Samaritan who undertook travels from Jerusalem to other regions of Israel (Lk 10:33-35; diff. 9:52-53), who was one of three correlated narrative characters (Lk 10:31-33), who provided the wounded stranger on the way to Jericho (so farther to Arabia or Syria) with basic lodging for around two weeks (Lk 10:35),81 and who func-

81

F. Neirynck, ‘Luke 10,25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’, in S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries, Festschrift M. D. Goulder (BIS 8; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994), 149-165 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (BETL 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 267-282]; F. Noël, The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,51-19,28 (CBRA; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004), 329-395. Cf. N. Heutger, ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, BZ, NF 27 (1983) 97-101 (esp. 97). According to Mk 6:37.44, the price of bread which was sufficient for a supper for one person was c.1/25 denarii. Moreover, taking into consideration the data which were given by Peter Lampe on the basis of ancient Roman inscriptions, namely that a slave could survive for c.1½ days eating bread for 2 asses, it can be assumed that one could survive for 2 denarii (i.e. 32 asses) for c.24 days. The price of living in an inn was at least 3 asses a day, and consequently with 2 denarii one could live in an inn for c.11 days. Cf. P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989), 162-163; cf. also M. Reiser, ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Bib 81 (2000) 457-488 (esp. 481-482). However, it should be noted that denarii are almost completely absent in the archaeological material from Judaea of the time of Jesus: cf. S. Ostermann, ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie –

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

39

tioned as an example of love of the neighbour which should overcome nationalreligious prejudices (Lk 10:37) ought to be interpreted as alluding to the positive behaviour of Cephas (Gal 1:18b; cf. 2:7-9.12ab). Cephas, the apostle of the circumcised, was the only one of the three ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem church 82 who welcomed and hosted the suspect, once hostile, now persecuted, ritually unclean, ‘Arabian-Damascene’ refugee Paul (cf. 2 Cor 11:23.32-33; Gal 1:13.17-18a)83 for two weeks (Gal 1:18bc). At the same time, other apostles were, at least in Luke’s allusive rhetoric, too busy or too zealous for the law to meet Paul and to care for him (Lk 10:31-32; cf. Gal 1:19a). Thus, the whole fragment Lk 10:2537 illustrates negative and positive features of Cephas’ attitude towards Paul, as it was perceived from the Lucan, post-Pauline point of view (cf. Gal 1:18).

1.2.1.5 Lk 10:38-11:13 cf. Gal 1:19 The ‘hospitality and request’ section Lk 10:38-11:13 creatively illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline ‘encounter’ text Gal 1:19. The first pericope of this section (Lk 10:38-42) with the use of the Pauline ideas and vocabulary which were borrowed from 1 Cor 7:32-35 (*περισπα, μεριμνάω) 84 presents a somewhat strange story which was located in a certain village (so certainly not in the city of Jerusalem) and in a household in which there were no males. In this way, the story alludes to Paul’s remark concerning his seeing in Jerusalem no other apostle (Gal 1:19a). Moreover, the surprising, Scripture-based name form Miriam (Μαριάμ: Lk 10:39.42 p75; cf. Exod 15:2021 LXX), which was elsewhere reserved by Luke for Jesus’ mother (cf. Lk 1:27; Acts 1:14 etc.; diff. Lk 8:2; 24:10; Acts 12:12), in Lk 10:38-42 also allusively refers to Jesus’ mother, whom Luke consistently presented as attentively listening to the word of God (cf. e.g. Lk 2:19) and earnestly praying (cf. e.g. Acts 1:14). In fact, in Lk 10:38-42 Luke depicted an ideal image of Miriam, who

82

83 84

Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M. Küchler (NTOA 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39-56 (esp. 52). It is also possible that the two characters in Lk 10:31-32 do not allude to the two other Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:9), but that they depict Cephas’ ‘priestly-Levitical’, i.e. scrupulously adhering to the Jewish law, alter ego (cf. Mk 2:14-17 par. Lk 5:27-32: Levi). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 45-46, 58-60. Cf. G. Bouwman, Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968), 110-111; M. D. Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm (JSNTSup 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989), [vol. 2,] 493; W. Schenk, ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127-139 (esp. 134).

40

Chapter 1

welcomed Jesus outside Jerusalem in a house which was not hers, 85 in order to create an allusion to Paul’s remark Gal 1:19 concerning his having been welcomed not by other Jerusalem apostles but only by the Lord’s brother James, and consequently, in the Lucan deductive logic, presumably also by the Lord’s mother Mary and some other women. 86 The three subsequent fragments of this section (Lk 11:1-4.5-8.9-13) share the themes of a humble request, giving bread notwithstanding being offended, forgiveness, overcoming the evilness of human nature, and also (in the case of Lk 11:5-8.9-13) an unwelcome guest. In this way, they illustrate the idea of a basically positive attitude of James towards the humble guest Paul, notwithstanding the great tension which existed between them (Gal 1:19b; cf. 2:9.12; cf. also Acts 15:13-21; 21:18-25).

1.2.1.6 Lk 11:14-26 cf. Gal 1:20-22 The section Lk 11:14-26 was composed with the use of the Marcan text Mk 3:22-30, which alluded to the Pauline text Gal 1:20. 87 Similarly, the ‘tension’ section Lk 11:14-26 alludes to the ‘tension’ text Gal 1:20-22. The opening statements Lk 11:14, which are inserted before Lk 11:15 par. Mk 3:22, introduce the idea of being mute (diff. Mk 7:32.37; 9:25; Lk 7:22: deaf), which is unnecessary from the narrative point of view, but which alludes to the unbelieving (cf. Lk 1:22) Gentiles, who were evangelized by Paul in the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21).

85

86

87

The use of the ideas borrowed from 1 Cor 7:32-35 in Lk 10:38-42 confirms that Luke assumed that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been a virgin and had remained a not remarried widow. Did he also assume that she was not the mother of James? An allusion to Paul’s visit to James (Lk 11:1-13; cf. Gal 1:19b) was made subsequently, in a new narrative location (‘in a certain place’: Lk 11:1; diff. 10:38). Therefore, Luke might have assumed that Mary lived somewhere else, in the company of other women (cf. γυναῖκες in Acts 1:14), and not together with James. It should be noted that the Mary who was mentioned in Lk 24:10 (Μαρία ἡ Ἰακώβου) was evidently perceived by Luke not as Miriam, the mother of Jesus, but presumably as James’s wife. Accordingly, Luke clearly avoided identifying the household in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, had lived (cf. Lk 10:38-42) with the household of James and his wife (cf. Lk 11:1-13). It should be noted that the particular order of allusive references in Lk 10:25-11:13: first to Peter and other apostles (Lk 10:25-37), then to certain women and Miriam the mother of Jesus (Lk 10:38-42), and thereafter to the Lord’s brothers (Lk 11:1-13) is characteristically Lucan (cf. Acts 1:14). See above, 20 (Subsection 1.1.1.3).

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

41

The motif of demanding a sign (Lk 11:16) originates from 1 Cor 1:22 (cf. later Mk 8:11), and similarly to that Pauline text it illustrates the Jewish (and also Jewish Christian) unbelief in the gospel which was preached by Paul. For this reason, this motif in Lk 11:16-17a alludes to the great geographical, personal, and theological-halachic distance between Paul and the churches of Judaea (Gal 1:22). The same Pauline idea was subsequently illustrated by Luke with the use of a saying concerning being against and not with Jesus (Lk 11:23; diff. Mk 9:40) and of a story about a return of seven unclean spirits to a presumably Jewish house after its initial purification (Lk 11:24-26; diff. Mk 3:2830).

1.2.1.7 Lk 11:27-28 cf. Gal 1:23-24 The ‘blessing’ section Lk 11:27-28 narratively illustrates the main ideas of the Pauline ‘blessing’ text Gal 1:23-24. The image of a woman who cried from the crowd with a raised voice, so presumably from afar (Lk 11:27c), alludes to the Pauline remark that the churches in Judaea could only hear some rumours concerning Paul’s evangelistic activity (Gal 1:23). The subsequent bipartite reference to Jesus’ once (a) being endured (βαστάζω) in his Jewish mother’s womb and (b) sucking her breasts (Lk 11:27ef) creatively, in a reversed order, alludes to Paul’s bipartite idea of his once (b') pursuing and (a') destroying Jewish believers (Gal 1:23bd). The whole blessing, which initially referred to Jesus’ Jewish mother (Lk 11:27ef) but was subsequently reformulated to refer to widespread listening to the word of God (Lk 11:28), alludes to the Pauline idea that Jewish Christians glorified God in the person of the Apostle (Gal 1:24) because of his proclaiming the gospel among the Gentiles (Gal 1:23c). The particular combination of the motifs of hearing the word of God and obeying it (Lk 11:28bc; cf. 1:38; 2:19 etc.) illustrates Paul’s idea of faith, especially that of the Gentiles (Gal 1:23c).

1.2.2 Lk 11:2-4 as a reworking of Mk 11:25 The above-presented analysis of Lk 9:51-11:28 has revealed that the Lucan paradigmatic prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 11:2-4), together with other pericopes of the fragment Lk 11:1-13, has the function of illustrating the themes of a humble request, giving bread notwithstanding being offended, forgiveness, and overcoming the evilness of human nature. The particular form of the Lucan prayer (Lk 11:2-4) displays striking similarities with Mk 11:25. In fact, Lk 11:2-4 has the features of a reworking and

42

Chapter 1

expansion of this earlier Marcan text, 88 which was used by Luke in Lk 11:2-4 because of its references to a request, forgiveness, and overcoming the evilness of human nature. 89 The introduction to the Lucan paradigmatic prayer (ὅταν προσεύχησθε: Lk 11:2a) is almost identical with the Marcan generalizing statement ὅταν στήκετε προσευχόμενοι (Mk 11:25a). However, the Marcan idea of standing while praying (στήκετε προσευχόμενοι: Mk 11:25a) was most probably eliminated by Luke as being too specific and, moreover, contradicting the example of Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14:35 par. Lk 22:41.45; cf. Acts 9:40; 20:36; 21:5). The favourite Lucan invocation of God simply as the Father (abs. πάτερ: Lk 11:2d; cf. 10:21; 22:42; 23:46), which was borrowed by Luke from the earlier Pauline and post-Pauline tradition (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6; Mk 14:36), 90 understandably substituted for the Marcan complex phrase ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mk 11:25d). The correlated clauses ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν – ἀφίομεν (Lk 11:4ab) constitute a reversed version of the correlated clauses ἀφίετε – ἀφῇ ὑμῖν τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν (Mk 11:25bd). The Lucan reworking consisted in reversing the order of the Marcan clauses, in order to change the perspective from an anthropocentric (cf. Mk 11:24) to a theocentric one (cf. Lk 11:2-3), and in using vocabulary which is more distinctively scriptural-theological, and therefore preferred by Luke: ἁμαρτία instead of παράπτωμα, as well as ὀφείλω instead of the vague clause εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος. 91 The rest of the paradigmatic prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 11:2d-3.4c) constitutes an expansion of the corresponding Marcan text. Luke composed this expansion with the use of phraseology which is scriptural (ἁγιάζω τὸ ὄνομά μου: cf. Is 29:23; Ezek 36:23 LXX) and Marcan (ἔρχομαι + βασιλεία: cf. Mk 9:1; 11:10; ἄρτον + δίδωμι: cf. Mk 14:22; μὴ + εἰς πειρασμόν: Mk 14:38). Luke also used here some of his favourite words and phrases (δίδου: cf. Lk 6:30; καθ᾿ ἡμέραν: cf. Lk 9:23; 16:19 etc.; εἰσφέρω: cf. Lk 5:18-19; 12:11 etc.). The Lucan neologism ἐπιούσιος (Lk 11:3) was most probably formed as a masculine counterpart to the Lucan favourite word ἡ ἐπιούση (cf. Acts 7:23; 16:11; 20:15; 21:18; 23:11). The related, consciously ambiguous text Lk 17:37

88 89

90 91

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 323. It should be noted that the Marcan complex idea of the Father and the believers’ forgiveness of trespasses on the occasion of prayer (Mk 11:25) on its part resulted from a reworking of the Pauline idea of God’s generosity and the believers’ participation in it (Rom 11:22cd): cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 257. Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 92. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 404.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

43

suggests that also in Lk 11:2-3 Luke referred to the bread of the future (ἐπιούσιος) eschatological banquet of the Kingdom (cf. also Lk 14:15: φάγεται ἄρτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ), which in the present epoch may be available every day (τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν), in particular in the bread of the Eucharist (cf. Lk 24:30.35; Acts 2:42.46; 20:7.11; 27:35: κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου).

1.2.3 Mt 6:9-13 as a reworking of Lk 11:2-4 The longer, Matthean version of the paradigmatic prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 6:9-13) resulted from a reworking and expansion of its shorter, Lucan version (Lk 11:2-4). Contrary to the opinion of the supporters of the hypothesis of the existence of the so-called ‘Q source’, there are no unquestionable Lucan emendations of the allegedly earlier, Matthean-like version of the double Mt-Lk tradition in Lk 11:2-4 par. Mt 6:9-13. Consequently, it cannot be demonstrated that Lk 11:24 is a relatively late reworking of a ‘Q text’ which could be traced in a more primitive version in Mt 6:9-13. 92 On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that the Gospel of Matthew constitutes a pseudo-Jewish Christian, artificially Hebraized and ‘scripturalized’ version of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. 93 Accordingly, also Mt 6:9-13 can be regarded as an artificially Hebraized and ‘scripturalized’ version of Lk 11:2-4. The opening phrase Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (Mt 6:9b) was almost verbatim borrowed from Mk 11:25 (πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) and conflated with the Lucan invocation Πάτερ (Lk 11:2). The two initial requests (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου, ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου: Mt 6:9b-10a) were verbatim borrowed from Lk 11:2. The addition γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου (Mt 6:10b) should be regarded as a particularly Matthean (cf. Mt 26:42) reworking of the Lucan text Lk 22:42 (τὸ θέλημα… τὸ σὸν γινέσθω; cf. Acts 21:14), which is a Lucan paradigmatic example of Jesus’ prayer. Therefore, Matthew had a good reason for using it in his ‘model’ prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Mt 6:9-13). The subsequent addition ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς (Mt 6:10b) is scriptural (cf. Deut 3:24; 4:39; Joel 3:3 LXX etc.).

92 93

Cf. ibid. 403-404. Cf. ibid. 419-422, 427, 434, 437-438, 444; id., Constructing, 155-157; G. J. Brooke, ‘Aspects of Matthew’s Use of Scripture in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), Teacher, 821-838 (esp. 835-837).

44

Chapter 1

The request τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον + give + ἡμῖν + *ἡμερ (Mt 6:11) was borrowed from Lk 11:3. The Matthean verbal form δός, together with the corresponding σήμερον (Mt 6:11), should be considered posterior to the corresponding Lucan forms δίδου and καθ᾿ ἡμέραν (Lk 11:3) because the Matthean aorist with the corresponding σήμερον is a clear lectio facilior, which is conformed to the general Hellenistic usage of aorist in prayers. Moreover, the Matthean δός in Mt 6:11 conveys the same idea as the one expressed in Mt 5:42 (with the word παντί omitted from Lk 6:30), namely that of avoiding indiscriminate giving, which would imply excessive benevolence in the eyes of the prudent moralist Matthew. 94 The request καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν (Mt 6:12a) is a slightly reworked version of the Lucan request καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν (Lk 11:4a). The Matthean word ὀφειλήματα (Mt 6:12a) should be considered posterior to the corresponding Lucan word ἁμαρτίας (Lk 11:4a) because the Matthean parallelism ὀφειλήματα – ὀφειλέταις (Mt 6:12ab) unnaturally extends the meaning of the noun ὀφείλημα in Mt 6:12a to that of ‘sin’ (cf. the explanatory statements Mt 6:14-15 with their naturally used τὰ παραπτώματα, which was borrowed from Mk 11:25) in order to achieve its merely formal correspondence to the original ὀφείλοντι (Lk 11:4b; cf. Mt 6:12b). In fact, the request ἄφες… τὰ ὀφειλήματα (Mt 6:12a; cf. Deut 15:2 LXX; cf. also 1 Macc 15:8) should be regarded as an artificially ‘scripturalized’ version of Lk 11:4a. 95 Likewise, the explanatory clause ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν (Mt 6:12b) should be regarded as a reworked version of the corresponding Lucan clause καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν (Lk 11:4b). In particular, the Matthean verb form ἀφήκαμεν (Mt 6:12b) is posterior to the Lucan verb form ἀφίομεν (Lk 11:4b), which closely corresponds to the earlier Marcan form ἀφίετε (Mk 11:25b). 96 The request καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν (Mt 6:13a) was verbatim borrowed from Lk 11:4c. The addition ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (Mt 6:13b) can be regarded as scriptural (cf. Est 14:17z; Ps 140[139]:2; Is 25:4 LXX) and/or borrowed from 2 Tim 4:18 (cf. also 2 Thes 3:2).

94

95 96

Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 547. Pace S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, 128-144. Pace S. Carruth and A. Garsky, Q 11:2b-4, 145-155. Pace ibid. 164-170.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

45

Accordingly, the text of the so-called ‘Lord’s prayer’ (Lk 11:2-4 par. Mt 6:9-13) does not originate from the historical Jesus. It resulted from a reworking of the Marcan text Mk 11:25, in order to adapt it to the themes of the Lucan fragment Lk 11:1-13 (a humble request, giving bread notwithstanding being offended, forgiveness, and overcoming the evilness of human nature), which illustrate the Lucan idea of a basically positive attitude of James towards the humble guest Paul, notwithstanding the great tension which existed between them (Gal 1:19b; cf. 2:9.12; cf. also Acts 15:13-21; 21:18-25). The resulting paradigmatic prayer of Jesus’ disciples (Lk 11:2-4) was later reworked and expanded in Mt 6:9-13 in an artificially Hebraized and ‘scripturalized’ way, which is characteristic of the whole Gospel of Matthew.

1.3 Mt 2:1-12 The story about the Magi who from the East, following a star, came to Jesus (Mt 2:1-12) has been for centuries attracting the attention of exegetes, theologians, writers, and artists. This famous story gave rise to its numerous actualizations, especially liturgical (Christmas time) and dramaturgical ones (nativity plays etc.). 97 Numerous Christian legends arouse around it. 98 However, it also became the subject of serious exegetical studies because this apparently simple account poses a number of exegetical problems for its interpreters. 99

97

98

99

For an analysis of various types of actualization of biblical texts, see B. Adamczewski, ‘Hans-Georg Gadamer i hermeneutyczny problem aktualizacji tekstów biblijnych’, RoczT 53 (2006), fasc. 1, 71-93. As concerns the pericope Mt 2:1-12, see U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (EKK 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002), 178. Cf. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (ABRL; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999), 197200; U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 177-178; A. Paciorek, Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz, vol. 1 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 1/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2005), 116-117. Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Magowie ze Wschodu: za gwiazdą, przez Synaj, do Jezusowego Kościoła (Mt 2,1-12)’, in R. Bartnicki (ed.), Studia z biblistyki, vol. 8 (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 25-38 (esp. 25-27).

46

Chapter 1

1.3.1 Exegetical problems of the Matthean story Mt 2:1-12 The first, most widely known exegetical problem, related to the interpretation of the story Mt 2:1-12, consists in the issue of the identification of the star which was seen by the Magi in the East (Mt 2:2). For centuries, scholars have been trying to discover what could be that star: a comet, a conjunction of planets, a supernova, etc. 100 Despite numerous theories, which were from time to time proposed, until now scholars have not worked out any common, convincing position concerning this issue. 101 The second, related problem concerns the ‘rising’ of this star, as the Greek expression ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ (Mt 2:2.9) seems to be best translated. 102 Everybody knows that from the point of view of a terrestrial observer the stars ‘rise’ every night. What would then the particular ‘rising’ of an enigmatic astronomical phenomenon consist in? 103 The third problem is related to the particular interpretation of that phenomenon by the oriental Magi. On what grounds did they connect the star, which was seen by them, with the Jewish messianic idea? Did the Jews from the diaspora help them in that matter? 104 However, in such a case, why would the Gentile Magi, and not the Jews from the diaspora, come to Jerusalem to pay homage to the recently born king of the Jews (cf. Mt 2:2)? Maybe, the matter consisted in a strictly astrological interpretation of a conjunction of the celestial bodies which represented royal prerogatives (Jupiter), western lands or the Sabbath (Saturn), and eschatological times (Pisces)? 105 However, could such a conjunction of several celestial bodies be interpreted as a ‘star’, which, moreover, justified undertaking a long travel to Jerusalem?

100 Cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007), 68-69; D. L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008), 80; H. W. Hoehner, ‘The Chronology of Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 3, The Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 2315-2359 (esp. 2326-2328). 101 Cf. R. E. Brown, Birth, 610-613. 102 Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (WBC 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 27; R. T. France, Matthew, 59 n. 2; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 80. It should be noted that the image of the starry sky changes with the observer’s move to the north or to the south, but not to the east or to the west. 103 Cf. D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SP 1; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991), 42. 104 Cf. D. L. Turner, Matthew, 87. 105 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 162, 173 n. 90; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 106; R. T. France, Matthew, 68.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

47

The fourth problem concerns the reaction to the words of the Magi. Why was not only Herod (who could be afraid of rivalry with the new king) 106 but also all Jerusalem frightened after their statement (Mt 2:3)?107 Does the Matthean ‘all Jerusalem’ in fact refer to the Jerusalem socio-political establishment? 108 However, in such a case why does the Matthean story present Herod as the main interlocutor of the Magi (Mt 2:7-9.12), and the Jewish chief priests and scribes of the people as merely passive encyclopedic informers of the king (Mt 2:4-6)? 109 The fifth problem concerns modifications of the prophecy of Micah, which was quoted by Matthew (Mt 2:6; diff. Mi 5:1). The Matthean version of the prophecy agrees neither with the Masoretic Text nor with the Septuagint.110 Could Matthew have failed to understand the Hebrew text of the prophecy? 111 Alternatively, could he have had at his disposal yet another textual version? However, in such a case why would this version be so different from the Hebrew and Greek versions which are known to us from numerous manuscripts? 112 The sixth problem is related to the astonishing, even in the case of an extraordinary astronomical phenomenon, behaviour of the star during the travel of the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. 113 How should we interpret the statement that the star ‘went before them, until it came and took its stand over the place where the child was’, and only thereafter the Magi saw it again (Mt 2:910)? All attempts to explain this phenomenon in purely astronomical terms evidently fail here. 114

106 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 70. 107 Cf. M. T. Ploner, Die Schriften Israels als Auslegungshorizont der Jesusgeschichte: Eine narrative und intertextuelle Analyse von Mt 1-2 (SBB 66; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2011), 119. 108 Cf. C. L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC 22; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn. 1992), 63; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 115; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 81. 109 Cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (PNTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1992), 39. 110 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 242-244; M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 277-278; E. Cuvillier, ‘Références, allusions et citations: Réflexions sur l’utilisation de l’Ancien Testament en Matthieu 1-2’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures, 229-242 (esp. 237-238). 111 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 159 n. 13. 112 Cf. A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 112; R. T. France, Matthew, 72-73. 113 Cf. D. A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, 30; R. T. France, Matthew, 65. 114 Cf. A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 113; R. T. France, Matthew, 65, 69, 74; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 85.

48

Chapter 1

The seventh, widely known problem concerns the significance of the gifts which were offered by the Magi: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Mt 2:11). Should we interpret this particular set of gifts in symbolic terms? 115 If so, then in what manner? Moreover, if this set mainly functions as a reference to the prophecy of Isaiah (Is 60:6), or also to other Old Testament texts (e.g. 1 Kgs 10:10; Ps 72[71]:10-12.15), 116 then why in the Matthean text there is not only gold and frankincense (cf. Is 60:6), but also myrrh? 117 All these, and also other, exegetical problems of the Matthean text Mt 2:112, questions for which scholars failed to find an adequate explanation with the use of traditional research methods, can be satisfactorily solved by means of critical intertextual research.

1.3.2 Mt 2:1-12 as a hypertextual reworking of Acts 2:1-47 The most recent research on the Gospel of Matthew has revealed that this work should be regarded as a sequential hypertextual reworking of the Acts of the Apostles, with the use of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and of other literary works. 118 In particular, the initial section of the Gospel of Matthew (Mt 1:1-2:12; 2:16-18) resulted from a hypertextual reworking of the initial section of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1-8:3). 119 The genealogy Mt 1:1-17, which opens the Matthean Gospel, contains the surprising insertion of four minor female characters in the basically patriarchal list of names, an idea which was borrowed from Acts 1:13-14 (cf. Lk 8:2-3; 24:10). Besides, the Matthean motif of Mary as ‘his mother’ in the account of the annunciation (Mt 1:18; cf. 2:11.13-14.20-21; diff. Lk 1:43; 2:5.16.19.21) alludes to the similar characterization of Mary in Acts 1:14. For this reason, it can be argued that also the subsequent story about the Magi from the East (Mt 2:1-12) is a hypertextual reworking of the subsequent important section of Luke’s work, namely Acts 2:1-47. A closer intertextual investigation of both texts reveals that this is indeed the case.

115 Cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.9.2; Origen, Cels. 1.60. 116 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 62; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 86; M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 282286. 117 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 175 n. 103; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005), 117; M. T. Ploner, Schriften, 284. 118 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 418-437; id., Constructing, 153-156. 119 Cf. id., ‘Magowie’, 31, 33-38.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

49

Even the complex internal structure of the Matthean story about the Gentiles who made a pilgrimage first to Jerusalem (Mt 2:1-8) and only thereafter to Jesus and his family (Mt 2:9-11)120 reflects the bipartite structure of the Lucan story about the day of the Pentecost, in which devout Jews from every nation under heaven go first to Jerusalem (Acts 2:5-13) and then to Jesus’ Jewish Christian church (Acts 2:14-47). The particularly Matthean image of the Magi from the East (Mt 2:1) resulted from a conflation of several originally independent literary motifs. The first of them is the Lucan motif of devout men who came to Jerusalem from every nation of the world (Acts 2:5). The second one is the motif of people living far away, who are called to salvation in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:39; cf. 2:38). The third one is the motif of the table of nations (Acts 2:9-11), which contains a list of nations, beginning from those who live far east of Judaea, especially in Mesopotamia (Acts 2:9). These three motifs were combined and reworked by Matthew in a way which was characteristic of him, namely with the use of the scriptural motif of Balaam, a Mesopotamian wise man, who came from the East and in a vision saw a rising star, a sign of Israelite rule (ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν: Num 23:7 LXX; ὁράω + ἀνατέλλω + ἄστρον: Num 24:15-17 LXX), 121 a motif which was conflated in Mt 2:1 with Lk 1:78-79 (ἀνατολή; cf. also ἀνατέλλω Mt 4:16 diff. Is 9:1 LXX). In Mt 2:2 (cf. 2:7), the same motif of Balaam and of a star which was seen by him and interpreted as a sign of Israelite rule also illustrates other important ideas contained in Acts 2:1-47, namely those of a foretold Jewish king from the Davidic dynasty (Acts 2:30) and of visible wonders in heaven (Acts 2:2-3), phenomena which were interpreted as visions (Acts 2:17) and as astronomical signs (Acts 2:19-20; cf. 2:22). The subsequent Matthean image, namely that of king Herod and all Jerusalem as frightened by the prospect of the birth of Christ (Mt 2:3; cf. 2:8), is an allusion to the idea of the Jerusalem perverse generation from which the believers should save themselves (Acts 2:40). Additionally, in agreement with Matthew’s post-Lucan theological scheme (cf. Acts 13:46; 14:5-6; 18:6; 28:25-28 etc.), the fear of all Jerusalem, which indicates total rejection of the gospel by its inhabitants (Mt 2:3), 122 in history-salvation terms justifies the inauguration of the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles, who are symbolized by the characters of the Magi from the East (Mt 2:9-11). 120 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 158; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 105. 121 Cf. A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 107, 109-111; R. T. France, Matthew, 62; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 80. 122 Cf. U. Luz, Matthäus, vol. 1, 173, 176; J. Nolland, Matthew, 112; R. T. France, Matthew, 70.

50

Chapter 1

Herod’s question concerning the foretold Messiah (ὁ χριστός: Mt 2:4) alludes to the Lucan text which refers to the Messiah foretold by David (Acts 2:31). The answer of the chief priests and scribes of the people (Mt 2:5-6), which is based on an actualizing interpretation of the text that was once written by the prophet (διὰ τοῦ προφήτου: Mt 2:5; cf. Acts 2:16), is an allusive reference to the Lucan text Acts 2:16-21. The remark concerning the location of Bethlehem in Judaea, which is superfluous from the narrative point of view (Mt 2:5-6; diff. 2:8, where it would be more justified), 123 seems to allude again to the Lucan table of nations (Acts 2:9-11), in which Judaea is placed immediately after Mesopotamia (Acts 2:9). The Matthean modifications of the text of Micah, especially the substitution of ἄρχων from Mi 5:1 LXX with ἡγούμενος and ποιμαίνω (cf. 2 Sam 5:2 LXX) in Mt 2:6, by recalling the text of 2 Sam 5:2 more clearly point to the character of David, 124 which is the key element of the scriptural argumentation contained in the Lucan text Acts 2:22-36. The Lucan table of nations (Acts 2:9-11) is also referred to by the next surprising element of the Matthean story, namely the change of the behaviour of the star which was seen by the Magi (Mt 2:9-10). In the first part of the pericope, the appearance of the star was a phenomenon which was somehow extraordinary, but in the eyes of the Magi, it had a typically astronomical (or rather astrological) character: the star was simply seen in the sky (Mt 2:2-7). In the second part of the pericope, the star behaved in a way which was evidently untypical of a star: it went before the Magi, until it came and took its stand over the place where the child was, where it was again seen by the Magi (Mt 2:910). 125 Such a behaviour of the star closely corresponds to the behaviour of the pillar of cloud during the Israelites’ travel through the wilderness of Sinai: the cloud went before them (πορεύομαι + πρό: Num 14:14; Deut 1:33 LXX; cf. ἡγέομαι: Exod 13:21 LXX), 126 and then it took its stand where (ἵστημι + οὗ) there was the place of encampment which was chosen by God (Num 9:17; cf. 10:12 etc. LXX), and it stood over (ἵστημι ἐπί) the place of God’s abode among

123 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 226-227; R. T. France, Matthew, 65 n. 25, 72. 124 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 72; A. Destro and M. Pesce, ‘The Cultural Structure of the Infancy Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (WUNT 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 94-115 (esp. 102-103); M. Mayordomo, ‘Matthew 1-2 and the Problem of Intertextuality’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels, 257-279 (esp. 275-276). 125 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 74. 126 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 246; J. Nolland, Matthew, 111 n. 110; A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 113.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

51

them, which was located in the tent of meeting (Exod 33:9-10; cf. Num 12:5; Deut 31:15 LXX). Therefore, the untypical behaviour of the star constitutes in Mt 2:9-10 an allusion to the Israelites’ travel through Sinai. The motif of Sinai was recalled by Matthew in order to create an allusive reference to the Lucan text Acts 2:1-47, which describes the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2:1), a day which was treated in biblical tradition as the day of God’s revelation on Mt Sinai (Exod 19:1). The motif of Sinai is also present in the Lucan text in the particular table of nations (Acts 2:9-11), in which the last element refers to Arabs (Acts 2:11). The introduction of this element in a quite surprising way, namely in the last, highlighted position of the list and, moreover, not in agreement with the general direction of mentioning countries from the east to the west, in Luke’s sequential reworking of Paul’s letters functions as an allusive reference to Paul’s travel to Arabia (Gal 1:17), a region which was identified by the Apostle with the location of Mt Sinai (Gal 4:25).127 The Matthean image of the Magi’s joy because of seeing the star (Mt 2:10) possibly alludes to the biblical-Lucan motif of joy because of seeing the Messiah (Acts 2:26.28 etc.). Likewise, the idea of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (Mt 2:10-11) probably alludes to the idea of the Israelites’ recognizing the awaited Messiah in the person of Jesus (Acts 2:36). The narratively surprising image of the Magi as opening their treasuries and offering precious gifts (Mt 2:11) alludes to the Lucan image of new converts as sharing all their belongings with the messianic community (Acts 2:44-45). The Matthean list of three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Mt 2:11) may allude to the Lucan image of three thousand people converted on the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2:41). However, it certainly has yet another intertextual meaning. The gifts of gold and frankincense, brought by the Magi from afar, evidently allude to the Isaian vision of nations, who would pilgrimage from afar and bring gold an frankincense (Is 60:6). 128 The gift of myrrh again recalls the Lucan motif of Sinai, that is Arabia (Acts 2:1-47; esp. 2:11; cf. Gal 1:17; 4:25). In Hellenistic mentality, which was particularly shaped by the historian, ethnographer, and encyclopedist Herodotus, Arabia was the only country which was the source of both frankincense and myrrh (Herodotus, Hist. 3.107). If traditional images of Arabia as the source of gold (Ps 72[71]:15 LXX; cf. also Gen 2:11-12; 1 Kgs 10:1-2.10; 2 Kgs 9:14; Is 60:6; Ezek 27:22; Di-Zahab / Καταχρύσεα in Deut 1:1 etc.) are added to this idea, then it becomes clear that all 127 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 92-94. 128 Cf. A. Paciorek, Mateusz, vol. 1, 107, 114; R. T. France, Matthew, 62; D. L. Turner, Matthew, 86.

52

Chapter 1

three gifts allusively point to the region of Arabia, 129 that is to the location of Mt Sinai (cf. Gal 4:25), and consequently to the biblical background of the Lucan account of the day of the Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47). The concluding image of the Magi as divinely warned in a dream, that is in a way understandable to the Gentiles (cf. e.g. Num 24:16 LXX), 130 to depart for their country by another way (ὁδός: Mt 2:12) alludes to the biblical-Lucan idea of God’s making known to the believers the ways of life (Acts 2:28 etc.). Likewise, the content of the revelation which was received in a dream, namely the injunction that the Magi, who believed in Christ, should not return to Herod (Mt 2:12), 131 alludes to the Lucan idea of the separation of the Church from the Jerusalem perverse generation (Acts 2:40), and generally, from the Jews thinking in a purely Judaistic way (Acts 2:41.44). The return of the believing Magi to their Gentile homeland (Mt 2:12) also allusively refers to the return of the converted Ethiopian, who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, to his Gentile homeland, which was located farther than Sinai (Acts 8:26-39). The Matthean story about the Magi from the East, who came to Jesus (Mt 2:1-12), is therefore an outcome of a complex intertextual and compositional activity of the evangelist. Following the Lucan paradigmatic account of the day of the Pentecost, with its image of the way of faith of pious Jews from every nation under heaven to Jerusalem, and then to Jesus’ Church (Acts 2:147), Matthew in a symbolic, sequential way presented the way of God-seeking Gentiles to Jerusalem, and then to Jesus and his Church. In the Matthean theology, this way was shaped by both Gentile wisdom and the spiritual heritage of Judaism. Gentile wisdom is symbolized in Matthew’s story by a star, which was perceived as an extraordinary but in itself natural, astronomical or rather astrological phenomenon, which could be interpreted by the Gentile Magi in a general messianic sense (Mt 2:1-2; cf. Acts 2:1-13). However, in order to proceed from a general messianic idea to the person of Jesus, they needed more precise instructions. They could not base their quest for Jesus on the texts of the Old Tes-

129 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., Matthew, vol. 1, 251; D. J. Harrington, Matthew, 44; R. T. France, Matthew, 66. 130 Cf. R. T. France, Matthew, 76. 131 This idea is prepared by the preceding remark concerning the Magi’s joy not in Jerusalem (Mt 2:1-2.9), but in the place of Jesus’ presence (Mt 2:10; cf. 2:9.11). Cf. B. A. Paschke, ‘Ein Kommen und Gehen: Wie konsequent wird im Matthäusevangelium zwischen zentripetalem und zentrifugalem Universalismus unterschieden?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 637-652 (esp. 645).

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

53

tament because the heritage of Judaism, in a strict sense, was only accessible to the Jews (Mt 2:3-7; cf. Acts 2:14-36). However, in the Matthean theology Gentiles could participate in the spiritual heritage of Judaism in another way. On their way from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, they followed a shortened version of the historical-spiritual way of Israel through the wilderness of Sinai. They were led by the star like the Israelites by the pillar of cloud (Mt 2:8-10), and they brought the fruits of their stay in the Arabian region of Sinai: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Mt 2:11). In this way, they had their share of the heritage of the Jewish Pentecost, which was experienced by them in a Christological and pneumatological manner (cf. Acts 2:140). For this reason, in the context of the Christocentric and ecclesial way of the faith of the Gentiles (Mt 2:1-12), any reference to the precepts of the Mosaic law (circumcision etc.) was clearly avoided. The most important fruit of the pilgrimage of God-fearing Gentiles consisted, however, in their meeting Jesus and entering Jesus’ Church. In agreement with Matthew’s post-Lucan theology, this entry provoked generous sharing of material goods, separating from the Jews who persecuted the Church, and undertaking a Christian mission in their own Gentile homeland (Mt 2:11-12; cf. Acts 2:40-47; cf. also Acts 8:26-39).

1.4 Jn 21:1-14 The last chapter of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21) is often regarded by modern exegetes as an addition or a relatively autonomous, paratextual epilogue to this Gospel. 132 On the other hand, a growing number of exegetes argue that Jn 21 should be interpreted as an integral part of the Fourth Gospel’s narrative. 133 The research on the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Fourth Gospel 132 Cf. e.g. A. T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John (BNTC 4; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2006), 50-54, 508-509; J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie uczniów Jezusa: J 21 jako owoc eklezjologicznej relektury J 1-20 we wspólnocie Umiłowanego Ucznia (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 33; Vocatio: Warszawa 2009), 339-342, 374; J. Zumstein, ‘Intratextualité et intertextualité dans la littérature johannique’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures, 331-344 (esp. 334-335). 133 Cf. e.g. H. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 4-5, 772-773; G. Van Belle, ‘L’unité littéraire et les deux finales du quatrième évangile’, in A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz (eds.), Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes / Études sur Mathieu et Jean, Festschrift J. Zumstein (ATANT 97; Theologischer: Zürich 2009), 297-315 (esp. 302-310); K. Berger, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2011), 412-413.

54

Chapter 1

also demonstrates that notwithstanding all differences between Jn 21 and the rest of this work, the final chapter should be considered an integral part of the latest canonical Gospel.

1.4.1 Jn 21:1-14 as a sequential hypertextual reworking of Acts 27:33-28:6 Recent critical intertextual analyses of the Fourth Gospel revealed that the Fourth Gospel, similarly to the Matthean Gospel, is a result of an adaptation of the Marcan story about Jesus’ life to the theologically more developed interpretation of the history of the propagation of the gospel in the Jewish and the Gentile world, which was presented in the Acts of the Apostles. 134 John, like Matthew, made numerous changes in the order of the narrative material which was borrowed by both of them from the Gospel of Mark. The most evident of these changes consist in the relocation of the episode of the cleansing of the Temple to the beginning of the Gospel story (Jn 2:13-22 cf. Acts 3:1-11; diff. Mk 11:15-18 parr.) and in the placing of the account of the miraculous catch of fish at the end of the Gospel narrative (Jn 21:1-14 cf. Acts 27:33-28:6; diff. Lk 5:1-11). In fact, the sequence of the most important themes, literary motifs, and ideas of the Fourth Gospel reflects that of the Acts of the Apostles. A detailed intertextual analysis of the Fourth Gospel against the background of the Acts of the Apostles indicates that the last chapter of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21) is a result of a hypertextual reworking of the themes, motifs, and ideas which are contained in the concluding section of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 27:33-28:31). In particular, the section Jn 21:1-14 creatively, but in an almost consistently sequential way, illustrates the most important ideas of Acts 27:3328:6. 135 The idea of a last Christophany by the sea (Jn 21:1-14; esp. 21:1.7: θάλασσα), which evidently does not originate from the synoptic accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances (Lk 24:13-51; Mt 28:9-10.16-20; cf. Mk 16:7), in fact alludes to the saving activity of the risen Christ for the sake of Paul on the

134 Cf. T. L. Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach (Oxford University: New York · Oxford 1993), 116-120, 168-172; B. Adamczewski, The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39-120; id., Constructing, 159-162. 135 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Narrative ‘We’, 115.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

55

sea and by the sea during the Apostle’s last travel (Acts 27:33-28:6; esp. 27:38.40: θάλασσα). For this reason, the Lake of Galilee was referred to in Jn 21:1 as the ‘Sea of Tiberias’ (cf. earlier Jn 6:1 and Acts 10:1). This exceptional name given to the Galilean ‘lake’, as it was quite naturally called by Josephus, 136 who spent much time in its region, originates from a conflation of the Marcan name ‘Sea of Galilee’ (θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας: Mk 1:16; 7:37 etc.), 137 which already in the Marcan Gospel alluded to the Mediterranean Sea, 138 with the name of the city of Tiberias. This Johannine conflation is evident in Jn 6:1 (θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος), and it could be made under the influence of Josephus’ reference to ‘the lake close to Tiberias’ (ἡ πρὸς Τιβεριάδα λίμνη: B.J. 3.57; cf. also λίμνη… ἡ Τιβεριέων: B.J. 4.456). The artificial Johannine name of the ‘Sea of Tiberias’ by means of the linguistic reference to Tiberius, the emperor of Rome in the narrated time of the Gospel story (cf. Lk 3:1), creates an allusion not only generally to the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Mk 1:16; 7:37 etc.), but also particularly to the region of Italy and Rome, and consequently to the concluding section of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 27:1-28:31; cf. esp. ‘imperial cohort’: Acts 27:1), especially to its part concerning Paul’s arrival in Malta, Italy, and Rome (Acts 28:1-14). The idea of Simon Peter’s entering the ship (πλοῖον: Jn 21:3.6) in the voluntary company of other disciples (‘we’: Jn 21:3) is evidently post-synoptic (cf. Lk 5:3-4 etc.), but it the concluding part of the Fourth Gospel it alludes to the idea of Paul’s ship travel to Italy and Rome in the voluntary company of his close co-workers (Acts 27:1-28:14; esp. ‘we’: Acts 27:1-2 etc.). It should be noted that the theological idea of parallelism between Peter and Paul also in their travels to Rome, which in a certain sense originates from Gal 2:7-8 and which was developed in the First Letter of Peter (esp. 1 Pet 5:12-13)139 and in the Acts of the Apostles (esp. Acts 2:10-11; 9:33-35; 10:1-11:18; 12:17), 140 was known to the author of the Fourth Gospel. 141

136 Cf. R. S. Notley, ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, JBL 128 (2009) 183-188 (esp. 185). 137 Cf. Z. Garský, Das Wirken Jesu in Galiläa bei Johannes: Eine strukturale Analyse der Intertextualität des vierten Evangeliums mit den Synoptikern (WUNT 2.325; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 268. 138 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 1, 141; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 236. 139 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 111, 114. 140 Cf. ibid. 148, 151. 141 Cf. id., Narrative ‘We’, 118.

56

Chapter 1

For the same reason, the post-synoptic idea of initially having no evangelistic success on the ship (Jn 21:3; cf. Lk 5:5) alludes to Acts 27:1-32. On the other hand, the non-synoptic motif of a radical change of fortune after the coming (γίνομαι) of morning (Jn 21:4; diff. Lk 5:1-4) alludes to Acts 27:33.39. The non-synoptic motif of saving presence of the risen Jesus on a seashore (αἰγιαλός: Jn 21:4) alludes to the Lucan image of the saving seashore of Malta (Acts 27:39-40). Likewise, the post-Lucan motif of not recognizing the risen Jesus (Jn 21:4), which was borrowed from Lk 24:16 (cf. also Lk 24:37-40), 142 alludes to the ideas of the Gentiles not recognizing the presence of the risen Jesus in the Eucharist-like meal (Acts 27:34-38) and of not recognizing the saving land of Malta (Acts 27:39). The idea that the disciples on the ship had nothing to eat (Jn 21:5)143 with the use of the motif which was borrowed from Lk 5:5 alludes to the precarious situation of the people on the ship, who had earlier thrown out all the wheat into the sea (Acts 27:40-41; cf. 27:38). The idea of not being able to draw the net with all the fish which were caught in the sea (Jn 21:6), an idea which is not identical with that of Lk 5:6-7, alludes to the Lucan idea that the soldiers resolved to kill the prisoners on the ship because they were not able to escort all of them to the seashore (Acts 27:42). The narrative reappearance of the motif of the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’, now as a person who was present on the ship and who came together with others to the shore on the ‘remains’ of the ship (Jn 21:7-8), in the structuring hypotext of the Acts of the Apostles corresponds to the reappearance of the motif of the narrative ‘we’ in Acts 27:37; 28:1-2. The narratively superfluous and in fact surprising idea that Peter put on his outer garment in order not to be naked (Jn 21:7) 144 is a result of a creative reworking of the Lucan idea that Paul was a decent, respectable person (Acts 27:43; cf. 2 Cor 5:2-4). The subsequent, surprising, non-synoptic image of the first one among the apostles, namely Peter (cf. Mk 1:16-17; Mt 10:2 etc.), as

142 Cf. Z. Garský, Wirken, 275. 143 Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 147, 196; J. Ramsay Michaels, The Gospel of John (NICNT; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2010), 10311032. 144 Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 148; H. Witczyk, ‘Pełnia Królestwa Bożego w JezusiePANU – meta misji Piotra i uczniów (J 21,1-8)’, in J. Kudasiewicz and H. Witczyk, Jezus i Ewangelie w ogniu dyskusji: Od H. Reimarusa do T. Polaka (Biblioteka „Verbum Vitae” 2; ITB Verbum: Kielce 2011), 439-463 (esp. 458); Z. Garský, Wirken, 262.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

57

jumping into the sea and swimming to the shore (Jn 21:7) 145 evidently alludes to the subsequent Lucan image of the first ones as jumping overboard and getting to the land (Acts 27:43). The narratively surprising idea that all other disciples came to the shore with a little boat (πλοιάριον: Jn 21:8; diff. πλοῖον: Jn 21:3.6) 146 alludes to the Lucan idea that all others came to the shore on boards and on pieces of the ship (Acts 27:44). The related, non-synoptic thought that the land (γῆ) was not far from the ship (Jn 21:8; cf. 21:9.11; diff. Lk 5:4) 147 also originates from the Lucan narrative (Acts 27:43-44; cf. 27:39). The parenthetic remark concerning dragging the net with the fish (Jn 21:8) alludes to Luke’s remark that all of those who were present on the ship eventually came to the shore (Acts 27:44). Likewise, the surprising use of the verb πιάζω (‘arrest’: cf. Jn 7:30.32.44; 8:20; 10:39; 11:57) as referring to catching fish (Jn 21:3.10) 148 alludes to the story concerning arrested prisoners in Acts 27:42-44. The non-synoptic idea of having an unexpected common breakfast by a fire, 149 a meal which was prepared by a friendly person on the shore (Jn 21:9; cf. 21:12-13), evidently alludes to the Lucan narrative (Acts 28:2). The surprising idea that Peter alone brought all the fish which had earlier been caught in the sea (Jn 21:11; cf. 21:10) 150 alludes to the Lucan idea that Paul alone indirectly saved all the people who were present on the ship (Acts 28:2; cf. 27:24.34-36.44). The author of the Fourth Gospel evidently used the synoptic metaphor of the Gentiles as fish in the sea (ἰχθύς: cf. Lk 5:9-10 etc.). The idea of a great, non-symbolic number of the fish which were earlier caught in the sea (153: Jn 21:11) 151 alludes to the likewise great, non-symbolic number of the Gentiles who were saved on the sea (276: Acts 27:37). 152

145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152

Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 148. Cf. ibid. 210. Pace Z. Garský, Wirken, 272 n. 482. Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 189. Cf. Z. Garský, Wirken, 262. Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 214. Cf. J. Ramsay Michaels, John, 1037-1038. It should be noted that the first and the third digit of the number 153 (1 and 3 respectively: Jn 21:11) constitute one-half of the first and the third digit of the number 276 (2 and 6 respectively: Acts 27:37). Accordingly, the second digit of the number 276 should have been substituted in Jn 21:11 with the digit 4 (thus giving the number 143), but it was in fact substituted with the digit 5, probably in order to make up a ‘Gentile’ number greater than 144, which symbolizes ideal Israel (cf. Rev 7:4; 14:1.3; 21:17).

58

Chapter 1

The post-synoptic motif of recognizing the intriguing identity of the risen Jesus as the Lord (Jn 21:12; cf. Lk 24:30-31.36-52; Mt 28:17-20) 153 alludes to the Lucan story about recognizing the intriguing, powerful features of Paul the Apostle (Acts 28:3-5). The concluding, in fact parenthetically added motifs of Jesus’ taking bread in an apparently Eucharistic way (Jn 21:13; cf. 21:9; cf. also Acts 27:35) 154 and of his being raised from the dead (νεκρός: Jn 21:14) allude to the ideas of Paul’s being saved from falling down dead and of his apparently divine identity (Acts 28:6). It is evident that some of the thematic and linguistic correspondences between the hypotext of the Acts of the Apostles and the hypertext of the Fourth Gospel are rather remote. However, some of these links, like the image of jumping to the sea and swimming to the shore which was located close to the ship, are distinctive of both texts in the Bible and, moreover, quite surprising in the hypertext. Some vocabulary of both texts is also common for them and rather surprising in the narrative which concerns the risen Jesus (θάλασσα, πλοῖον, αἰγιαλός, γῆ). However, the most important argument for direct, but highly creative, literary dependence of Jn 21:1-14 on Acts 27:33-28:6 is based on the observable, almost consistently preserved, common order of the corresponding ideas of both texts. This fact conclusively proves that the author of the Fourth Gospel in Jn 21:1-14 painstakingly, paying much attention to narrative details, reworked the most important ideas of Acts 27:33-28:6 in an almost consistently sequential way.

1.4.2 Jn 21:1-14 as a reworking of other New Testament texts In his creative reworking of Acts 27:33-28:6 in Jn 21:1-14, the author of the Fourth Gospel also used other New Testament texts, mostly taken from the synoptic Gospels, especially from Lk 5:1-11 and Lk 24:16.30-31.36-43. 155 The idea of a last Christophany which took place in Galilee (Jn 21:1) was borrowed from Mt 28:16-17. 156 The thought that the disciples after Jesus’ resur-

153 Cf. Z. Garský, Wirken, 275. 154 Cf. J. Zumstein, L’Évangile selon saint Jean (13-21) (CNT 4b; Labor et Fides: Genève 2007), 308; E. Kobel, Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and its Historical and Cultural Context (BIS 109; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 211-212. 155 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Narrative ‘We’, 115-117; Z. Garský, Wirken, 258, 264-276.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

59

rection were together (ἦσαν + ὁμοῦ: Jn 21:2) was most probably borrowed from Acts 2:1. The unexpectedly introduced motif of the sons of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαίου: Jn 21:2) 157 is evidently post-synoptic (Mk 10:35 par.; Lk 5:10 etc.). The likewise surprisingly introduced motif of Simon Peter being a fisherman, together with some other disciples who were together with him (Σίμων Πέτρος + *ἁλιεύ + σύν: Jn 21:3; cf. also 21:7.11), 158 was borrowed from Lk 5:2.8-9. 159 The motif of getting into the boat (ἐμβαίνω + εἰς + τὸ πλοῖον: Jn 21:3) was borrowed from Lk 5:3. 160 The idea of having caught nothing during the night (νύξ + οὐδέν: Jn 21:3) was borrowed from Lk 5:5. 161 The motif of the coming of morning (πρωΐας δὲ… γενομένης: Jn 21:4) may have been borrowed from Mt 27:1. The thought that the risen Jesus stood (ἔστη) close to his disciples (Jn 21:4) was borrowed from Lk 24:36. The thought that the disciples did not recognize the risen Jesus, although he was somehow visible (Jn 21:4), was borrowed from Lk 24:16 (cf. 24:37-40). 162 The narratively surprising way of referring to Jesus’ disciples as children (παιδία: Jn 21:5) was borrowed from 1 Jn 2:14.18, 163 where it had been used in a much more natural way. The idea of Jesus’ asking whether the disciples had something to eat (τι + ἔχετε: Jn 21:5) originates from Lk 24:41.164 The related idea of a negative answer to this question (*οὐ: Jn 21:5) was borrowed from Lk 5:5. 165 The idea of Jesus’ command to cast the net (δίκτυον: Jn 21:6) originates from Lk 5:4. 166 The

156 157 158 159

160 161 162 163 164 165 166

Cf. T. L. Brodie, Quest, 99-100. Cf. J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 181-182. Cf. ibid. 186. Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘John 21’, NTS 36 (1990) 321-336 (esp. 326) [also in id., Evangelica II, 601-616 (esp. 605-606)]; T. K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (WUNT 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999), 162; Z. Studenovský [cf. Z. Garský], ‘“Dort werdet ihr ihn sehen” (Mk 16,7): Der Weg Jesu nach Galiläa bei Johannes und Markus’, in J. Frey and U. Schnelle [et al.] (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (WUNT 175: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 517-558 (esp. 554). Cf. T. K. Heckel, Vom Evangelium, 162. Cf. H. Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 779, 782; A. T. Lincoln, John, 514-515; Z. Garský, Wirken, 271. Cf. Z. Garský, Wirken, 275. Cf. also J. Kręcidło, Nowe życie, 195. Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘John 21’, 324 [also in id., Evangelica II, 604]; Z. Garský, Wirken, 276. Cf. E. Haenchen, Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar, ed. U. Busse (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1980), 585. Cf. H. Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 783; A. T. Lincoln, John, 514-515.

60

Chapter 1

motif of a great number of fish (πλῆθος + ἰχθύων: Jn 21:6) was borrowed from Lk 5:6. 167 The combination of the motifs of Simon Peter and confessing Jesus as the Lord (Σίμων… Πέτρος + κύριος: Jn 21:7; cf. also 21:12 etc.) was borrowed from Lk 5:8. 168 The motif of getting out of the boat (ἀποβαίνω: Jn 21:9) was most probably borrowed from Lk 5:2. 169 The thought that the net was not torn (δίκτυον: Jn 21:11) originates from Lk 5:6-7, 170 and it was conflated with Paul’s injunctions against Church divisions (*σχί: 1 Cor 1:10; 11:18; 12:25). The idea of Jesus’ urging his disciples to come (δεῦτε) and have a meal (Jn 21:12) is post-synoptic (Mk 1:17 par.; 6:31). Likewise, the thought that nobody dared to ask Jesus (οὐδεὶς… ἐτόλμα… αὐτόν: Jn 21:12) is post-synoptic (Mk 12:34; cf. Mt 22:46; cf. also Lk 20:40). The motif of the risen Jesus taking bread and giving it to his disciples (λαμβάνω + ἄρτον + καὶ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς: Jn 21:13) is likewise post-synoptic (Mk 14:22 par. etc.; cf. Lk 24:30). 171 The idea of eating prepared fish after Jesus’ resurrection (Jn 21:13) was most probably borrowed from Lk 24:42-43. 172 Accordingly, in Jn 21:1-14 the author of the Fourth Gospel conflated the ideas of Acts 27:33-28:6, which were sequentially borrowed and reworked by him, with various other ideas and motifs, which were borrowed from other New Testament texts. In particular, in Jn 21:1-14 he used the Lucan texts which described catching numerous Gentile ‘fish’ in a miraculous way in the sea (Lk 5:111, for this reason transposed to the end of the Gospel) and recognizing the identity of the risen Jesus (Lk 24:16.30-31.36-43).

1.5 Conclusion: The solution to all exegetical problems? The research on sequential hypertextuality in the Gospels may seem strange to the scholars who are used to analyse more evident examples of the use of an

167 Cf. H. Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 783; A. T. Lincoln, John, 514-515; Z. Garský, Wirken, 270. 168 Cf. F. Neirynck, ‘John 21’, 326-327 [also in id., Evangelica II, 606-607]; Z. Garský, Wirken, 270. 169 Cf. H. Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 784. 170 Cf. ibid. 783; A. T. Lincoln, John, 514-515; Z. Garský, Wirken, 272. 171 Cf. A. T. Lincoln, John, 515; Z. Garský, Wirken, 276. 172 Cf. Z. Garský, Wirken, 276.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

61

earlier text in a later one. For them, the results of this type of research may seem unverifiable from the methodological point of view. However, the level of thematic and linguistic correspondence between the structurally matching fragments of the Gospel hypertexts and their sequentially reworked hypotexts is generally not lower than that which usually functions as the basis for postulating the presence of concentric and chiastic structures in biblical writings. 173 Consequently, from the methodological point of view, the research on sequential hypertextuality in the Gospels is not less verifiable than the scholarly fashion for tracing concentric structures in biblical writings, a trend which has more to do with twentieth-century structuralism (which suggests that the text is a semantically closed structure) than with the ways in which ancient authors imitated and emulated earlier, especially highly authoritative texts. Much more important is the fact that the analyses of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality in the Gospels provide solutions to a number of exegetical problems: both major, well-known cruces and minor, barely perceived interpretative difficulties. The latter ones are even more important for a hermeneutically self-conscious analysis than the former because, in difference to the well-known cruces, they are only perceived or even discovered by the scholar in the course of the analysis, and not at the starting point thereof. For example, in the case of the Gospel of Mark, the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality (especially in Mk 1:1-5:20) explains the problematic issues of the attribution of the entire conflated quotation in Mk 1:23 to Isaiah, the presentation of John the Baptist as someone whose activity and death preceded those of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:7-8.14; 6:14-29; diff. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64, 106-124), Jesus’ being immediately driven into the wilderness and his being there only with animals and angels (Mk 1:12-13), the reason for the leper’s not going to the Jerusalem priests (Mk 1:44-45), implausible crop: a hundred grains in one ear (Mk 4:8), the insertion of a quotation from Is 6:9-10 in Mk 4:12, the thought that the ground brings fruits without any human effort (Mk 4:27-28), consistent referring to the lake of Gennesaret as to a sea (Mk 1:16; 2:13; 3:7; 4:1.39.41; 5:1.13.21; 6:47-49; 7:31), the reference to the country of the Gerasenes in the context of the Sea of Galilee (Mk 5:1), the identity of a legendary giant (Mk 5:3-5), pigs feeding on a steep mountain slope (Mk 5:11.13), and the herd of pigs as numbering around 2000 animals (Mk 5:13). In the case of the Gospel of Luke, the research on sequential hypertextuality (especially in Lk 9:51-11:28) offers satisfactory solutions to the problems of the 173 Cf. e.g. V. A. Pizzuto, ‘The Structural Elegance of Matthew 1-2: A Chiastic Proposal’, CBQ 74 (2012) 712-737 (esp. 719-720).

62

Chapter 1

tripartite structure of the section Lk 9:57-62, the charges concerning the disciple’s relationship with his father and with his relatives (Lk 9:59-62), the prohibition of wearing sandals for a travel (ὑποδήματα: Lk 10:4), and the Scripturebased name form Miriam (Μαριάμ) in Lk 10:39.42. In the case of the Gospel of Matthew, the analysis of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality (especially in Mt 2:1-12) provides plausible explanations for the issues of the insertion of four minor female characters in the basically patriarchal list of names Mt 1:1-17, the way of the Magi first to Jerusalem (Mt 2:1-8) and only thereafter to Jesus and his family (Mt 2:9-11), the identification of the star which was seen by the Magi in the East (Mt 2:2), the ‘rising’ of this star (Mt 2:2), the connection of the ‘star’ with the Jewish messianic idea (Mt 2:2), the meaning of ‘all Jerusalem’ in Mt 2:3, the modifications of the quotation from Mi 5:1 in Mt 2:6, the statement that the star ‘went before’ the Magi (Mt 2:9), and the significance of the gifts (especially of myrrh) which were offered by the Magi (Mt 2:11). In the case of the Fourth Gospel, the research on sequential hypertextuality (especially in Jn 21:1-14) offers satisfactory solutions to the problems of the relocation of the episode of the cleansing of the Temple to the beginning of the Gospel story (Jn 2:13-22), the placing of the account of the miraculous catch of fish at the end of the Gospel narrative (Jn 21:1-14), referring to the Lake of Galilee as the ‘Sea of Tiberias’ (Jn 21:1), Peter’s jumping to the sea and swimming to the shore in his outer garment (Jn 21:7), the coming of the disciples to the shore with a little boat (πλοιάριον: Jn 21:8), the use of the verb πιάζω (‘arrest’) as referring to catching fish (Jn 21:3.10), and the significance of the number 153 in Jn 21:11. Accordingly, even if the results of the analyses of the phenomenon of sequential hypertextuality do not provide solutions to all exegetical problems which occur in the Gospels, they certainly offer satisfactory explanations to a great number of them. Consequently, if the value of a theory is measured by the amount of data which is explained by it, the theory of the use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in the Gospels should be regarded as highly credible. The question remains, why was this phenomenon not discovered earlier by so many scholars who worked on the Gospels? It seems that the answer to this question lies in the quality of the Gospels as remarkably well written hypertexts. In fact, the recourse to hypotexts is not indispensable for a simple understanding of a well-written hypertext. Such a hypertext in its literary form effectively conceals its hypotexts from the readers who are not well acquainted with them.

Hypertextuality in the Gospels: some examples

63

Consequently, it is at most ambiguous, rather than sylleptic, in its general and detailed meaning. 174 In any case, a simple understanding of a hypertext is never exhaustive. The reader’s unrecognition of the hypotext always deprives the hypertext of one of its real dimensions, and consequently it results in the loss of much of its intended meaning. 175

174 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 554-555. Pace M. Riffaterre, ‘Compulsory reader response: the intertextual drive’, in M. Worton and J. Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and practices (Manchester University: Manchester · New York 1990), 56-78 (esp. 71, 75-77). 175 Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes, 555; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 273-274. Cf. also G. Allen, Intertextuality (New Critical Idiom; Routledge: London · New York 2000), 112-115.

Chapter 2 The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material Numerous factors contribute to the complexity of the problem of the historicity of the Gospel material. Some of them are related to the particular literary character of the Gospel texts, which, as was demonstrated above, generally refer to other texts rather than to historical facts. Other factors are related to the present state of research on the historicity of the Gospel material, research which is highly conditioned by its hidden assumptions, traditionally used methods, widely accepted results, etc. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of these factors is necessary for settling the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material.

2.1 The Old Testament background The so-called ‘historical books’ of the Old Testament were for centuries regarded as describing the real history of the Jewish people. In modern times, this traditional conviction was severely shaken, but nevertheless even critical scholars were inclined to believe in the historicity of at least the basic elements of the history of the chosen people, as it had been presented in the Pentateuch and in the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 1 The most recent research on the use of the procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in later texts of the Old Testament has revealed that the so-called ‘historical books’ of the Old Testament primarily refer to other texts 2 rather than to historical facts. Moreover, even when they refer to historical facts, they often heavily distort them in order to illustrate or demonstrate

1 2

Cf. C. Frevel, ‘Grundriss der Geschichte Israels’, in id. (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (KStTh 1,1; 8th edn., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 701-854 (esp. 704-705). Cf. A. Rodríguez Carmona, ‘La Unidad de las Escrituras: Algunos principios hermenéuticos y sus exigencias: Comentario a Verbum Domini 39-49’, EstBib 69 (2011) 465-491 (here: 470): ‘Todo el AT, a pesar de sus muchas diferencias, pertenecen a este movimiento cultural [midrásico], que da unidad a todos los libros, de tal forma que se puede afirmar que las obras posteriores no se entienden sin las anteriores, es decir, no se entienden fuera de esta tradición [midrásica]’.

66

Chapter 2

particular theological ideas. These literary works should therefore be interpreted as creating history rather than preserving history. 3 In the beginning, there were Israelite and Judaean prophets. One of the main motifs of the Hebrew Bible, namely the motif of a past exodus from Egypt and of a future exodus from both Egypt and Assyria, first emerged in the prophetic compositions of Hosea (Hos 2:17; 11:1.11; 12:10.14), Amos (Am 2:10; 3:1; 9:7), Isaiah (Is 11:11-16; 27:12-13), Micah (Mi 6:4; 7:12.15), and Jeremiah (Jer 2:6; 7:22.25; 11:4.7; 16:14-15; 23:7-8; 31:32; 32:21; 34:13). Ezekiel enriched the motif of exodus with the ideas of purification, renewal of hearts, and enacting God’s law before entering the Holy Land (Ezek 36:24-27), as well as the ideas of one king over Israel (Ezek 37:22.24), one sanctuary for Israel (Ezek 37:26-28; 40:1-47:12; 48:8-22.35), and Israel as a unified community of twelve tribes (Ezek 47:13-48:34; cf. 37:16-20). After the end of the Assyrian and Babylonian rule over Israel, probably c.500 BC, the Israelite author of Deuteronomy 4 in a sequential hypertextual way reworked the content of the work of the Judaean prophet Ezekiel in order to adapt Ezekiel’s vision of new, united, and purified Israel, which should have only one temple of Yahweh, to postexilic circumstances. In particular, the author of Deuteronomy substituted Ezekiel’s prophetic, visionary figure of a ‘son of man’ with the likewise prophetic, but this time narrative character of Moses, that is (in Egyptian) one ‘born’, as the leader who should implement a great religious reform and bring the Israelites back to their land. Moreover, the author of Deuteronomy reworked the prophetic idea of a future, new, eternal covenant (Hos 2:20; Jer 31:31-33; 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 16:6062; 37:26; Is 55:3; 61:8), together with the likewise restorative, strictly monotheistic ideas of Deutero-Isaiah, into a rhetorical-literary work that describes and ‘enacts’ a new covenant, which is presented as made by Yahweh with all Israel

3

4

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011), 17-19; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 25-283. Cf. A. Schenker, ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’, in M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (SJ 53 / Studia Samaritana 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105-121 (esp. 118).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

67

in the land of Moab, before a new entry of the exiled Israelites to the land of Canaan (esp. Deut 28:69; 29:9-14). 5 For this reason, the author of Deuteronomy gave his work the content and the literary form of a stipulated covenant. In particular, he supplemented Ezekiel’s prophetic ideas, which concerned Yahweh’s revelation, Israel’s sins, the exile, the return from it, and ideal Yahwistic worship in Israel (cf. esp. Deut 118), with numerous detailed laws of partly Mesopotamian origin (esp. Deut 15; 19-26) and with a covenant-style conclusion (esp. Deut 27-30; cf. also Deut 3134), which greatly contribute to the content and the literary form of a ‘new covenant’. 6 The prophetic, restorative idea of return of a new generation of the exiled Israelites from the Assyrian and Babylonian house of slavery to the land of Israel was rhetorically illustrated in Deuteronomy in a way which was politically ‘safe’ in the Persian period, namely with the use of the traditional-prophetic motif of a past exodus from Egypt. In fact, the pharaonic Egypt was heavily defeated by the Persian army, which presumably included Israelite soldiers, in 525 BC at Pelusium, by the reed marshes of the north-east Nile Delta. The author of Deuteronomy evoked the memory of this impressive victory in his image of Yahweh’s heavy punishment inflicted on the pharaonic Egypt by the Sea of Reeds, and of the Israelites’ miraculous exodus from that oppressive land (Deut 5:6; 11:2-7; 26:5-10 etc.). Consequently, the historical core of the partly narrative, primarily rhetorical work of Deuteronomy is in fact limited to a traditional motif which was revived in new circumstances. Deuteronomy was evidently intended to be a self-standing literary work, which, like the works of earlier prophets, referred to the past, to the present, and to the future of Israel. However, the fact that Deuteronomy centred on the idea of the ‘new covenant’ prompted a later writer to compose a literary supplement to it, which presented a realization of the Deuteronomic ‘new covenant’ in the land of Canaan. Consequently, the book of Joshua depicts the ‘new covenant’ as enacted in Israel in a rhetorical, only apparently historical way. The book of Joshua was probably somewhat later supplemented with the book of Judges, which is likewise only apparently historical, in order to present

5

6

Cf. A. Cholewiński, ‘Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes’, Bib 66 (1985) 96111 (esp. 106-110); G. Papola, L’alleanza di Moab: Studio esegetico teologico di Dt 28,69-30,20 (AnBib 174; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2008), 287-314. Cf. N. Lohfink, ‘Bund als Vertrag im Deuteronomium’, ZAW 107 (1995) 215-239 [also in id., Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, vol. 4 (SBAB 31; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2000), 285-309].

68

Chapter 2

the history of premonarchic Israel from a distinctively Israelite (and not Judaean), political-folkloristic point of view. After the composition of the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges, probably c.400 BC, the Israelite author of Genesis in a sequential hypertextual way reworked the content of Deuteronomy in order to present its ideas in the form of a widely understandable, para-historical narrative, which refers to humankind and Israel’s prehistory. Probably at roughly the same time, 7 the likewise Israelite author of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers 8 composed this set of writings as another sequential hypertextual reworking of Deuteronomy, this time functioning as an extended, narrative-legal introduction to Deuteronomy, an introduction which systematically clarifies and reformulates its ideas. All these ‘introductory’ works depict Yahweh’s first, pre-Deuteronomic covenants with humanity (Gen) and with Israel (Exod-Num) in a rhetorical-narrative way, which is only apparently historical, but it is so suggestive that it can be taken as referring to historical facts. In this way, the great Israelite para-historical Heptateuch (Gen-Judg), whose story began with the creation of the world and ended in the transitory sanctuary at Shiloh (which was somewhat symbolically located between the old sanctuary at Bethel and the new sanctuary at Shechem), came into being. This Israelite sacred Heptateuch began to function as a highly persuasive, narrative-rhetorical foundation of the religion of the postexilic Israel. 9 Moreover, this Israelite proto7

8

9

For a similar dating of the final stage of the Pentateuch, see e.g. A. Lange, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of the Pentateuch’, in J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll, Festschrift G. I. Davies (BZAW 420; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 287-304 (esp. 304). Pace C. Nihan, ‘Garizim et Ébal dans le Pentateuque: Quelques remarques en marge de la publication d’un nouveau fragment du Deutéronome’, Sem 54 (2012) [M. Langlois and T. Römer (eds.), Monde sémitique et Bible hébraïque] 185-210 (esp. 203 n. 45), Num 2 depicts the camp as prepared for setting out on the march eastwards (Num 2:9.16-17.24.31.34; cf. 10:5-6.9.11-13) and not as offering sacrifices, and consequently, although Judah is the most powerful (but also somewhat savage, like Esau in Gen 25:25.27-28) secular tribe which leads all other tribes (Num 2:3; cf. 10:14; Gen 49:8-12), Ephraim, the most intensely blessed and consecrated ‘nazir’ (cf. Gen 49:22-26; diff. 49:11-12: Judah as a drunkard), remains in the closest proximity to the tabernacle, especially to the holy of holiest, thus having Yahweh always before their eyes (Num 2:18; cf. 10:22; cf. also Ps 16:8 etc.). Cf. also E. Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah, trans. E. Crowley (JSOTSup 248; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997), 152, 154, 191, 388; id., Samaritains, Juifs, Temples (CahRB; J. Gabalda: Pende 2010), 45, 68-78; I. Hjelm, ‘Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research’, in M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans, 25-41 (esp. 35).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

69

canon, with its concluding remark concerning kings in Israel (Judg 21:25), could function as an elaborate ‘proto-historical’ prologue to the chronicles of the kings of Israel (cf. 1 Kgs 14:19-20 etc.). 10 However, the overall historical value of this composite work should be regarded as not higher than that of its ‘core’ book of Deuteronomy, and consequently, as limited to the single traditional-prophetic motif of a past exodus from Egypt, which was combined with the new religioussocial experience of the return from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity. The book of Ruth probably functioned as the first Judaean response to the ideology of the Israelite Heptateuch (Gen-Judg). 11 This short Judaean writing resulted from a creative reworking of various motifs which were borrowed from the Israelite Heptateuch, but it narratively justified the transfer of Yahweh’s grace from the ‘old’ and ‘terminally ill’ tribe of Ephraim (Ruth 1:2-3.5), through the ‘refreshing’ territory of Moab (Ruth 1:4-22), to the ‘young’ and ‘mighty’ tribe of Judah (Ruth 2-4). Accordingly, it presented the Judaean Davidic dynasty as the legitimate and divinely favoured heir of the old, contemned Israel (Ruth 1:2; 4:11-22). The Judaean book of Ruth functioned as the ideological model for the later, probably composed c.300 BC, in fact anti-Hellenistic story about the transfer of the ark of Yahweh from the tribe of Ephraim, through the territory of the Greeklike Philistines, to the tribe of Judah (1 Sam 1 – 1 Kgs 9). 12 This story constitutes the most important part of the Judaean books of Samuel and Kings. These books resulted from another sequential hypertextual reworking of the content of Deuteronomy, this time in order to create a great foundational history of Judaea, which could follow and supplement the story of the Israelite Heptateuch (GenJudg). The author of Samuel-Kings, developing the main idea of the book of Ruth, presented Judaea with its Davidic dynasty and its Jerusalem temple of Yahweh as the only true, legitimate heir of the Israelite theological traditions.

10

11 12

For the idea that Gen-Judg presents a distinctively Israelite point of view, cf. also Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (JSP 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008), 171-172. The number seven as the number of the books in this Israelite proto-canon probably had a symbolic function. The elaborate books of Ezra and Nehemiah seem to have been written after the composition of the relatively simple book of Ruth. Since the book of Ruth resulted from a creative reworking of various motifs which were borrowed from the Israelite Heptateuch (Gen-Judg), and since it still, in a Deuteronomy-like fashion (cf. Deut 34:1-8 etc.), presented the fields of Moab as the intermediate stage in the transfer of Yahweh’s grace from the ‘old’ tribe of Ephraim to the ‘young’ tribe of Judah, it is reasonable to suppose that it functioned as the ideological model for 1 Sam 1 – 1 Kgs 9, and not vice versa.

70

Chapter 2

In his reworking of Deuteronomy, the author of Samuel-Kings evidently used several prophetic works, especially those of the Judaean prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, as well as the data of some Israelite and Judaean chronicles (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 3:4-5; 20:20; 23:28-29), as an historical basis for his rhetoricaltheological narrative. In fact, the correctness of the basic historical data of the second part of Samuel-Kings implies that its author must have used some sources of this type. 13 For this reason, the historical reliability of at least some fragments the books of Kings is much greater than that of the Israelite Heptateuch (Gen-Judg) and of the Judaean books of Ruth and Samuel, even if the books of Kings often heavily distort historical facts (cf. e.g. 2 Kgs 3:4-27). Still later, the Judaean author of the books of Chronicles combined the Israelite para-historical narratives (Gen-Judg) with the Judaean ones (Sam-Kgs) in order to create one, continuous story of humankind, Israel, and Judaea before the Persian era. Accordingly, the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Genesis-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings (cf. later the so-called Damascus Document etc.) constitute variegated, narrative-legal ‘new covenants’, which are enacted in Israel and in Judaea in rhetorical, only apparently historical ways. For this reason, the Pentateuch and the so-called historical books of the Old Testament generally constitute imaginative, rhetorically powerful, divinely inspired visions of human reality, as it is perceived from a divine, theological perspective and, on the other hand, from a distinctively Israelite or Judaean point of view. Therefore, looking for ‘real history’ in the story about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, judges, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, etc. does not do justice to the literary-intertextual features and the rhetorical aims of this great narrative. Consequently, the whole issue of the historicity of the biblical story about the origin of the Jewish people should be thought through anew. In fact, the Old Testament narratives, even if they appear to be historical, generally illustrate theological ideas, which are only loosely related to historical facts. Historical data most often constitutes only a starting point for Old Testament narrative theologizing. For this reason, historical facts can be reconstructed relatively reliably on the basis of archaeological artefacts and prophetic texts, rather than on the basis of the so-called historical books of the Old Testament. This consideration sheds important light on the issue of the historicity of the Gospel narratives. If the principle of the unity of the whole Scripture is ac-

13

Cf. N. Na’aman, ‘The Northern Kingdom in the Late Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE’, in H. G. M. Williamson (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (PBA 143; Oxford University: Oxford 2007), 399-418 (esp. 400).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

71

cepted, 14 it should not be surprising that also in the New Testament historical facts can be reconstructed relatively reliably on the basis of archaeological artefacts and Paul’s letters, rather than on the basis of the New Testament narrative works: the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, if the fact of creative rewriting of earlier texts as the prevalent mode of interpretation in Second Temple Judaism is taken into due consideration, 15 then the limited historicity of the Israelite-Jewish literary background for the New Testament becomes evident.

2.2 Early Christian oral traditions The research on early Christian oral traditions became very popular in the last two decades. According to some scholars, this renewed interest in pre-Gospel oral traditions constitutes one of the most important features of the most recent quest for the historical Jesus. 16 The basic arguments for independent use of early Christian oral traditions by the authors of the Gospels may be summarized as follows. 17 First, it is observed that the role of oral traditions in ancient Mediterranean cultures was much greater than in modern industrial societies, so that the originator, carriers, transmitters, supervisors, explainers, redactors, correctors, and receivers of the early 14

15

16

17

Cf. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Constitutio dogmatica de divina revelatione [Dei Verbum] 12; J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus von Nazareth, vol. 1, Von der Taufe in Jordan bis zur Verklärung (2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 16-18. Cf. S. W. Crawford, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008), esp. 144-146; M. M. Zahn, Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4Q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (STDJ 95; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 242-243. Cf. also J. A. Loader, ‘Creating New Contexts: On the Possibilities of Biblical Studies in Contexts Generated by the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures [vol. 1] (VTSup 140/1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 27-45 (esp. 30-39, here: 45): ‘dependence on pre-texts may yield extremely creative post-texts in their own right’. Cf. C. Claussen, ‘Vom historischen zum erinnerten Jesus: Der erinnerte Jesus als neues Paradigma der Jesusforschung’, ZNT 20 (2007) 2-17 (esp. 11-14); R. Bartnicki, Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (4th edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 505-506, 542, 592-600. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 96-97, 100-102.

72

Chapter 2

Jesus tradition were much more accustomed to this medium of communication than modern people are. Second, it is argued that ancient societies developed various means which increased the reliability of oral tradition as a vehicle of transmission of important texts. Accordingly, it may be assumed that Jesus and his followers also deliberately employed such methods, especially by mnemonically shaping Jesus’ pre-paschal teaching material (in the forms of summaries, meshalim, etc.) and by creating specific ways of controlled transmission of the early tradition (circles of close followers, etc.). 18 Third, the writings of Paul, John, and James, as well as numerous other works which were not included in the canon of the New Testament, contain forms of Jesus’ teaching which differ from those preserved in the Synoptic Gospels, although all these works, as is usually assumed, were literarily independent of the synoptic tradition. Accordingly, it is argued that the synoptists redactionally used some oral traditions which were also known to other New Testament writers. 19 Fourth, it is argued that the considerably low verbal agreement between the parallel versions of numerous pericopes which are witnessed in more than one Synoptic Gospel suggests that these pericopes were transmitted to at least one of the evangelists only orally. James D. G. Dunn is undoubtedly one of the most influential proponents of the hypothesis of extensive use of early Christian oral traditions in the written Gospels. According to this British scholar, the studies on the Jesus tradition reveal that the redactional use of oral traditions may be discerned in those fragments of the Synoptic Gospels which display low verbal agreement between thematically parallel Gospel texts. In Dunn’s view, such texts constitute examples of ‘a mix of constant themes and flexibility, of fixed and variable elements in oral retelling’.20 Accordingly, Dunn postulates that, apart from Matthew’s and 18

19 20

Cf. R. Riesner, ‘Jesus as Preacher and Teacher’, in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSNTSup 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 185-210; id., ‘From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 405-446; S. Byrskog, ‘The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition: Old and New Insights’, Early Christianity 1 (2010) 441-468 (esp. 443-460). Cf. R. H. Stein, ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John’, CBQ 54 (1992) 482-502 (esp. 486-501). J. D. G. Dunn, ‘Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stage of the Jesus Tradition’, SBLSP 39 (2000) 287-326 (here: 325) [also in D. Donnelly (ed.), Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land (Continuum: New York · London 2001), 84-145 (here: 127)]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

73

Luke’s possible use of the Gospel of Mark and of the written source Q, common synoptic reworking of orally transmitted traditions may be detected in numerous Gospel pericopes. These traditions may be both narrative (e.g. Mk 4:35-41 parr.; 7:24-30 par.; 9:33-37 parr.; Lk 7:1-10 par.; 21:1-4 par.) and containing teachings (e.g. Mk 14:22-25 parr.; Sermon on the Mount/Plain; Lk 11:1-4 par.; 12:51-53 + 14:26-27 par.; 14:16-24 par.; 17:3-4 par.). 21 According to Dunn, in all these cases the relation is not obviously literary. ‘The relation is more obviously to be conceived as happening at the oral level.’ 22 It is interesting to note that in his investigations Dunn also analyses, probably as a test case for his hypothesis, the triple account of the conversion of Saul (Acts 9:1-22; 22:1-21; 26:9-23). The scholar claims that ‘here, then, we have an excellent example of the oral principle of “variation within the same”, […] of the oral traditioning process itself.’ 23 However, it should be noted that according to most modern scholars Luke was a highly gifted literary author and not merely a recorder of someone else’s words. Accordingly, in the case of the triple account of the conversion of Saul, Luke’s literary activity consisted in composing three literary variants of the same story. The author of Acts consciously composed three literary texts which display the level of verbal agreement which resembles that of oral retelling of the same event. Therefore, Dunn’s ‘excellent example’ effectively disproves his own hypothesis. If Luke felt free to compose or rework the literary story about the conversion of Saul/Paul several times in Acts in a highly variegated way, he

21

22

23

· Cambridge, UK 2003), 253 [corrected to ‘a mix of stable themes and flexibility, of fixed and variable elements in oral retelling’]. Cf. also id., ‘Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition’, JSHJ 6 (2008) 85-105 (esp. 92); id., ‘Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte’, in P. Lampe, M. Mayordomo, and M. Sato (eds.), Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift U. Luz (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 149-166 (esp. 160-163). Cf. id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory’, 298-317 [also in D. Donnelly (ed.), Jesus, 96-118]; id., Jesus Remembered, 212-238. Cf. also id., ‘Q1 as oral tradition’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel, Festschrift G. N. Stanton (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2005), 45-69; id., Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009), 113-127; id., Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2011), 28-35. Id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory’, 316 [also in D. Donnelly (ed.), Jesus, 117]; id., Jesus Remembered, 237; id., Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2011), 37-38. Id., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory’, 298 [also in D. Donnelly (ed.), Jesus, 96]; cf. id., Jesus Remembered, 212.

74

Chapter 2

could likewise have reworked numerous other literary stories in his Gospel. The same may also be said about Matthew, who evidently felt free to reorganize and substantially rework the material which was borrowed from the Gospel of Luke (or from the so-called ‘Q source’, according to the followers of that hypothesis). Evidently, ‘a mix of stable themes and flexibility’ or ‘variation within the same’ can characterize not only oral tradition but also creative literary reworkings of earlier written texts. The hypothesis of independent use of common oral traditions by the authors of the Pauline and post-Pauline letters, the Letter of James, the canonical Gospels, the non-canonical Gospels, etc. is in fact difficult to prove. 24 At the point of departure, that is in the claim that the same material was independently attested in differing forms in various New Testament writings, this hypothesis axiomatically discards or at least downplays the possibility of literary dependence, as well as more or less creative adaptation, between various New Testament texts. However, since classical and Hellenistic authors as a rule consistently and thoroughly rewrote their sources, low level of agreement in wording between two thematically similar New Testament texts does not necessarily prove their provenance from a common oral source. For this reason, the hypothesis of independent use of common oral traditions in various New Testament works is based not so much on good exegetical arguments but rather on post-Romantic hermeneutic presuppositions, which axiomatically assume a primarily oral character of the culture in which the Gospel stories came into being. These presuppositions are only secondarily justified in modern research by the form-critical fragmentation of the New Testament writings into small textual units, which were allegedly originally independent of one another, and by the application of various models which are borrowed from folklore studies, oral poetry research, etc. On the other hand, the existence of pre-Gospel oral traditions should not be a priori rejected. 25 Both Paul and the authors of post-Pauline New Testament works, especially of the Letter to the Colossians and of the Gospels, for over a century (c. AD 40-150) persuasively argued against a too narrow, merely Jewish Christian understanding of the identity of Jesus Christ. 26 Consequently, a wide pre-Pauline and non-Pauline stream of Jewish Christian traditions concerning 24 25 26

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 108-109, 441. Cf. ibid. 444-445. Cf. also, still later, Ignatius’ letters, the works of Justin the Martyr, as well as the conflicts over the date of the celebration of the Easter (that is, in fact, over the binding force of the Jewish law for Gentile Christians) and over the ideas of Marcion, PseudoClementines etc.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

75

the person of Jesus the Messiah must have existed and flourished especially in Judaea, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, and later (after the Antiochene crisis) also in Galatia, Phrygia, and Asia. As may be deduced from the Pauline letters, this traditional Jewish Christian image of Jesus as the Jewish, and possibly also universal, Messiah could not function as a theological-halachic basis for the inclusion of uncircumcised Gentiles into Jewish Christian communities. The letters of the Apostle of the Nations attest, and to some extent challenge, the interpretation of the identity of the person of Jesus merely in terms of his Davidic messiahship (cf. Rom 1:3; 15:12). The Synoptic Gospels, by means of their hypertextual identification of the main adversaries of Paul and Jesus as the Pharisees, suggest that the Jewish Christian understanding of the identity and significance of the person of Jesus had something in common with Pharisaism, an idea which may at least partly be true (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.199-201; cf. also B.J. 2.162). 27 This particular interpretation of Jesus’ identity in predominantly Jewish terms was most probably transmitted mainly orally. Pauline Christians, however, had only limited access to such oral traditions, even to those concerning the person of Jesus Christ. The first reason of this limited access of Pauline and post-Pauline believers to Jewish Christianity with its oral traditions had a theological, halachic, and social character. In the aftermath of the Antiochene conflict between Paul and Jewish Christians (cf. Gal 2:11-14), notwithstanding the efforts of Paul and Peter to maintain the unity of early Christianity (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27; Gal 2:9.12b etc.), Gentile believers who refrained from accepting circumcision were effectively banned from Jewish Christian communities (cf. Gal 2:12c-14 etc.). On the other hand, Pauline believers were strongly dissuaded from welcoming Jerusalem-based anti-Pauline preachers in their communities (cf. Gal 1:7-9; Phlp 3:2; Col 4:10-11; Tit 3:13 etc.). 28 Therefore, the two kinds of communities avoided direct contact. Consequently, the influence of Jewish Christian oral traditions on Pauline and post-Pauline believers could only be very limited. Likewise, the evangelists’ access to the relatively well-known works of the Jewish-Greek-Roman historian Flavius Josephus could be easier than that to the oral traditions of the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ. The second reason of the limited access of post-Pauline believers to Jewish Christianity with its oral traditions concerning the person of Jesus Christ had a 27 28

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 26-30, 32, 77, 122, 140, 149-151, 166. Cf. id., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 18-28, 74, 133.

76

Chapter 2

temporal character. Paul quite early used the media of written communication for spreading his version of the gospel concerning Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Lord, thus preserving and transmitting this gospel (with this interpretation) in a written form for all subsequent generations of believers. On the other hand, oral traditions, if they are not supported by written records, gradually fade in the course of time. Since the Gospels were written in the first half of the second century AD, and Jesus’ death and resurrection should be dated to c. 29 AD 26-27, then the time span between the life of the historical Jesus and the composition of the Gospels amounted to more than seventy years. Consequently, the evangelists were not in a position to consult eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life. After the elapse of more than seventy years, the evangelists’ possible oral sources of information concerning the life of the historical Jesus could only be indirect, and hence not very reliable. Therefore, the evangelists’ use of the historical data contained in Paul’s letters, works which were written in the forties AD, 30 so around fifteen or twenty years after Jesus’ death and resurrection, was a much better choice than relying on Jewish Christian oral traditions, which would have to be handed down over the time span of at least two generations. Consequently, the oral traditions concerning the historical Jesus which were used by the evangelists should generally be identified with the biographic data concerning Jesus which had been recorded in the letters of Paul the Apostle.

2.3 Paul the Apostle Paul the Apostle in his letters only occasionally referred to the deeds, sayings, and features of the historical Jesus. This fact may be quite surprising in view of the fact that Paul’s letters are mostly highly argumentative or even polemical, and any references to the actions or words of the historical Jesus would certainly be very convincing against the arguments of Paul’s Jerusalem-based opponents. 31 If Paul were in a position to quote extensively sayings or actions of Jesus, especially ones referring to the binding force of the Mosaic law (cf. e.g. Mt 5:17-48 parr.; Mk 2:23-28 parr.; 7:1-23 par.; Lk 16:16-17 par.), there would be no reason not to do it, especially in the Letter to the Romans and in the Letter 29 30 31

Cf. id., Constructing, 28-29, 135, 141, 153, 159, 165. Cf. ibid. 37-43, 47, 51, 55, 61, 67, 71, 165. Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Paulus und die Jesustradition’, in R. Buitenwerf, H. W. Hollander, and J. Tromp (eds.), Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity, Festschrift H. J. de Jonge (NovTSup 130; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 281-316 (esp. 314).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

77

to the Galatians. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that at the time of the composition of Paul’s letters there was no widely known collection of texts or oral traditions which would refer to the activity of the historical Jesus. 32 The recognition of this fact does not mean that Paul and his believers did not have access to any traditions concerning the historical Jesus. 33 Paul must have obtained some biographic information concerning Jesus’ life during his fifteenday-long stay with Cephas in Jerusalem, when he also met Jesus’ brother James (Gal 1:18-19; cf. 2 Cor 5:16b). 34 Moreover, Paul’s version of the gospel about Jesus Christ was later approved by the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:2-9).35 Consequently, Paul and his believers could have access to more biographic details concerning Jesus’ life than those which are contained in the Pauline letters. However, Paul evidently wanted his believers to know Jesus Christ not ‘according to the flesh’ but, above all, in his love, in his death and resurrection, and in the power of the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 5:14-16; Rom 1:3-4). For this reason, the Apostle repeatedly confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, who was sent to the world by God (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Phlp 2:5-7), who deliberately suffered on the cross (Gal 2:20; Phlp 2:8), and whose power and authority were most evidently revealed by his resurrection from the dead (1 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 15:20-28; Rom 1:4; Phlp 2:9-11). What did Paul certainly know about the historical Jesus? According to the Apostle’s letters, Jesus was ‘born of a woman’ as a Jew (Gal 4:4; cf. Rom 8:3), he had brothers (1 Cor 9:5), among whom one was named James (Gal 1:19),36 and he belonged to the royal posterity of David (Rom 1:3). 37 Moreover, on the night when he was betrayed, he instituted the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25). 38 Thereafter, according to the tradition received by Paul from the Jerusalem 32 33 34

35

36 37

38

Cf. ibid. 310, 314; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 84 n. 260. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 25-26, 29-33. Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Paulus’, 302, 314; P. Pokorný, ‘Words of Jesus in Paul: On the Theology and Praxis of the Jesus Tradition’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 4, Individual Studies], 3437-3467 (esp. 3445-3446). Cf. G. Biguzzi, ‘…se ci fu una congiura all’origine della tradizione evangelica’, in G. Biguzzi and M. Gronchi (eds.), Discussione sul Gesù storico (Percorsi culturali, NS 19; Urbaniana University: Città del Vaticano 2009), 57-74 (esp. 67-72). Cf. P. Pokorný, ‘Words’, 3437. Cf. S. Byrskog, ‘The Historicity of Jesus: How Do We Know That Jesus Existed?’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 3, The Historical Jesus], 2183-2211 (esp. 2190). Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Paulus’, 290-291; P. Pokorný, ‘Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 333-359 (esp. 340).

78

Chapter 2

community, Jesus was crucified, buried, and raised on the third day, and he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to more than five hundred brothers at one time, then to James, and then to all the apostles; last of all, he appeared to Paul (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-8). 39 As concerns Jesus’ teachings, none of the sayings which are attributed by Paul to the Lord, most probably except for the words referred to in 1 Cor 11:24d-e.25b-d, 40 can undoubtedly be traced back to the historical Jesus. The ‘word of the Lord’ which is referred to in 1 Thes 4:15 seems to relate, in its Pauline context, to the prevalence of the power of the resurrection over simple continued life (cf. 1 Thes 4:14.16-17; 1 Cor 15:22-23.50-52). As such, the ‘word of the Lord’ in 1 Thes 4:15 should most probably be identified with the gospel message about Jesus Christ’s resurrection (cf. 1 Thes 1:6-10). 41 The ‘command of the Lord’ concerning divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11) should be interpreted against the background of the earlier scriptural text Deut 24:1, and not that of the later text Mk 10:11-12, which is a hypertextual reworking of 1 Cor 7:10-11 (together with 1 Cor 7:39 and Rom 7:3). In full agreement with the Jewish law (Deut 24:1), Paul permitted divorce and remarriage to the husband but not to the wife (1 Cor 7:10-11; cf. also 1 Cor 7:27-28.39; Rom 7:2-3; Jos. Ant. 15.259). 42 The command not to leave the wife (1 Cor 7:11d; ἀφίημι: cf. 2 Sam 15:16; 20:3 LXX; cf. also Ezek 16:39; Sol 3:4 LXX) 43 probably referred to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles (which was interpreted as an authoritative ‘command of the Lord’), who did not leave their wives while

39 40 41

42

43

Cf. A. Lindemann, ‘Paulus’, 291-294. Cf. P. Pokorný, ‘Jesus Research’, 340-341. Cf. M. W. Pahl, Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (LNTS 389; T&T Clark: London · New York 2009). Cf. also A. Lindemann, ‘Paulus’, 289; D. Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians (NTOA 71; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 189-190. Pace P. J. Tomson, ‘Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition’, in R. Bieringer [et al.] (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (JSJSup 136; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 289-332 (esp. 317-318). It should be noted that the use of the verb ἀφίημι in the meaning ‘divorce’ can only be traced in Herodotus, Hist. 5.3, and even there presumably in the more general sense ‘dismiss’. The verb ἀφίημι was never used in the meaning ‘divorce’ in Hellenistic papyri: cf. P. Arzt-Grabner [et al.], 1. Korinther (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006), 269. In the marriage papyrus JM 125, the verb referred to leaving the wife and not to a divorce: see D. InstoneBrewer, ‘1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri’, TynBul 52 (2001) 101-115 (esp. 107).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

79

travelling (1 Cor 9:5). 44 In Paul’s view, leaving the wife for a longer period of time could expose the couple to the temptation of sexual immorality, which should be avoided at all costs by the people who belong to the Lord (1 Cor 6:1318; 7:2-5). Accordingly, the ‘command of the Lord’ in 1 Cor 7:10 refers both to the rule of the Jewish law (Deut 24:1) and to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles (1 Cor 9:5), but not to a saying of the historical Jesus. 45 The ‘command of the Lord’ concerning the right of the preachers of the gospel to live from the gospel (1 Cor 9:14) functions as a conclusion of the arguments which are presented in 1 Cor 9:4-13. These arguments are based on the example of the behaviour of the Jerusalem apostles (1 Cor 9:4-5), on natural reasoning (1 Cor 9:6-7), and on the Mosaic law (1 Cor 9:8-11.13). Accordingly, in 1 Cor 9:14, like in 1 Cor 7:10, the ‘command of the Lord’ seems to refer to the Jewish law and to the practice of the Jerusalem apostles. In Paul’s view, this particular practice was justified not by an isolated saying of the historical Jesus but by the general idea of spiritual and material indebtedness of the Gentile communities to the Jewish preachers of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-3; 2 Cor 9:1; Rom 15:25-27; Gal 6:2-10). 46 Accordingly, in 1 Cor 9:14 the ‘command of the Lord’ reflects the basic soteriological priority of Jewish believers in Christ over their Gentile brethren in faith, an idea which could be interpreted as reflecting the views of Christ himself. 47

44

45

46

47

Cf. the similar line of argumentation concerning God-imposed obligation to support the apostles, which was regarded as an authoritative ‘command of the Lord’, in 1 Cor 9:46.8-10.13-14. The context of 1 Cor 7:10-11 also confirms that Paul permitted divorce and remarriage in agreement with the Jewish law (Deut 24:1). With the use of the verbs δέω (1 Cor 7:27a; cf. 7:39; Rom 7:2), λύω (1 Cor 7:27bc; χωρίζομαι as concerns the wife: 1 Cor 7:10b-11c), and γαμέω (1 Cor 7:28ab), he described the case of being married, divorced, and married again. Moreover, Paul’s teaching concerning getting married (1 Cor 7:36.39) evidently qualified his earlier teaching concerning unmarried men (ὁ ἄγαμος: 1 Cor 7:32), unmarried and hence presumably divorced women (ἡ ἄγαμος: 1 Cor 7:34), and virgins (ἡ παρθένος: 1 Cor 7:34). The statements 1 Cor 7:12-15 refer to not abandoning the household with the children, and to letting the spouse go away from the household if he/she wishes to do so. If Paul were in a position to quote a saying of the historical Jesus concerning the right of the apostles to be sustained by the communities (cf. 1 Cor 9:14), he would not look for traditional, common-sense, and scriptural arguments concerning this issue (1 Cor 9:413). The Pauline ‘command of the Lord’ in 1 Cor 14:37 should be understood in a similar way: as obligating the Corinthian believers to conform to the rules which were established in the Church before they came to believe in Christ (cf. 1 Cor 14:36).

80

Chapter 2

Apart from referring to the basic events of Jesus’ life (being considered the Davidic Messiah, instituting the Lord’s Supper, the death on the cross, and the resurrection), Paul also described several features of Jesus’ personality. They can be regarded as historical because Paul evidently treated them as very important points of reference for establishing the identity of the followers of Christ, and consequently of the Apostle. Moreover, Paul almost certainly did not refer to purely fictitious aspects of Jesus’ personality because in such a case his rhetorical arguments, which were frequently aimed at securing his position against his Jerusalem-based opponents, could easily be dismissed as historically unfounded. In Paul’s view, one of the main features of Jesus’ personality consisted in his humility and self-abasement, a feature which is quite surprising because Jesus was regarded as Christ, that is the royal Messiah (1 Cor 1:24; 2:8; 2 Cor 10:5 etc.). In his rhetorical argumentation, Paul often referred to Christ’s sinlessness (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 8:3), meekness, and gentleness (2 Cor 10:1). The Apostle interpreted Jesus Christ’s death as an act of self-denying for others (1 Thes 5:10; 1 Cor 1:13; 5:7; 11:24; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Rom 5:6-8; 14:15; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13); lowering his status and making himself poor, insignificant, and obedient (2 Cor 8:9; Phlp 2:5-8); and not pleasing himself, but rather enduring insults (Rom 15:3). Likewise, Paul described Christ as a servant (Rom 15:8), so that fulfilling the ‘law of Christ’ should consist in bearing the burdens of others (Gal 6:2). Paul interpreted Jesus Christ’s self-abasement in terms of his love for all people. The Apostle described Christ’s death as an act of love (2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20), which is effective also at present (Rom 8:35-39). Accordingly, one of Paul’s arguments could refer to Jesus Christ’s affection towards his believers (Phlp 1:8). In sum, Paul did not offer us a biography of the historical Jesus. Although the Apostle most probably knew some details concerning Jesus’ life, in his letters he made only a few references to the deeds, sayings, and features of the historical Jesus. This fact may be explained in terms of Paul’s conscious decision to refer to Jesus not ‘according to the flesh’ but rather ‘according to the Spirit’, that is mainly to Jesus’ extraordinary love, death, and resurrection.

2.4 The illusory ‘Q source’ The theory of the existence of the so-called ‘Q source’ was one of the most influential and, on the other hand, most misleading hypotheses in biblical scholarship of the nineteenth and especially twentieth century. It gave modern scholars

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

81

an illusion of having access to some widely circulating, pre-Gospel, Palestinian, non-Pauline traditions concerning the historical Jesus. 48 However, it led to a seriously distorted understanding of the literary and theological character of the canonical Gospels. 49 The hypothesis of the existence of a no longer extant source which contained the material that is shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but absent in the Gospel of Mark dates back to the eighteenth century. 50 At that time, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, a famous literary critic and writer, who investigated the Gospels from a purely literary point of view, argued that the literary interrelationships between the Synoptic Gospels are too close to be solely explained by the traditional hypothesis of common dependence of the Gospels on oral apostolic traditions, but on the other hand, these interrelationships are too complex to be explained by the classical Augustinian theory of sequential literary dependence of the Gospels in their canonical order. Lessing therefore postulated the existence of a written Hebrew or Aramaic ‘Gospel of the Apostles’, which, in his opinion, originated from the oral apostolic tradition that described the life of Jesus as a merely human Messiah, and which was probably known to some Fathers of the Church. 51 Lessing’s idea of the existence of a written source of tradition which must have preceded the formation of the canonical Gospels was more fully developed by Johann Gottfried Eichhorn.52 This German scholar argued that not only the common Mt-Mk-Lk tradition, but also the material which is shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but absent in the Gospel of Mark, point to the

48 49 50 51

52

Cf. J. M. Robinson, ‘The Gospel of the Historical Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 447-474 (esp. 470-474). Cf. E. S. Malbon, ‘New Literary Criticism and Jesus Research’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 777-807 (esp. 801-803). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 24-25. Lessing called this hypothetical protogospel in the way which became very influential for the later research, namely, among others, Nazarenische Quelle (‘Nazarene source’): G. E. Lessing, ‘Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte’, in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 73-82 (here: 81 [§. 47]) [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 619-627 (here: 626)]; id., ‘Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als blos menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet’ [Wolfenbüttel 1778], in id., Theologischer Nachlass, 45-72 (here: 56 [§. 25]) [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, 629-654 (here: 638)]. Cf. J. G. Eichhorn, ‘Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien: Eynge Beytrage zu ihrer künftigen kritischen Behandlung’, in id., ABBL, vol. 5 [part 5-6] (Weidmann: Leipzig 1794), 761-996.

82

Chapter 2

existence of some no-longer-extant written sources (Quellen), which were different from the main Aramaic protogospel document.53 Eichhorn’s theory was in turn developed by Christian Hermann Weisse, who postulated independent use of the Gospel of Mark and of a pre-Matthean source of gospel sayings (λόγια) by both Matthew and Luke. 54 In this way, the theory of the existence of the socalled ‘Q source’, which allegedly contained the material that is shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but absent in the Gospel of Mark, took the classical form of the so-called ‘Two-Source’ theory. This brief history of the formation of the so-called ‘Two-Source’ theory already reveals its main weakness. It consists in the uncritical assumption that the Gospels, at least those of Matthew and Luke, were literarily independent of each other. In fact, this assumption has never been conclusively proved.55 It is true that there are no convincing proofs of the dependence of the Gospel of Luke on the Gospel of Matthew. 56 However, there is much evidence of ‘Hebraizing’ dependence of the Gospel of Matthew on the Gospel of Luke and on the Acts of the Apostles. 57 Moreover, the assumption of mutual literary independence of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is actually disproved by the existence of hundreds, if not thousands (statistically, more than one per verse), of MattheanLucan literary agreements against Mark throughout the Gospels, a fact which remains unexplained and, moreover, terminologically obscured (by the use of the terms ‘minor agreements’, ‘Mk-Q overlap’, ‘Q material’, etc., which were never strictly defined) 58 in the Q theory. 59 Consequently, there is no reason to

53 54 55 56

57 58

Cf. ibid. 965: ‘[Mt and Lk] müssen also auch hier von einer gemeinschaftlichen schriftlichen Quelle abhängen.’ Cf. C. H. Weiße, Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838), 78-83. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 93-95. Cf. ibid. 144, 159, 171-173, 275-395, 401-405. Pace L. E. Youngquist [et al], Q 6:3742: Not Judging – The Blind Leading the Blind – The Disciple and the Teacher – The Speck and the Beam (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 2011), 120-121, 229-230, 249-250, it should be noted that μετρηθήσεται in Mt 7:2 (diff. Lk 6:38) was borrowed from Mk 4:24, and πεσοῦνται in Mt 15:14 improves the rhythm of Lk 6:39 in order to make a balanced proverbial statement (Mt 15:14cd) from the ‘parable’ Lk 6:39bc (unlike Mt 12:11 par. Lk 14:5), with the retaining of the motif of ‘parable’ (Mk 7:17; Lk 6:39a) in Mt 15:15. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 173-181, 206-226, 278, 283, 289, 312-314, 344 n. 153, 353-354, 356 n. 179, 364 n. 196, 376 n. 220, 406-407, 419-430, 437-438. Cf. M. E. Boring, ‘The “Minor Agreements” and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Confer-

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

83

postulate the existence of a hypothetical, allegedly later surprisingly lost ‘Q source’. 60 Nevertheless, the Q theory became very popular in twentieth-century biblical scholarship, especially since it was combined with the form-critical research on the Gospels (the so-called Formgeschichte). This method of research was based on the post-Romantic assumption that Gospel pericopes and sayings were for a considerable period of time transmitted orally, in the form of small textual units, which were originally independent of one another. 61 This uncritical assumption led to the investigation of various fragments of the Gospels in isolation from one another, and to assessing the degree of their hypothetical ‘originality’ separately, on the basis of their assumed relationship to their original Palestinian Sitz im Leben, which was in turn mainly reconstructed on the basis of much later rabbinic parallels. Consequently, the texts of the Gospels came to be regarded as results of more or less artificial compilation of units of originally Palestinian material, which, as it was assumed, reached the evangelists through various oral and written sources. In this perspective, the Q source could be regarded as a body of originally Palestinian material, which consisted of numerous small units of oral or written tradition. Although scholars soon noticed that the order and wording of the hypothetical ‘Q material’ in the version of the Gospel of Luke should generally be considered more original than their counterparts in the Gospel of Matthew, the Q theorists proposed no substantial revision of their axiomatically structured hypothesis. More and more clearly perceived inconsistencies of the reconstructed ‘Q theology’ came to be explained, especially in the last decades, with the use of more and more complicated models of diachronic-redactional stratification of the postulated ‘Q source’. The reconstructions of the Sitz im Leben of the hypothetical ‘Q source’ were likewise highly problematic. Since it was generally assumed that the postulated ‘Q movement’ was almost totally isolated from other Christian communities within early Christianity (and no effort was made to explain why it should have

59

60 61

ence, April 2008, Festschrift C. M. Tuckett (BETL 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 227-251 (esp. 227-236, 250). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 85-92; W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, ZNW 103 (2012) 20-46 (esp. 24-36). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 83-84, 441-443. Cf. A. J. Hultgren, ‘Form Criticism and Jesus Research’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 649-671 (esp. 650-653); E. S. Malbon, ‘New Literary’, 800801.

84

Chapter 2

been so, despite the postulated Greek wording of the ‘Q document’ etc.), diverse reconstructions of the history and theology of ‘Q’ which were proposed by various scholars lacked reliable external controlling points of reference. Therefore, almost every reconstruction of the ‘Q movement’ was somehow arguable. Consequently, the idea of the existence of a mixed Aramaic–Greek ‘Q community’, which was lost somewhere in Galilee or in Syria, which was almost extinct after the Jewish War, and which, nevertheless, soon became highly influential for both Matthew and Luke who redacted their works, as it was usually assumed, independently of each other in two entirely different geographical and theological settings, was never seriously considered entirely implausible. Moreover, the Q theory almost completely separated the Gospels from their background and roots in the Pauline theology. Even if the synoptic material was occasionally regarded as somehow corresponding to the contents of the Pauline letters, it was usually treated as by definition more original to them. The illusion of having a non-Pauline and non-Marcan, presumably early Palestinian or even Galilean source of numerous Gospel sayings of Jesus was so appealing that the more or less evident connections between the Gospel texts and Paul’s ideas were almost completely disregarded. The theological impact of the Q theory was very strong. Since it offered to scholars and theologians a reconstructed early Palestinian source of numerous Jesus’ sayings, it was treated as a reliable basis for scholarly reconstructions of the historical Jesus. However, the theological image of the historical Jesus which was created on the basis of the ‘Q source’ was seriously defective. For example, it is argued that the ‘Q source’ presented Jesus as the eschatological prophet, who was sent by Wisdom but was violently rejected like other prophets. 62 He may have performed some miracles, especially those of making the blind see, curing the lame, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead (cf. Lk 7:22 par.). 63 However, it is debated whether the reconstructed ‘Q source’ contained any references to the Lord’s Supper, to Jesus’ death on the cross, and to his resurrection (cf. e.g. Lk 11:47-51 par.). 64

62 63

64

Cf. C. M. Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996), 38-39, 209-237. Cf. id., ‘The Disciples and the Messianic Secret in Mark’, in I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen (NovTSup 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 131-149 (esp. 137). See e.g. H. T. Fleddermann, ‘The Cross and Discipleship in Q’, SBLSP 27 (1988) 472482 (esp. 482); D. C. Allison, Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1997), 43-46; A. Kirk, ‘The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q’, in

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

85

In any case, the overall image of Jesus in the reconstructed ‘Q source’ resembles a prophetic ‘talking head’ rather than the loving and self-denying Messiah and Son of God, who instituted the Last Supper, who died the salvific death on the cross, who was raised on the third day, and who appeared to Cephas and others, as he was presented to us in the Pauline letters. Consequently, the image of the historical Jesus which is created on the basis of the ‘Q source’ is in fact highly problematic from the theological point of view. If this image were true, it would mean that Christianity was based on the sand of an unknown, lost, and theologically underdeveloped document or tradition. Therefore, it should not be regretted that the most recent research on the synoptic problem and on the historical Jesus has revealed that this image actually has no true value. 65

2.5 Flavius Josephus and other classical writers The writings of Flavius Josephus and Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius are very important for the research on the historical Jesus because they contain references to Jesus which are presumably independent of those which are contained in the writings of the New Testament. The probability of the use of Paul’s letters, which were written in the first century AD, by Josephus and the Roman writers who wrote their works at the beginning of the second century AD (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius) is rather low. By the end of the first century AD, the memory of Paul could have been known to at least some of the Roman Jews, including Josephus. However, Paul’s letters were in fact semi-private, and they were mainly written to the eastern part of the Mediterranean, so that Josephus had little chance to be acquainted with them. On the other hand, the Romans regarded Paul as a condemned criminal, so that it is even less plausible that they would know the unpublished letters of the suspected Jewish missionary. Therefore, the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius should be regarded as most probably independent of the Christian writings.

65

A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (SBLSemeiaSt 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 191-206 (esp. 198-204). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 25-33.

86

Chapter 2

2.5.1 Flavius Josephus The writings of Flavius Josephus contain two references to the person of Jesus Christ (Ant. 18.63-64; 20.200). They also contain an apologetic presentation of Josephus’ historical method, which may be relevant to the analysis of the historical reliability of the Gospels.

2.5.1.1 Ant. 18.63-64 The main reference to Jesus in Josephus’ writings is contained in Ant. 18.63-64. Josephus’ Antiquitates was most probably written in AD 93/94, 66 so c.60-70 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. However, the authenticity of this reference to Jesus (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) is often called into question because it has several features of a Christian profession of faith in Jesus as a divine and not merely human person, the Messiah foretold by the prophets, and one risen on the third day. 67 A close investigation of the testimony of Josephus in its immediate literary context reveals that it should be regarded as original and historically credible at least in its part which describes Jesus as a messianic claimant who found some followers among Jews and also Gentiles. 68 Josephus’ reference to Jesus (Ant. 18.63-64) is thematically elaborated in the subsequent bipartite allusive story Ant. 18.65-84. 69 This story condemns financially suspect proselytizing activity of some Jewish missionaries among highranking Roman women in the capital of the empire (Ant. 18.81-84) against the background of a similar action of some Egyptian priests (Ant. 18.65-80). In particular, the story refers to the activity of a certain Jew who escaped to Rome because he had been accused of transgressing some laws, who pretended to explain the wisdom of the laws of Moses, who worked in a missionary team with three other people, who was active among proselytes belonging to a high-ranking 66

67 68 69

For the dating of Josephus’ Antiquitates and Vita to AD 93/94, see e.g. S. Mason [ed.], Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 9, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2001), xv-xix. For a later dating of these works (shortly after AD 100), see e.g. D. Labow [ed.], Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem, Buch I: Einleitung, Text, Textkritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar (BWANT 167; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005), xlii-xlv. Cf. J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (ABRL; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1991), 59-61. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 27-28. Cf. also S. Bardet, Le Testmonium Flavianum: Examen historique, considérations historiographiques (Josèphe et son temps 5; Cerf: Paris 2002), 169-170.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

87

Roman family, and who for his own needs used the money which should be collected for the Jerusalem Temple (Ant. 18.81-84). In this enigmatic story, it is not difficult to detect the features of Paul’s activity in Rome (cf. e.g. Phlp 3:3.20; 4:10.14.22). 70 Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the strange bipartite story Ant. 18.65-84, which follows the remark concerning Jesus (Ant. 18.63-64), rhetorically suggests that the disgraceful expulsion of numerous Jews from Rome, which most probably took place not long after Jesus’ death, 71 was caused by Paul’s apparently Jewish, but in reality law-breaking and financially anti-Jewish activity among the Gentiles in Rome, an action which should be regarded as a direct consequence of the messianic-missionary activity of Jesus among the Gentiles in Judaea (cf. Ant. 18.63). 72 Josephus further correlated the reference to Jesus who was called the Messiah (Ant. 18.63-64; cf. 20.200) and the allusive story concerning his blameworthy disciples (Ant. 18.65-84) with the subsequent reference to a Samaritan would-be Messiah (Ant. 18.85-87: ‘But also the nation of the Samaritans…’). 73 In such a way, Josephus put the Samaritans in a bad light by contrasting Jesus,

70

71

72

73

It should be noted that Josephus’ attitude towards Jewish Christians seems to have been generally positive or at least neutral (cf. Ant. 20.200-203). On the other hand, the missionary-financial activity of Paul and his followers among the members of high-ranking Roman families who were sympathetic to the Jews seems to have been strongly condemned by the Jewish-Roman historian (cf. Ant. 18.65-84). Philo’s reference to Tiberius’ measures against the Roman Jews (Philo, Legat. 159161), which was written almost contemporarily with these events, suggests that they took place in the period of Sejanus’ rise to absolute power in Rome, so c. AD 26-30. According to Tacitus, who wrote his work several decades later, the expulsion of numerous Jews from Rome took place in AD 19 (Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4; cf. also Suetonius, Tib. 36; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 57.18.5a). However, the striking combination of the motifs of licentious high-ranking Roman women and of Egyptian and Jewish rites in both Jos. Ant. 18.65-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.85 (cf. also Suetonius, Tib. 35-36) suggests that Tacitus’ dating of the implausible in itself expulsion of the Egyptians and of the Jews from Italy for religious reasons was influenced by Jos. Ant. 18.33-84, a text which could be understood as referring to an expulsion that had taken place a few years after Tiberius’ rise to power, soon after Germanicus’ death (so in AD 19: cf. esp. Jos. Ant. 18.54-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.82-85). Cf. H. D. Slingerland, Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (SFSHJ 160; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1997), 50 n. 42; M. Ebner, Jesus von Nazaret: Was wir von ihm wissen können (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2007), 32. Cf. R. Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (TSAJ 129; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 232-240.

88

Chapter 2

the relatively peaceful and undangerous Jewish messianic claimant, who was nevertheless condemned to cross by Pontius Pilate, with the rebellious Samaritan pseudo-Joshua. 74 Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that at least the part of the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) which describes Jesus as a messianic claimant who found some followers among the Jews and subsequently also among the Gentiles, and who was condemned to cross by Pontius Pilate, should be regarded as original, and consequently as historically credible. Moreover, the references to Jesus as a wise man, a teacher of kindness and truth, and possibly also one considered the Messiah (Ant. 18.63; cf. 20.200), 75 and to his followers as loving him, not having forsaken him, and constituting the movement which existed up to the time of Josephus and which was called Christians (Ant. 18.64) can likewise be regarded as not interpolated, authentic, and consequently historically reliable. 76

74

75

76

For other arguments concerning the authenticity of at least a part of Jos. Ant. 18.63-64, see e.g. P. R. Eddy and G. A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2007), 192-198; F. W. Horn, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald (WUNT 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 117-136 (esp. 134-135); C. Niemand, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Befunde, Diskussionsstand, Perspektiven’, PzB 17 (2008) 45-71 (esp. 65-67); U. Victor, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, NovT 52 (2010) 72-82; C. K. Rothschild, ‘“Echo of a Whisper”: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist’, in D. Hellholm [et al.] (eds.), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism / Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe, vol. 1, Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity / Spätantike, Frühes Judentum und Frühes Christentum (BZNW 176/1; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 255-290 (esp. 281). Cf. A. Whealey, ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, NTS 54 (2008) 573-590 (esp. 580-581), who argues that the original Greek text of Jos. Ant. 18.63 contained the verb ἐνομίζετο, and not ἦν. Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 61-68; J. Carleton Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, JTS, NS 52 (2001) 539-624 (esp. 603-606, 618) [also in id., Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (WUNT 251; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 185-265 (esp. 246-248, 260)].

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

89

2.5.1.2 Ant. 20.200 The second reference to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquitates is contained in Ant. 20.200. This text, which primarily refers to the high priest Ananus son of Ananus (Ant. 20.197, 199-203), is generally considered authentic. 77 According to the account of Josephus, who during Ananus’ short rule probably lived in Jerusalem, and consequently was in a position to have firsthand knowledge of the events described, 78 the high priest assembled a Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and having formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them up to be stoned (Ant. 20.200). It is important that Jesus is mentioned in this fragment only in passing, in a marginal reference which is devoted to the trial and death of his brother James. Therefore, a possible Christian interpolator would have had no reason to compose such a text, 79 especially since there is no mention of the death of James in the New Testament. On the other hand, Josephus assumed that Jesus was known to his readers better than James was: 80 either because Jesus had already been mentioned in Josephus’ work (Ant. 18.63-64) 81 or because Jesus was called the Messiah and James was not (Ant. 20.200). In any case, Josephus’ statement that Jesus was called Christ should be regarded as authentic and historically credible. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah by at least some people in Judaea, and possibly also in Rome. This conclusion agrees with the above-mentioned outcome of the investigation of the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63-64) in its immediate literary context.

2.5.1.3 C.Ap. 1.47-56 Josephus’ last treatise, which is usually called Contra Apionem (Against Apion), was written after the Antiquitates, so at the earliest in AD 95/96, but possibly

77 78 79 80 81

Cf. J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Fortress: Minneapolis and Van Gorcum: Assen 2004), 477 n. 213. Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 87 n. 60. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 57-59. Cf. É. Nodet, ‘Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 2, The Study of Jesus], 1495-1543 (esp. 1541). Cf. P. R. Eddy and G. A. Boyd, Jesus Legend, 193.

90

Chapter 2

later in the 90s or even the early 100s. It is an apologetic work, which was intended to demonstrate the antiquity and dignity of the Jewish nation. 82 In the initial prolegomenon (C.Ap. 1.6-56), Josephus discussed the methods and sources of historiography, and praised the accuracy of its Jewish version (esp. C.Ap. 1.28-56). 83 In this context, he commended his own way of writing the history of the Jewish war (C.Ap. 1.47-56). He emphatically and repeatedly asserted that his history of the war was true because he had been close to all its major events and its major protagonists (C.Ap. 1.47-49; cf. 1.46), he carefully registered all that had happened (C.Ap. 1.49-50), he understood the language of the other party involved (C.Ap. 1.49, 56), he called emperors and kings as witnesses to the truthfulness of his account (C.Ap. 1.50-52), he had been a protagonist or eyewitness of most events (C.Ap. 1.53-55), and he inquired people who had been eyewitnesses of other events (C.Ap. 1.53-55). 84 As concerns Antiquitates, Josephus presented it as an accurate and reliable translation of Jewish sacred writings (C.Ap. 1.54). Nevertheless, although Josephus made such claims about the historical reliability of his writings, modern scholars are often sceptical about the historical accuracy of Josephus’ relations. In particular, large portions of his Bellum and Antiquitates are often regarded as ‘historically inspired works of fiction’. 85 Modern scholars tend to view Josephus’ (and other ancient writers’) historical narratives as artistic productions, in which ‘the art undoubtedly derives from real events and lives, but we cannot simply move from the production to some underlying reality.’ 86

82

83

84

85

86

Cf. J. M. G. Barclay, ‘Josephus, Against Apion’, in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2010), 832-834 (esp. 832). Cf. id., ‘Judean Historiography in Rome: Josephus and History in Contra Apionem Book 1’, in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (JSJSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 29-43 (esp. 36-42); id., ‘Josephus, Against Apion’, 832-833. Cf. N. Förster, ‘Geschichtsforschung als Apologie: Josephus und die nicht-griechischen Historiker in Contra Apionem’, in Z. Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (JSJSup 110; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007), 168-191 (esp. 172). K. Atkinson, ‘The Historical Chronology of the Hasmonean Period in the War and Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: Separating Fact from Fiction’, in J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (JSJSup 146; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 7-27 (esp. 26). S. Mason, ‘Josephus’, in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), Dictionary, 828-832 (esp. 831). Cf. also id., ‘The Writings of Josephus: Their Significance for New Testament

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

91

Accordingly, Josephus’ writings reveal that in Jewish-Hellenistic historiography of the first and second century AD declared historicity could be quite remote from real historicity. In this type of literature, the authorial declarations concerning veracity and the created impressions concerning historicity may in fact be seriously misleading.

2.5.2 Pliny the Younger Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, known as Pliny the Younger, was imperial governor of Bithynia and Pontus c. AD 110-112. From this province, he wrote an official letter to Trajan, in which he requested the emperor’s guidance on the treatment of Christians (Ep. 10.96). In his references to Christians, Pliny most likely assumed that the name of the religious group (Christiani) had already been known to the recipient of the letter (Ep. 10.96.1; cf. 10.97.1). 87 However, the content of their faith was rather unclear to him (Ep. 10.96.7). 88 For Pliny, it was important that Christians’ veneration of Christ as a god (Christo quasi deo: Ep. 10.96.7) constituted a threat to the traditional and political religion of the Roman Empire (Ep. 10.96.5-6, 9-10). Pliny’s three remarks concerning Christ (Christus: Ep. 10.96.5-7) contain no explanation as to his identity, and consequently they seem to presuppose some hearsay knowledge regarding the person of Christ on the part of both the author and the recipient of the letter. 89 On the other hand, the remarks concerning Christians as never cursing Christ (Ep. 10.96.5-6) and as worshipping Christ as a god (Ep. 10.96.7) constitute new information, which was gathered by Pliny in the course of his investigation, and which was imparted by him to the emperor.90

87

88

89 90

Study’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 2], 1639-1686 (esp. 16631664). Cf. J. Molthagen, ‘»Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam«: Das Nichtwissen des Plinius und die Anfänge der Christenprozesse’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Gemeinde 9 (2004) 112-140 (esp. 114-115). Cf. R. E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000), 29. Cf. J. G. Cook, Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian (WUNT 261; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 21. Cf. B. M. Peper and M. DelCogliano, ‘The Pliny and Trajan Correspondence’, in A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison, Jr., and J. D. Crossan (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religion; Princeton University: Princeton · Oxford 2006), 366371 (esp. 367).

92

Chapter 2

Consequently, it can be assumed that Pliny did not have any detailed knowledge of Christian beliefs while he held the office of a state priest (augur) in Rome (c. AD 103-110). It is therefore reasonable to infer that the existence of Christ was somehow known to the Roman elite c. AD 110, but up to that time, they knew nothing particular about him. It is possible that Pliny’s (and possibly also Trajan’s) previous knowledge of Christ was based on Josephus’ literary remark concerning Jesus as the person who was called Christ, who taught virtue, and who gave rise to the religious movement of Christians (Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 in its original form).

2.5.3 Tacitus Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a friend of Pliny the Younger. His main work, Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annales), was probably written somewhat later than Pliny’s letters, namely c. AD 115-116. In his historical works, Tacitus used various sources. In particular, the Roman historian in a creative way used the works of Flavius Josephus as the sources of information concerning Jewish matters. 91 It was possible because after the publication of Bellum Judaicum, as well as Antiquitates with the support of Epaphroditus, the works of Josephus, who was at least in AD 70-80 regarded as an imperial ‘specialist’ on Jewish matters in the Roman Empire, were certainly known to the intellectual elite of Rome. In Hist. 5.11.3, Tacitus used Josephus’ evidently exaggerated description of Jerusalem as located high on two hills of immense height with precipitous slopes (B.J. 5.141). In Hist. 5.12.3-4, Tacitus relied on Josephus’ description of three, and subsequently two, competing zealot parties, which were led by Simon, John, and Eleazar at the beginning of the Jewish War, but which were of necessity brought to concord (concordia / ὁμόνοια) because of the ‘external war’ (bellum externum / ὁ ἔξωθεν πόλεμος) led by the approaching Romans (B.J. 5.5-26, 7172, 98-105). In Hist. 5.13.1-2, Tacitus borrowed Josephus’ idea of the appearance of signs of a bloody combat in heaven and of God’s departure from his

91

Cf. A. Harnack, ‘Der jüdische Geschichtsschreiber Josephus und Jesus Christus’, IMW 7 (1913) 1037-1068 (esp. 1059); F. Dornseiff, ‘Lukas als Schriftsteller: Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus’, ZNW 35 (1936) 129-155 (esp. 150-155); B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 25 n. 4, 138-139 n. 18. For a recent presentation of counterarguments to this thesis, a presentation which, alas, does not take into consideration the phenomenon of Tacitus’ overall use of Josephus’ works, see E. Norelli, ‘La presenza di Gesù nella letteratura gentile dei primi due secoli’, RStB 17 (2005), no. 2, 175-215 (esp. 191-192).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

93

Temple, facts which did not prevail over the spiritual blindness of the Jewish people, who believed in a Judaean Messiah and not in the rule of Vespasian (B.J. 5.412; 6.288-299, 312-313). Likewise, in Hist. 5.13.3, Tacitus used Josephus’ rhetorically exaggerated reference to a great number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (B.J. 6.425). 92 Moreover, Tacitus’ dating of the implausible in itself expulsion of the Egyptians and of the Jews from Italy for religious reasons to AD 19 (Ann. 2.85.4), and not to c. AD 26-30 (cf. Philo, Legat. 159-161), was probably influenced by Jos. Ant. 18.33-84, which could be understood as suggesting that the expulsion had taken place a few years after Tiberius’ rise to power, soon after Germanicus’ death (so in AD 19: cf. esp. Jos. Ant. 18.54-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.82-85). This inference is corroborated by the presence of the striking combination of the motifs of licentious high-ranking Roman women and of Egyptian and Jewish rites in both Jos. Ant. 18.65-84 and Tacitus, Ann. 2.85. For these reasons, Tacitus’ reference to Christ (Ann. 15.44.3) should also be regarded as dependent on the works of Josephus. 93 Indeed, Tacitus’ remark concerning Christ’s death during the rule of Pontius Pilate in Judaea (Ann. 15.44.3) was most probably based on the original version of the testimony of Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64). Several particular, correlated elements of Tacitus’ remark (Ann. 15.44.2-3) were most likely borrowed from Josephus’ account (Ant. 18.63-64): (a) the non-Latin title Christus; (b) the reference to Pontius Pilate, a governor of Judaea under Tiberius, as the one who condemned Christ to a terrible death; 94 92

93

94

Cf. R. S. Bloch, Antike Vorstellungen vom Judentum: Der Judenexkurs des Tacitus im Rahmen der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie (Historia: Einzelschriften 160; Franz Steiner: Stuttgart 2002), 19: ‘Einige verblüffende Parallelen weisen […] zumindest auf eine indirekte Abhängigkeit hin’ (cf. also ibid. 100 n. 112, 108-110, 112 n. 153). It should be noted that in his description of the fire of Rome, Tacitus relied both on written sources (Ann. 15.38.1) and on widespread rumours (Ann. 15.40.2; 15.44.2). For an analysis of Tacitus’ ‘dynamic’ use of various main and subsidiary sources, see O. Devillers, Tacite et les sources des Annales: Enquêtes sur la méthode historique (Bibliothèque d’Études Classiques 36; Peeters: Louvain · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003) (esp. 193, 250-271). The improper title of Pontius Pilate as procurator and not prefect of Judaea (Ann. 15.44.3) additionally suggests that Tacitus used Josephus’ vague literary reference to Pilate as a governor (ἡγεμών) of Judaea (Jos. Ant. 18.55), and not strictly Roman historical sources. Moreover, whereas in Jos. Ant. 18.63-64 the function of Pontius Pilate as a governor of Judaea is evident from the wider context of Josephus’ narrative (Ant. 18.35-89), in Tacitus’ account (Ann. 15.44.3) the procurator Pontius Pilate (per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum) appears without any clarifying remark concerning the province in which he held his office, as though that were something obvious for the reader. The fact that Pilate was a governor of Judaea is only suggested by the subsequent

94

Chapter 2

(c) the name ‘Chrestians’ 95 as deriving from Christ; and (d) the passage of the new religion apparently directly from Judaea to Rome, with no mention of any other stages or regions of its propagation.96 Likewise, the reference to crosses on which the Christians died (Ann. 15.44.4) could have originated from Josephus’ reference to the cross of Christ. 97 On the other hand, Tacitus’ mocking reference to Christianity as an evil superstition (superstitio: Ann. 15.44.3) resembles that of his friend Pliny the Younger (Ep. 10.96.8). Consequently, Tacitus’ remark concerning Christ (Ann. 15.44.3) should not be regarded as an independent testimony to the historical Jesus. However, this remark indirectly confirms the authenticity of at least a part of Josephus’ reference to Jesus Christ (Ant. 18.63-64).

2.5.4 Suetonius Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a friend of both Pliny the Younger and Tacitus. In c. AD 120, he wrote his most important extant work, De vita Caesarum, in which he presented the lives of the twelve emperors from Julius Caesar to Domitian. Suetonius, like his friend Tacitus, creatively used Josephus’ works as sources of information about Jewish matters in the Roman Empire. 98 This fact

95

96

97

98

remark concerning Judaea as the origin of Christianity (non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali: Ann. 15.44.3). This minor, not easily perceivable, narrative error also suggests Tacitus’ dependence on the text of Josephus. For the use of this criterion for ascertaining the existence and direction of direct literary dependence, see B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 201-202; cf. also W. A. Tooman, Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezechiel 38-39 (FAT 2.52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 33: ‘The borrowed material may be imperfectly used or imperfectly integrated with the new context’. Tacitus presented the persecuted Christians as tortured, crucified, and burnt slaves, and consequently he could have used the word Chrestiani (Ann. 15.44.2) as more aptly referring to slaves. Cf. A. Harnack, ‘Geschichtsschreiber’, 1058-1060; F. Dornseiff, ‘Lukas’, 148-150; É. Nodet, ‘Jésus et Jean Baptiste selon Josèphe’, RB 92 (1985) 320-348, 497-524 (esp. 342-345). It should be noted that Tacitus normally used the phrase patibulo adfixus/adfixi (Hist. 4.3; Ann. 4.72.3; cf. also Ann. 1.61.3), and only in Ann. 15.44.4 crucibus adfixi. Cf. G. Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (WUNT 2.310; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 162-167. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 64-65, 68-69.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

95

can be deduced from Suetonius’ use of Josephus’ ideas concerning (a) an ancient Jewish oracle which predicted that ‘at that time’ someone who would originate from Judaea would govern the whole world, an oracle which was misunderstood by the Jews as referring to themselves and thus encouraging them to undertake the Jewish War, but which in fact pointed to the rule of the Roman emperor Vespasian (Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5; cf. Jos. B.J. 6.312-313); and (b) the secret divine prediction of the noble captive, imprisoned Josephus, that Vespasian will soon become emperor (Suetonius, Vesp. 5.6; cf. Jos. B.J. 3.399404). Moreover, in difference to Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4, but in agreement with Jos. Ant. 18.63-84, Suetonius presented the anti-Jewish measures which had been taken under Tiberius as having been imposed by the emperor (and not by the Senate) and as distinctively (and not commonly for both nations) involving destruction of the Egyptian temple and expulsion of all the Jews from the city of Rome (and not from Italy: Suetonius, Tib. 36). For this reason, it is reasonable to assume that Suetonius, knowing of some anti-Jewish measures which had been taken by the emperor Claudius (cf. P.Lond. 6.1912, ll. 88-100; Jos. Ant. 19.326-327; Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. 60.6.6), 99 composed his remark concerning the otherwise unattested expulsion of the Jews from Rome because of their repeatedly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestos (Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit: Cl. 25.4) on the basis of Jos. Ant. 18.63-84. In this way, Suetonius doubled Josephus’ account of the expulsion of all the Jews from Rome, suggesting that one such expulsion took place under Tiberius (Tib. 36), and another one, now involving the new religious group of Christians, took place under Claudius (Cl. 25.4). The identity of the trouble-making Jew named Chrestos, who was referred to by Suetonius in Cl. 25.4, is a matter of intense debate. Several scholars argue that Suetonius knew the Latin name of Christians (Christiani: Suetonius, Nero 16.2), and consequently he could not have confused Chrestus with Christus. 100 On the other hand, Tacitus seems to have used both name forms (Chrestiani, Christus: Tacitus, Ann. 15.44.2-3). Moreover, the name form Chrestos was common among slaves, and consequently it could have been used by Suetonius as a ‘lectio facilior’ of the term Christus, which could be regarded as strange by

99 Cf. J. G. Cook, Roman Attitudes, 11-15. 100 Cf. H. D. Slingerland, Claudian, 203-217; B. N. Fisk, ‘Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians of Rome’, in S. E. Porter and C. D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (SBLSymS 50; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 157-185 (esp. 161-163).

96

Chapter 2

Suetonius’ readers. 101 Consequently, Suetonius’ Chrestos can be identified with the person of Jesus Christ, 102 who was referred to by Josephus in Ant. 18.63-84 as indirectly causing unrest among the Roman Jews, which led to the expulsion of all Jews from Rome. Therefore, Suetonius’ remark concerning the trouble-making Jew named Chrestos (Cl. 25.4) should not be regarded as an independent testimony to the historical Jesus. However, this remark indirectly confirms the authenticity of at least a part of Josephus’ reference to Jesus Christ (Ant. 18.63-64).

2.6 The canonical Gospels The four canonical Gospels are widely regarded as the main sources for any reconstruction of the historical Jesus. However, their presentations of the person of Jesus have numerous features which should be considered purely literary or, more precisely, hypertextual. The most recent research on the canonical Gospels has revealed that these works are in fact hypertextual reworkings of the contents of the Pauline letters and (in the case of the Gospels of Matthew and John) of the Acts of the Apostles, with the use of the sacred Scriptures of Israel, Josephus’ writings, and numerous other literary works. 103 For this reason, the canonical

101 Cf. M. Ebner, Jesus, 31. 102 Cf. Orosius, Hist. 7.6.15 with his four corrections (inpulsore Christo adsidue tumultuantes); P. Lampe, Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (WUNT 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1989), 6; J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 102 n. 16; R. Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1994), 147; D. Alvarez Cineira, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische Mission (HBS 19; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 1999), 204-207; H. Omerzu, Der Prozeß des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 115; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 232; S. Spence, The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case Study (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 5; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2004), 74-78, 98-107; A. A. Das, Solving the Romans Debate (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007), 152-153; J. G. Cook, Roman Attitudes, 1519, 28; R. E. Van Voorst, ‘Jesus Tradition in Classical and Jewish Writings’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 3], 2149-2180 (esp. 2153-2155). 103 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 227-444; id., Heirs, 87-92; id., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 39-121; id., Constructing, 135145, 153-163.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

97

Gospels should not be regarded as independent sources for the reconstruction of the life of the historical Jesus.

2.6.1 The Gospel of Mark The Gospel of Mark was for centuries regarded as a biography of the historical Jesus. It is true that the Gospel of Mark resembles an ancient biography (βίος, vita). 104 However, it is not an ancient biography because it lacks several important features of this literary genre. 105 It contains no prologue, no mention of Jesus’ ancestry and birth, no account of his childhood and education, no topical organization of his sayings or anecdotes concerning him, no discussion of his virtues and traits of character, no literary conclusion, etc. 106 On the other hand, the Gospel of Mark already at its beginning reveals its particular, not typically historical character. 107 The very way of beginning the work with a quotation (Mk 1:2-3), and not with a reference to the early stages of the life of the historical Jesus, points to a consciously intended intertextual character of the entire Marcan narrative. Evidently, already at the beginning of his work, the evangelist suggested to his readers that his work should primarily be interpreted in intertextual terms, and not simply in historical ones. 108 The main hypotexts of the Marcan Gospel are also revealed already at its beginning. The surprising opening phrase ‘the beginning of the gospel’ (ἀρχὴ 104 Cf. D. Wördemann, Das Charakerbild im bíos nach Plutarch und das Christusbild im Evangelium nach Markus (SGKA 1.19; Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn [et al.] 2002), 287-290. 105 For a description of such features, see e.g. R. A. Burridge, ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371-391 (esp. 378-388). 106 Cf. also D. E. Aune, ‘Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (WUNT 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 145-175 (esp. 166-168). 107 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 227-274; id., Constructing, 135-140. 108 Cf. C.-A. Steiner, ‘Le lien entre le prologue et le corps de l’évangile de Marc’, in D. Marguerat and A. Curtis (eds.), Intertextualités: Le Bible en échos (MdB 40; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 161-184 (esp. 178-184); P. Phillips, ‘Biblical Studies and Intertextuality: Should the Work of Genette and Eco Broaden our Horizons?’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (NTM 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 35-45 (esp. 40); S. Alkier, Neues Testament (UTB Basics; A. Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2010), 164-165.

98

Chapter 2

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου: Mk 1:1) is not a paratextual title of the Marcan work (diff. Lk 1:1; Mt 1:1), 109 but rather an allusion to ‘the beginning of the gospel’ which was proclaimed by Paul in the whole world (cf. Phlp 4:15). 110 However, in difference to Phlp 4:15, the opening statement of the Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:1) locates the beginning of the (essentially Pauline) gospel not in Macedonia but in Judaea, in order to illustrate the pattern of spreading of the gospel of Christ, as it was sketched by Paul in Rom 15:19. 111 The gospel itself is characterized in Mk 1:1 as ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), an expression which alludes to the typically Pauline formula ‘the gospel of Christ’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ: 1 Cor 9:12; 2 Cor 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; 10:14; Rom 15:19; Gal 1:7; Phlp 1:27). The full title ‘Jesus Christ’ (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός) is also typically Pauline (1 Thes 1:1 etc.). Likewise, the opening statement ‘As it is written…’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 1:2), used to introduce an explicit scriptural quotation, is typically Pauline (2 Cor 9:9; Rom 1:17; 3:4; 4:17; 8:36 etc.). The Pauline letters therefore constitute the most important hypotext of the Marcan Gospel. In the essential part of his narrative presentation of Jesus Christ the Son of God, which may be termed ‘mission and opposition narrative’ (Mk 1:1-15:15), Mark sequentially reworked the contents of Paul’s most important letters: Gal 1:1-6:15 (in Mk 1:1-7:37), 1 Cor 1:1-12:27 (in Mk 8:1-10:45), Gal 2:1 thematically combined with Rom 9:1-15:33 (in Mk 10:46-12:44), and Gal 2:2-14 thematically combined with 1 Thes 1:10-5:24 (in Mk 13:1-15:15). The concluding ‘death, burial, and resurrection narrative’ (Mk 15:16-16:8) was composed on the basis of 1 Cor 15:3-4 and Phlp 2:6-11, with the use of several other Pauline texts. 109 Cf. A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007), 16-17. 110 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999), 133; J. Svartvik, ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (LNTS 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49 (esp. 34). 111 It should be noted that the opening statement Mk 1:1 is quite exceptional in the Marcan narrative in that, because of its having two distinct and easily recognizable functions (introducing the Marcan narrative, and referring to Paul and his letters), it can be regarded as really ‘sylleptic’ and consequently ‘compulsory’ in its impelling the reader to pursue the search for the intertext of the Pauline writings, as it may be expressed in terms of Michael Riffaterre’s theory of intertextuality: cf. M. Riffaterre, ‘Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual Drive’, in M. Worton and J. Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and Practices (Manchester University: Manchester · New York 1990), 5678 (esp. 71, 75-77).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

99

The way of reworking of Pauline ideas in the Marcan Gospel greatly differs from pericope to pericope. At times, Mark preserved much of the original Pauline vocabulary (cf. e.g. Mk 9:14-29 and 1 Cor 3:1-17: πνεῦμα, *πιστ, πῦρ, οὐκ *ἠδυνήθη; Mk 13:32-37 and 1 Thes 5:1-10: ἡμέρα, καιρός, γρηγορέω, ἔρχεται, *νύξ, *αἰφν, καθεύδω), whereas at times he merely alluded to the contents of the structurally corresponding sections of Paul’s letters (cf. e.g. Mk 4:35-5:20 and Gal 1:21; Mk 7:24-37 and Gal 5:22-6:15). The evangelist did not refrain from quite creative reworking of Paul’s ideas, at times with a great sense of humour (e.g. Mk 9:18c-e: a sick person foaming from the mouth and grinding the teeth; cf. 1 Cor 3:2-3: giving to drink milk and not chewable food because of envy and strife in the community). Although it is at times quite difficult to trace the intertextual links of the Marcan story to the structurally corresponding sections of the letters of the Apostle (cf. e.g. Mk 1:16-3:35 and Gal 1:17-20; Mk 8:10-33 and 1 Cor 1:12-25), the procedure of strictly sequential and not haphazard reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters can be traced even within minor sections of the Marcan Gospel, especially in its latter parts. For example, Mk 9:33-41 is a result of an almost consistently sequential reworking of the most important ideas of the Pauline text 1 Cor 4:1-21: considering (*λογίζομαι: Mk 9:33d; cf. 1 Cor 4:1), a house (*οἰκο: Mk 9:33b; cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2), judging before time (Mk 9:33d-34; cf. 1 Cor 4:5), being puffed up against one another (Mk 9:34; cf. 1 Cor 4:6-8), the Apostles being last and despised by everyone (ἔσχατος, πάντων: Mk 9:35; cf. 1 Cor 4:9-13), beloved children (*παιδ: Mk 9:36; cf. 1 Cor 4:14-15), imitating (Mk 9:37; cf. 1 Cor 4:16), a child who was sent (Mk 9:37; cf. 1 Cor 4:17), a servant who was faithful to the distant Lord in a hostile environment (Mk 9:38; cf. 1 Cor 4:17-18), hostile words and God-given power (*λογ, δύναμις: Mk 9:39; cf. 1 Cor 4:19-20), a threat (Mk 9:40a; cf. 1 Cor 4:21b), and coming in Christ-like gentleness (Mk 9:41; cf. 1 Cor 4:21c). Similarly, Mk 12:14-17 sequentially alludes to the Pauline text Rom 13:5-7 with its ideas of being subject to civil (i.e. Roman) authorities because of both compulsion and conscience (Mk 12:14; cf. Rom 13:5), paying taxes collected from everyone (φόρος/φέρω: Mk 12:14-16; cf. Rom 13:6-7), 112 paying what is due (ἀποδίδωμι: Mk 12:17; cf. Rom 13:7a), and fulfilling both financial and social-religious obligations (Mk 12:17; cf. Rom 13:7b-e).

112 The reference to the Roman monetary unit (δηνάριον: Mk 12:15), which was not normally used in Palestine in Jesus’ times, strengthens the hypertextual link of Mk 12:1417 to the Letter to the Romans.

100

Chapter 2

Likewise, the ideas and at times also vocabulary of Mk 13:24-31 in a consistently sequential way allude to those of 1 Thes 3:10-4:18: the end of suffering, seeking human faces and the right way in darkness by day and by night, and being strengthened in faith (Mk 13:24-25; cf. 1 Thes 3:10-13a); the glorious Parousia of the Lord with his elected (μετά: Mk 13:26-27; cf. 1 Thes 3:13b); continuous growth until the time determined by God, and being soft/gentle and decent according to a ‘parable’ concerning fig leaves (φύλλα + συκῆς: Mk 13:28a-c; cf. 1 Thes 4:1-12 with Gen 3:7 LXX); enjoying new life after winter-like sleeping in the earth, and hoping to be led out (Mk 13:28d-29; cf. 1 Thes 4:13-14); saying the word of the Lord (λέγω: Mk 13:30a; cf. 1 Thes 4:15a); the hope of the present generation to see the Parousia (Mk 13:30bc; cf. 1 Thes 4:15bc); the passing nature of heaven and earth (οὐρανός: Mk 13:31a; cf. 1 Thes 4:16-17: only clouds will remain); and the eschatological value of the Lord’s words (λόγοι: Mk 13:31b; cf. 1 Thes 4:18). The quotation from Is 40:3 LXX, which is introduced in Mk 1:3 in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of the gospel as promised beforehand by the prophets (Rom 1:2), and which is surprisingly conflated in Mk 1:2 with Exod 23:20 LXX in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of an ‘angel’ proclaiming the gospel (Gal 1:8; cf. Rom 10:14-16), reveals the second important hypotext of the Marcan narrative: the sacred Scriptures of Israel. Extensive use of Jewish scriptural motifs (and not of simply historical reminiscences) is evident throughout the entire Marcan work. It is clear that scriptural quotations and allusions do not merely add a Jewish ‘flavour’ to the Marcan story, but rather they are essential hypotextual elements of numerous sections of the Marcan narrative (e.g. Mk 1:11-13; 6:34.39-43; 7:24-30; 9:2-8; 11:2-10; 13:7-8.14-27; 15:24-38). 113 For this reason, they constitute another major limitation to the historicity of the content of the Marcan Gospel. 114 The initial presentation of John the Baptist in the Marcan Gospel (Mk 1:4-6) reveals the third important hypotext of the Marcan narrative, namely the works of Flavius Josephus. In Mk 1:4-6, the evangelist conflated various ideas which were borrowed from Josephus’ accounts concerning various para-messianic characters: John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116-119), Theudas (Ἰορδάνης ποταμός,

113 Cf. e.g. A. Y. Collins, Mark, 150-153, 319-326, 366-367, 416-427, 513-520, 605-615, 745-763. 114 Accordingly, this limitation cannot be adequately explained in terms of mere ‘harmony between event and word’, pace J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, Vom Einzug in Jerusalem bis zur Auferstehung (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011), 227.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

101

prophet: Ant. 20.97; cf. also Mk 11:32), and anonymous pretenders who led the crowd into the wilderness (*ἔρημ: B.J. 2.259; Ant. 20.167, 188). 115 Similarly, in order to illustrate the Pauline text Gal 2:6-9.11-14, in Mk 6:1727 the evangelist reworked Josephus’ stories concerning Herod Antipas’ marriage with Herodias (Ant. 18.109-116) and concerning the death of John the Baptist (Ant. 18.116-119) 116 in such a way that in the resulting narrative John surprisingly died before Jesus (Mk 6:14-29 diff. Jos. Ant. 18.63-64, 116-119), 117 and moreover, he died somewhere in Galilee and not in Machaerus (Mk 6:21 diff. Jos. Ant. 18.119). Likewise, the particular idea of κορβᾶν translated as δῶρον (Mk 7:11) was most probably borrowed from Jos. Ant. 4.73, and the motif of Zebedee (Ζεβεδαῖος: Mk 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35) most probably originates from Jos. Ant. 5.33. Besides, Mark used several, otherwise nowhere (or only rarely) attested, for example Semitic names exactly in the Greek forms which appear in Josephus’ works: e.g. Ζεβεδαῖος (Mk 1:19-20; 3:17; 10:35; cf. Jos. Ant. 5.33), Καφαρναούμ (Mk 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; cf. Jos. B.J. 3.519), Γερασηνοί (Mk 5:1; cf. Jos. B.J. 2.480 etc.), ∆εκάπολις (Mk 5:20; 7:31; cf. Jos. B.J. 3.446), Ἡρωδιάς (Mk 6:17.19.22; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.110), Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής (Mk 6:25; 8:28; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.116), Βηθσαϊδά (Mk 6:45; 8:22; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.28), κορβᾶν (Mk 7:11; cf. Jos. Ant. 4.73 etc.), and Σαδδουκαῖοι (Mk 12:18; cf. Jos. B.J. 2.119 etc.). Moreover, the particular geographical pattern of the movements of the main narrative character (Judaea → intense activity in Galilee → [no particular activity in Judaea] → Jerusalem) seems to emulate Josephus’ selfpresentation in his Vita.

115 See above, 17-18 (Subsection 1.1.1.1). 116 For a possible hypertextual use of other stories in Mk 6:17-27, especially Herodotus, Hist. 9.108-113 (an oriental king in love with his brother’s wife, the woman’s daughter pleasing the king, a general oath which could not be refused, the woman’s vengeance, the king’s birthday feast, demanding a living person, the demanded person respected, the demanded person’s head mutilated, the king’s soldiers killing the person involved, etc.), see R. A. Culpepper, ‘Mark 6:17-29 in Its Narrative Context: Kingdoms in Conflict’, in K. R. Iverson and C. W. Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (SBLRBS 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 145-163 (esp. 148-152). 117 It should be noted that in order to argue that the death of John the Baptist took place before the death of Jesus, Bruce Chilton has to conjecture that Herod Antipas’ visit to Rome, which is referred to in Jos. Ant. 18.110-111, in reality took place by the time of Jos. Ant. 18.36: cf. B. Chilton, ‘John the Baptist: His Immersion and his Death’, in S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross (eds.), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (JSNTSup 234; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 25-44 (esp. 4243).

102

Chapter 2

All these facts imply that in his narrative Mark creatively used Josephus’ Bellum and Antiquitates, and probably also Vita and Contra Apionem, in order to provide his post-Pauline ‘Jesus’ narrative with a Palestinian geographicalhistorical-cultural background. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that Flavius Josephus was at least in AD 70-80 regarded as an imperial ‘specialist’ on Jewish matters, and that well-known Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius also creatively used Josephus’ works as sources of information concerning Jewish matters in the Roman Empire. Accordingly, Mark’s knowledge of the realities of Palestine of the first century AD did not originate from Palestinian Christian oral traditions, but it was mainly acquired from the writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. This fact, combined with Mark’s highly intertextual way of composing his work, implies that the Marcan Gospel, which was written after the publication of the works of Flavius Josephus, so presumably c. AD 100-110, was not based on Palestinian, non-Pauline traditions concerning the activity of the historical Jesus. Consequently, it should not be regarded as an independent source for reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus. This fact does not mean that the Marcan Gospel, together with the other canonical Gospels, does not present a true image of Jesus. Being a disciple of Paul, the evangelist evidently followed the Apostle’s hermeneutic rule: ‘Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know [him in that way]’ (2 Cor 5:16).118 If the evangelist tried to write a real biography of the earthly, Palestinian Jesus, he would have violated this important hermeneutictheological principle. For this reason, he preferred to create a narrative image of the risen Christ (‘If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty’: 1 Cor 15:14), who is personally identical with the historical Jesus, and who is present in the post-Pauline Church, especially in the Eucharist. In this sense, the Gospel’s image of Jesus Christ is reliable and true.

2.6.2 The Gospel of Luke In difference to the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke appears to be a true ancient biography (βίος, vita) of Jesus Christ. 119 It contains a prologue (Lk 1:1-4), a description of Jesus’ ancestry (Lk 1:5-80; 3:23-38) and of his birth (Lk 2:120), a reference to his childhood (Lk 2:21-40) and to something equivalent to his 118 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 443-444. 119 For a description of the features of ancient biography, see e.g. R. A. Burridge, ‘Biography’, 378-388.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

103

education (Lk 2:41-52), references to his virtues and traits of character (Lk 4:130 etc.), some topical organization of his sayings and opinions concerning him (Lk 6:20-8:3; 9:51-19:28; 24:13-49 etc.), a literary conclusion (Lk 24:50-53), etc. Moreover, the prologue to the Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:1-4) apparently confirms the impression that this writing is a truly historical account of the life of Jesus Christ. The evangelist, having mentioned his literary precursors (Lk 1:1a), pointed to reliable sources of his knowledge of ‘the events which had been fulfilled among us’ (Lk 1:1b-2) and to his own effort to describe everything accurately and reliably (Lk 1:3-4). Prologues which are quite similar to that of the Lucan Gospel can be found in Josephus’ works: Bellum, Antiquitates, and Contra Apionem. In fact, since Luke in his literary activity evidently creatively used the works of Josephus, 120 it can be argued that also in the prologue to his Gospel he consciously emulated the literary prologues of the well-known Jewish historian. 121 From the prologue to Josephus’ Bellum (B.J. 1.1-3), Luke borrowed much characteristic vocabulary: *ἐπειδή (Lk 1:1; cf. B.J. 1.1; cf. also 1.17), *ἀνα- (referring to writing: Lk 1:1; cf. B.J. 1.1), *τάσσω (referring to writing: Lk 1:1; cf. B.J. 1.3; cf. also 1.17), *διήγη (Lk 1:1; cf. B.J. 1.1), πράγματα (Lk 1:1; cf. B.J. 1.1-2), *ἀκριβ (Lk 1:3; cf. B.J. 1.2; cf. also 1.17), *γράφω (Lk 1:3; cf. B.J. 1.1). Moreover, from B.J. 1.1-3 (cf. also 1.17) Luke borrowed the particular idea that many people before him had composed some narratives concerning the things which had recently happened. However, whereas in B.J. 1.1-3 the corrective intention of the author is evident and explicit (Many have written, but not accurately… Therefore I resolved), the logic of Lk 1:1-4 is somewhat strange (‘Since many have undertaken to compose… I also resolved to write accurately’), thus betraying the procedure of not entirely consistent literary reworking.122 The differences between the prologues of Josephus and Luke mainly result from the fact that Luke, unlike Josephus, evidently did not want to undermine the credibility of the Christian writings which had been composed before his Gospel. Consequently, Luke’s reference to many accounts (διηγήσεις) on the

120 Cf. S. Mason, Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2009), 373; B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 276, 281-283, 291, 296, 306, 314-315, 334, 346, 359, 366, 372 n. 214, 383-387, 392 n. 251, 396-397; id., Constructing, 142-144, 148. 121 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 142, 148. 122 For an analysis of not easily perceivable inconsistencies, logical errors, and somewhat surprising features as effects of literary reworking, see id., Q or not Q?, 201-202; cf. also id., Retelling, 22.

104

Chapter 2

same topic, which existed before his own work (Lk 1:1), should be regarded as a literary emulation of Josephus’ reference to many stories (διηγήματα) which existed before his own work (B.J. 1.1-2; cf. also 1.17), and not as a reference to many pre-Gospel works which concerned the historical Jesus. The prologue to Josephus’ historiographic Antiquitates, together with its references to the author’s credibility and to previous accounts (Ant. 1.1-4; cf. 1.17), also functioned as a source of much vocabulary which was used in the prologue to the Lucan Gospel: *τάξ (Lk 1:1; cf. Ant. 1.17), *διηγ (Lk 1:1; cf. Ant. 1.4), πράγματα (Lk 1:1; cf. Ant. 1.3), κἀμοί (Lk 1:3; cf. Ant. 1.4), *ἀκριβ (Lk 1:3; cf. Ant. 1.17), γράφω (Lk 1:3; cf. Ant. 1.4). Likewise, in the prologues to the two volumes of his literary-rhetorical work, that is to the Gospel (Lk 1:1-4) and to the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:12), Luke emulated the prologues to the two books of Josephus’ Contra Apionem (C.Ap. 1.1-5; 2.1-7). For this reason, it is reasonable to argue that Luke’s address to the otherwise unknown, most excellent (κράτιστε) Theophilus (Lk 1:3; cf. Acts 1:1) emulates Josephus’ address to his benefactor, most excellent (κράτιστε) Epaphroditus (C.Ap. 1.1; cf. 2.1). Luke’s reworking consisted in substituting the potentially scandalizing, entirely pagan name of Josephus’ benefactor Epaphroditus (C.Ap. 1.1; 2.1) with the name Theophilus (with no specific reference to any person involved: Lk 1:3; Acts 1:1), which was much more acceptable to the Jewish audience (cf. Jos. Ant. 17.78; 18.123; 19.297; 20.223). Likewise, the particular combination of Luke’s self-commendatory expressions (ἐπεχείρησαν + πραγμάτων + παρέδοσαν + παρηκολουθηκότι + ἀκριβῶς: Lk 1:1-3) alludes to the apologetic statements of Josephus (C.Ap. 1.53). If the prologue of the Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:1-4) has the features of literary reworking of the prologues to the works of Flavius Josephus, then what is the meaning of the Lucan reference to ‘the events which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed on to us’ (Lk 1:1-2)? A close analysis of this formula, despite its apparently clear meaning, reveals that it does not primarily refer to the deeds and words of the historical Jesus. The events which have been fulfilled ‘among us’ (ἐν ἡμῖν: Lk 1:1), that is in the realm of the life of Luke and his Greek-speaking readers, cannot simply be regarded as the events of the life of the Palestinian Jesus. 123 They should rather be understood as the incidents which took place during the mission of Paul and his followers: especially the events which were referred to in Paul’s 123 Pace M. Bauspieß, Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte (ABIG 42; Evangelische: Leipzig 2012), 197-199.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

105

apostolic ‘accounts’ Gal 1:17-2:14; Rom 15:25-32 (cf. Lk 1:1; cf. also Lk 9:10; Acts 9:27; 12:17). 124 These events were only remotely related to the activity of the historical Jesus, but they directly shaped the faith of the Lucan readers (cf. Lk 1:4). Since these events were considered highly controversial in the early Church, Luke resolved to present them anew with rhetorically declared exactness, clarity, and credibility, but in fact in a highly sophisticated literary way, in order to prove conclusively the legitimacy of the Pauline teachings which concerned the theological-halachic impact of Jesus’ life, cross, and resurrection (cf. Lk 1:3-4). Likewise, Luke’s remark concerning ‘those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2) only apparently refers to the Twelve. 125 In fact, in Luke’s terminology, it was Paul (and not, for example, Peter or Mark) who fulfilled all the conditions of (a) spending his life ‘from the beginning’ (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς + *γενομεν) among his people and in Jerusalem (Lk 1:2; cf. Acts 26:4), (b) being an eyewitness of Christ (Lk 1:2; cf. Acts 9:17.27; 26:16; cf. also 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8), and (c) becoming a missionary servant (ὑπηρέτης) of the matters which were revealed to him (Lk 1:2; cf. Acts 26:16-18; cf. also 1 Cor 4:1). 126 Luke’s terminology is here evidently post-Pauline, but it also alludes to the self-commendatory expression of Flavius Josephus (αὐτόπτης… γενόμενος: Lk 1:2; cf. Jos. C.Ap. 1.55). The Lucan two-volume work, that is the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, rhetorically presents itself in an ethopoeic way as having been written by Titus. 127 This Pauline co-worker was the only Gentile Christian witness to Paul’s most difficult travel to Jerusalem and presumably also to Antioch (Gal 2:1-21). Consequently, Titus could have been presented by Luke in an ethopoeic-narrative way as a reliable transmitter of Peter’s and Paul’s apostolic tradition concerning Jesus and the early Church, as well as a reliable witness to at least some of the events which took place in Troas, Philippi, Jerusalem, Crete, Malta, and Rome (Lk 1:1-3; Acts 1:1; 16:10-16; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-28:16). This ethopoeic transmitter and witness could refer to the testimony of ‘those who

124 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 392, 399; id., Heirs, 88-107, 134. 125 Pace R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006), 123, who suggests that Lk 1:2 corresponds ‘rather precisely’ to Acts 1:21-22. 126 Cf. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001), 25; E. K. C. Wong, Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (NTOA 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 174. 127 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 121-124, 132; id., Constructing, 147.

106

Chapter 2

from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’ (Lk 1:2), and he could ‘follow again accurately’ (Lk 1:3) all ‘the events which have been fulfilled among us’ (Lk 1:1) in order to prove the legitimacy of the Pauline mission among the Gentiles (cf. Lk 1:4). For this reason, the suggested historical credibility of the author of the Lucan two-volume work (Lk 1:2-4; Acts 1:1) is in fact mainly based on the use of the literary-rhetorical procedures of (a) ethopoeia pointing to Titus and (b) hypertextual reworking of the self-commendatory and apologetic statements of Josephus (C.Ap. 1.47, 53, 55). Since the content of the Lucan Gospel resulted from a hypertextual reworking of the Pauline letters, especially those to the Galatians and to the Romans, following the internal order of their respective contents, 128 Luke’s statement concerning the preservation of an orderly sequence in his narrative (καθεξῆς: Lk 1:3) refers to the sequence of the contents of the main Pauline letters, and not the sequence of events of the life of the historical Jesus. The method of the composition of the Gospel of Luke is similar to that of the Gospel of Mark. Both works were written with the use of the same technique of creative, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of the most important letters of Paul the Apostle. However, in difference to Mark, Luke concentrated his efforts not on a general presentation of Paul’s ideas and activity, but on an allusive depiction of the most difficult and controversial aspect of the Apostle’s life, namely on Paul’s relationship with the Jerusalem church. For this reason, Luke adopted the Marcan procedure of repeated sequential hypertextual reworking of the content of Gal 2:1-14 (cf. Mk 6:1-7:5; 10:4615:15), and he developed it into that of sixfold hypertextual reworking of the Pauline texts which refer to the Apostle’s travels to Judaea and its surroundings: Gal 1:17-2:14 and Rom 15:25-32. 129 In particular, Luke creatively reworked Gal 1:17 in Lk 1:39-56, Gal 1:18-21 in Lk 2:1-40, Gal 1:22-24 in Lk 2:41-52, Gal 2:1-9 in Lk 3:1-4:15, Gal 2:11-14 in Lk 7:11-50, and Rom 15:25-32 in Lk 9:51-24:53. In such a way, in his Gospel, Luke composed six accounts of Jesus’ travels to Judaea and its surroundings. These accounts constitute or contain Luke’s main additions to the Marcan narrative. The first account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and back to Galilee can be found in Lk 1:39-56. In this fragment, the evangelist described Mary’s travel from Galilee to Judaea as the travel of Jesus the Lord (cf. Rom 10:9.12) to his Judaean ‘relative’ (Lk 1:36.41-44). In the Lucan Gospel, the account of this travel (Lk 1:39-45; cf. 1:5) is preceded by a Jewish-style historiographic pro128 Cf. id., Q or not Q?, 301-394. 129 Cf. id., Constructing, 141-145.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

107

logue (Lk 1:1-4); a Jewish-style calling scene (Lk 1:5-25), which alludes to Gal 1:1-14 (*ἀποστ, not by human commission, θαυμάζω, καλέω, *εὐαγγελ, ταράσσω, ἄγγελος, εὐαγγελίζομαι, Jewish piety); and an account of the revelation of God’s Son in the womb of the mother of the main narrative hero (Lk 1:26-39), which alludes to Gal 1:15-16 (κοιλία, μήτηρ, καλέω, χάρις, υἱός; cf. also Rom 1:1-5). Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that in the immediately following account Lk 1:39-56, which describes a hasty travel southward to the wilderness prophet John and to Aaron’s descendant Elizabeth (cf. Lk 1:5), but not to Jerusalem (!), Luke alluded to the immediately following text concerning Paul’s hasty travel to Arabia (Gal 1:17), a place which was regarded by Luke, in line with Paul’s ideas, as the place of Israel’s meeting with God in the wilderness (cf. Gal 4:25). This hypothesis is further corroborated by the fact that Luke only vaguely described the destination of Mary’s travel as a hill country (ὀρεινή: Lk 1:39), a reference which alludes to Paul’s understanding of Arabia as a mountainous region (ὄρος: Gal 4:25). The concluding reference to returning northward home (*ὑπέστρεψ εἰς: Lk 1:56) alludes to the concluding remark Gal 1:17c. The second account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and back to Galilee (Lk 2:140) contains several sequentially organized allusions to the subsequent text Gal 1:18-21. Luke depicted this travel from a northern city in post-Pauline terms as having been caused by a ruler of Syria (Lk 2:2; cf. Gal 1:18 with 2 Cor 11:32), which resulted in the well-known historical problem of the date of the census under Quirinius (Lk 2:2 diff. Jos. Ant. 18.2-3, 26).130 Two other Pauline ideas, namely those of insufficient hospitality on the part of Jewish Christian apostles (Gal 1:18-19) and questioned table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers (Gal 2:12), were alluded to by Luke by means of the narratively surprising images of not finding any lodging place in the Judaean town and placing Jesus in a manger (Lk 2:7; cf. 12:37; 13:29; 22:11). The idea of a limited (but not stated explicitly; diff. e.g. Acts 1:3) number of days (ἡμέραι: Lk 2:22) was borrowed from Gal 1:18 and conflated with scriptural motifs. 131 The somewhat strange Lucan ideas of presenting Jesus to God (Lk 2:22; diff. 2:23) and revealing the thoughts of many hearts (Lk 2:35) allude to Paul’s statements concerning his being in the presence of God and not lying (Gal 1:20). 130 The surprising idea of the first census (Lk 2:2) most probably alludes to Paul’s first travel to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18-19). 131 For this reason, it seems that the characters of shepherds (Lk 2:8-20) allude to the ‘shepherding’ character of Cephas (cf. 1 Pet 5:2), the ‘passing’ and ‘seeing’ character of Simeon (Lk 2:25-35) alludes to James, and the widowed virgin Anna (Lk 2:36-38) alludes to Jesus’ mother (cf. Gal 1:18-19).

108

Chapter 2

The concluding statements concerning travelling northward home (Lk 2:39-40) allude to Paul’s reference to Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21)132 because Cilicia was regarded by Luke as the location of the city of Tarsus (Acts 21:39; 22:3), which was well known in antiquity as a place of good education (cf. Strabo, Geogr. 14.5.13-15), and which was later presented by Luke as Paul’s hometown (Acts 21:39; 22:3). The third account, which presents the travel of twelve-year-old Jesus to Judaea and back to Galilee (Lk 2:41-52), alludes to the Pauline text Gal 1:22-24, which refers to rumours concerning Paul’s activity among the Gentiles, especially those concerning Paul’s preaching the faith in Christ’s resurrection (Gal 1:23; cf. 1 Cor 15:1-4 etc.), presented as regularly reaching Jerusalem for around fourteen years (Lk 2:41-42; cf. Gal 2:1). The Pauline ideas borrowed from Gal 1:22-24 were additionally conflated in Lk 2:41-52 with those borrowed from Jos. Vita 9. In particular, the narratively superfluous thought that Jesus was unknown to the Jews in Judaea (Lk 2:44-46) alludes to Gal 1:22. The somewhat strangely introduced idea that the Jews were hearing Jesus (ἀκούοντες: Lk 2:47; diff. 2:46) resulted from a narrative reworking of Gal 1:23 and Jos. Vita 9. The subsequent Lucan text concerning being united with the Father (Lk 2:49) alludes to Gal 1:24, which refers to glorifying God in Paul. The fourth account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and back to Galilee (Lk 3:14:15) alludes to the Pauline text Gal 2:1-9. The precise temporal reference Lk 3:1-2 (‘in the fifteenth year…’) originated from a reworking of its structurally correlated hypotext Gal 2:1 (‘after fourteen years’).133 The characters mentioned in Lk 3:1-2 allude to the characters mentioned in Gal 2:1-9, namely Paul (referred to as Tiberius: the ruler over the entire Gentile world), Titus (referred to as Pontius Pilate: the Roman military ruler over Judaea), Peter (referred to as Herod: the Jewish ruler: cf. Mk 3:6; 6:14-29; 8:15; 12:13), James (referred to as Philip: second in importance, a brother), John (referred to as Lysanias: the third tetrarch of lesser importance), and Barnabas (referred to as Annas and Caiaphas: the Levites: cf. Acts 4:36). The idea of a revelation of God’s word to John

132 More precisely, Lk 2:39 (with its reference to the ‘city’ of Nazareth, which already previously alluded to the city of Damascus; cf. also Lk 2:51) alludes to Syria, and Lk 2:40 (with its reference to the main character acquiring wisdom; cf. also Lk 2:52) alludes to Cilicia. 133 Accordingly, the chronological remarks in Lk 3:1-2 are not intended to locate the narrated events at a particular point of time, as the evidently non-historical references to Lysanias and Annas clearly show. The narrative aporia in Lk 3:1-2, which is easily perceivable especially in the case of two Jerusalem high priests presented as officiating at the same time, directs the attention of the reader to a non-historical meaning of the text.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

109

(Lk 3:2) is a reworking of the Pauline idea of a particular revelation (Gal 2:2a). Among Luke’s additions to the corresponding Marcan text (Mk 1:1-11), the fragment Lk 3:10-11 presents the content of Paul’s gospel which was preached among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2b), in particular the exhortation to share goods with the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (cf. e.g. Rom 15:25-28). The subsequent fragment Lk 3:12-14, with its references to tax collectors and soldiers, alludes to Paul’s meeting with the Jerusalem ‘pillars’ (Gal 2:2c), who demanded from him another, compulsory contribution for Jewish Christians (Gal 2:10a; diff. 1 Cor 9:7), and who apparently tried to compel Titus to be circumcised (Gal 2:3). The statement Lk 3:17 resulted from a creative reworking of the idea of ‘winnowing’ false brothers who came in beside (Gal 2:4). The subsequent statement Lk 3:18, with its surprising reference to John as proclaiming the gospel (εὐαγγελίζομαι), is a reworking of Gal 2:5. The oddly added statement Lk 3:19-20 alludes to Gal 2:6-8 (cf. also Gal 2:11-14), with its ideas of Paul’s rebuking the Jerusalem ‘pillars’, who were described by the Apostle as led by Peter (already in the Gospel of Mark alluded to by the character of Herod: cf. Mk 6:17-29) and at a certain time also accompanied by Barnabas (already in Mk 6:17-29 alluded to by the character of Herodias). The entire section Lk 3:21-4:13 resulted from an elaborate reworking of Paul’s idea of acknowledging the grace which had been given to him (Gal 2:9a), namely that of the revelation of God’s Son in him (Gal 1:16; cf. also Rom 1:3-4). The narrative summary Lk 4:14-15 alludes to the positive content of Gal 2:9b-e. The fifth account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and back to Galilee (Lk 7:11-50) alludes to the Pauline text Gal 2:11-14. The Lucan account is preceded by a detailed reworking of the themes of poverty (πτωχοί), doing exactly the same (αὐτό + ποιέω), doing exactly what one was told to do (ποιέω + τοῦτο), loving the enemies, forgiveness, generosity, goodness, and outreach to the Gentiles (Lk 6:20-7:10), ideas which at least implicitly emerge from the condensed Pauline remark Gal 2:10. The reference to Jesus and his disciples’ short stay in a town located in the Judaean-Idumaean borderland (Ναΐν: Lk 7:11.17; cf. Jos. B.J. 4.517), which was strangely presented as located north of Israel (Lk 7:1216; cf. 1 Kgs 17:10-24), alludes to Paul’s coming to the Gentile city of Antioch (Gal 2:11a). The characters of the disciples and envoys of John, who did not understand the newness of Jesus’ proclamation (Lk 7:18-23), refer to the coming of the people from James (Gal 2:12a). The sharp rebuke in Lk 7:24-28.30 probably alludes to Paul’s rebuke for Cephas’ ‘royal’ wavering (Gal 2:11b-12). The subsequent rebuke, which was generally addressed to ‘this generation’ (Lk 7:31-35), resulted from a negative narrative reworking of Gal 2:12b-14 with its ideas of (a) the Jews (in general) and Barnabas’ play-acting and (b) eating or not eating together with others. The account concerning Jesus’ double rebuke for

110

Chapter 2

the Pharisaic behaviour of Simon at a common meal (Lk 7:36-50) alludes to Paul’s double (personal and theological) rebuke to Cephas in Gal 2:11-12.1421. 134 The sixth account, which presents Jesus’ travel to Judaea and then towards Rome and towards the heaven (Lk 9:51-24:53), alludes to Paul’s second travel to Jerusalem, which was referred to in Rom 15:25-32. In particular, the account of Jesus’ firm resolve to go to Jerusalem (πορεύεσθαι εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ: Lk 9:51) is thematically and linguistically based on Rom 15:25a. The Pauline idea of ministering to the saints (διακονέω: Rom 15:25b) is narratively reworked in Lk 12:37 (cf. 17:8; 22:26-27). The motif of fellowship with the poor in Jerusalem (πτωχοί: Rom 15:26) is used in Lk 14:12-14.21. The ideas of being indebted and of repaying one’s debt by rendering service (ὀφείλω: Rom 15:27) reappears in Lk 16:5.7; 17:10. The Pauline motif of a spiritual combat (Rom 15:30) is narratively reworked in Lk 22:36-38.49-51. The concluding section Lk 24:13-53 with its ideas of (a) travelling to the colony of the Romans (Ἐμμαοῦς: Lk 24:13; cf. Jos. B.J. 7.217) 135 and farther west (Lk 24:28); (b) explaining the essence of the gospel in Jewish Christian scriptural terms (Lk 24:26-27.32.44-47); (c) having joyful and refreshing meals together, and in principle eating everything, but not eating meat with Jewish Christians (Lk 24:30.35.41-43); (d) preaching to the Jews and to all the nations (Lk 24:47); and (e) blessing the believers (*εὐλογ: Lk 24:50-51) alludes to Paul’s travel to the predominantly Jewish Christian church of Rome (as located on his way westward to Spain) and to his intended activity there (Rom 15:23-24.28c-29.32; cf. also Rom 12:1-6.14-23). The sixth account of Jesus’ travel to Judaea and then towards Rome and towards the heaven (Lk 9:51-24:53) includes Luke’s greatest interpolation into the Marcan story, a section which is traditionally called ‘travel narrative’ (Lk 9:5119:28). It was composed in a typically post-Pauline and post-Marcan way, namely as a sequential hypertextual reworking of the contents of the most important letters of Paul the Apostle. In particular, Luke creatively but strictly sequentially reworked the content of the Letter to the Galatians in Lk 9:51-16:17 and the content of the Letter to the Romans in Lk 16:18-19:28, with the use of

134 Cf. also P. N. Tarazi, Introduction, vol. 2, 66. 135 Cf. e.g. J. Nolland, Luke 18:35-24:53 (WBC 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993), 1201; D. L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2, 9:51-24:53 (BECNT; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996), 1908. Luke’s reference to Emmaus as distanced sixty and not thirty stadia from Jerusalem, together with the use of the name form Ἐμμαοῦς instead of Ἀμμαοῦς (Lk 24:13 diff. Jos. B.J. 7.217, but cf. Pliny the Elder, Nat. Hist. 5.70), alert the reader to the allusive meaning of Emmaus as in reality referring to the city of Rome.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

111

various motifs which were borrowed from the sacred Scriptures of Israel, the Pauline letters, the Gospel of Mark, the works of Josephus, and other widely known Jewish and Hellenistic works (e.g. the Apocalypse of Weeks, the socalled ‘Damascus Document’, Herodotus’ Historiae, and Plato’s Respublica). 136 Accordingly, Luke used various earlier works in order to present in his Gospel a new interpretation of Paul’s relationships with the Jerusalem church. This interpretation was certainly not as conciliatory as that of the Acts of the Apostles. However, with the use of several Jewish literary works, Luke created in his Gospel an image of Jesus who repeatedly travelled to Judaea and its surroundings, and who fulfilled the prophecies which had been given to the people of Israel, an idea which foreshadowed the Acts’ ethopoeic presentation of Paul as repeatedly travelling to Jerusalem and always acting in agreement with the leaders of its holy community. For these reasons, the Gospel of Luke, which was certainly written after the time of the composition of the works of Flavius Josephus and probably a decade after the composition of the Gospel of Mark, so c. AD 110-120, 137 was evidently not based on Palestinian, non-Pauline traditions concerning the activity of the historical Jesus. Consequently, the Lucan Gospel, similarly to the Gospel of Mark, should not be regarded as an independent source for reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus.

2.6.3 The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Matthew was for centuries regarded as the most Jewish one among the canonical Gospels. It was attributed to the Jewish apostle Matthew, apparently an eyewitness of numerous events of the life of the Palestinian Jesus.

136 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 298-390. Cf. also the hypertextual use of Plato, Resp. 614 cd, 615 e in Lk 16:23-26. 137 Cf. A. I. Baumgarten, ‘The “Outreach” Campaign of the Ancient Pharisees: There is no such thing as a Free Lunch’, in B. Isaac and Y. Sharar (eds.), Judaea-Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (TSAJ 147; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 1128 (esp. 27). Cf. also R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20 (suggesting the date c. AD 115 for Acts); M. Müller, ‘Die Lukasschriften und die Septuagint’, in S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund (eds.), Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.-25. Juli 2010 (WUNT 268; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 465-479 (esp. 477: c. AD 120-130 for LkActs).

112

Chapter 2

For this reason, it was regarded as the earliest and historically most reliable Gospel. The most recent research on the synoptic problem, which was combined with the research on the features of Judaism of the first century AD, has radically challenged this traditional understanding of the Matthean Gospel. The Matthean work only appears to be a very Jewish Gospel. In fact, it is an artificially Hebraized and ‘scripturalized’ version of the Gospels of Mark and Luke. 138 The most striking feature of the Gospel of Matthew, in comparison to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, consists in the particular organization of its material. A close analysis of this organization reveals that it mainly resulted from a sequential hypertextual reworking of the content of the Acts of the Apostles. 139 In order to adapt the already-established Marcan story about Jesus’ life to the theologically more developed interpretation of the history of the propagation of the gospel in the Jewish and in the Gentile world, as it had been presented in the Acts of the Apostles, Matthew made numerous changes in the Marcan order of material. In particular, he inserted much material which was mostly borrowed from the Gospel of Luke, but also from the post-Pauline pseudepigraphic letters which were attributed to the Jewish Christian leaders (the Letter of James and the First Letter of Peter), into the Marcan gospel story, especially into its initial and concluding parts, which were considered by Matthew thematically most ‘Jewish’. Likewise, the evangelist composed several ‘Petrine’, but in fact postPauline pericopes in the middle, most ecclesiological section of his Gospel (Mt 14-20). Besides, Matthew made several relocations of the Marcan material within the Marcan narrative framework, especially in Mt 3-13, 140 in order to

138 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 418-438; id., Constructing, 153-157. 139 Cf. id., ‘Magowie ze Wschodu: za gwiazdą, przez Synaj, do Jezusowego Kościoła (Mt 2,1-12)’, in R. Bartnicki (ed.), Studia z biblistyki, vol. 8 (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 25-38 (esp. 31-33). For a different but related view, namely that Mt 1:1-17:20 resulted from a creative, almost consistently sequential reworking of the Letter to the Romans, see T. L. Brodie, ‘Countering Romans: Matthew’s Systematic Distillation and Transformation of Paul’, in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (BETL 226; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 521542 (esp. 524-541). 140 Cf. W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988), 101-103; G. Häfner, ‘Das MatthäusEvangelium und seine Quellen’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (BETL 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 25-71 (esp. 63-69).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

113

achieve a closer correspondence of his work to the thematic-narrative structure of the Acts of the Apostles. By means of these numerous insertions into the Marcan narrative framework, as well as the relocations of the Marcan material, a complex internal organization of the content of the Gospel of Matthew was achieved. Consequently, the sequence of the most important themes, literary motifs, and ideas of the Gospel of Matthew, combined with the particular changing pattern of the geographical location of the narrative scenes of this Gospel, closely corresponds to that of the Acts of the Apostles. 1. Establishing a Jewish ‘rest’, which consisted of a limited number of believing but violently persecuted Jews in Judaea, which included four minor female characters with Mary the mother of Jesus among them, and which was accompanied by Gentiles who made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mt 1:1-2:12; 2:16-18; cf. Acts 1:1-8:3 with Lk 8:2-3; 24:10). 2. Persecutions which caused leaving Judaea and heading for Egypt with no visible evangelistic success there (Mt 2:13-15; cf. Acts 8:25-39). 3. Settling and beginning an ascetic and hidden life in a city which was located in the northern part of Israel (Mt 2:19-23; cf. Acts 8:40; cf. also Acts 21:89). 4. Light dawning by the way to the Gentiles, which led to a missionary call, conversion, and fasting (Mt 3:1-4:22; cf. Acts 9:1-19). 5. Outreach to the Jews and the Gentiles in the northern country of Syria (Mt 4:23-25; cf. Acts 9:20-22). 6. Powerful preaching in both Jewish and Hellenistic terms on a holy mountain (Mt 5:1-7:29; cf. Acts 9:26-29). 141 7. Healing activity among the Jews and the Gentiles who lived on the plain (Mt 8:1-17; cf. Acts 9:32-11:18). 8. Leaving the homeland and inaugurating a mission among the Gentiles who lived not far from the sea in the northern country which neighboured Israel (Mt 8:18-34; cf. Acts 11:19-26). 9. Going back to the Jewish ‘own’ (precisely: not native but chosen) hometown with mercy and respect for the ‘old’ (Mt 9:1-38; cf. Acts 11:27-30). 10. Mission of the Twelve among the Jews, which was hindered by violent Jewish persecutions (Mt 10:1-11:1; cf. Acts 12:1-17). 11. Preaching to the Jews elsewhere, with references to the wilderness, ancient prophets, and John the Baptist (Mt 11:2-15; cf. Acts 13:1-44). 141 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W. Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (Analecta Biblica Lublinensia 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137-145 (esp. 142-143).

114

Chapter 2

12. General rejection of the gospel which was preached to the Jews, a fact which culminated in the preachers’ leaving their towns (Mt 11:16-24; cf. Acts 13:45-14:7). 13. God-ordered but still synagogue-based mission among the Gentiles, which was hindered by the Jews (Mt 11:25-12:50; cf. Acts 14:1-20). 14. Coming back to the sea, preaching, and making a missionary report (Mt 13:1-52; cf. Acts 14:21-28). 15. Halachic disputes which resulted in Peter’s hesitant approval of the inclusion of the believing Gentiles in the Church (Mt 14:22-15:20; cf. Acts 15:135). 16. Mission among the Gentiles in communion with Peter (Mt 15:21-16:20; cf. Acts 15:36-19:20). 17. Gathering funds, ecclesiological teaching, and instructing the present coworkers and the future successors on a God-ordered way back to Jerusalem (Mt 16:21-20:34; cf. Acts 19:21-21:16; cf. also Rom 15:25-31). 18. Apologetic activity and teaching among the Jews in Jerusalem (Mt 21:126:46; cf. Acts 21:17-26). 19. Arrest in Jerusalem, general rejection by the Jews, and handing over of the main hero to the Romans: in particular to the Roman procurator, who had a Jewish-thinking wife (Mt 26:47-27:26; cf. Acts 21:27-24:27). 20. Miraculous triumph over the powers of death, which involved a natural disaster and which had important consequences for the guarding soldiers (Mt 27:62-28:10; cf. Acts 27:9-28:10). 21. Paying the guarding soldiers and ultimate Jewish rejection of the gospel (Mt 28:11-15; cf. Acts 28:16-27). 22. Prospect of an unhindered mission to the Gentiles worldwide (Mt 28:1620; cf. Acts 28:28-31). Some of these correspondences are obviously quite remote. However, some of them, for example the insertion of four minor female characters into the basically patriarchal list Mt 1:1-17 (cf. Acts 1:13-14), going to Egypt in Mt 2:13-15 (cf. Acts 8:25-39), textual modifications concerning the brightness of the sun in the quotation from Is 9:1 in Mt 4:16 (cf. Acts 9:3-18; 26:13), the surprising reference to ‘all Syria’ in Mt 4:24 142 (cf. Acts 9:20-22), the Petrine motifs in the central section Mt 14:22-16:20 (cf. Acts 15:7-11), the ecclesiological sermon (with the motifs of endangered sheep, Church sinners, and coveting money) in Mt 18:1-34 (cf. Acts 20:18-35), the surprising character of a Jewish-thinking wife of the Roman procurator in Mt 27:19 (cf. Acts 24:24), and the guarding 142 Cf. S. Freyne, ‘Matthew and Mark: The Jewish Contexts’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I, 179-203 (esp. 196).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

115

soldiers who obeyed orders and were later paid in Mt 27:62-66; 28:4.11-15 (cf. Acts 27:1-28:16), especially combined together, cannot be attributed to mere free redactional activity of Matthew. They rather imply that the Gospel of Matthew resulted from a systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of not only the Gospel of Mark, but also of the Acts of the Apostles. The Matthean Gospel is a highly ethopoeic work. Matthew applied the rhetorical technique of ethopoeia generally in the same way as it had been used in the Letter of James and in the First Letter of Peter, writings which functioned as important Matthean hypotexts. The resulting work is much more ‘Jewish’, and at times even anti-Pauline (in ethopoeic terms), than the evidently conciliatory narrative of Acts. One of the main differences between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles consists in the absence of any positive reference to Samaria in the Matthean Gospel (cf. e.g. Mt 10:5d diff. Acts 8:4-24). This notable difference reflects the discrepancy between the rhetorical aims of both works. Whereas the Acts of the Apostles was composed as an intentionally ‘pan-Israelite’ writing, the Gospel of Matthew was written as a distinctively ‘Jewish’ work, which understandably could not contain any positive reference to Samaria. Another important difference between the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles consists in different use of the Scriptures in both works. Whereas in the Acts of the Apostles, like in most other New Testament writings, the scriptural quotations were generally taken from the Septuagint, 143 Matthew’s use of the Scriptures was much more sophisticated. In general, Matthew tended to quote the Scriptures explicitly, instead of merely alluding to them (see e.g. Mt 1:18.21-23 diff. Lk 1:31). 144 Moreover, he adjusted the gospel stories to their most evident scriptural prototypes (see e.g. Mt 1:6-12 cf. 1 Chr 3:5.10-17 diff. Lk 3:27-31; Mt 21:5.7 [Jesus surprisingly sitting both on a donkey and on a colt] cf. Zech 9:9 diff. Mk 11:7 par. Lk 19:35). 145 For these reasons, his Gospel is explicitly ‘scriptural’; it is much more ‘scriptural’ than the corresponding works of Mark and Luke. 143 Cf. I. Howard Marshall, ‘Acts’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 513-606 (esp. 516-517). 144 This feature is most evident in Matthew’s (in fact post-Pauline) use of fulfilment quotations from the prophets, especially in the Matthean ‘Jewish sections’ (see e.g. Mt 4:1416; 8:17; 12:17-21 [cf. Mk 3:7-12]; 13:14-15.35; cf. also Mt 15:7-8 [borrowed from Mk 7:6]). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 421. 145 The use of the surprising phrase ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω (‘sat over’) in Mt 21:7c evidently resulted from a conflation of the ideas of Jesus’ sitting on a colt (Mk 11:7), sitting on cloaks (Lk 19:35), and mounting two animals (Zech 9:9 used in Mt 21:5.7a). This fact

116

Chapter 2

Besides, Matthew often rendered the scriptural texts in an artificially Hebraized textual form, which cannot be adequately explained in purely sourcecritical categories. 146 In fact, Matthew artificially Hebraized scriptural quotations in these sections of his Gospel which did not allusively refer to the mission among the Gentiles (especially in Mt 1-13; 21-25). 147 Consequently, notwithstanding the fact that the Gospel of Matthew conveys a number of distinctively post-Lucan ideas, especially those of Jewish–Gentile Church unity and a necessary transition of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles (and both these ecclesiological ideas are presented as authorized and overseen by the ethopoeic narrative character of Peter), the author of this Gospel, by means of the use of the technique of ethopoeia, evidently succeeded in composing a work which presents itself as distinctively Jewish Christian and, for this reason, apparently apostolic. Nevertheless, several details of the Matthean narrative, such as the absence of any reference to the Temple and to its priests in Mt 1-2 (in difference to the thematically related, earlier texts Lk 1-2 and Acts 1:1-6:7), and on the other hand, the presence of allusions to unclean Gentiles freely entering the area of the

evidently implies the Mk → Lk → Mt order of direct literary dependence, pace W. Kahl, ‘Erhebliche’, 39. 146 According to M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BETL 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004), 282, in the socalled Matthean special material (‘Sondergut’, in fact redactional), the evangelist used a particular version of the Septuagint, which had been partly revised in the light of the Hebrew text in Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, and Psalms, but which had not been revised in Deuteronomy. This hypothesis is implausible because in Mt 5:21.31 also fragments of Deuteronomy are quoted in textual forms which expand and modify the standard version of the Septuagint, and on the other hand, the quotation from Ps 8:3 in Mt 21:16 perfectly accords with the version of the Septuagint. Consequently, it was Matthew who partly Hebraized the Septuagintal version of his scriptural quotations (cf. e.g. Mt 27:46bd diff. Mk 15:34bd). 147 If the expansion of the quotation from Deut 8:3 LXX in Mt 4:4, which was borrowed from Lk 4:4, is put aside, there are only three Matthean redactional quotations which generally follow the version of the Septuagint: Mt 13:14-15 (which is identical to Acts 28:26-27 diff. Is 6:10b LXX, and consequently it was probably borrowed from Acts 28:26-27), Mt 18:16 (which slightly modifies Deut 19:15 LXX), and Mt 21:16e (which verbatim quotes Ps 8:3a LXX): cf. M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 271-274. In this context, it should be noted that the quotation in Mt 18:16 alludes to the Jerusalem accord ‘2 plus 3’, which concerned the mission among the Gentiles (cf. Gal 2:9), and that Mt 21:16 likewise alludes to the Gentiles’ praise of God. Accordingly, the forms of the Matthean quotations evidently correspond not to their original textual versions, but to their hypertextual-narrative functions within the Matthean work.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

117

Temple (Mt 21:14; diff. Lk 14:21) and erecting pagan symbols in the Jewish ‘holy place’ (ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ: Mt 24:15; cf. Acts 6:13; 21:28; diff. Mk 13:14) 148 suggest that the Gospel of Matthew was composed after the fall of the revolt of Simon bar Kosiba, so c. AD 135-140. Accordingly, the Gospel of Matthew, which is only apparently distinctively Jewish Christian, was not based on Palestinian, non-Pauline traditions concerning the activity of the historical Jesus. Consequently, the Matthean Gospel, similarly to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, should not be regarded as an independent source for reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus.

2.6.4 The Gospel of John The Gospel of John presents itself as a work which is based on a testimony of someone who had witnessed the most important events of Jesus’ life (Jn 21:24). However, a detailed analysis of the Fourth Gospel reveals that this self-presentation cannot be considered historically reliable. The first important hint at the fact that the Fourth Gospel cannot be simply regarded as a record of the activity of the historical Jesus is contained in the Gospel’s prologue (Jn 1:1-18). This introductory section refers the readers of the Gospel not so much to the facts concerning the historical Jesus, but rather to the word (Jn 1:1) which explains Jesus’ true identity and significance (Jn 1:14-18). Consequently, already at its beginning, the Fourth Gospel reveals that it should not be regarded as a biography of Jesus, but rather as a theological treatise concerning his person and significance for the believers and for the whole world. The second hint at the fact that the Fourth Gospel is not a simple historical work is contained in the Gospel’s epilogue (Jn 21:24-25). This concluding section presents the evangelist first as an eyewitness of the most important events of the life of the historical Jesus (Jn 21:24a-c) and thereafter as someone who merely had access to such a witness (Jn 21:24d-e). This evident contradiction suggests that the Fourth Gospel should be interpreted not in historical but in transhistorical terms, namely as a work which is intended to bridge the gap between the historical Jesus and the present situation of ‘us’, that is of all Christian readers of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Jn 1:14.16). Similarly to the Matthean Gospel, the Fourth Gospel resulted from an adaptation of the Marcan story about Jesus’ life to the theologically more developed interpretation of the history of the propagation of the gospel in the Jewish and in 148 Cf. É. Nodet, Le Fils de Dieu: Procès de Jésus et évangiles (Josèphe et son temps 4; Cerf: Paris 2002), 124, 146 n. 1.

118

Chapter 2

the Gentile world, as it had been presented in the Acts of the Apostles. Similarly to Matthew, John made numerous changes in the order of the Marcan narrative material. The most evident of them is the relocation of the episode concerning cleansing the Temple to the beginning of the Gospel story (Jn 2:13-22 diff. Mk 11:15-18 parr.) and the transposition of the account of the miraculous catch of fish to the end of the story (Jn 21:1-14 diff. Lk 5:1-11). In fact, the sequence of the most important themes, literary motifs, and ideas of the Fourth Gospel reflects that of the Acts of the Apostles. 149 1. The first ‘word/book’ (λόγος) and the testimony of John (Jn 1:1-34; cf. Acts 1:1-8). 2. Watching Jesus, two persons accompanying, coming home and remaining there, and forming the group of the main apostles (Jn 1:35-44; cf. Acts 1:9-14). 3. God-predestined choice of an additional disciple named ‘gift of God/Yahweh’ and his entering the group of the main apostles (Jn 1:45-51; cf. Acts 1:15-26). 4. Elapse of time, festival celebration, Mary’s prayer, miracle of new wine, signs leading to faith in Jesus, and Jesus’ brothers remaining together with other believers (Jn 2:1-12; cf. Acts 2:1-47). 5. The sign of miraculous raising, which revealed the power of Jesus’ resurrection and his authority in the Jerusalem Temple (Jn 2:13-22; cf. Acts 3:1-11). 6. Numerous signs which led many people to believe in the name of Jesus (Jn 2:23; cf. Acts 3:12-4:31). 7. Being distanced from the crowds and knowing hidden human thoughts without any witnesses (Jn 2:24-25; cf. Acts 4:32-5:13). 8. Numerous signs, night-time, and persuading an important Pharisaic leader (Jn 3:1-2; cf. Acts 5:14-42). 9. Superiority of people and speech endowed with the Spirit, an old man begetting in faith, heavenly wisdom, Moses in the wilderness, faith not restricted to Israel, rejection of the offer of salvation, and a zealous Jew who opposed Jesus (Jn 3:3-36; cf. Acts 6:1-8:3). 10. Leaving Judaea, evangelistic activity in Samaria, conversions in Samaria, the role of the apostles, and faith outside Judaea (Jn 4:1-45; cf. Acts 8:4-25). 11. Conversion of a Gentile royal official outside Judaea (Jn 4:46-54; cf. Acts 8:26-40).

149 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Narrative ‘We’, 39-121; id., Constructing, 159-162. Cf. also T. L. Brodie, The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach (Oxford University: New York · Oxford 1993), 116-120, 168-172.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

119

12. Conversion of a person who subsequently violated the law, his later recognition of Jesus, faith in Jesus’ divine sonship, and life-giving power of Jesus’ resurrection which prevailed over human death (Jn 5:1-47; cf. Acts 9:1-43). 13. Common meal, Jewish incomprehension of the significance of the common meal, Peter’s faith, and his leading role in the Church (Jn 6:1-71; cf. Acts 10:1-11:18). 14. Activity in a northern country, problematic travel from there to Jerusalem, plans to go to the Jews in the diaspora among the Greeks and also to the Greeks, and missionary outreach in the power of the Spirit (Jn 7:1-39; cf. Acts 11:19-13:4). 15. Jewish opposition, being a true or a false prophet, and blindness opposed to light (Jn 7:40-8:20; cf. Acts 13:5-12). 16. Going elsewhere, speaking to the Jews about Moses and Abraham, and Jewish rejection of the offer of the eternal life in Jesus (Jn 8:21-59; cf. Acts 13:13-46). 17. Light to those born blind who believed in Jesus and Jewish rejection of the message of Jesus (Jn 9:1-41; cf. Acts 13:47-52). 18. Numerous signs, gathering two kinds of believers in a single community, an attempt to stone the main narrative character, and his escape eastward to the neighbouring country (Jn 10:1-42; cf. Acts 14:1-7). 19. Miraculous raising of a man, which led to faith in Jesus (Jn 11:1-45; cf. Acts 14:8-28). 20. Pharisaic opposition which was in fact aroused by the main Jewish opponent, going to Jerusalem, reports concerning coming of Greeks to Jesus, and Jewish opposition again (Jn 11:46-12:50; cf. Acts 15:1-6). 21. Peter confronted with the issue of being unclean at the common meal and of acting contrary to God and Jesus’ will (Jn 13:1-17; cf. Acts 15:7-12). 22. Quoting Scripture, betrayal concerning the issue of participation in the common meal, departure of the betrayer who was related to Simon, and appearance of a particularly close disciple (Jn 13:18-30; cf. Acts 15:13-39). 23. Going to a region where the Twelve could not come, many places of dwelling not reserved for the Jews, ‘Philippian’ asking for the knowledge of God as the Father, and deeds and prayer in the name of Jesus as leading to faith (Jn 13:31-14:14; cf. Acts 15:40-16:40). 24. Keeping the commandments, and truth and resurrection (Jn 14:15-20; cf. Acts 17:1-34). 25. Keeping the commandments, dwelling with a Jew, revelation to the Jews, and Jewish rejection (Jn 14:21-24; cf. Acts 18:1-6). 26. Spiritual encouragement not to be afraid (Jn 14:25-29; cf. Acts 18:7-11).

120

Chapter 2

27. Appearance of a worldly ruler who had nothing in common with Jesus (Jn 14:30; cf. Acts 18:12-17). 28. Public display of love for God and of obedience to God, and apparent departure for another place (Jn 14:31; cf. Acts 18:18-23). 29. Correcting the faith of the believers (Jn 15:1-8; cf. Acts 18:24-28). 30. Full revelation of the content of faith and acting in the name of Jesus (Jn 15:9-17; cf. Acts 19:1-7). 31. Jewish persecutions and Jesus’ deeds, and a conflict with official Judaism and with the ‘world’ because of their not knowing God and of their erroneous worship of God (Jn 15:18-16:4; cf. Acts 19:8-20). 32. Resolve to go to the final destination, and grief but afterwards much joy because of the power of resurrection (Jn 16:5-24; cf. Acts 19:21-20:16). 33. Farewell speech and prayer for unity of the believers (Jn 16:25-17:26; cf. Acts 20:17-38). 34. Crossing water, coming to the place in which the disciples often gathered before, encountering the chief Jewish opponent, sacrifice of one person for the sake of the nation, and being accompanied by another disciple who was known to the Jews (Jn 18:1-18; cf. Acts 21:1-40). 35. Apologetic speech to the Jews and trial before the high priest Annas/Ananias (Jn 18:19-27; cf. Acts 22:1-23:9). 36. Being brought to the Roman courtyard, a hostile action early in the morning, the Jews not entering the Roman realm, and their religiously motivated refraining from eating (Jn 18:28; cf. Acts 23:10-14). 37. Going to the Jews outside the Roman realm early in the morning, Jewish baseless charge, proposal for the Jews to conduct the trial according to their laws, and Jewish resolve to kill the main narrative character (Jn 18:29-32; cf. Acts 23:15-24:9). 38. A promising dialogue with the Roman procurator, proposal of handing over of the prisoner to the Jews, the issue of Jewish kingship, and appellation to the superior authority of the emperor (Jn 18:33-19:12; cf. Acts 24:10-26:32). 39. Official verdict and handing over of the prisoner (Jn 19:13-16; cf. Acts 27:1). 40. Going to the place of execution, being guarded by soldiers, Roman respect for the prisoner, and company of the particularly close disciple again (Jn 19:17-27; cf. Acts 27:2-8). 41. Faith in miraculous salvation from almost certain death (Jn 19:28-20:31; cf. Acts 27:9-32). 42. The first ones swimming in the sea to the shore which was located not far from the ship, coming of all others (presumably including the particularly close disciple) to the shore, having an unexpected common breakfast by a fire,

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

121

saving all the (Gentile) ‘fish’ which were earlier ‘caught’ in the sea, and the intriguing supernatural identity of the main narrative character (Jn 21:1-14; cf. Acts 27:33-28:6). 43. Exercising authority, coming to Rome as a prisoner, pointing to being bound by the Romans, and remaining of the particularly close disciple for a long period of time (Jn 21:15-25; cf. Acts 28:7-31). Some of these correspondences seem to be quite remote. However, taken together, also at the linguistic level, they offer the best explanation of the differences between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels. The use of the rhetorical technique of ethopoeia in the Fourth Gospel is quite similar to its use in the Gospel of Matthew. Both works suggest to their readers that they were written by Jewish Christians who were well acquainted with the activity of the earthly Jesus. Whereas Matthew achieved this aim by adding to his work several apparently Jewish, Hebrew, and scriptural features, John resolved to present his writing as being based on a testimony of someone who had witnessed the most important events of Jesus’ life (Jn 21:24). 150 In order to create a narrative character of such a witness, John combined the features of the ethopoeic author of the First Letter of John, who allegedly had witnessed Jesus’ earthly life (cf. esp. 1 Jn 1:1-4), with the features of the ethopoeic character of the narrative ‘we’ from the Acts of the Apostles, who was allegedly a reliable transmitter of important apostolic traditions (cf. Acts 1:1 etc.; cf. also Lk 1:2-3). The resulting character of the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ (Jn 13:23-25; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:2; 21:7.20-24; cf. also 11:5.36) functions in the Fourth Gospel as a narrative embodiment of several generations of the Pauline Church and, accordingly, of several stages of the Pauline and post-Pauline literary tradition: (a) Paul, (b) Paul’s Gentile co-workers, (c) the narrative ‘we’ of Acts, and (d) the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel. 151 Consequently, the Fourth Gospel suggests to its readers that they have reliable access to Jesus, mediated in a narrative form by his Church, in line with the post-Pauline understanding of the Christian tradition: Jesus → Paul → Paul’s Gentile co-workers → the narrative ‘we’ of Acts → the narrative ‘we’ of the Fourth Gospel → the readers of the Fourth Gospel. 150 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Narrative ‘We’, 123-128; id., Constructing, 159, 162-163. 151 For this reason, the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’, as an embodiment of many generations of the Church, in agreement with the Matthean promise Mt 16:18 will remain until Jesus comes (Jn 21:22-23). Cf. U. Wilckens, ‘Joh 21,15-23 als Grundtext zum Thema “Petrusdienst”’, in M. Beintker, E. Jüngel, and W. Krötke (eds.), Wege zum Einverständnis, Festschrift C. Demke (Evangelische: Leipzig 1997), 318-333 (esp. 329-331).

122

Chapter 2

In his work, the author of the Fourth Gospel creatively used numerous other early Christian writings: all three Synoptic Gospels (Mk, Lk, and Mt), 152 the Acts of the Apostles, Pauline and post-Pauline letters (esp. 1 Thes, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Rom, Gal, Phlp, and Col), and pseudo-Jewish Christian writings (1-2 Pet, 1-3 Jn, and Rev). Besides, in his work he used Jewish sacred Scriptures in the version of the Septuagint, as well as the works of Flavius Josephus (Bellum, Antiquitates, and Vita). The use of at least seventeen other early Christian writings in the Fourth Gospel implies that the Fourth Gospel should be regarded as the work which crowned and at the same time closed the entire collection of the Pauline and post-Pauline writings. 153 The conclusion of the Fourth Gospel suggests that such was indeed the intention of its author. According to the last sentence of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 21:25), its readers should not look for other narrative works about Jesus (cf. earlier Lk 1:1-4). Consequently, the Fourth Gospel, which was composed after the fall of the revolt of Simon bar Kosiba (cf. Jn 11:48 referring to the Romans’ ‘taking away’ of both the Jewish ‘place’ and the Jewish nation) and after the Gospel of Matthew, so c. AD 140-150, 154 was evidently not based on Palestinian, non-Pauline traditions concerning the activity of the historical Jesus. Consequently, the Fourth Gospel, similarly to the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew, should not be regarded as an independent source for reconstructing the life of the historical Jesus. 152 Cf. Z. Garský, Das Wirken Jesu in Galiläa bei Johannes: Eine strukturale Analyse der Intertextualität des vierten Evangeliums mit den Synoptikern (WUNT 2.325; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 118-121 et passim. 153 Cf. F. Siegert, Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (SIJD 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008), 139148; U. Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe (THKNT 17; Evangelische: Leipzig 2010), 195196. A similar procedure of a creative harmonizing use of various earlier Christian works was later adopted in the long ending of the Gospel of Mark and in numerous noncanonical works, e.g. Tatian’s Diatessaron, P.Egerton 2, P.Oxy. 840, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Secret Gospel of Mark; cf. M. J. Kruger, ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840’, in T. Nicklas, M. J. Kruger, and T. J. Kraus (eds.), Gospel Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts; Oxford University: Oxford 2009), 121-215 (esp. 165-166). 154 For the dating of the manuscript p52, which constitutes the terminus ad quem for the dating of the Fourth Gospel, cf. B. Nongbri, ‘The Use and Abuse of p52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005) 23-48 (here: 46): ‘any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for p52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries’; D. Barker, ‘The Dating of New Testament Papyri’, NTS 57 (2011) 571-582 (esp. 573-575, here: 575): ‘a date of II or III could be assigned’.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

123

2.7 The apocryphal Gospels The most recent intertextual analyses of the canonical Gospels have revealed that these early Christian works resulted from a systematic, sequential, hypertextual reworking of the contents of the Pauline letters and (in the case of the Gospels of Matthew and John) of the Acts of the Apostles. For this reason, the apocryphal Gospels, simply because of their literary genre and their para-Gospel contents, should be regarded as creative reworkings of the canonical ones. 155 Accordingly, since the apocryphal Gospels are based thematically and literarily on the canonical ones, and since they were written not earlier than in the second half of the second century AD, they almost certainly do not provide us with any biographic data concerning Jesus which would be independent of the data contained in the canonical writings. 156

2.8 Church Fathers The Church Fathers were the first post-canonical interpreters of the Gospels. For this reason, their ideas concerning the Gospels heavily influenced later generations of Christians in their understanding of the meaning of the Gospels and of their historical value.

2.8.1 Ignatius of Antioch The letters of Ignatius of Antioch probably contain the earliest post-New Testament Church statements concerning the historicity of the events which are described in the Gospels. These letters are traditionally dated to the beginning of the second century AD, but in view of the dating of the Gospels to the first half of the second century AD this dating is rather implausible.

155 Cf. T. P. Henderson, The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics: Rewriting the Story of Jesus’ Death, Burial, and Resurrection (WUNT 2.301; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 224; S. Gathercole, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (SNTSMS 151; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2012), 127-224, 267-269; M. S. Goodacre, Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics (Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2012), passim. 156 Cf. C. A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (InterVarsity: Downers Gove, Ill. 2006), 52-99.

124

Chapter 2

The Letter to the Smyrnaeans states that Jesus Christ ‘was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; he was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John […]; he was truly, under the Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in the flesh […]; the resurrection […]’ (Smyrn. 1.1-2). The Letter to the Trallians presents heretics as claiming that Jesus was not the one ‘who was descended from David, and from Mary; who was truly born, and did eat and drink; who was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; who was truly crucified and [truly] died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth; who was also truly raised from the dead, because his Father raised him’ (Trall. 9.1-2). Likewise, the Letter to the Magnesians presents heresy as rejecting ‘the birth, the passion, and the resurrection, which took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, as truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ’ (Magn. 11). 157 Consequently, the letters of Ignatius of Antioch commonly refer to a relatively fixed, and in fact rather limited, set of the Gospel events which are regarded as constitutive for the Christian faith. The most important of these events, namely those which are referred to in more than one letter, may be listed as follows: the descendance from David, the birth, the passion and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the resurrection. Among them, the birth, the crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the resurrection, as it may be deduced from their presence in all three lists, are really crucial for the Christian faith. In fact, these ‘Ignatian’ sets of the Gospel events which should be regarded by all Christians as truly historical almost exactly correspond to the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material.

2.8.2 Papias One of the earliest statements concerning the historical value of the Gospels is attributed to the enigmatic character of Papias. It is usually assumed that Papias

157 Cf. V. Mihoc, ‘How Did the Church Fathers Understand the History of Jesus?’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars: Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (WUNT 288; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 115-152 (esp. 123-125).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

125

lived at the beginning of the second century AD, but this dating is by no means certain. 158 The so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ is contained in Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.15-16. According to this text, the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were based on oral traditions which were handed down by Peter and presumably also by the Twelve. For this reason, the Gospel of Mark was for centuries regarded as a work which was based on Peter’s oral catecheses. Likewise, the Gospel of Matthew was by most ancient, medieval, and modern scholars regarded as preserving authentic sayings of Jesus, which were first recorded in Hebrew (or Aramaic), possibly in the form of a protogospel 159 or of a later-lost sayings source, 160 and thereafter translated into Greek. 161 Consequently, the whole Gospel material was generally considered independent of the traditions and ideas which were contained in the Pauline letters. However, a close analysis of the composition of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ reveals that this text was not primarily concerned with the sources of the material which is contained in the Gospels because in such a case it would refer to the origin of all four canonical Gospels. In fact, the bipartite structure of this text is aimed at explaining the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, as well as the striking features of the Matthean Gospel. The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ rightly perceived the Gospel of Matthew as having two apparently contradictory features. On the one hand, this Gospel seems to be a literary enhancement and rhetorical improvement of the relatively short and simple Gospel of Mark. On the other hand, the Gospel of Matthew seems to be a very ‘Hebrew’, so apparently primitive Gospel, unlike the Gospel of Mark. Consequently, should the Matthean Gospel be regarded as written after or before the Gospel of Mark? 158 See U. H. J. Körtner, ‘Papiasfragmente’, in U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch (eds.), Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas (SUC 3; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998), 1-103 (esp. 30-31). 159 Cf. e.g. R. Simon, Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689), 47-100; C. Tresmontant, Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983), 35-216 (esp. 54, 58). See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 133136. 160 Cf. e.g. C. H. Weiße, Geschichte, vol. 1, 48; M. Black, ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, JSNT 37 (1989) 31-41; H. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990), 166-167. See B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 25-26, 84. 161 Cf. e.g. A. D. Baum, ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, ZNW 92 (2001) 257-272 (esp. 271).

126

Chapter 2

The so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ presents an early Christian attempt to answer this difficult literary-theological question, which was later perceived as one of the most important elements of the so-called synoptic problem. The solution which was proposed in the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ is quite interesting. According to this early Christian text, the Marcan Gospel originated from a set of oral catecheses of Peter, and therefore it was not well organized, in terms of a carefully composed literary work (οὐ… τάξει, οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν), 162 ‘so then (μὲν οὖν) Matthew arranged the [Lord’s] oracles […] in an orderly way’ (συνετάξατο: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16). Accordingly, the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ explained the evident posteriority of the apparently ‘Hebrew’ Gospel of Matthew against the apparently ‘Gentile’ Gospel of Mark in terms of a necessary literary improvement of the allegedly poorly organized Gospel of Mark. In order to lend credence to this thesis, the author of the ‘testimony of Papias’ argued that the things which could be rearranged in the Gospels, without compromising the truth of them, were the Lord’s (or Peter’s) allegedly isolated oracles or discourses. 163 In this way, the idea that the Gospels should be regarded as combinations of mutually independent fragments which originated from oral traditions, and not as internally coherent literary-theological works, came into being. The suggestion that the Gospels of Mark and Matthew had their origin in some orally transmitted discourses or oracles (λόγια: Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16) evidently functioned in the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ only as a secondary, in fact merely postulated element of the principal argument concerning the necessity to rearrange the Gospel of Mark into the better-organized Gospel of Matthew. However, this suggestion had great consequences for Christian exegesis and theology. Later authors were encouraged to interpret the Gospels not as complex but internally coherent, Christological-ecclesiological,

162 Cf. D. Farkasfalvy, ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (NovTSup 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92106 (esp. 93-97). 163 The author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ evidently recognized the fact that the canonical Gospels, with all the differences among them, cannot be regarded as strictly historical. However, he tried to defend the reliability of the Gospels by suggesting that they contain the teachings of the historical Jesus.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

127

narrative treatises, but rather as sets of loosely interrelated, allegedly historical sayings of the earthly Jesus. On the other hand, the author of the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ tried to explain the presence of the surprising Hebrew features of the vocabulary and style of the relatively late Gospel of Matthew by means of the hypothesis that ‘Matthew arranged the [Lord’s] oracles in [the] Hebrew language (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ) […], and everyone translated them as he was able’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16). In this way, the early Christian exegete acknowledged the fact that the Hebrew features of the otherwise well composed and entirely Greek Gospel of Matthew are rather dispersed and difficult to interpret. The Matthean Gospel, with the artificially ‘Hebraized’ textual form of most of its Old Testament quotations, must have sounded strangely in the ears of its Hellenistic recipients, who were accustomed to the text of the Septuagint. Moreover, the apparent internal inconsistency of the overall message of the Gospel of Matthew, which was very Greek on the one hand and very ‘Judaizing’ on the other, must have been difficult to explain already in antiquity. The phrase Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ (‘in [the] Hebrew language’), which was used in the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16), is evidently post-Lucan (cf. Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; cf. also 1:19; 2:6.8). 164 Moreover, the whole ‘testimony of Papias’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15-16) seems to be based both thematically (an earlier, not entirely successful compositional attempt; oral traditions passed on; an eyewitness and minister of the word; a new, orderly composition based on early traditions; Christian catechesis; certainty) 165 and linguistically (*γενόμεν [minister of the word]; ἀκριβῶς + *γραψ; *πράσσω [of the Lord]; παρακολουθέω; *λόγ [of the Lord]; *τάξα [an account]) on the prologue to the Lucan Gospel (Lk 1:1-4). 166

164 This distinctive linguistic link between the two writings, which points to the borrowing of the distinctively Lukan vocabulary in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.16, was merely noted, but not adequately explained by E. Norelli (ed.), Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: I frammenti (LCPM 36; Paoline: Milano 2005), 318, 329. 165 Cf. D. Farkasfalvy, ‘Papias Fragments’, 102-104. 166 Cf. R. H. Gundry, ‘The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition Concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew’, in id., The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 49-73 (esp. 60). Pace D. R. MacDonald, ‘Luke’s Use of Papias for Narrating the Death of Judas’, in S. Walton [et al.] (eds.), Reading Acts Today, Festschrift L. C. A. Alexander (LNTS 427; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 43-62 (esp. 56-61), who uncritically, notwithstanding the fact that Papias’ reference to ‘a living voice’ followed a widely used rhetorical-didactic topic (cf. ibid. 61 n. 31), assumes that Papias

128

Chapter 2

Consequently, the so-called ‘testimony of Papias’ should be regarded as a complicated, post-Lucan, exegetical hypothesis concerning the surprising literary features of the Gospels (especially of the Gospel of Matthew), and not as a reliable testimony concerning the relationships between the canonical Gospels and the historical Jesus.

2.8.3 Irenaeus The tendency to regard the Gospels as records of oral preaching of the apostles, and not as hypertextual reworkings of earlier writings (the Pauline letters, the Acts of the Apostles, etc.), was witnessed in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyon, at the end of the second century AD. Since his great work Adversus haereses was widely known in antiquity, it became very influential for the later research on the issue of the historical reliability of the Gospels. Against his Gnostic opponents, Irenaeus tried to demonstrate that a chain of reliable tradition could be traced between his Church and the Church of the apostles, at least in its most important elements (its teaching, its hierarchy, etc.), so that his Church could be regarded as the apostolic Church, and consequently as the true Church of Christ. The same rule was applied by Irenaeus to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Church Father argued that these four Gospels were directly based on oral proclamation of the most important apostles. In his view, Matthew ‘issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying foundations of the Church’ (Haer. 3.1.1). Consequently, the Gospel of Matthew, with the distinctively ‘Hebrew’ features of its vocabulary and style, came to be regarded as a Gospel which was written by one of the Twelve apostles, originally in the Hebrew language, relatively early, during the lifetime of the most important apostles Peter and Paul, and presumably in full agreement with their apostolic teaching and with the teaching of the church of Rome. The most important elements of Irenaeus’ rhetoric-theological persuasion are here fairly evident. The Marcan Gospel was presented by Irenaeus as a work of Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, who after the death of the apostle handed down to us in writing what had been preached by him (Haer. 3.1.1). In this way, the distinctively Pauline Gospel of Mark, which is very critical of the behaviour of Peter and other ‘pillars’ of the Jerusalem church, came to be regarded as a distincrepresented a stage of tradition which was earlier than Luke simply because Papias referred to named oral sources of tradition.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

129

tively Petrine one: even more than the evidently most ‘Petrine’ Gospel of Matthew. This surprising reversal originated from Irenaeus’ attempt to present the Gospels, including the Gospel of Mark, as records of oral preaching of the most important apostles. The Lucan Gospel was described by Irenaeus as a work written by Luke, the companion of Paul, who ‘recorded in a book the gospel preached by him’ (Haer. 3.1.1). Consequently, the Gospel of Luke, with the distinctively Jewish features of its theology and style, paradoxically came to be regarded as the most ‘Gentile’ Gospel. We may only wonder why Irenaeus regarded the Gospel of Luke as being more Pauline than was the Gospel of Mark, 167 and the Gospel of Mark as being more Petrine than was the Gospel of Luke. The Johannine Gospel was presented by Irenaeus as a work presumably written as the last one among the four Gospels and composed by ‘John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast’, and who published his Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia (Haer. 3.1.1). In this way, the work which is evidently the latest one among the canonical Gospels was described as a writing of someone who was one of the Twelve and an eyewitness of Jesus’ life. Consequently, the Gospel which is probably the most intertextual and rhetorical one came to be merely regarded as a record of the preaching of one of the Jerusalem apostles. It is true that Irenaeus’ idea of one, apostolic, ‘tetramorphic’ gospel (Haer. 3.11.8) in fact corresponds to the Pauline argument that there is no gospel of Christ other than the one which was proclaimed by the Apostle of the Nations (Gal 1:7). 168 However, Irenaeus’ theory of the origin of the four Gospels in the teaching of four individual apostles (Haer. 3.1.1) indirectly suggested that the Gospels were written independently of each other, a fact which for centuries seriously inhibited the research on their intertextual features.

2.8.4 Origen Origen is well known for his emphasis on the spiritual sense of Scripture (Princ. IV.2.4). However, he also highly valued its literal sense. This sense, in his view,

167 It can be argued that the Gospel of Luke was regarded as a distinctively Pauline Gospel because of its literary and theological connections with the evidently post-Pauline Acts of the Apostles. 168 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 446.

130

Chapter 2

was primarily associated with the historical meaning of Scripture, as reflecting real events of the past (Princ. IV.3.4). 169 In particular, with reference to the Gospels, Origen opposed the general negative view that ‘the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses’ (Princ. IV.3.4; cf. Cels. 1.27-71 etc.). 170 On the other hand, however, the Church Father stated that even in the Gospels there are innumerable passages which cannot be taken literally (Princ. IV.2.9-3.1). 171 Consequently, according to Origen, at certain points ‘the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour’s injunction to “search the Scriptures”, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible’ (Princ. IV.3.5; cf. Cels. 1.42 etc.). 172 One of the best examples of such critical treatment of the Gospels may be found in Origen’s discussion concerning the time of Jesus’ arrival in Galilee after his baptism. In his commentary on the Gospel of John (Comm. Jo. X.III.10), Origen pointed to the fact that according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, after his baptism Jesus was tempted for forty days in the wilderness (Mk 1:13 parr.), but according to the Gospel of John, on the sixth day after his baptism Jesus was present at the marriage at Cana of Galilee (Jn 1:35.43; 2:1). Likewise, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Jesus came to Galilee after the imprison169 Cf. J. G. Prior, The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 50; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 1999), 45-47; J. Padilla, ‘Los sentidos de la escritura en el libro IV del «Peri Archôn» de Orígenes,’ EstEcl 77 (2002) 201-240 (esp. 216-220); M. Di Pasquale Brabanti, Origene di Alessandria: Tra Platonismo e Sacra Scrittura: Teologia e Antropologia del De Principiis (Symbolon 25; CUECM: Catania 2003), 88-89. 170 Cf. F. Cocchini, ‘Note sul De Principiis IV di Origene’, in N. Ciola (ed.), Servire Ecclesiae, Festschrift P. Scabini (Momenti della Chiesa Italiana 15; Dehoniane: Bologna 1998), 131-146 (esp. 143-144); J. G. Prior, Historical, 81. 171 Cf. F. Cocchini, ‘Note’, 143; É. Junod, ‘Origéne face au problème du désaccord (διαφωνία) entre les évanglies (CIo X, 3-36)’, in E. Prinzivalli (ed.), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: il testo e i suoi contesti: Atti dell’VIII Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004) (Biblioteca di Adamantius 3; Pazzini: Villa Verucchio 2005), 423-439 (esp. 425); V. Mihoc, ‘How Did’, 144. 172 According to Origen, not all Scripture has a literal meaning: cf. R. E. Heine, Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Christian Theology in Context; Oxford University: New York [et al.] 2010), 136. Cf. also H. J. Vogt, ‘Die Lehre des Origenes von der Inspiration der Heiligen Schrift: Ein Vergleich zwischen der Grundlagenschrift und der Antwort auf Kelsos’, TQ 170 (1990) 97-103 (esp. 100-101); A. Le Donne, ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Revisionist History through the Lens of Jewish-Christian Relations’, JSHJ 10 (2012) 63-86 (esp. 67).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

131

ment of John the Baptist (Mk 1:14 par.), whereas according to the Johannine Gospel, when Jesus was present at Capernaum, John the Baptist was not yet imprisoned (Jn 2:12; 3:23-24; cf. Origen, Comm. Jo. X.III.13). 173 In the Church Father’s view, there are three ways of explaining these and numerous other evident discrepancies between the Gospels. The first possibility consists in rejecting totally the reliability of the Gospels as historical sources. The second one consists in choosing at random one of the Gospels as historically reliable, in order not to loose the entire faith in the Lord. The third one consists in accepting all four Gospels, but seeking their truth not in the literal sense (Comm. Jo. X.III.14). Origen argued that the third possibility offers the best way of solving problems with the historical reliability of the Gospels (Comm. Jo. X.III.10). 174 The most recent research on hypertextual features of the Gospels has revealed that Origen’s insight was really valuable. Since the discrepancies between the Gospels cannot be adequately explained on a purely historical level, and it is not wise to assume that the evangelists (or at least some of them) were much worse acquainted with the historical circumstances of Jesus’ life than modern scholars are, it is reasonable to argue that the truth of the Gospels may generally be found on a non-historical, in fact intertextual level of meaning.

2.8.5 John Chrysostom John Chrysostom was well aware of the difficulties with the literal meaning of many Gospel passages. He noticed that numerous such difficulties already occur in the introductory sections of the Gospels (Hom. Matt. I.6 [PG 57, 21A-22A]). However, the Church Father argued that the discrepancies concerning the times and places of the Gospel events are in reality insignificant. Moreover, in his opinion, they prove the reliability of the Gospels as mutually independent testimonies of historical truth concerning Jesus (Hom. Matt. I.2 [PG 57, 16C-D]). 175

173 Cf. H. Merkel, Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien: Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (WUNT 13; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1971), 112; É. Junod, ‘Origéne’, 430; V. Mihoc, ‘How Did’, 144-145. 174 Cf. H. Merkel, Widersprüche, 112-113; É. Junod, ‘Origéne’, 430-432, 438-439; D. C. Allison, Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2010), 445. 175 Cf. H. Merkel, Widersprüche, 194; J. G. Prior, Historical, 82-83; V. Mihoc, ‘How Did’, 120-121.

132

Chapter 2

In contrast to these minor (as he argued) discrepancies, John Chrysostom stressed the historical reliability of the major truths of the Gospels. 176 He listed several truths which are most important for the Christian faith and which should be regarded as reliably attested in all Gospels as historical: ‘that God became man, that he worked miracles, that he was crucified, that he was buried, that he rose again, that he ascended, that he will judge, that he has given commandments tending to salvation, that he has brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that he is a Son, that he is only-begotten, that he is a true [Son], that he is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these’ (Hom. Matt. I.2 [PG 57, 16D-17A]). 177 John Chrysostom’s list of the truly historical contents of the Gospels is in fact rather limited. It is noteworthy that it generally agrees with the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material. In fact, Jesus’ (confessed) divine sonship, performing extraordinary deeds, teaching truths which were related to salvation and which were not contrary to the Old Testament, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and glorification can be regarded as reliably, or at least plausibly, attested in the historical sources.

2.8.6 Augustine Augustine’s hypothesis concerning the origin of the four Gospels resembles that of Irenaeus. The Latin Father also assumed that the Gospels had been written one after another, in the same order of composition: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John (Cons. 1.2.3). However, there is also a great difference between the theory of Augustine and that of Irenaeus. Irenaeus assumed that the Gospels were records of the preaching of four individual apostles: Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John. Consequently, in Irenaeus’ apologetic view, the Gospels were presumably written independently of each other. In contrast to this opinion, Augustine dared to argue that every evangelist had known and used the works of his predecessors: ‘this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done’ (Cons. 1.2.4). 178 Great Augustine was right. The Gospels were composed in a linear pattern of direct sequential literary dependence. However, the order of their composition 176 Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 83; V. Mihoc, ‘How Did’, 121. 177 Cf. H. Merkel, Widersprüche, 194. 178 Cf. ibid. 229; P. Cazier, ‘Le De consensu euangelistarum d’Augustin et l’historicité des évangiles’, Graphè 7 (1998) 45-68 (esp. 48-49).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

133

was not Matthew-Mark-Luke-John, as it was assumed by Augustine on the basis of earlier Christian traditions, but somewhat different, namely (Paul)-MarkLuke-(Acts)-Matthew-John. 179 Although Augustine was not entirely correct in his assumed order of the composition of the Gospels, his insight concerning sequential literary dependence of the Gospels on one another was really profound. If later scholars shared this idea of Augustine, rather than that of Irenaeus, the correct solutions to the synoptic problem and to other major exegetical problems could have been found much earlier than it really happened.

2.9 Modern research on the historical Jesus Modern research on the historical Jesus significantly changed the understanding of the nature and function of the Gospels in their relationship to Jesus. The Church Fathers generally correctly regarded the Gospels as particular, divinely inspired texts, which have multiple, mainly allusive-symbolic (historical, sacramental, ecclesiological, moral, spiritual, etc.) levels of meaning and which primarily reveal various aspects of the presence of the risen Christ in the Church. On the contrary, modern scholars tend to regard the Gospels as records of early Christian tradition concerning the historical Jesus and his Palestinian milieu. This important hermeneutic shift seems to have originated from the scholarly fascination with the results of modern research on historical texts and artefacts. 180 Against this background, the Gospels came to be regarded as mere historical writings with a rather plain meaning, which can be adequately interpreted by means of reconstructing their postulated Sitz im Leben, tracing their narrative logic, describing their rhetorical impact, etc., and not by deciphering their allusions and symbols. 181 This new approach appeared to be more objective, and hence more scholarly, than the old intertextual-theological considerations. It is also possible that modern historical-Jesus research was somehow based on the Protestant theological principle solus Christus. 182 This principle could 179 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 141-144, 187-444. 180 Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 17-20. 181 Cf. B. Adamczewski, ‘Hans-Georg Gadamer i hermeneutyczny problem aktualizacji tekstów biblijnych’, RoczT 53 (2006), fasc. 1, 71-93 (esp. 71-74). 182 Pace U. Luz, ‘Jesus from a Western Perspective: State of Research. Methodology’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images, 41-64 (esp. 60),

134

Chapter 2

favour the research directly on the historical person of Jesus, thus obviating the traditions and dogmas of the Church, which came to be perceived as somehow restrictive and at times misleading as concerns our relationship with the person of Jesus. 183 In the nineteenth century, the research on the historical Jesus was combined with Romantic and post-Romantic hermeneutic assumptions that orally transmitted traditions, rather than classical literary works, were of crucial importance for the development of human spirituality. Consequently, the reconstruction of primitive Christian traditions concerning Jesus came to be regarded as more important than the analysis of the final texts of the Gospels. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this approach gave rise to the socalled form-critical method of the analysis of the Bible (Formgeschichte). The proponents of this method assumed that Gospel pericopes and sayings had been for a considerable period of time transmitted orally, in form of small textual units, which had originally been independent of one another. This assumption led scholars to investigate textual units of the Gospels in isolation from one another and to assess the degree of their hypothetical ‘originality’ separately, on the basis of their assumed relationship to their original Palestinian Sitz im Leben, which was in turn usually reconstructed on the basis of much later rabbinic parallels. Consequently, the texts of the Gospels came to be regarded as results of more or less artificial compilation of units of originally Palestinian material, which, as it was assumed, reached the evangelists through various oral or written sources. This method has also led to methodologically selective reconstructions of the historical Jesus. If only some isolated fragments of the Gospels could be regarded as reliable records of early Christian traditions concerning Jesus, then the reconstructions of the historical Jesus might be likewise fragmentary. Consequently, in the so-called ‘second quest’ for the historical Jesus, scholars were quite free in choosing the Gospel fragments which constituted the bases for their

this principle seems to have been more fundamental for the modern quest for the historical Jesus than was the Protestant quest for Christian identity in the age of the Enlightenment. The founders of the ‘first quest’ sided with the Enlightenment ideas rather than with Christian dogmas: cf. M. Reiser, ‘Jesus Research from the Enlightenment until Today’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images, 93-113 (esp. 94-99). 183 However, it should be noted that similar observations could also be made about the lateMiddle Age quest for the person of Jesus (St Francis, devotio moderna, etc.), with its perceivable dissatisfaction with the predominantly ecclesiocentric spirituality of that time.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

135

reconstructions of the historical Jesus. 184 Likewise, in the so-called ‘third quest’ for the historical Jesus, scholars were quite free in choosing the features of Jesus which were regarded by them as strictly historical. 185 Such an approach evidently favours the use of the coherence theory of truth, which posits that the truth of a proposition consists in the coherence of that proposition with the set of all other true propositions. In this view, the particular ideas concerning the historical Jesus are usually evaluated against the background of a particular thesis or an overall image of the historical Jesus, which are regarded as somehow plausible. This approach downplays the importance of numerous minor textual details of the Gospels, which are notoriously difficult to interpret. In difference to hypotheses constructed with the use of the correspondence theory of truth, the hypotheses which are formulated with the use of the coherence theory of truth tend to overlook these details, instead of trying to explain them. In numerous cases, modern scholars with great pride correct topographical, chronological, etc. errors of the evangelists. However, the most recent research on the hypertextual features of the Gospels has revealed that numerous apparent errors and inconsistencies in the Gospels should not in fact be regarded as errors. They rather consciously point to another, allusive or symbolic level of meaning. The old principle that philosophy begins in wonder is evidently valid also here.

2.10 Criteria for reconstructing the historical Jesus The so-called ‘second quest’ for the historical Jesus has shown that any reconstruction of the historical Jesus should be undertaken with the use of some criteria for ascertaining the reliability of various data concerning Jesus’ person and life. Scholars generally agree that several criteria can be regarded as relatively reliable in this case. 186 184 This rule also applies to Joseph Ratzinger, whose book on Jesus resembles patristic and dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of Jesus’ life: cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 12-13. 185 Cf. U. Luz, ‘Jesus’, 60-61. 186 Cf. e.g. G. Theissen and D. Winter, Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium (NTOA 34; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg Schweiz and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1997); S. E. Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2000). However, cf. also R. Rodríguez, ‘Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method’, JSHJ 7 (2009) 152167.

136

Chapter 2

The most important criteria are the external ones, which refer to the quality of the sources of the biographical data concerning Jesus. The first of them is the criterion of multiple attestation. The use of this criterion is based on the old judicial principle that something that is related by two independent witnesses can be regarded as true (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15 etc.). In the case of historical-Jesus research, the sayings or deeds of Jesus which are attested in more than one independent literary source can be regarded as truly historical. 187 The problem with the use of this criterion consists in the fact that the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Bible has revealed that a number of biblical texts, including most New Testament writings, should be regarded as hypertexts.188 In fact, among early Christian writings, only Paul’s letters are independent of other literary sources concerning Jesus. Likewise, among pagan sources, only Josephus’ writings are presumably independent of other literary sources concerning Jesus. 189 For this reason, the criterion of multiple attestation can only be met by the biographical data which can be found both in Paul’s letters and in Josephus’ writings. This criterion can be reformulated into the criterion of independence of other literary sources. Such a criterion is evidently much weaker than the criterion of multiple attestation. However, in difficult cases, if it can be demonstrated that a given source is independent of other literary sources (even though it may be dependent on oral sources, recollections, etc.), this source can be regarded as relatively reliable. In the case of historical-Jesus research, the criterion of independence of other literary sources can be met by the biographical data which can be found either in Paul’s letters or in Josephus’ writings. 190 The third criterion concerning sources, namely that of earliness of the sources, is related to the preceding ones. In textual criticism, it is usually assumed that earlier manuscripts are generally more reliable than later ones. Likewise, in historical-Jesus research, it may be assumed that earlier sources are generally more reliable than later ones. 191 This criterion is evidently somewhat 187 Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 174; id., ‘Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 291-331 (esp. 318-320); E. Manicardi, ‘Criteri di storicità e storia di Gesù oggi’, RStB 17 (2005) no. 2, 27-54 (esp. 41-43). 188 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 47-48, 55-66, 75-166; id., Retelling, 25-283. 189 See above, 85 (Subchapter 2.5). 190 Pace G. Lüdemann, ‘Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus’, in R. J. Hoffmann (ed.), Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (Prometheus: Amherst, NY 2010), 196-212 (esp. 212). 191 Cf. M. Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (T&T Clark: London · New York 2010), 102-103.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

137

controversial. However, it is reasonable to argue that the sources which can be dated to the first century AD are more reliable than the sources which can be dated to the second century AD. In line with this criterion, Paul’s letters, as well as Josephus’ writings, should be regarded as more reliable than the majority of the New Testament writings, including the Gospels. 192 Among the internal criteria, which refer to particular elements of Jesus’ life rather than to the sources in which they were recorded, the criterion of embarrassment is probably the most reliable one. This criterion refers to actions or sayings of Jesus which would have embarrassed or created difficulty for the early Church. The use of this criterion is based on the assumption that the early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material which only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. 193 For example, it is hard to image a Christian who would invent the fact of the discreditable death of the founder of the new religion on the cross. 194 Another internal criterion, namely the criterion of adequate causes, refers to distinctive beliefs and features of the early Church which cannot be adequately explained without the recourse to actions or sayings of the historical Jesus. 195 For example, the strong conviction of numerous members of the Jerusalem church and of Paul the Apostle that Jesus appeared to them after his death (1 Cor 15:5-8) must have had some adequate cause in real events, presumably in Jesus’ resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:4).196 In the ‘third quest’ for the historical Jesus, the criterion of Palestinian (and Aramaic) environment gained in importance. 197 This criterion, which has much

192 For a plausible dating of the New Testament writings, see B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 165 et passim. 193 Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 168; id., ‘Basic’, 310-314; E. Manicardi, ‘Criteri’, 44. 194 Cf. R. L. Webb, ‘The Historical Enterprise and Historical Jesus Research’, in D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (WUNT 247; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 9-93 (esp. 67-68). 195 Cf. R. Latourelle, L’accès à Jésus par les Évangiles: Histoire et herméneutique (Recherches 20; Desclé & Cie: Tournai and Bellarmin: Montréal 1978), 228-231; E. Manicardi, ‘Criteri’, 46-48, 52. Cf. also E. Baasland, ‘Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want?’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 31-56 (esp. 49: ‘criterion of consequence’). 196 Cf. G. R. Osborne, ‘Jesus’ Empty Tomb and His Appearance in Jerusalem’, in D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb, Key Events, 775-823 (esp. 818-819). 197 Cf. M. Casey, Jesus, 108-120; id., ‘The Role of Aramaic in Reconstructing the Teaching of Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 2], 1343-1375 (esp. 1363-1374); J. M. García, ‘La tradición evangélica y su original arameo’, in J. M. Gar-

138

Chapter 2

in common with the criterion of continuity (or historical plausibility), affirms that actions and sayings of Jesus which reflect concrete beliefs, customs, sociopolitical conditions, language, etc. of Palestine of the early first century AD have a good chance of being authentic. 198 For example, the rite of the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-25; cf. 10:16-17) has much in common with the religiously significant meal practices of pious Jews in Palestine at the turn of the era (cf. 1QSa 2:17-22; cf. also 1QS 6:4-6). 199 On the other hand, it should be noted that numerous beliefs, customs, socio-political conditions, and linguistic features of Palestine of the early first century AD (before Jesus’ death) were not distinctive for that milieu. 200 Moreover, it is hard to say whether the New Testament Aramaisms and Semitisms (e.g. ‘Abba’ in Rom 8:15) should be attributed to Jesus or to the Aramaic-speaking church. 201 Furthermore, the factor of conscious, artificial Judaization of early Christian theology in a number of New Testament writings (e.g. Rom, Eph, 2 Thes, 1-2 Tim, Jas, Jud, 2 Pet, Lk-Acts, Hebr, Rev, and Mt) should be seriously taken into consideration.202 For these reasons, the use of the criterion of Palestinian (and Aramaic) environment is in fact rather controversial. 203 Among other criteria which are at times applied by modern scholars, the criteria of discontinuity (or dissimilarity) and coherence are rather unreliable. The use of the criterion of discontinuity has been severely criticized by numerous scholars who have pointed to the fact that it produces a very artificial Jesus,

198 199

200 201

202

203

cía Pérez (ed.), Rastreando los orígenes: Lengua y exégesis en el Nuevo Testamento, Festschrift M. Herranz Marco (Encuentro / CEU: Madrid 2011), 55-91 (esp. 60-82). Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 178-180; G. Theissen and D. Winter, Kriterienfrage, 183-188, 209-212. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, ‘The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World’, in A. Christophersen [et al.] (eds.), Paul, Luke, and the GraecoRoman World, Festschrift A. J. M. Wedderburn (JSNTSup 217; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002), 221-248 (esp. 222-225, 236-238). Cf. also J. L. Angel, Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ 86; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 203. Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 180. Cf. R. L. Webb, ‘Historical’, 70-71; J. P. Meier, ‘Basic’, 323-326; S. E. Porter, ‘The Criteria of Authenticity’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook [vol. 1], 695742 (esp. 721-722). Cf. A. J. M. Wedderburn, Jesus and the Historians (WUNT 269; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 176; B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 56, 60, 80-85, 92-103, 108-109, 115117, 130, 134, 145, 151, 156-157. Cf. S. E. Porter, Criteria, 98-99.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

139

who had nothing to do with both Judaism and Christianity.204 On the other hand, the use of the criterion of coherence is based on the use of the coherence theory of truth, which is not as reliable as the correspondence theory of truth. 205 Accordingly, the quest for the historical Jesus should primarily be based on the biographical data which can be found in Paul’s letters and in Josephus’ writings. Furthermore, it should highlight the data which is somehow embarrassing, which adequately explains the distinctive features of the early Church, and which reflects the pre-Christian milieu of Palestine of the early first century AD.

2.11 A plausible reconstruction of the historical Jesus The things that can be known with relative certainty about the historical Jesus are in fact rather few. 206 Jesus’ name (Ἰησοῦς) is well attested in our both main sources concerning the historical Jesus: Paul’s letters (1 Thes 1:10; 2:15; 4:14 etc.) and Josephus’ writings (Ant. 18.63; 20.200). It is not known where Jesus was born. According to Paul’s letters, Jesus was ‘born of a woman’ as a Jew (Gal 4:4; cf. Rom 8:3), he had brothers (1 Cor 9:5), among whom one was named James (Gal 1:19), and he belonged to the royal posterity of David (Rom 1:3). The name Nazareth, as referring to the place of Jesus’ origin (Mk 1:9 etc.), was created by Mark in order to illustrate the Pauline idea of transformation of Jesus’ identity from that of posterity of David according to the flesh (Rom 1:3; cf. Mk 1:9) to that of the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4; cf. Mk 1:10-11). Mark illustrated the idea of Jesus’ belonging to the posterity of David (Rom 1:3) with the use of the motif of the sprout of Jesse (Is 11:1), which had been suggested to him by Paul’s Scripture-based theologizing (Rom 15:12; cf. Is 11:10). Mark created the Hebrew-sounding name ‘Nazareth’, which could be found neither in the Scriptures nor in the writings of Paul, Josephus, and other pre-Gospel authors (cf. also Mk 6:1), on the basis of the Hebrew word nēṣer (‘sprout’: Is 11:1), in order to

204 Cf. A. Gieniusz, ‘La discussione attuale sul Gesù storico: Problemi e criteri’, in G. Biguzzi and M. Gronchi (eds.), Discussione, 37-56 (esp. 45-47); A. J. M. Wedderburn, Jesus, 164-167; R. Bartnicki, Ewangelie, 500-501. 205 Cf. J. P. Meier, Marginal, vol. 1, 176-177; J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 83. 206 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 25-33.

140

Chapter 2

illustrate the Jewish Christian, merely messianic understanding of Jesus (cf. also Mk 10:47ac: ὁ Ναζαρηνός → υἱὲ ∆αυίδ). On the other hand, the place of Jesus’ death is much easier to ascertain. According to both Paul (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 15:25-26.31; Gal 1:17-19; 2:1.9) and Josephus (Ant. 20.200), Jesus’ followers for decades after his death lived relatively unhindered in Jerusalem, or generally in Judaea (cf. 1 Thes 2:14; 2 Cor 1:16; Gal 1:22; cf. also Rom 15:19). This fact would be very difficult to explain if Jesus’ followers came to Jerusalem only once, for a few days, just for the Passover of Jesus’ crucifixion, as it is suggested by the Gospel of Mark (Mk 11:11; 16:7). 207 Accordingly, it should be assumed that Jesus and his followers lived in Jerusalem for a considerable period of time also before Jesus’ death, and that Jesus was crucified because of his messianic claims in the Holy City of Judaism. It is not known when Jesus was born. It can only be ascertained that he had died and had been raised from the dead before Paul’s conversion, which presumably took place in AD 33. 208 Paul quoted the historically credible tradition concerning Christ’s death on the cross (1 Cor 1:17-18.23; 2:2.8 etc.) and resurrection (1 Thes 1:10; 4:14 etc.), events interpreted as having occurred according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-8), but he did not state when these events had taken place. According to Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64), and later also Tacitus (Ann. 15.44.3), Jesus was condemned to cross by Pontius Pilate, who governed Judaea in AD 26-36. 209 The testimony of Josephus should be regarded as original and historically credible at least in its part which describes Jesus as a messianic claimant who found some followers among Jews and also Gentiles, because such a reference is implied by the context of Josephus’ narrative (Ant. 18.65-84; cf. also 20.200). 210 If therefore Jesus was condemned to cross by Pontius Pilate, who governed Judaea in AD 26-36, and if this event had taken place some time before Paul’s conversion, which should most probably be dated to AD 33, then it is reasonable

207 The synoptic Gospels’ picture of Jesus as first active in Judaea, then in numerous places in Galilee (especially in the region of the Lake of Galilee), and then in the city of Jerusalem (and not in the whole Judaea) most probably emulates Josephus’ self-presentation in his Vita. 208 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Heirs, 61, 70. 209 The reference to Pontius Pilate in 1 Tim 6:13, which is thematically related to that of Mk 14:62-63 (the idea of Jesus’ religious confession), is most probably posterior to the clearly ideological-political remark of Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64: the charge of being a Jewish messianic claimant). 210 See above, 86-88 (Subsection 2.5.1.1).

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

141

to assume that Jesus’ death and resurrection took place not earlier than in AD 26 and not later than c. AD 30. Moreover, it is quite probable that Jesus was crucified when Sejanus was still in power and when Pilate felt relatively free to commit various abuses and crimes in Judaea, that is in AD 31 at the latest. Since Philo’s (or Agrippa’s) account of the clash over the ensigns (Legat. 299-305) is more credible as concerns chronology than the much later account of Josephus (B.J. 2.169-174; Ant. 18.55-59), 211 Jesus most probably died before this clash, so in the first part of Pilate’s rule (c. AD 26-31), among the people referred to by Philo as unjustly killed and abused by the prefect (Legat. 302). Pilate’s harsh policy in Judaea was quite plausible relatively soon after Sejanus’ rise to absolute power in Rome (in AD 26) and after the cruel resolution of the Roman Senate that Jews should be expelled from Italy to Sardinia and elsewhere (c. AD 26-30?: cf. Philo, Legat. 159-161; cf. also Tacitus, Ann. 2.85.4). After his arrival in Judaea in AD 26, Pilate retained the submissive figure of the careerist Joseph, derogatorily nicknamed Caiaphas (qp’: ‘rising to the surface’ 212 ), who was evidently ‘son of nobody’ (pace Jn 18:13; diff. e.g. Jos. Ant. 19.297; 20.196), 213 as the high priest (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.35, 95), but he cruelly killed Jesus, who presumably up to that time lived relatively undisturbed in Jerusalem, and who was widely regarded as ‘Christ’, i.e. the (Davidic) Messiah (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.63; 20.200). Therefore, Jesus was most probably crucified in AD 26-27. The fact that Jesus was by numerous people considered royal Messiah (χριστός) is well attested in our both main sources concerning the historical Jesus: Paul’s letters (1 Thes 1:1; 1 Cor 1:24; Rom 1:3 etc.) and Josephus’ writings (Ant. 18:63; 20.200). It is important that according to both Paul (2 Cor 8:9; 10:1; Phlp 2:5-8 etc.) and Josephus (Ant. 18.63-64), Jesus’ messiahship, unlike that of 211 It should be noted that Josephus evidently reworked Philo’s account concerning Pilate, and conflated various ideas which he had borrowed therefrom (especially the idea of Pilate’s greed and cruelty). For this reason, Josephus’ account concerning Pilate is relatively long and detailed, as compared to, for example, those concerning Pilate’s predecessors Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, and Valerius Gratus (Ant. 18.31-35; no mention in B.J.). For ideological reasons, Josephus located the account of the clash over the ensigns at the beginning of his account of Pilate’s governorship in Judaea. 212 Cf. M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3; Bar Ilan University: Ramat-Gan and The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 2002), s.v. qp’ (‘to rise to the surface, flow, hover, overflow’), qypy’ (‘floating state’); R. Bauckham, ‘The Caiaphas Family’, JSHJ 10 (2012) 3-31 (esp. 16). 213 Pace R. Metzner, Kaiaphas: Der Hohepriester jenes Jahres: Geschichte und Deutung (AJEC 75; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 37-38, 61.

142

Chapter 2

the Samaritan messianic claimant (cf. Jos. Ant. 18.85-87), was not expressed in terms of power and violence. Jesus’ close relationship with a group of the Twelve can be regarded as well attested in the tradition which Paul received from the Jerusalem community (1 Cor 15:5). The idea of forming a symbolic group of twelve men within a broader religious movement is also attested in the presumably Pharisees-related Rule of the Community (1QS 8:1), 214 a fact which lends plausibility to the use of this idea by the historical Jesus, especially in the context of his messianic claims. According to the tradition which Paul received from the Jerusalem community, Jesus was raised on the third day after his crucifixion and burial, and he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve, then to more than five hundred brothers at one time, then to James, and then to all the apostles; last of all, he appeared to Paul (1 Cor 15:3-8; cf. 1 Thes 1:10; 4:14 etc.). In line with the criterion of adequate causes, this tradition should be regarded as credible. 215 This view can be supported by Josephus’ reference to Jesus’ followers as loving him, not having forsaken him, and constituting the movement which existed up to the time of Josephus and which was called Christians (Ant. 18.64), a reference which may be regarded as not interpolated, authentic, and consequently historically credible. Apart from Jesus’ being considered the Davidic Messiah, his being accompanied by a group of the Twelve, and his dramatic death and resurrection, there is yet another fact of Jesus’ life which may be regarded as historical. Paul referred to the institution of the Lord’s Supper on the night when Jesus had been betrayed as to an historical fact, which was witnessed by the tradition that had been handed down to the Apostle (1 Cor 11:23-25). 216 There is no reason to 214 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 23. For recent arguments against the identification of ‘Ephraim’ in 4Q169 [pNah] with the Pharisees, an idea which is usually regarded as precluding a Pharisees-related milieu of the composition of the so-called ‘sectarian’ Dead Sea Scrolls, see M.-F. Dion, ‘L’identité d’Éphraïm et Manassé dans le Pésher de Nahum (4Q169)’, in P. W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. S. Baek (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (SBLEJL 30; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 405-427. 215 Cf. M. Skierkowski, „A swoi Go nie przyjęli” (J 1,11): Teologicznofundamentalna interpretacja Third Quest (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2006), 669-674, 703. 216 It is noteworthy that Paul somewhat surprisingly referred to the Lord as the origin of the tradition concerning the Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23). Does it mean that Paul received this tradition by means of a private revelation (cf. e.g. 2 Cor 12:4.9; Gal 1:12)? For this proposal, see F. Watson, ‘“I Received from the Lord…” Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’,

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

143

doubt the historicity of this event. The institution of the religiously significant rite which consisted, among others, in taking bread and wine, and pronouncing blessing during a common messianic meal (1 Cor 11:23-25; cf. also 10:16-17) has common features with other regulations concerning meal practices of pious Jews in the first century BC (cf. 1QSa 2:17-22; cf. also 1QS 6:4-6). 217 Likewise, the idea of enacting the ‘new covenant’ in a close community (1 Cor 11:25; cf. 2 Cor 3:6) was known by the time of Jesus (cf. CD 6:19; 8:21; 20:12). 218 Therefore, the institution of the Lord’s Supper can be regarded as reflecting the ideas of pious Jews in Palestine at the turn of the era, and consequently as historically plausible. Moreover, if the so-called ‘Damascus Document’ was in fact related to the Pharisees, 219 then it may be assumed that Jesus’ movement shared some features with the Pharisaic movement. This fact could explain the sympathetic attitude of the Pharisees to James the Lord’s brother (cf. Jos. Ant. 20.200203). 220 The Apostle of the Nations repeatedly confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, who was sent to the world by God (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Phlp 2:5-7), who deliberately suffered on the cross (Gal 2:20; Phlp 2:8), and whose power and authority were most evidently revealed by his resurrection from the dead (1 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 15:20-28; Rom 1:4; Phlp 2:9-11). Although in Paul’s theology Christ’s divine sonship and lordship should be regarded as matters of belief rather than of mere history, in line with the criterion of adequate causes these very important elements of the Christian faith can be regarded as having some basis in historical facts. 221

217 218

219

220

221

in T. D. Still (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, U.K. 2007), 103-124 (esp. 105-115). However, cf. also P. Pokorný, ‘Jesus Research’, 340-341. Cf. H.-W. Kuhn, ‘Qumran Meal’, 222-225, 236-238. Cf. also J. L. Angel, Otherworldly, 203. However, it should be noted that Jesus enacted the new covenant not in cleanness (cf. CD 6:17-19) but in his innocently dying the unclean sinners’ death (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 3:25; Gal 3:13). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 20-21. Cf. also the presentation of the halachic rule concerning not eating anything in the field on the Sabbath day (CD 10:22-23) as a Pharisaic regulation (Mk 2:23-24). It should be noted that the identification of Jesus’ main opponents with the Pharisees (Mk 2:16 etc.) is a Marcan invention. The Marcan Pharisees in fact allude to the group of James as the main opponents of Paul the Apostle. Cf. J. Frey, ‘Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien’, in J. Schröter and R. Brucker (eds.), Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (BZNW 114; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 273-336

144

Chapter 2

Moreover, Paul repeatedly referred to important features of Jesus’ personality: his extraordinary love to all people (2 Cor 5:14; Gal 2:20; cf. Rom 8:35-39; Phlp 1:8); sinlessness (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 8:3); meekness and gentleness (2 Cor 10:1); self-denial for others (1 Thes 5:10; 1 Cor 1:13; 5:7; 11:24; 15:3; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Rom 5:6-8; 14:15; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13); making himself poor, insignificant, and obedient (2 Cor 8:9; Phlp 2:5-8); and not pleasing himself, but rather enduring insults like a servant (Rom 15:3.8). 222 These features of Jesus’ character can be regarded as historically true because Paul treated them as very important points of reference for establishing the identity of Christ’s (and consequently his own) followers and believers. Moreover, Paul almost certainly did not refer to purely fictitious aspects of Jesus’ personality because in such a case his rhetorical arguments, which were frequently aimed at securing his position against his Jerusalem-based opponents, could easily be dismissed as historically unfounded. Moreover, since Josephus’ reference to Jesus (Ant. 18.63-64) should be regarded as historically credible at least in its part which describes Jesus as a messianic claimant who found some followers among Jews and also Gentiles, it is reasonable to argue that Jesus’ breaking social boundaries, probably including his outreach to those who remained at the margins of the Jewish society, can be regarded as historical. The issue of Jesus’ miracles is difficult to settle. It is hard to prove, but not implausible, that Josephus’ reference to Jesus as doer of extraordinary deeds (παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής: Ant. 18.63) is original and historically credible. 223 In fact, Mark’s image of Jesus as a miracle-worker, in combination with Mark’s hypertextual use of Josephus’ writings, may betray the evangelist’s acquaintance with the original text of Josephus in which there was a reference to Jesus’ performing extraordinary deeds. Otherwise, since Paul’s letters do not contain any reference to Jesus’ miracles, Mark’s insistence on Jesus’ doing wonders would be difficult to explain. 224

(esp. 321-322); M. Hengel and A. M. Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums 1; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 172; M. Wolter, ‘Was macht die historische Frage nach Jesus von Nazareth zu einer theologischen Frage?’, in U. Busse, M. Reichardt, and M. Theobald (eds.), Erinnerung an Jesus: Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung, Festschrift R. Hoppe (BBB 166; V&R and Bonn University: Göttingen 2011), 17-33 (esp. 33). 222 Cf. S. Byrskog, ‘Historicity’, 2190; C. Reynier, ‘Questions et implications du silence de Paul sur Jésus’, RSR 99 (2011) 61-77 (esp. 71). 223 Cf. E. Eve, The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context (SPCK: London 2009), 74-75. 224 Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 237 n. 33.

The problem of the historicity of the Gospel material

145

As concerns Jesus’ teachings, apart from the words of the institution of the Eucharist, which imply that Jesus was conscious of the religious significance of his imminent death (1 Cor 11:24d-e.25b-d), none of the sayings which are attributed by Paul to the Lord can undoubtedly be traced back to the historical Jesus. 225 In any case, Josephus’ general reference to Jesus as a wise man and a teacher of kindness and truth (Ant. 18.63) can be regarded as historically reliable. In sum, a plausible reconstruction of the historical Jesus should therefore consist of the following data: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Jesus was born in a Jewish family, he lived in Judaea (most probably in Jerusalem), he belonged to the royal posterity of David, numerous people regarded him as the Davidic Messiah, he gathered around him a symbolic group of the Twelve, he may have performed some extraordinary deeds, he behaved in such a way that at least some of his followers could later believe that he was the Son of God and the Lord, he wisely taught kindness and truth, he was humble and self-denying in his love for others (probably including those at the margins of the society), he instituted the Lord’s Supper with the use of the words which are recorded in 1 Cor 11:24d-e.25b-d, he was conscious of the religious significance of his imminent death, he died on the cross during the rule of Pontius Pilate (most probably in AD 26-27), he was buried, he was raised from the dead, he subsequently appeared to Cephas and to numerous other Jewish believers.

These elements of the identity of the historical Jesus, inasmuch as it can be reconstructed today, are certainly not numerous. However, they generally agree with the image of Jesus Christ as the true founder of Christianity.

225 See above, 76-79 (Subchapter 2.3).

Chapter 3 Hypertextuality and historicity in the Gospels from a modern Catholic perspective The acknowledgement of the fact that the Gospels are mainly hypertextual works, which only in their most important contents directly refer to history, can be perceived as hardly reconcilable with the Christian doctrine. Christian views concerning the extent and importance of the historicity of the Gospel material are of course diverse. To take only the most extreme examples, whereas for some Christians Jesus was simply a teacher of love, whose portrait in the Gospels only roughly corresponds to his actual course of life, for some believers it is of crucial importance that Jesus actually did and said everything that is written of him in the Gospels. 1 Therefore, it seems impossible to investigate all possible Christian attitudes to the recently discovered phenomenon of extensive, systematic use of the procedure of hypertextual reworking of earlier writings in the Gospels. Accordingly, it is reasonable to analyse the possibility of reconciling the idea of a generally hypertextual character of the Gospels with the principles of faith of the Church which nowadays holds a hermeneutically moderate position, namely the Catholic Church.

3.1 Divino Afflante Spiritu The encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, issued in 1943, was the first official document of the Catholic Church which marked a significant shift in the attitude of this Church to the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material. Whereas the two preceding encyclicals concerning biblical exegesis, Providentissimus Deus (issued in 1893) and especially Spiritus Paraclitus (issued in 1920), apologetically defended the inerrancy of the Bible in historical matters, 2 the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu presented a more moderate view on this issue. 3 1 2

Cf. D. C. Allison, Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009), 32-40. Cf. M. Gilbert, ‘Cinquant’anni di magistero romano sull’ermeneutica biblica: Leone XIII (1893) – Pio XII (1943)’, in P. Laghi, M. Gilbert, and A. Vanhoye, Chiesa e Sacra Scrittura: Un secolo di magistero ecclesiastico e studi biblici (SubBi 17; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1994), 11-33 (esp. 18-22); R. Fabris, ‘Bibbia e magistero: Dalla Providentissimus Deus (1893) alla Dei Verbum (1965)’, StPat 41 (1994), no. 2, 11-36

148

Chapter 3

In the introduction to his encyclical, Pope Pius XII affirmed the position of the earlier encyclical Providentissimus Deus that the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, which results from its divine inspiration, refers not only to the matters of faith and morals, but also to those of physical science and history (DAS 1). 4 However, also in line with Providentissimus Deus, Pius XII subsequently qualified and explained this thesis with the use of quotations from St Thomas and St Augustine, which suggest that the common-sense and salvific ideas which are contained in biblical texts may differ from those which are espoused by scientists (DAS 3). 5 In the main part of the document, Pius XII encouraged the exegetes to take into consideration, among others, the circumstances of life of the biblical authors, the sources (written or orally transmitted) which they had applied, and the forms of expression which they had used (DAS 33). In particular, the Pope suggested that the study of ancient literary genres and forms of expression may be crucial for a proper interpretation of difficult biblical texts (DAS 35-40). In his opinion, these ancient literary genres and forms of expression are not known to us a priori; they have to be inductively analysed on the basis of careful examination of the ancient literature (DAS 36; cf. also DAS 38). According to the Pope, the alleged historical errors which were made by the sacred writers often arose from their use of such widely employed ancient modes of expression and narration (DAS 38-39). 6 Pope Pius XII admitted that numerous problems still remain unsolved, and their satisfactory solutions might be found only in the future (DAS 44-45). In his view, the doctrine of the Church primarily refers to faith and morals, and only few historical matters were defined by the authority of the Church or unanimously judged by the Holy Fathers (DAS 47). Accordingly, there are numerous,

3 4 5

6

[315-340] (esp. 15-19 [319-323], 23-24 [327-328]); J. G. Prior, The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 50; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 1999), 94-101, 110-114, 124-125. Cf. M. Gilbert, ‘Cinquant’anni’, 28-33; R. Fabris, ‘Bibbia e magistero’, 27-29 [331333], 35 [339]; J. G. Prior, Historical, 118, 125. The division of the text of the encyclical into numbers follows that of the version of this document on the official Vatican website. Cf. U. Vanni, ‘Pio XII e la Bibbia: L’enciclica Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) e la costituzione dogmatica Dei Verbum (1965): due documenti fondamentali a confronto’, in P. Chenaux (ed.), L’Eredità del Magistero di Pio XII (Dibattito per il Millennio 13; Lateran University and Gregorian & Biblical: Città del Vaticano 2010), 71-86 (esp. 73, 83). Cf. M. Gilbert, ‘Cinquant’anni’, 31-32; R. Fabris, ‘Bibbia e magistero’, 28-29 [332333]; J. G. Prior, Historical, 118-119, 121, 123.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

149

at times very important, historical issues which may and should be freely investigated by faithful exegetes (DAS 47-48). 7 The doctrinal statements of Pius XII concerning the historical value of the Bible are therefore carefully balanced. On the one hand, on the basis of the faith in the divine inspiration of Sacred Scripture, the Pope affirmed its historical reliability. On the other hand, however, he admitted that in the biblical texts there are numerous historical problems, the solutions to which may be found through research on ancient modes of composing literary works. Moreover, he warned against biblical fundamentalism which would not allow for discussions concerning the historical value of numerous biblical texts. 8 From the point of view of the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Bible, the Pope’s suggestion that solutions to numerous exegetical problems, especially to those which concern the historical value of biblical texts, may be found through inductive research on ancient modes of composing literary works is particularly interesting. In 1943, when Pius XII wrote his encyclical, exegetes usually identified these ancient modes of writing with various Semitic literary genres and rhetorical figures. However, it seems that the Pope’s suggestion also applies to the ancient use of hypertextual procedures. In fact, there is no reason to restrict the catalogue of ancient modes of writing to rather simple literary forms of myths, epics, sagas, etc. The example of the literary genre of midrash, which may be inductively analysed in ancient Semitic literature, reveals that various hypertextual procedures were widely known and used in the biblical world, and that they constituted the fundamental literary device in a number of biblical and parabiblical works. Consequently, hypertextual literary genres 9 and forms should not be excluded from the catalogue of widely used ancient modes of composition, to which the encouraging doctrinal statements of Pius XII apply. Moreover, if according to the Pope’s statements faithful exegetes are not only allowed but also summoned to investigate freely important historical issues in the Bible, the problem of the historical value of the Gospel material, which certainly belongs to such very important issues, should be analysed by them with particular interest and care. The only theological limitation to such research, which was imposed by Pius XII, concerns the matters which were defined by the authority of the Church or unanimously judged by the Holy Fathers 7 8 9

Cf. R. Fabris, ‘Bibbia e magistero’, 29 [333]; J. G. Prior, Historical, 120; U. Vanni, ‘Pio XII’, 76. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 124. Cf. M. M. Zahn, ‘Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment’, JBL 131 (2012) 271-288 (esp. 282-288).

150

Chapter 3

as strictly historical. The Pope stated that such issues are few in number. However, he did not list them, but rather suggested that they should be known to faithful exegetes.

3.2 Sancta Mater Ecclesia The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia concerning the historical truth of the Gospels was issued in 1964. It was prepared in response to the wish of Pope John XXIII, expressed in 1962, to put an end to the so-called Roman controversy, which concerned the use of modern critical methods in the interpretation of the Bible. 10 In particular, the document aimed at clarifying the principles of the application of the method of form criticism (Formgeschichte) to the issue of the origin of the Gospels, as viewed from a Catholic perspective. 11 In the first part of the instruction, which concerns general hermeneutic and methodological principles of the exegesis of the Gospels, the PBC confirmed the idea of the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu that the study of the particular forms of expression and literary genres which were used by sacred writers may be crucial for a proper interpretation of difficult biblical texts. 12 The instruction of the PBC, however, went further than Divino Afflante Spiritu, in that it explicitly stated that this general hermeneutic rule applies to the explanation of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (SME 1). 13 In this way, the PBC introduced the thought that the New Testament writings, inasmuch as they contain modes of expression which differ from a simple report of facts, may also have features which are not strictly historical from our modern point of view. This idea is very important from the perspective of the most recent research on the use of hypertextual literary devices in the Gospels. 14 10 11

12 13

14

Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 134-144. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels’, TS 25 (1964) 386-408 (esp. 387); A. Vanhoye, ‘Dopo la Divino afflante Spiritu: Progressi e Problemi dell’esegesi cattolica’, in P. Laghi, M. Gilbert, and A. Vanhoye, Chiesa, 35-51 (esp. 39); J. G. Prior, Historical, 146. Cf. A. Vanhoye, ‘Dopo’, 39. Cf. S. Cipriani, ‘Presupposti dottrinali espliciti e impliciti della «Instructio» della Pontificia Commissione Biblica sui Vangeli’, DivThom 68 (1965) 242-254 (esp. 245-246); R. Bartnicki, Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (4th edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 184-185. It should be noted that the Gospels may belong to more than one literary genre. The fact that they have some features of biography does not contradict the fact that they have a

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

151

Subsequently, the PBC endorsed the use of reasonable elements of the method of form criticism in the exegesis of the Gospels, provided that at least general supernaturalness, reliability, historicity, and apostolicity of the Gospel material are not a priori rejected (SME 1). In fact, the second part of the instruction presents the application of the historical-critical method, supplemented with this basic hermeneutic provision, to the issue of the origin of the Gospels. 15 Consequently, the second part of the document, which contains a description of three stages of the Gospel tradition, should be regarded as an attempt to reconcile the scholarly recognition of the fact that a significant portion of the Gospel material seems to have unhistorical features with the hermeneutic idea that at least general supernaturalness, reliability, historicity, and apostolicity of the Gospel material ought not to be a priori rejected. 16 In its presentation of the three stages of the formation of the Gospel tradition, the PBC pointed to numerous factors which could cause the fact that the Gospel narratives are considerably unhistorical. At the first, pre-Easter stage, the remembering and understanding of Jesus’ deeds and words was conditioned by the mentality of his disciples, and it was related not to simple history but to believing in Christ and in the doctrine of salvation. At the second, apostolic stage, the apostles’ proclamation mainly referred to Jesus’ death and resurrection, it was conditioned by the variegated circumstances of life and mentalities of Jewish and Gentile listeners, it was supplemented with fuller understanding of the Lord’s words and deeds, it included an interpretation of Jesus’ words and deeds, and it was expressed in predicatory rather than strictly historical literary genres (catechesis, story, testimony, hymn, doxology, prayer, etc.). At the third, evangelistic stage, the sacred authors had their peculiar purposes, they selected some of the Lord’s word and deeds, they synthesized them, and they rhetorically and narratively explicated, recontextualized, reordered, and reformulated them according to the needs of their readers, as was already recognized by the Fathers of the Church in the East (John Chrysostom) and in the West (Augustine) (SME 2). According to the PBC, ‘the doctrine and the life of Jesus were not simply reported for the sole purpose of being remembered, but were “preached” so as to

15 16

predominantly hypertextual character. Cf. M. M. Zahn, ‘Genre’, 287: ‘As noted above, texts can and do belong to more than one genre, and to group a text with other “Rewritten Scripture” texts is not to deny its participation in one or more other genres, each with its own functions and systems of expectations.’ Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Instruction’, 387. Cf. A. Vanhoye, ‘Dopo’, 39-40.

152

Chapter 3

offer the Church a basis of faith and of morals’, 17 and consequently interpreters should above all explain the theological value of the Gospels, 18 bearing in mind the fact that there are numerous, at times very important, historical issues which remain unresolved and which may and should be freely investigated by faithful exegetes, as was already stated in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (SME 2). By listing around fifteen factors which had contributed to significant discrepancies between the images of Jesus in the Gospels and the historical facts of his life, the PBC clearly acknowledged the truth that the Gospels have a considerably unhistorical character. Accordingly, the Commission did not defend the historicity of all deeds and words which are attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, 19 but it rather aimed at defending the overall reliability of the Gospel presentations of Jesus, which should function as a solid basis of the faith and morals of the Church (cf. SME 2). 20 Moreover, in the footnotes to its presentation of the second, apostolic stage of the formation of the Gospel tradition, the PBC referred not only to the proclamation of Peter and the Twelve (cf. Acts 2:22.32; 3:15; 5:30-32; 6:4; 10:36-41 etc.) but also to that of Paul the Apostle (cf. Acts 13:16-41; 17:22-31; Rom 1:14; 1 Cor 9:19-23 etc.). In this way, the PBC implicitly pointed to the important, Pauline link between the proclamation of the Twelve and the composition of the Gospels. This link, which was generally omitted in the traditional, apologetic presentations of the Gospels (especially those of Matthew, Mark, and John) as being directly or almost directly ‘apostolic’ (in terms of recording the preaching of the Twelve), is in fact of crucial importance for the understanding of the true character of the canonical Gospels.

3.3 Dei Verbum The dogmatic constitution on divine revelation Dei Verbum, which was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1965, includes and summarizes the

17

18 19 20

It should be noted that this statement significantly cautions against the attempts to present the process of the formation of the Gospel tradition solely or mainly in terms of ‘remembering Jesus’, pace e.g. J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2003), esp. 882-884. Cf. S. Cipriani, ‘Presupposti’, 246-247. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Instruction’, 387-388, 396, 401. Cf. R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1997), 110.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

153

main theses of the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia and sets them in a more general hermeneutic context. 21 Although in its references to the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material the conciliar dogmatic constitution is less explicit than the instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, it has a much higher normative value for the Catholic Church than the instruction of the PBC. 22

3.3.1 General principles The first chapter of the constitution is devoted to the issue of divine revelation itself. Dei Verbum presents this revelation in personalistic, relational, and salvific terms of God’s entering into salvatory communication and communion with humans through his deeds, through his words, and through his Son (DV 2-6). 23 For this reason, the initial description of the content of God’s revelation which was accomplished in and through Christ centres on God’s being with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to eternal life (DV 4). As concerns the particular revelatory elements of Jesus Christ’s life, they are identified as his whole presence and his manifestation through his words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially his death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth (DV 4). 24 Consequently, the first chapter of Dei Verbum stresses the importance of the incarnation and, above all, the death, resurrection, and glorification as the most important realities of Jesus’ life, which convey the essence of God’s revelation in and through him, and which have a predominantly salvific character. Such diversification of the significance of various revelatory-salvific elements of Jesus’ life introduces the thought that among the deeds and words which are

21 22 23

24

Cf. A. Vanhoye, ‘Dopo’, 40. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 89 n. 1, 130 n. 2. Cf. J. Ratzinger, ‘Kommentar zum I. Kapitel’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erläuterungen: Lateinisch und Deutsch: Kommentare, vol. 2 (LTK; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1967), 504-515 (esp. 506-507); K. Wojtyła, ‘Znaczenie Konstytucji Dei Verbum w teologii’, in id. [et al.], Idee przewodnie soborowej konstytucji o Bożym Objawieniu (Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne: Kraków 1968), 7-11 (esp. 10-11); H. Hoping, ‘Theologischer Kommentar zur Dogmatischen Konstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung’, in P. Hünermann and B. J. Hilberath (eds.), Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 3 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2005), 695-831 (esp. 739-742). Cf. H. Waldenfels, Offenbarung: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil auf dem Hintergrund der neueren Theologie (BÖT 3; Max Hueber: München 1969), 250.

154

Chapter 3

presented in the Gospels only the most important ones should be considered crucial for our salvation, and consequently truly historical or at least reliably presented by the evangelists (cf. DV 17, 19). The second chapter of the constitution is devoted to the handing on of divine revelation. It likewise presents this revelation not in terms of some truths, which should be accepted by the human intellect, but in terms of leading humans to salvation. 25 Already the first statement of this chapter refers to the preservation and transmission of all that God revealed ‘for the salvation of all nations’ (DV 7). Subsequently, the constitution presents the apostles as preaching Christ’s gospel regarded as ‘the source of all saving truth (salutaris veritatis) and moral teaching’, 26 and the evangelists as writing ‘the message of salvation’ (DV 7). 27 Likewise, it states that ‘what was handed on by the apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the people of God’ (DV 8) and that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church ‘contribute effectively to the salvation of souls’ (DV 10). Evidently, according to Dei Verbum, the divine revelation which was transmitted to us has a salvific and not simply informative character. 28 In this context, it is understandable that the constitution affirms that the truth of the books of Scripture, which is taught by them solidly, faithfully, and without error, is in fact limited to the truth ‘which God wanted to be put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (nostrae salutis causa: DV 11). 29 The ma-

25 26

27

28

29

Cf. H. Hoping, ‘Kommentar’, 751-752. In fact, the Latin formula omnis et salutaris veritatis, which was used in this fragment of the constitution, should be translated: ‘all and saving truth’. The Doctrinal Commission of Vatican II stated that the conjunction et (‘and’) in this formula should be retained because the whole phrase originated from the Council of Trent: cf. J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum: Theological Critiques from within Vatican II: A Retrieval and Analysis of The Unaccepted Theological Critiques Raised in Response to The Schema on Revelation During The Third and Fourth Periods of The Second Vatican Council (doct. diss.; Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Facultas Theologiae: Romae 2004), 124. Cf. U. Betti, La dottrina del Concilio Vaticano II sulla trasmissione della Rivelazione: Il capitolo II della Costituzione dommatica Dei verbum (SPAA 26; [s.n.]: Roma 1985), 246. Cf. A. Grillmeier, ‘Kommentar zum III. Kapitel’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Konzil, vol. 2, 528-557 (esp. 547 n. 13); J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 183-184; D. Kosch, ‘„Um unseres Heiles willen“: Eine Relecture von „Dei Verbum“ nach 40 Jahren’, BK 60 (2005) 45-51 (esp. 47-48). Cf. E. Stakemeier, Die Konzilskonstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung: Werden, Inhalt und theologische Bedeutung: Lateinischer und deutscher Text mit Kommentar (KKTS 18; 2 edn., Bonifacius: Paderborn 1967), 228-231; H. Hoping, ‘Kommentar’,

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

155

jority of the authors of the document were conscious of the fact that Sacred Scripture sometimes departs from historical or scientific truth. 30 On the other hand, they did not want to state that the divine inspiration was limited only to certain parts of Scripture. 31 Therefore, they modified earlier theological proposals and adopted the view that the inerrancy terminology, as concerns Sacred Scripture, should be substituted with that of truth, which, on its part, should be presented as that which concerns our salvation.32 Such a presentation of the reliable teaching of Scripture as referring to the truth which God wanted to be put into sacred writings ‘for the sake of our salvation’ (DV 11), and not for the sake of our historical or scientific curiosity, 33 leaves the issue of the historicity of numerous biblical events opened up for wide-ranging discussions.34 However, the conciliar formula suggests that its authors would defend the historicity of those

30

31 32

33

34

752; P. Grech, ‘Further Reflections on Biblical Inspiration and Truth’, BTB 42 (2012) 81-89 (esp. 87). Cf. R. Jacob, ‘La verdad de la Sagrada Escritura’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), La Palabra de Dios en la Historia de los Hombres: Comentario Temático a la Constitución “Dei Verbum” sobre la Divina Revelación (TeDe 23; Universidad de Deusto and Mensajero: Bilbao 1991), 359-382 (esp. 367-374); J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 220-225; C. Alves, Ispirazione e verità: Genesi, sintesi e prospettive della dottrina sull’ispirazione biblica del concilio Vaticano II (DV 11) (doct. diss.; Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Facoltà di Teologia: Roma 2008), 232-233, 279-280. Cf. A. Grillmeier, ‘Kommentar’, 536-537, 547-548; H. Hoping, ‘Kommentar’, 768-770; P. Grech, ‘Reflections’, 87. Cf. J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 217-220, 226-236; C. Alves, Ispirazione, 237, 279-282, 293-300, 332; D. Farkasfalvy, Inspiration & Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture (Catholic University of America: Washington, D.C. 2010), 185-188, 226-233. Cf. the view of St Augustin, which was cited in DV 11 in support of this thesis in line with the doctrine of St Thomas, the Council of Trent, Leo XIII, and Pius XII: breviter dicendum est de figura caeli hoc scisse auctores nostros quod veritas habet; sed Spiritum Dei, qui per ipsos loquebatur, noluisse ista docere homines nulli saluti profutura (Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 2.9.20). Cf. also M. Zerwick, ‘De S. Scriptura in Constitutione dogmatica «Dei Verbum»’, VD 44 (1966) 17-42 (esp. 32-33); U. Vanni, ‘Pio XII’, 83; P. Grech, ‘Reflections’, 87. Cf. J. Ratzinger, ‘Einleitung’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Konzil, vol. 2, 498-503 (esp. 502-503); A. Grillmeier, ‘Kommentar’, 537, 548-550. Cf. also A. Bea, Das Wort Gottes und die Menschheit: Die Lehre des Konzils über die Offenbarung (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1968), 157 n. 19, who points to the fact that the constitution’s explanations concerning the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, with the remarks concerning literary forms etc. (DV 12), constitute an essential complement to the statements concerning its inerrancy (DV 11).

156

Chapter 3

biblical facts and realities which are crucial for our salvation (cf. DV 4, 17, 19). 35 In its exposition of the issue of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the constitution states that attention should be given, among other things, to literary forms of biblical texts. 36 Among such forms, the constitution lists the category of texts which are ‘in various ways historical’ (vario modo historicis: DV 12). In this way, Dei Verbum suggests that not all biblical texts which appear to be historical are in fact historical in the same way. Consequently, numerous texts of the Bible may be regarded as only apparently or only partly historical. 37 It is important that the constitution does not a priori exclude the texts of the Gospels from these literary categories. 38

3.3.2 New Testament in general In the fifth chapter of the constitution, which is devoted to the New Testament, the authors of the document firstly reiterated the view that the biblical writings, including the writings of the New Testament, contain the Word of God, which has a predominantly salvific and not merely informative character (DV 17). Thereafter, the conciliar fathers listed the key realities to which the writings of the New Testament stand as a perpetual and divine witness (DV 17). Both the opening reference to the salvific character of the Word of God and the similarity of the list of the key New Testament realities (DV 17) to the preceding enumeration of the realities of Jesus’ life which are crucial for the revelation of God

35

36 37

38

Cf. R. Burigana, La Bibbia nel concilio: La redazione della costituzione «Dei verbum» del Vaticano II (TRSR, NS 21; Il Mulino: Bologna 1998), 417-428; J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 273-274; C. Alves, Ispirazione, 312. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 155-156. Cf. O. Semmelroth and M. Zerwick, Vatikanum II über das Wort Gottes: Die Konstitution „Dei Verbum“: Einführung und Kommentar, Text und Übersetzung (SBS 16; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1966), 36-37; P. Grelot, ‘L’inspiration de l’Écriture et son interprétation’, in B.-D. Dupuy (ed.), La Révélation divine: Constitution dogmatique « Dei verbum » [vol. 1-2] (UnSa 70a, 70b; Cerf: Paris 1968), 347-380 (esp. 372); A. Jankowski, ‘Wprowadzenie do Konstytucji dogmatycznej o Objawieniu Bożym’, in Sobór Watykański II, Konstytucje – Dekrety – Deklaracje. Tekst polski. Nowe tłumaczenie (Pallottinum: Poznań 2002), 341-349 (esp. 347). Cf. J. Kudasiewicz, ‘Historyczność Ewangelii według Soboru Watykańskiego II’, in J. Kudasiewicz and H. Witczyk, Jezus i Ewangelie w ogniu dyskusji: Od H. Reimarusa do T. Polaka (Biblioteka „Verbum Vitae” 2; ITB Verbum: Kielce 2011), 164-194 (esp. 171); P. Grech, ‘Reflections’, 87.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

157

and for our salvation (DV 4) 39 suggest that the authors of the constitution regarded those key New Testament realities as predominantly salvific in character. However, since those realities are of crucial importance for our salvation, in line with the logic of DV 4 they should be considered historical or at least reliably presented in the New Testament. Likewise, the use of the testimony terminology in DV 17 suggests that the conciliar fathers regarded the key New Testament realities as underlying the witness of the New Testament writings, and consequently as truly objective. The list of the key salvific, and consequently objective, historical or reliably presented realities which refer to Christ includes the incarnation, the institution of the kingdom of God on earth, the revelation of God as the Father, the revelation of Christ himself, the death, resurrection, and glorious ascension or exaltation, the sending of the Holy Spirit, and the ongoing supernatural salvific activity. This list, in line with the logic of the second part of the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, which describes three stages of the formation of the Gospel tradition (cf. also DV 19), is supplemented with references to the preaching activity of the apostolic Church and to the witness of the inspired writings of the New Testament (DV 17). It should be noted that this conciliar list of the objective, historical, or reliably presented realities which in the New Testament refer to Christ (DV 17) generally agrees with the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the facts of Jesus’ life. The fact of the incarnation was historically reflected in the profession of Jesus as the Son of God, which was repeatedly witnessed in the Pauline letters (1 Thes 1:10; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 1:19; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4; Phlp 2:6-7 etc.). The institution of the kingdom of God on earth may be identified with the undoubtedly historical institution of the messianic group of the Twelve, 40 which seems to have functioned as an inner circle within the Jerusalem Church (1 Cor 15:5-7), and with the spiritual reality to which Paul repeatedly referred (1 Cor 4:20; Rom 14:17 etc.). The revelation of God as the Father, which was related to the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God, was also reflected in Paul’s letters, especially in the probably Palestine-derived use of the Aramaic word ‘Abba’ (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). The revelation of Christ himself (which is interpreted in DV 17, in the context of the apostolic Church, as the revelation of Jesus as Christ and Lord) may be identified with the undoubtedly historical profession of 39

40

Cf. H. Waldenfels, Offenbarung, 250; L. Alonso Schökel, ‘Excelencia del Nuevo Testamento’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), Palabra, 493-495 (esp. 494). However, cf. X. Léon-Dufour, ‘Sur le Nouveau Testament (commentaire du chapitre V)’, in B.-D. Dupuy (ed.), Révélation, 403-431 (esp. 405-406).

158

Chapter 3

Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (Rom 1:1.3; Jos. Ant. 20.200 etc.). Jesus’ death, resurrection, and glorious exaltation can be regarded as either strictly historical or reliably referred to in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 15:3-8; Phlp 2:6-11 etc.). Christ’s ongoing supernatural salvific activity in the Holy Spirit was also repeatedly witnessed in Paul’s letters (2 Cor 3:16-18; 13:13; Rom 8:26-34 etc.). The only undoubtedly historical, very important elements of Jesus’ life which are somewhat lacking in the list of the key salvific, and consequently objective, historical or reliably presented realities that refer to Christ (DV 17; cf. also DV 4) are the institution of the Eucharist and the shaming reality of the cross. It is also important that the text of DV 17 does not restrict the reference to the apostles, who functioned as the mediating body between Christ and the authors of the New Testament writings, to the group of the Twelve. 41 To the contrary, the use of the allusion to Eph 3:4-5, with its reference to the spiritual revelation of the mystery of Christ which was given to Christ’s apostles and prophets, hints at the particular role of Paul the Apostle, who received a spiritual revelation of Christ and who preached the mystery of Christ, which was later described in the Gospels (cf. 1 Cor 2:1-10; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Gal 1:12.16).

3.3.3 Historicity of the Gospels The fragment of the constitution which is particularly devoted to the issue of the historicity of the Gospels (DV 19) begins with the words ‘Holy Mother Church’ (Sancta Mater Ecclesia). These words evidently allude to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia concerning the historical truth of the Gospels. 42 In fact, the presentation of three stages of the formation of the Gospel tradition in DV 19 summarizes the main ideas of the second part of the instruction of the PBC. 43 The first statement concerning the four canonical Gospels states that the Church unhesitatingly asserts their historical character (DV 19). Such a categorical assertion seems to exclude all doubts concerning strict historicity of all details which are described in the Gospels. However, it should be noted that DV 41 42 43

Cf. E. Stakemeier, Konzilskonstitution, 245 n. 34; X. Léon-Dufour, ‘Sur le Nouveau’, 407. Cf. G. Segalla, ‘La verità storica dei vangeli e la «terza ricerca» su Gesù’, Lat 61 (1995) no. 2-3, 195-234 [461-500] (esp. 199 [465]). Cf. J. Caba, ‘Historicité des Évangiles (DV 19): Genèse et fruit du texte conciliaire’, in R. Latourelle (ed.), Vatican II: Bilan et perspectives: Vingt ans après (1962-1987) (Recherches: Nouvelle Serie 15; Bellarmin: Montréal and Cerf: Paris 1988), 307-327 (esp. 315).

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

159

19, in difference to the earlier instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, does not refer to the ‘historical truth’ (historica veritas) of the Gospels (SME, title), but more generally to their historical character (historicitas: DV 19). 44 Moreover, the same constitution, in its part concerning proper interpretation of Scripture, admits that the so-called historical writings of the Bible, not a priori excluding the Gospels, may be historical ‘in various ways’ (vario modo historicis: DV 12). 45 In this context, it may be asked in what way historical the Gospels are. 46 The constitution answers to this question not with a simple dogmatic statement (that they are strictly historical in all details etc.) 47 but with the immediately following description of three stages of the formation of the Gospel tradition, a presentation which follows the ideas of the second part of the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia. 48 In its reference to the stage of the earthly (i.e. pre-Ascension) Jesus, the constitution states that the Gospels ‘faithfully (fideliter) hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while living among men, really did and taught’ (DV 19). Such a statement could suggest that all Jesus’ deeds and words which are presented in the Gospels were transmitted faithfully, and consequently they should be regarded as strictly historical. However, the clause concerning the things which Jesus ‘really did and taught’ among humans is qualified by the addition of the phrase ‘for their eternal salvation’ (ad aeternam eorum salutem: DV 19). 49 Accordingly, the constitution limits the extent of the faithfulness of the transmission of Jesus’ deeds and words in the Gospel tradition to those deeds and words which were done and uttered for the eternal salvation of humans. 50 This fact is confirmed by the use in DV 19 of the same tripartite pattern which was used in DV 7, 51 which presents the whole gospel of Jesus Christ as 44 45 46

47 48

49 50 51

Cf. G. Segalla, ‘Verità’, 199 [465]. Cf. O. Semmelroth and M. Zerwick, Vatikanum, 47; E. Stakemeier, Konzilskonstitution, 251; J. Kudasiewicz, ‘Historyczność’, 171. Cf. E. Stakemeier, Konzilskonstitution, 251; X. Léon-Dufour, ‘Sur le Nouveau’, 429430; J. R. Scheifler, ‘Los Evangelios’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), Palabra, 497-557 (esp. 556-557). Cf. J. Caba, ‘Historicité’, 311-320; J. R. Scheifler, ‘Evangelios’, 525-532, 534, 552, 557; J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 268-274, 282. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 152 n. 87; F. Testaferri, La parola viva: Commento teologico alla Dei Verbum (Teologia Saggi; Cittadella: Assisi 2009), 181-182; J. Kudasiewicz, ‘Historyczność’, 171. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 152. Cf. G. Segalla, ‘Verità’, 199 [465]; J. Kudasiewicz, ‘Historyczność’, 171. Cf. F. Guillén Armendáriz, ‘A favor de una teología de la historia en Dei Verbum 7 y 19’, VyV 58 (2000) 35-58 (esp. 45).

160

Chapter 3

conveying ‘saving truth’ (veritas salutaris) and the Gospels as conveying ‘the message of salvation’ (DV 7). In this way, the constitution applies to the Gospels the general rule which concerns the truth of the books of Scripture, namely that the truth which is taught by them solidly, faithfully (fideliter), and without error is limited to the truth which God wanted to be put into sacred writings ‘for the sake of our salvation’ (nostrae salutis causa: DV 11). 52 Is it possible to ascertain which deeds and words of the earthly Jesus, according to Dei Verbum, were done and uttered for the eternal salvation of humans? In fact, the constitution contains two lists of such deeds and words. The first, more general one, refers to Jesus’ words and deeds, his signs and wonders, but especially his death and glorious resurrection from the dead (DV 4). The second list, which is more closely related to the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material, refers to the incarnation, the institution of the kingdom of God on earth, the revelation of God as the Father, the revelation of Christ himself, and the death, resurrection, and glorious ascension/exaltation (DV 17). 53 Therefore, the text of DV 19 both in its closer and in its more remote context presents not all details from the Gospel narratives, but particularly Jesus’ divine sonship, his messiahship, his extraordinary deeds, the institution of the Church, and especially his death, resurrection, and exaltation as the realities which should be regarded as truly historical or at least reliably presented in the Gospels. 54 As was noted above, this position generally agrees with the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material. The conciliar presentation could only be supplemented with references to the institution of the Eucharist and to the shaming reality of the cross. The statement which is devoted to the apostolic (i.e. post-Ascension) stage of the formation of the Gospel material almost verbatim quotes the statement of the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia that the apostles handed on to their hearers what the Lord had said and done, and that they did this with that fuller understanding which they enjoyed, having been instructed by the glorious events of Christ and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth (DV 19). 55 The only significant departure of DV 19 from the text of the instruction of the PBC consists in the omission of the word ‘really’ (reapse) from the phrase which referred to the

52 53 54 55

Cf. J. Kudasiewicz, ‘Historyczność’, 192. Cf. ibid. 171. Cf. ibid. 171-172. Cf. B. Ahern, ‘Scriptural Aspects’, in J. H. Miller (ed.), Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal: International Theological Conference: University of Notre Dame: March 2026, 1966 (University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, Ind. · London and Association Press: New York 1966), New York 54-67 (esp. 63).

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

161

things which the Lord had said and done. By means of this omission, the conciliar fathers avoided suggesting in a dogmatic way that everything that had been handed on by the apostles concerning the Lord should be regarded as really (i.e. historically) said and done by him. The subsequent fragment, which is devoted to the stage of the composition of the Gospels, likewise reiterates and summarizes the pertaining expressions of the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, which refer to the procedures of selection, synthesis, explanation, and rendering in a predicatory form (DV 19). 56 However, the authors of Dei Verbum introduced several more or less significant changes to the text of the instruction of the PBC. One of these modifications consists in presenting pre-Gospel writings concerning Jesus as existing parallelly (aut – aut) and not subsequently (primum – deinde) to the oral tradition concerning the Lord. On the one hand, this change suggests that in their compositional activity the evangelists could have directly used not only written, but also oral sources. 57 On the other hand, however, this change suggests that the things concerning the Lord could have been recorded in writing quite early, thus allowing for the possibility of regarding Paul’s letters as belonging to the category of pre-Gospel writings concerning Jesus, especially in view of the fact that the authors of DV 19 omitted the clarifying statement of the instruction that ‘it soon happened that many tried “to compile a narrative of the things” (Lk 1:1) which concerned the Lord Jesus’. Another important modification of the text of the instruction of the PBC in DV 19 consists in adding a long explanation that the evangelists acted ‘always in such fashion that they told us true and sincere things about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” […] (cf. Lk 1:24)’. The use of the phrase ‘true and sincere’ (vera et sincera) and of the word ‘truth’ (veritatem) instead of ‘reliability’ (firmitatem) in DV 19 could suggest that the evangelists in their writings always reproduced the whole historical truth about Jesus. However, a long fragment of the instruction of the PBC, which was not quoted in DV 19, explains that the truth (veritas) of the Gospel narratives should be regarded as consisting in presenting things not simply literally but rather according to their sense and in new hermeneutic contexts (SME 2). Accordingly, the phrase ‘true and sincere’, together with the corresponding word ‘truth’, should be understood as pointing not to strict historicity of all data 56 57

Cf. J. R. Scheifler, ‘Evangelios’, 544-550; J. G. Prior, Historical, 156; J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 278-279. Cf. J. R. Scheifler, ‘Evangelios’, 544.

162

Chapter 3

concerning Jesus in the Gospels, 58 but rather to the rejection of the views of Bultmann’s school that the Gospels present a mythologized and distorted image of Jesus. 59 The introduction of the subsequent statement, which is based on the quotation from Lk 1:2-4, is also important. It conveys that idea that in their compositional activity the evangelists used not only their own memory and mind, but also the material which originated from those who ‘themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word’ (cf. Lk 1:2). The quotation, if taken out of its wider Lucan context, could suggest that the evangelists directly used the material which originated from the Twelve or, more generally, from the Palestinian believers in Christ. However, as was already noted, the context of Acts 26:4.16 (cf. also 1 Cor 4:1; 9:1; Jos. C.Ap. 1.55) implies that the Lucan statement concerning those who ‘from the beginning became (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς… γενόμενοι) eyewitnesses (αὐτόπται) and servants (ὑπηρέται) of the word’ primarily refers to Paul the Apostle. 60 Consequently, the use of this quotation in DV 19 (in difference to the instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia) allows for the possibility that the evangelists based their narratives not directly on the tradition of the Twelve, but rather on the contents of the Pauline letters. Accordingly, the results of the most recent research on hypertextuality and historicity of the Gospel material generally agree with the ideas which were presented in the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation Dei Verbum (esp. DV 4, 11-12, 17, 19). 61

3.4 L’interprétation de la Bible dans l’Église The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document L’interprétation de la Bible dans l’Église (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church) was issued in 1993, a hundred years after the encyclical Providentissimus Deus and fifty years after the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. It does not directly address the problem of hypertextuality and historicity in the Gospels. However, it presents a modern Catholic view on the issues which are related to this problem.

58 59 60 61

Cf. J. Caba, ‘Historicité’, 316-318; J. M. Gile, Dei Verbum, 272-273; F. Testaferri, Parola, 182. Cf. X. Léon-Dufour, ‘Sur le Nouveau’, 429-430. See above, 105 (Section 2.6.2). Cf. also B. Maggioni, «Impara a conoscere il volto di Dio»: Commento alla «Dei Verbum» (Dabar – Logos – Parola: Lectio divina popolare; Messaggero: Padova 2001), 81.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

163

3.4.1 Historical-critical method The document’s section which is devoted to the historical-critical method (I.A.) presents this method as the most important method of Catholic exegesis of the Bible. 62 According to the PBC, the main reason for using this method results from the fact that the Bible was written in human language by human authors (I.A.Intr.), and therefore ‘the biblical writings cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that shaped them’ (Concl.). Accordingly, proper understanding of the Bible not only admits but actually requires the use of this method, which is ‘indispensable […] for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts’ (I.A.Intr.). 63 However, the particular presentation of the historical-critical method in the document of the PBC goes far beyond this basic thesis. Contrary to the declaration which is contained in the document, it is not true that this method, at least in the version of the PBC, ‘when used in an objective manner, implies of itself no a priori’ (I.A.4.). The authors of the document described the historical-critical method as inherently diachronic: ‘diachronic study remains indispensable for making known the historical dynamism which animates sacred Scripture and for shedding light upon its rich complexity’, so that ‘the goal of the historical-critical method is to determine, particularly in a diachronic manner, the meaning expressed by the biblical authors and editors’ (I.A.4.).64 Accordingly, the PBC argued that the main feature of this method, inasmuch as it may be called historical, ‘above all’ consists in seeking ‘to shed light upon the historical processes which gave rise to biblical texts, diachronic processes that were often complex and involved a long period of time’ (I.A.2.). Without sufficient proof, the PBC assumed that ‘at the different stages of their production, the texts of the Bible were addressed to various categories of hearers or readers living in different places and different times’ (I.A.2.). Consequently, the authors of the document rhetorically suggested that the biblical writings should be investigated together with ‘all the sources that lie behind them’ (I.A.Intr.). 65 62

63 64

65

Cf. A. Vanhoye, ‘L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa: Riflessione circa un documento della Commissione Biblica’, CivCatt 145 (1994), vol. 3, 3-15 (esp. 6-8); J. G. Prior, Historical, 221-222. Cf. J. G. Prior, Historical, 248-253. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Biblical Commission’s Document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”: Text and Commentary (SubBi 18; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1995), 49. Cf. V. Fusco, ‘Un secolo di metodo storico nell’esegesi cattolica (1893-1993)’, StPat 41 (1994), no. 2, 37-94 [341-398] (esp. 84 [388]); J. G. Prior, Historical, 279. Pace P. S. Williamson, Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifi-

164

Chapter 3

The postulation that biblical texts were composed diachronically, over long periods of time, in stages, with the use of sources, etc. has important consequences for biblical exegesis. The authors of the document encouraged exegetes to find overly easy, source-critical solutions to difficult literary problems of the Bible. For example, in its presentation of the history of historical-critical exegesis, the PBC referred to the so-called ‘two source’ hypothesis, with its postulate of the existence of ‘a collection of the sayings of Jesus (called Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning “source”)’ (I.A.1.). The PBC honestly admitted that this hypothesis, which retains its prominence in scientific exegesis today, is also under challenge (I.A.1.). 66 However, in their description of the particular historical-critical procedures, the authors of the document stated that ‘the existence of doublets, of irreconcilable differences and of other indicators is a clue to the composite character of certain texts. These can then be divided into small units, the next step being to see whether these in turn can be assigned to different sources’ (I.A.3.). 67 It is of course true that the existence of doublets, inconsistencies, and other surprising features of a given biblical text may be explained with the use of various source-critical hypotheses. However, such hypotheses are always highly speculative because they postulate the existence of sources which are merely hypothetical, otherwise not recorded, allegedly lost, and in fact easily manipulable for exegetes. Moreover, the existence of somewhat surprising literary features of a given biblical text is not necessarily a clue to its composite character. Quite often, it is a clue to a hypertextual character of this text, especially if it resulted from a systematic, but not always internally consistent, reworking of an earlier writing.68 In fact, dividing a text into small units may seriously hinder the perception of its overall meaning, especially when this meaning is difficult to decipher and when it is conditioned by intertextual relationships between the text and its hypotexts. Consequently, the use of the historical-critical method, at least in its version which was described by the PBC, can lead to serious errors in the understanding of difficult biblical texts.

66 67 68

cal Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (SubBi 22; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2001), 221. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Document, 30. Cf. also id., ‘Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life’, TS 50 (1989) 244-259 (esp. 250-251). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010), 201-202, 204.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

165

3.4.2 Intertextuality and relectures The phenomenon of hypertextuality was not directly addressed in the document of the PBC. In the section which was devoted to semiotic analysis (I.B.3), the commission only in passing mentioned intertextuality as one of new directions of development in this field of research. However, the issue of inner-biblical intertextuality was addressed in the section which was devoted to rereadings (III.A.1). The authors of the document stated that ‘one thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones. These more recent writings allude to older ones, create “rereadings” (relectures) which develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages, whether it is to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment’ (III.A.1). Accordingly, the PBC described biblical rereadings (relectures), in the strict sense of this word, as consisting not in making explicit references to earlier texts, but rather in alluding to earlier texts. Such a description suggests that the form of a rereading may be quite different from that of quotation, paraphrase etc. Moreover, the authors of the document stated that rereadings do not simply reproduce the meaning of earlier texts, but rather develop new aspects of their meaning, aspects which may be quite different from the original sense. In this way, the PBC in fact addressed the issue of hypertextuality, a phenomenon which consists in reworking earlier texts in various creative ways, which differ from that of commentary. 69 The PBC used numerous examples, which were mostly taken from the Old Testament, to illustrate this idea (III.A.1). Subsequently, it referred to the intertextual use of the Old Testament in the New Testament (III.A.2). Alas, the problem of the intertextual relationships which may exist between various New Testament texts was only addressed in the last paragraph of the latter section (III.A.2). However, even in this paragraph, the document does not refer to true intertextual relationships between New Testament texts (e.g. between the Gospels), 70 but only to the ‘juxtaposing of different perspectives’ within the New Testament (e.g. between Jn 16:32 and Mk 15:34). Moreover, these juxtapositions are explained by the PBC not in terms of possible hypertextual relationships, which would witness some theological development of ideas, but in terms of ‘the absence of a sense of systematization’, of ‘things held in dynamic 69 70

Cf. G. Genette, Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982), 13. Cf. J. Kremer, ‘Die Interpretation der Bibel in der Kirche: Marginalien zum neuesten Dokument der Päpstlichen Bibelkommission’, StZ 212 (1994) 151-166 (esp. 161 n. 28).

166

Chapter 3

tension’, and of ‘many ways of interpreting the same events and reflecting upon the same problems’ (III.A.2). By presenting the New Testament writings as literarily and theologically parallel to one another, and not subsequent to one another, the authors of the document in fact avoided discussing the problem of the existence and function of hypertextuality (or relectures) within the corpus of the New Testament writings.

3.4.3 Canonical approach The section which is devoted to the canonical approach (I.C.1) is introduced by the statement that ‘the Bible is not a compilation of texts unrelated to each other; rather, it is a gathering together of a whole array of witnesses from one great tradition’ (I.C.Intr.). The second part of this statement can be regarded as pointing to a relationship of all biblical writings to some thematic core. On the other hand, the first part of this introductory statement refers to the relationships which exist between various biblical texts. It can therefore be regarded as addressing the issue of inner-biblical intertextuality. Consequently, the subsequent presentation of the canonical approach may also be interpreted as at least indirectly referring to inner-biblical intertextuality. In its description of the so-called ‘canonical process’, that is ‘the interpretive process which led to the formation of the canon’, the PBC referred to various hermeneutic procedures, which ‘are often midrashic in nature, serving to make the biblical text relevant for a later time’ (I.C.1). In fact, midrash is one of the literary genres which are characteristic of hypertextual literature. The PBC indirectly confirmed therefore the validity, and even necessity, of the analyses of the issue of hypertextuality in the Bible, presumably also including the Gospels. Since the so-called ‘canonical process’ can be regarded as often consisting in hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in later texts, the interpretive process which led to the formation of the canon should be understood as not limited to the ‘reuse’ or ‘repetition’ of some vaguely defined ‘older traditions’ in new contexts (cf. I.C.1), but as including creative, hypertextual reworking of earlier texts in new writings. It should be noted that at times, especially in the case of later writings of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, such hypertextual reworking of earlier texts seems to betray a certain awareness of the phenomenon of the formation of bodies of divinely inspired, normative, somehow ‘canonical’ writings. 71 71

Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.]

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

167

If the results of the most recent research on the use of hypertextuality and ethopoeia in the Bible are seriously taken into consideration, the so-called ‘canonical approach’, which evidently lacks methodological precision, can be transformed into an approach which could be termed ‘critical canonical’. For example, it can be argued that the internal coherence of the body of the New Testament writings resulted not only from their being inspired by the same Holy Spirit, and not only from the historical decision of the Church to define the canon of Scripture, but also (or above all) from the existence of variegated intertextual-rhetorical relationships among them. These relationships form a logically organized, internally coherent network. A critical canonical approach, regarded as a critical intertextual-rhetorical investigation of the whole body of canonical writings, could constitute an adequate tool for investigating the New Testament from this important perspective.72 On the other hand, a question remains, ‘Should the interpretive process which led to the formation of the canon be recognized as the guiding principle for the interpretation of Scripture today?’ (I.C.1). 73 It seems that since such interpretive, hypertextual-rhetorical procedures were really crucial for the formation of the biblical canon, and since they reveal trajectories of theological development within the canon in some particular directions, they should be regarded as divinely inspired, and consequently as providing guiding principles of crucial importance for the interpretation of Scripture today. 74

3.4.4 Plurality of the literal sense Among various hermeneutic questions, the PBC discussed the issue of the plurality of the literal sense in the Bible. At the beginning of the presentation of this issue, the authors of the document stated that in the case of a story (récit) ‘the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history (genre historique) but be instead a work of imaginative fiction’ (II.B.1). 75 The PBC gave no example of such a biblical

72 73 74 75

2011), 60, 116, 118, 163; id., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and Samuel-Kings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (EST 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012), 278 n. 90. Cf. id., Constructing, 167. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Document, 69-70; P. S. Williamson, Catholic, 251. Cf. B. Adamczewski, Constructing, 167-168; id., Retelling, 283. Cf. T. M. Dąbek, ‘Sensy Pisma Świętego w świetle dokumentu Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej’, in R. Rubinkiewicz (ed.), Interpretacja Biblii w Kościele: Dokument Papieskiej

168

Chapter 3

‘story’, thus leaving open the question whether at least some of the Gospel stories might belong to this category. However, the authors of the document evidently recognized the fact that neither a particular literary form of a given text (for example, a story) nor the fact of its divine inspiration necessarily imply the historicity of the events which were described in it. Consequently, neither genre criticism nor theological analysis can substitute for real historical criticism. In fact, in a preceding fragment of the document its authors stated that ‘when the texts studied belong to a historical literary genre (genre […] historique) or are related to events of history, historical criticism completes literary criticism so as to determine the historical significance of the text in the modern sense of this expression’ (I.A.3). Consequently, even if a given story from a Gospel seems to belong to the historical literary genre or to be related to events of history, only sound historical criticism can determine its real historical value in the modern sense of this expression. Subsequently, the PBC discussed the issue of the possible plurality of the literal sense of biblical texts. The commission referred to cases in which a human author intended ‘to refer at one and the same time to more than one level of reality (à plusieurs niveaux de réalité)’, and it proceeded to note that ‘this is in fact normally the case with regard to poetry’ (II.B.1). However, the authors of the document evidently did not intend to limit the plurality of the literal sense to biblical poetry. The PBC also admitted that the Fourth Gospel ‘offers numerous examples’ of this phenomenon (II.B.1). 76 In this context, it should be noted that not only the Fourth Gospel but also the synoptic Gospels were written with the aim of consistently conveying more than one level of intended meaning. As the most recent research on the phenomenon of hypertextuality in the synoptic Gospels has revealed, the interplay of various levels of referential-intertextual meaning is an inherent phenomenon of the synoptic tradition, and it is by no means peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. 77 For this reason, the remarks of the PBC concerning the existence of the plurality of the literal sense of biblical texts apply to all four canonical Gospels. Consequently, it may be argued that all canonical Gospels refer not only to the historical Jesus but also to various aspects of Christ’s presence in the person of Paul the Apostle, in the Church, in the Scriptures, and in human culture.

76 77

Komisji Biblijnej z komentarzem biblistów polskich (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 4; Vocatio: Warszawa 1999), 178-195 (esp. 181). Cf. also P. S. Williamson, Catholic, 250. Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Senses of Scripture Today’, ITQ 62 (1996/97) 101-117 (esp. 105-106). Cf. B. Adamczewski, Q or not Q?, 446.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

169

3.4.5 Rejection of fundamentalism The fundamentalist interpretation is the only way of interpreting the Bible which was explicitly rejected by the PBC. The authors of the document described the fundamentalist interpretation (lecture fondamentaliste) as considering ‘the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error’, so that it ‘should be read and interpreted literally in all its details’. However, according to the PBC, by literal interpretation the fundamentalists understand ‘a naively literalist interpretation (une interprétation primaire), one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development’ (I.F.). Having described the origin of the fundamentalist interpretation, the authors of the document stated that ‘fundamentalism is right to insist on […] biblical truths included in its five fundamental points’, which, as concerns the Gospels, include ‘the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, [and] the doctrine of vicarious expiation’. However, the PBC noted that ‘its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research’ (I.F.). Subsequently, the authors of the document argued that fundamentalism ‘considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning’, and that ‘it fails to take account of the “rereadings” (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself’ (I.F.). Consequently, according to the document of the PBC, biblical fundamentalism a priori rejects the possibility of the existence of hypertextual reworkings in the Bible, including the Gospels. In its discussion of the fundamentalist interpretation of the Gospels, the PBC stated that ‘fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus)’ (I.F.). 78 The PBC evidently alluded to its earlier instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia (SME 2) and to the conciliar constitution Dei Verbum (DV 19), which had presented the origin of the Gospels in terms of the three stages of the devel78

Cf. J. Kremer, ‘Interpretation’, 157-158; S. Szymik, ‘Lektura fundamentalistyczna Biblii i zagrożenia z niej płynące w świetle dokumentu Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej’, in R. Rubinkiewicz (ed.), Interpretacja, 169-177 (esp. 174).

170

Chapter 3

opment of the Gospel tradition: the earthly Jesus, the apostles, and the evangelists. 79 By rejecting the claims of the fundamentalists that the written texts of the Gospels directly reproduce the words and deeds of the historical Jesus, and by calling such an approach ‘dangerous’ and tantamount to ‘a kind of intellectual suicide’ (I.F.), the PBC confirmed the validity of the modern Catholic view that only some of the words and deeds which are attributed to Jesus in the Gospels should be regarded as strictly historical. According to this position, numerous words and deeds which are presented in the Gospel narratives in fact represent ‘the way in which the first Christian communities […] understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message’ (I.F.). The PBC did not state which elements of the Gospel narratives should be considered historical in the modern sense of this word, 80 and which could be regarded as, for example, rereadings of earlier Christian texts. In its discussion of fundamentalism, the PBC referred to only three realities which should be regarded as historical: the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, and his vicarious expiation. This view roughly agrees with the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material.

3.5 Catechism of the Catholic Church The article of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which refers to Sacred Scripture (CCC 101-141) quotes and develops the ideas which were expressed in the conciliar dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (esp. DV 11-26).81 The fragment concerning the truth which is taught by the inspired books (CCC 107) verbatim quotes the pertaining fragment of Dei Verbum with its statement that ‘the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation (nostrae salutis causa), wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures’ (DV 11). This statement was somewhat rephrased in the summarizing section: ‘He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error the saving truth (veritatem […] salutarem)’ (CCC 136). Notwithstanding the differences between both statements, the Catechism of the Catholic Church evidently reaffirms the modern Catholic teaching that the truth which is firmly, faithfully, and without error taught by the books of 79 80 81

Cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Document, 22, 106. Cf. P. S. Williamson, Catholic, 248-250, 332. Cf. I. de la Potterie, ‘La Sacra Scrittura’, in R. Fisichella (ed.), Commento teologico al Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica (Piemme: Casale Monferrato 1993), 100-106.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

171

Scripture, understandably including the Gospels, is limited to the truth which pertains to our salvation. 82 This view is confirmed by the clarification of the idea that ‘the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words’ (CCC 109; cf. DV 12) in the summarizing statement that ‘interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wanted to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation (nostrae salutis causa)’ (CCC 137). Again, the modern Catholic understanding of the truth of the inspired Scripture as that which God wanted to reveal ‘for our salvation’ comes here to the fore. The fragment concerning biblical literary genres (CCC 110) verbatim quotes the pertaining fragment of Dei Verbum which, among others, refers to ‘texts which are variously historical’ (vario modo historicis: DV 12). 83 As was noted above, this particular expression may be regarded as also referring to the Gospels. 84 In the fragment which deals with the task of exegetes (CCC 119), the authors of the Catechism supplemented the quotation from DV 12 with the statement of St Augustine: ‘But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me’. 85 This statement may be understood as referring not only to the authority of the Catholic Church, but also to the Gospels. According to St Augustine, the truth and reliability of the Gospels is not self-evident. We believe in the Gospel stories about Jesus because we have first believed the Church, which is the body of Christ. The images of Jesus in the Gospels are reliable for us only inasmuch as they correspond to the image of Christ which is presented to us in the Church. Consequently, our faith in Jesus Christ is not based on the assumption that all the words and deeds which are attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are strictly historical, but on the authority of the Church, which brings us into communion with the crucified and risen Lord. As concerns the historical character of the Gospel narratives, the Catechism verbatim quotes and systematizes the pertaining fragment of DV 19 with its presentation of the three stages of the formation of the Gospel tradition (CCC

82 83

84 85

Cf. ibid. 103. Cf. R. Murray, ‘The Human Capacity for God, and God’s Initiative (Paragraphs 26141)’, in M. J. Walsh (ed.), Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1994), 6-35 (esp. 23). See above, 159 (Section 3.3.3). Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas (Augustine, Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti 5 [CSEL 25, 197]).

172

Chapter 3

126). 86 Accordingly, the Catholic Church officially confirmed her modern view that, on the one hand, the Gospels should be considered historical, but, on the other hand, numerous details of their presentations of Jesus, especially those which do not directly pertain to our eternal salvation, may be only loosely related to historical truth in the modern sense of this expression. 87 In practice, the Catechism explicitly affirms the historicity of only the most important salvific events: Christ’s passion and death on the cross (CCC 572-573, 1085, 2738), his burial (CCC 1085), his resurrection (CCC 639, 643, 647, 656, 1085, 2738), and his ascension/exaltation (CCC 660, 1085). The historical reliability of the Gospels’ statements concerning Jesus’ virginal conception is presented in the Catechism in a more nuanced way (CCC 498).

3.6 Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth Two volumes of the book of Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) on Jesus of Nazareth appeared in 2007 and 2011 respectively.88 Although this book was written by a pope, it should not be regarded as a document of the teaching office of the Catholic Church. 89 However, it presents the views of the most influential contemporary Catholic theologian. 90

86

87

88

89

90

Cf. A. Vargas-Machuca, ‘El nuevo Catecismo: Lectura de un exegeta’, in O. González de Cardedal and J. A. Martínez Camino (eds.), El Catecismo postconciliar: Contexto y contenidos (Teología Siglo XXI 1; San Pablo: Madrid 1993), 238-249 (esp. 241); M. Tábet, Teologia della Bibbia: Studi di ispirazione ed ermeneutica biblica (Studi di teologia 7; Armando: Roma 1998), 209-210. Cf. A. Vargas-Machuca, ‘Catecismo’, 241-242. However, cf. also ibid. 243-249 on the apparent lack of application of the principles expressed in CCC 110, 126 in the rest of the Catechism. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus von Nazareth, vol. 1, Von der Taufe in Jordan bis zur Verklärung (2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007); vol. 2, Vom Einzug in Jerusalem bis zur Auferstehung (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011). The third, previously announced volume was not yet published at the time of the writing of this book. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 22. On the other hand, cf. also K. Backhaus, ‘Christus-Ästhetik: Der „Jesus“ des Papstes zwischen Rekonstruktion und Realpräsenz’, in T. Söding (ed.), Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes: Die Antwort der Neutestamentler (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 20-29 (esp. 24 n. 4). Cf. K. Berger, ‘Kant sowie ältere protestantische Systematik: Anfragen des Exegeten an Benedikt XVI.’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] „Jesus von Nazareth“ kontrovers: Rückfragen an Joseph Ratzinger (2nd edn., Lit: Berlin 2007), 27-40 (esp. 28).

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

173

In the foreword to the first volume of his book, Joseph Ratzinger expressed his profound regret that the modern reconstructions of the historical Jesus do not present him as the Son of God, and consequently they radically differ from the images of Jesus Christ which had been depicted by the evangelists and which constitute the basis for our faith in him and for our intimate friendship with him. 91 Therefore, Ratzinger’s agenda consisted in considering the communion with the Father as the most important feature of the personality of the historical Jesus. 92 Although Ratzinger might be right in this point, he did not clearly state whether it constituted a result of his historical research or rather his hermeneutic, dogmatic presupposition. At the beginning of his analyses, the latter seemed to be the case. 93 However, he subsequently tried to prove his thesis, especially by pointing to the existence of a fully developed Christology, which had stated as early as twenty or so years after Jesus’ crucifixion that Jesus was equal to God (cf. Phlp 2:6-8), 94 and to the exceptional revelation of God, as well as prayerful contact with God, in the presentations of Jesus in the Gospels. 95 In the methodological introduction to his book, Ratzinger did not explicitly discuss any criteria for reconstructing the deeds and words of the historical Jesus. 96 He argued that he attempted at presenting an intelligible and persuasive portrayal of the Jesus of history. 97 In fact, he rather attempted at presenting a biblically and ‘Jewishly’ plausible portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God. 98 In any

91 92

93

94 95 96 97 98

Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 10-11. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 12, 31-33. Cf. also A. Franz, ‘Der Jesus des Papstes: Anmerkungen zu Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.: Jesus von Nazareth’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] Rückfragen, 49-63 (esp. 50-51). Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 12. Cf. also R. Hoppe, ‘Historische Rückfrage und deutende Erinnerung an Jesus: Zum Jesusbuch von Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.’, in T. Söding (ed.), Jesus-Buch, 54-65 (esp. 62); R. Pesch, ‘»Der Jesus der Evangelien ist auch der einzig wirkliche historische Jesus«: Anmerkungen zum Konstruktionspunkt des Jesus-Buches’, in J.-H. Tück (ed.), Annäherungen an »Jesus von Nazareth«: Das Buch des Papstes in der Diskussion (Matthias Grünewald: Ostfildern 2007), 31-56 (esp. 39-41); F. Kerr, ‘If Jesus Knew He Was God, How Did It Work?’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church (Veritas; SCM: London 2009), 50-67 (esp. 53). Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 21. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 31-32. Cf. K. Backhaus, ‘Christus-Ästhetik’, 25. Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 20-22. Cf. C. Schönborn, ‘Der Papst auf der Agora: Über einen Anspruch, den allein Gott stellen kann’, in T. Söding (ed.), Ein Weg zu Jesus: Schlüssel zu einem tieferen Verständnis des Papstbuches (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 37-52 (esp. 44-48).

174

Chapter 3

case, Ratzinger’s agenda resembles the ‘third quest’ rather than the ‘second quest’ for the historical Jesus. Ratzinger’s particular method of research on the historical Jesus consists in pointing to the limits of the historical-critical method (while acknowledging its basic value) and in proposing a kind of ‘canonical exegesis’. 99 The first of the limits of the historical-critical method which are discussed by Ratzinger results from its history-oriented approach to the biblical texts. According to the Catholic theologian, the historical-critical method unavoidably lets the meaning of the biblical texts remain in the past. 100 However, every biblical author was a member of the people of God, and that people is spoken to by God. Consequently, the biblical texts should be interpreted as authored not only be individual historical authors, but also by the transhistorical people of God, and ultimately by the eternal God and by the incarnate Christ.101 Accordingly, in the case of the Gospels, it may be argued that they should be interpreted from a theological and ecclesiological perspective, as reflecting God’s salvific aim and the ideas of the Church of Christ, and not only the historical realities of Jesus’ life. The second limit of the historical-critical method, which was highlighted by Ratzinger, results from the fact that it inevitably confines the meaning of the biblical texts to merely human dimensions.102 However, every human word conveys more meaning than it was intended by its author in a particular moment in history. Consequently, the biblical texts, including the Gospels, express more than merely their strictly historical reference. They also convey additional levels of meaning, which, in the case of the Gospels, transcend mere history of Jesus’ life. 103 This observation is very important in the context of the most recent research on hypertextuality and historicity in the Gospels. The Gospels ought not to be interpreted from a fundamentalist perspective, as though they were simply records of the deeds and words of the historical Jesus. The Gospel narratives are full of metaphors, symbols, unexpected features, etc., which in fact convey various theological and ecclesiological ideas. 99

100 101 102 103

Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 13-20. Cf. also M. Theobald, ‘Die vier Evangelien und der eine Jesus von Nazareth: Erwägungen zum Jesus-Buch von Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.’, TQ 187 (2007) 157-182 (esp. 162-163) [also in H. Häring (ed.), „Jesus von Nazareth“ in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Paperbacks 30; Lit: Wien · Berlin 2008), 7-35 (esp. 13-14)]; M. Ebner, ‘Jeder Ausleger hat seine blinden Flecken’, in T. Söding (ed.), Jesus-Buch, 30-42 (esp. 34-35, 38-39). Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 15. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 19-20. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 15-16. Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 19.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

175

The third limit of the historical-critical method, which was discussed by Ratzinger, results from its interest in the meaning of the individual, historical texts of the Bible rather than in the meaning of the Bible as a whole. However, the Bible is full of rereadings, so that the meaning of earlier texts is often actualized, reinterpreted, corrected, deepened, widened, etc. in later texts. Consequently, a kind of ‘canonical exegesis’, which would adequately investigate the phenomenon of intertextuality in the Bible, including the Gospels, should supplement traditional historical-critical exegesis. 104 The results of the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Bible confirm this view. However, they also reveal that ‘canonical exegesis’ ought to be performed in methodologically responsible, critical ways. It should consist not in merely discussing some biblical writings in the light of other ones, but rather in critically analysing variegated uses of earlier texts in later texts, having first ascertained the existence and direction of such uses in particular cases. In practice, the basic hermeneutic premises of Ratzinger’s study on the historical Jesus are twofold. On the one hand, according to Ratzinger, because of the particular internal structure of biblical faith, which is not merely symbolic, but which is based on historical events and on the incarnation, the Gospels must refer to some historical facts. Accordingly, the historicity of at least some biblical events, which are firstly referred to by Ratzinger in general terms (‘real historical events’, ‘history’, ‘factum historicum’, ‘facticity’, etc.), and only thereafter investigated in detail, in discussion with respected modern exegetes, is required by the fundamental features of biblical faith. 105 In this respect, Ratzinger’s ideas correspond to the doctrinal statements of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Biblical Commission concerning the historicity of those biblical events which are crucial for our salvation. On the other hand, Ratzinger stated that, having taken for granted the modern Catholic and exegetical ideas which concern the possible limitations of the historicity of the Gospel material, he generally trusted the Gospels and their images of Jesus. He tried to persuade the readers that the Jesus of the Gospels can be regarded as historically plausible from the modern point of view. 106 Whether

104 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 16-18. 105 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 14, 409. 106 Cf. ibid., vol. 1, 20-22. Cf. also J. Schröter, ‘Die Offenbarung der Vernunft Gottes in der Welt: Zum Jesusbuch von Joseph Ratzinger’, in T. Söding (ed.), Jesus-Buch, 121133 (esp. 124-127); M. Bauspieß, ‘Auf der Grenze von Theologie und Geschichte: Joseph Ratzingers „Jesus von Nazareth“ (Band I+II)’, in P. Metzger (ed.), Die Konfession Jesu (BenshH 102; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 101-130 (esp. 111112).

176

Chapter 3

he succeeded in his task may be a matter of free individual judgement of the readers. 107 In the second part of his book, Ratzinger clarified his hermeneutic premises by stating that he aimed at describing the ‘real Jesus’ and not the ‘historical Jesus’ of modern critical exegesis. 108 The difference, according to Ratzinger, lies in his being primarily led by a hermeneutic of faith, which resembles that of patristic and dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of the life of Jesus, and being only secondarily open to the historical hermeneutic. 109 Consequently, with such hermeneutic premises, Ratzinger presented the Jesus of traditional Christian theology and preaching, 110 which were flavoured with some results of modern exegesis, rather than the Jesus of strictly historical research. 111 Although, as Ratzinger suggested, such a presentation could be regarded as a correct way of Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture (cf. DV 12), 112 it may be doubted whether this is the proper way to analyse the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material. Ratzinger directly addressed this problem in the course of his analysis of the historicity of the descriptions of the Last Supper in the Gospels. He firstly reiterated his general view that biblical faith is not merely symbolic, but it bases itself 107 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 1, 22. Cf. also F. Nault, ‘Der Jesus der Geschichte: Hat er eine theologische Relevanz?’, in H. Häring (ed.), Jesus, 103-121 (esp. 105-111); M. Bockmuehl, ‘Saints’ Lives as Exegesis’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), Pope, 119-133 (esp. 121-123); R. Deines, ‘Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus? A Review of the Pope’s Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debate’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), Pope, 199-232 (esp. 218229). 108 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 13. 109 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 11-14; ibid., vol. 1, 22. Cf. also T. Marschler, ‘Joseph Ratzinger als Interpret der „Mysterien des Lebens Jesu“’, in H. Hoping and M. Schulz (eds.), Jesus und der Papst: Systematische Reflexionen zum Jesus-Buch des Papstes (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 90-100; G. Lohaus, ‘Jesu Lebensereignisse in der Summa Theologiae des Thomas von Aquin und im Jesusbuch Benedikts XVI.: Ein Vergleich’, in M. Gerwing and H. J. F. Reinhardt, Wahrheit auf dem Weg (BGPTMA, NF 72; Aschendorff: Münster 2009), 153-183. 110 Cf. A. Franz, ‘Jesus’, 55; M. Jagodziński, ‘Specyfika chrystologii w dziele Jezus z Nazaretu’, in D. Skrok and D. Swend (eds.), Teologiczne refleksje po lekturze książki Josepha Ratzingera – Benedykta XVI Jezus z Nazaretu: Materiały z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej 3 grudnia 2008 roku przez Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne Oddział w Radomiu (Unum: Radom 2009), 45-74 (esp. 49-50). 111 Cf. K.-H. Ohlig, ‘Der Papst schreibt ein theologisches Buch: Soll er das?’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] Rückfragen, 41-47 (esp. 45). 112 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 12.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

177

upon history. 113 Thereafter, he argued that it is not possible to verify historically every detail which is described in the Gospels, so that many details may remain open for exegetical discussions.114 However, in Ratzinger’s opinion, what is really important for us from the theological standpoint is the historicity of the key (wesentlichen) words and events which are attributed to Jesus in the Gospels or, alternatively speaking, the historical plausibility and credibility of the basic convictions (Grundüberzeugungen) of the Christian faith. 115 In this context, is it possible to make a list of the words, events, and convictions which are essential for the Christian faith? Ratzinger did not explicitly make such a list. However, in the immediate context of his statements concerning the historical plausibility and reliability of the basic convictions of the Christian faith, he referred to the incarnation, the Last Supper, the cross, and the resurrection. From the dogmatic point of view, the incarnation enables Jesus’ offering himself for humans, and the validity of the offering is confirmed by the resurrection. 116 It may be noted that this way of solving the problem of the historicity of the Gospel material generally agrees with the doctrinal statements of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Ratzinger’s contribution consists in adding the Last Supper to the biblical events which ought to be considered historical because they are crucial for our salvation. Moreover, this dogmatically correct and historically minimalistic view finds support in the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material. Ratzinger’s analyses of the phenomenon of intertextuality in the Gospels are, alas, often less convincing. In his discussion of the function of the Old Testament allusions and quotations in the Passion narratives, Ratzinger argued that it had not been the words of Scripture that provoked the recounting of facts, but it had been the facts themselves, initially unintelligible, that in the light of the resurrection paved the way toward a fresh understanding of Scripture. Ratzinger

113 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 122. Cf. also M. Reiser, ‘Der Papst als Interpret Jesu: Eine kritische Würdigung’, TTZ 121 (2012) 24-42 (esp. 36). 114 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 122-124. Cf. also M. Reiser, ‘Papst’, 36. 115 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 123. Cf. also N. Slenczka, ‘„Wahrhaftig“ auferstanden? Ein kritischer Dialog mit Joseph Ratzinger’, in T. Söding (ed.), Tod und Auferstehung Jesu: Theologische Antworten auf das Buch des Papstes (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011), 179-201 (esp. 183-185); M. Reiser, ‘Papst’, 36-37. 116 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 123-124. Cf. also N. Slenczka, ‘Wahrhaftig’, 183, 185.

178

Chapter 3

based his argument on the Lucan text Lk 24:26-27. 117 However, this text refers to Christ’s passion only in general terms, namely those of his suffering which consisted in his being delivered to be condemned to death and in his being crucified (Lk 24:26; cf. 24:20). These basic elements of Jesus Christ’s passion are certainly historical, and they could really pave the way toward a fresh understanding of Scripture in the light of the resurrection. Consequently, in his discussion of the Passion facts which had not been derived from Scripture, but which had led to a fresh understanding of Scripture, Ratzinger rightly pointed to Jesus’ death on the Cross as the inexplicable way of the dying of the Messiah. 118 However, Ratzinger’s subsequent statements, which suggest that the harmony (Einklang) between event and word is constitutive not only of the Passion narratives but also of the Gospels and of the Christian faith, 119 should be regarded as too generalizing. Ratzinger was certainly right in arguing that the emergence of the Church, inasmuch as it resulted from the credibility and the historical importance of her message, too a great degree depended on the interplay of meaning and history in the Gospels. 120 However, as was noted above, according to the modern official documents of the Catholic Church, the credibility of the Christian faith implies the historicity of the Gospel deeds and words which are crucial for our salvation, and not necessarily general harmony between meaning and history in the Gospels.

3.7 Verbum Domini The post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini of Pope Benedict XVI was issued in 2010. It was devoted to the word of God in the life and mission of the Church. It generally restated the views which had earlier been expressed in the modern official documents of the Catholic Church. However, it also contained some clarifications and new elements. The issue of the historicity of biblical events was addressed in the document several times. In his discussion of the function of historical research for the Catholic understanding of Sacred Scripture, Benedict XVI generally stated that ‘the historical fact (historicus eventus) is a constitutive dimension of the Chris117 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 226-227. Cf. also T. Hieke, ‘Die Wahrheit ist eine Person: Marginalien eines Alttestamentlers zum zweiten Teil des JesusBuches von Papst Benedikt XVI.’, in T. Söding (ed.), Tod, 17-32 (esp. 19). 118 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 226-227. 119 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 227. 120 Cf. ibid., vol. 2, 227.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

179

tian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research’ (VD 32). 121 Likewise, he stated that ‘biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history’ (VD 42). On the other hand, Benedict XVI clearly rejected the fundamentalist, ‘literalist’ (ad litteram) interpretation of Scripture (VD 44). 122 In his teaching on the inspiration and the truth of Scripture, he quoted the statement of the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum that ‘the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation (nostrae salutis causa), wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures’ (VD 19; cf. DV 11). 123 The problem of the identification of those particular biblical events which are crucial for our salvation may be solved on the basis of the Pope’s presentation of the Christology of the word (VD 11-13). In this fragment of the exhortation, Benedict XVI referred to the incarnation, the revelation of the Father, the cross, and the resurrection as the most important elements of biblical Christology. 124 Accordingly, these elements can be regarded as the ‘essential elements of our faith’ (VD 13). This position in fact agrees with that of the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum (DV 17; cf. DV 4). It is also relevant to the modern Catholic view on the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material.

121 Cf. I. Carbajosa, ‘Una exégesis a la vez científica y creyente: Comentario a Verbum Domini 29-38’, EstBib 69 (2011) 427-463 (esp. 440); M. Chrostowski, ‘Katolicka hermeneutyka biblijna w świetle Adhortacji apostolskiej Verbum Domini Ojca Świętego Benedykta XVI’, ColT 81 (2011) no. 2, 5-23 (esp. 8-9). 122 Cf. M. Fuss, ‘Il rischio dell’interpretazione fondamentalista (Verbum Domini n. 44)’, in P. Merlo and G. Pulcinelli (eds.), Verbum Domini: Studi e commenti sull’Esortazione apostolica postsinodale di Benedetto XVI (Dibattito per il Millennio 19; Lateran University: Città del Vaticano 2011), 171-200; A. Rodríguez Carmona, ‘La Unidad de las Escrituras: Algunos principios hermenéuticos y sus exigencias: Comentario a Verbum Domini 39-49’, EstBib 69 (2011) 465-491 (esp. 481-483); C. Aparicio Valls, ‘L’ermeneutica della Sacra Scrittura nella Chiesa: Verbum Domini, nn. 29-49’, in C. Aparicio Valls and S. Pié-Ninot (eds.), Commento alla Verbum Domini, In memoria di D. Hercsik (Theologia 4; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 75-84 (esp. 77). 123 Cf. S. Pié-Ninot, ‘Los seis temas teológicos de la «Verbum Domini»’, Phase: Revista de Pastoral Litúrgica 51 (2011) 123-145 (esp. 137-139); id., ‘Il Dio che parla: Verbum Domini, nn. 6-21’, in C. Aparicio Valls and S. Pié-Ninot (eds.), Commento, 53-63 (esp. 62-63). 124 Cf. id., ‘Seis’, 136; J. M. Sánchez Caro, ‘La Palabra de Dios, fuente y origen de la Tradición y la Escritura: Comentario a Verbum Domini 6-21’, EstBib 69 (2011) 381-410 (esp. 392-395).

180

Chapter 3

This issue is explicitly discussed in the exhortation’s section which is devoted to the danger of dualism and a secularized hermeneutic (VD 35). Benedict XVI insisted on rejecting ‘a positivistic and secularized hermeneutic’ which is ‘ultimately based on the conviction that the Divine does not intervene in human history’, and which ‘leads to interpretations that deny the historical sense (historicum […] sensum) of the divine elements’ (VD 35). In such a context, theology may tend ‘towards a spiritualization of the meaning of the Scriptures, one which would fail to respect the historical character (historicam indolem) of revelation’ (VD 35). 125 For these reasons, ‘in applying methods of historical analysis, no criteria should be adopted which would rule out in advance God’s self-disclosure in the life of humans’ (VD 36). 126 In the opinion of Benedict XVI, the problem of the historical sense of the ‘divine elements’ (cf. VD 35) and of ‘God’s self-disclosure in the life of humans’ (cf. VD 36) does not indiscriminately refer to all supernatural events which are described in the Bible, but above all to ‘fundamental mysteries of Christianity’ (VD 35). According to the Pope, these mysteries should be considered credible both in their theological content and in their ‘historical moment’ (momentum historicum: VD 35). 127 It should be noted that Benedict XVI clearly avoided the use of the word ‘historicity’, 128 most probably in order not to reduce the mysteries of faith to mere historical events, and the Scripture to ‘a text belonging only to the past’ (cf. VD 35). On the other hand, however, he insisted that those biblical realities which constitute the fundamental mysteries of Christianity should be regarded as having a ‘historical sense’, ‘historical moment’, or ‘historical character’ (VD 35). In order to clarify his views on that matter, Benedict XVI gave two examples of such ‘fundamental mysteries of Christianity’. He referred to the institution of the Eucharist and to the resurrection of Christ (VD 35). In the Pope’s view, since these mysteries have both historical and spiritual features, they demonstrate that ‘the Divine can enter and be present within history’ (VD 35). 129

125 Cf. N. Calduch-Benages, ‘Exégesis, teología y hermenéutica bíblica en la «Verbum Domini»’, Phase: Revista de Pastoral Litúrgica 51 (2011) 109-121 (esp. 114); I. Carbajosa, ‘Exégesis’, 449-452; M. Chrostowski, ‘Katolicka’, 10-12. 126 Cf. I. Carbajosa, ‘Exégesis’, 453-454. 127 Cf. ibid. 450. 128 The word historicitas was never used in the exhortation Verbum Domini, in difference to DV 19. Cf. S. Pié-Ninot, ‘Seis’, 138. 129 Cf. I. Carbajosa, ‘Exégesis’, 450.

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

181

These two examples evidently do not constitute a comprehensive list of the ‘fundamental mysteries of Christianity’ which should be regarded as having a certain historical character. However, these two examples may be combined with those of the ‘essential elements of our faith’, which are referred to in VD 11-13. The resulting list comprises five elements: the incarnation, the revelation of the Father, the institution of the Eucharist, the cross, and the resurrection. Since this list is very similar to that which was given in Ratzinger’s book Jesus of Nazareth (the incarnation, the Last Supper, the cross, and the resurrection), 130 it may be interpreted as reflecting the Pope’s ideas concerning the Gospel realities which should be regarded as fundamental for Christianity, and therefore as necessarily having an historical character. In this respect, the Pope’s ideas evidently agree with the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material. In his exhortation, Benedict XVI never directly addressed the issue of the intertextuality, rereadings, etc. in the Bible. However, he reiterated the teaching of DV 12 that the biblical texts should be interpreted ‘in their relation to the whole of Scripture’ (VD 38). 131 The Pope admitted that the individual books of the Bible ‘are not easily seen to possess an interior unity; instead, we see clear inconsistencies between them’ (VD 39). Nevertheless, he encouraged the exegetes to regard the person of Christ as giving ‘unity to all the “Scriptures” in relation to the one “Word”’ (VD 39). 132 Accordingly, in the context of the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Gospels, it may be argued that the Gospels should not be interpreted simply in themselves, as though they were isolated records of the activity of the historical Jesus, but rather in their intertextual and theological relations to the whole of Scripture, which in its entirety reveals to us Jesus Christ.

3.8 Dark night of faith? As was demonstrated above, the Catholic Church does not impose on her faithful the obligation to believe in the historicity of all elements of the Gospel nar-

130 Cf. J. Ratzinger / Benedikt XVI., Jesus, vol. 2, 123-124. 131 Cf. I. Carbajosa, ‘Exégesis’, 459-460. 132 Cf. S. Pié-Ninot, ‘Seis’, 140. Cf. also A. Rodríguez Carmona, ‘Unidad’, 469-471, who points to the phenomenon of midrashic (and consequently, hypertextual) exegesis in Israel as one of the ways in which the literary (and not only thematic) unity of Scripture was realized.

182

Chapter 3

ratives. In her modern official teaching, the Catholic Church insists on the historicity of only those Gospel events which are crucial for our salvation. Nevertheless, the recognition of the fact that only the most important elements of the descriptions of Jesus’ life in the Gospels, such as the incarnation of God’s Son, his messiahship, his intimate relationship with the Father, his extraordinary humility and love, the appointment of the Twelve, the institution of the Eucharist, the salvific death on the cross, the resurrection, the exaltation, etc. can be considered historical, at least from our modern point of view, may be perceived by many believers as deeply embarrassing. Traditional Christian teaching tacitly or explicitly assumed the historicity of all elements of the Gospel narratives. After the modernist crisis, Christians began to entertain doubts concerning the historicity of at least some of Jesus’ miracles, but they generally believed in the historicity of Jesus’ teachings, as they are presented in the Gospels. In this context, the results of the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material, even if they do not contradict the modern official teaching of the Catholic Church, can really perplex traditionally formed believers. Is it possible to find a remedy for this perplexity? Quite probably, it may be found in the doctrine of the ‘dark night’ of faith. The doctrine of the ‘dark night’ of faith is one of the most widely known elements of traditional Catholic theology. The main proponent of this doctrine, St John of the Cross, has been given the title of Doctor of the Church. A reference to the ‘night of faith’ can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2719). Although the doctrine of the ‘dark night’ of faith primarily refers to spirituality and mysticism, it can also be applied to the problem of our perception of the historicity of the Gospel material. 133 According to St John of the Cross, the painful darkness of the rational part of the soul is caused by the blinding of the understanding and reason of the believer on his way to the perfect union with God. On this way, the believer must leave behind not only all natural imaginings, but also all spiritual reasonings, and go forth like a blind man, being securely guided by pure faith. 134 For this

133 Cf. C. E. Schmidt Andrade, ‘Noche de la Fe en la vida cotidiana: Una experiencia de crecimiento’, AnáMnesis 22 (2012) 137-160 (esp. 151). 134 Cf. San Juan de la Cruz, Subida del Monte Carmelo 2.1-9; Noche oscura 1.8; 2.3-9 etc. Cf. also M. del Sagrario Rollán Rollán, Extasis y Purificación del Deseo: Análisis psicológico-existencial de la noche en la obra de San Juan de la Cruz (Institución «Gran Duque de Alba» de la Excma. Diputación Provincial de Avila 37; Comisión Provincial del IV Centenario de la muerte de San Juan de la Cruz: Avila [1991]), 97-101; N. Tepedino, Dunkle Nacht: Mystik, negative Theologie und Philosophie: Eine philo-

Hypertextuality and historicity from a modern Catholic perspective

183

reason, the way of knowing God through discursive meditation and reasoning, which is nourished by biblical and other imaginations, forms, and figures, must be appropriately left behind and substituted with loving contemplation. 135 On the other hand, God himself may purify the believer by leaving the understanding in darkness (dejando a oscuras el entendimiento), in order to lead the believer through a pure and dark contemplation to the perfect union of love. 136 Likewise according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, contemplation does not consist in a discursive meditation of numerous particular elements of the Gospel narratives (cf. CCC 2705, 2708), but rather in listening to and participating in God’s one, incarnate Word, who suffered, died, and rose (CCC 2717). It is therefore possible that by shedding new light on the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material God resolved to lead modern Christianity through a ‘dark night’ of faith, in order to make it more mature. On the one hand, we begin to realize that a great part of the Gospel material, which for centuries nourished the Christians’ imaginations with vivid images of Jesus, is in fact not historical from our point of view. On the other hand, we begin to understand its function as narratively explicating the significance of the most important events of Jesus’ life, which were crucial for the salvation of humankind, and which became the basis of the multifaceted Pauline and post-Pauline theology of Christ’s presence in the Church. In this way, although our convictions concerning the historicity of most of the Gospel material may have been deeply shaken, we have arrived at a new, fuller understanding of the Gospels as very complex, semantically multi-layered, rhetorically persuasive, profoundly theological works, which more or less directly guide us to the central mystery of Christ’s salvific death and resurrection. Accordingly, the ‘dark night’ of faith, which may be caused in some believers by the most recent research on the historicity of the Gospel material, can lead Christianity to greater humility, purity, clarity, and maturity of faith, and conse-

sophische Lektüre von San Juan de la Cruz (EHS 20/553; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1998), 62-68, 94-99; M. A. Álvarez, ‘San Juan de la Cruz y el carácter metafórico de la experiencia mística’, San Juan de la Cruz, NS, no. 43 (2009/1) 67-87 (esp. 73-75). 135 Cf. San Juan de la Cruz, Subida del Monte Carmelo 2.12-15; Noche oscura 1.9-10; 2.4; Llama de amor viva (B) 3.31-53 etc. 136 Cf. id., Noche oscura 2.3.3. Cf. also H. Blommestijn, ‘The Dark Night in John of the Cross: The Transformational Process’, Studies in Spirituality 10 (2000) 228-241 (esp. 235).

184

Chapter 3

quently to a deeper union with God and within the Church in Christ’s salvific and transforming love.

General conclusions The most recent research on the phenomenon of hypertextuality in the Bible, and particularly in the Gospels, has shed entirely new light on the issue of the historicity of the Gospel material. Contrary to the traditional view, which was widely upheld in modern biblical scholarship, the most recent research on hypertextuality in the Gospels has revealed that the Gospels generally do not refer to the course of life, deeds, and words of the historical Jesus. They are rather results of the use of the highly sophisticated literary procedure of sequential hypertextual reworking of the letters of Paul the Apostle and, in the case of the Gospels of Matthew and John, of the Acts of the Apostles, with additional hypertextual use of the sacred Scriptures of Israel, Josephus’ writings, and numerous other literary works (Homer’s Odyssey etc.). In this respect, the Gospels resemble numerous other biblical works, both of the Old and of the New Testament. The hitherto widely accepted hermeneutic presupposition that the Gospels have a relatively simple, basic referential meaning (which can by analysed through the reconstruction of their Sitz im Leben etc.) should therefore be generally abandoned. The most recent research on the use of the procedures of hypertextuality and ethopoeia in the Gospels has also revealed that all four canonical Gospels were written by theological disciples of Paul the Apostle. For this reason, in line with the principles of Paul’s theology (cf. 2 Cor 5:16; Rom 1:3-4; Gal 1:15-16 etc.), the Gospels present not the historical, ‘fleshly’ Jesus, but rather the ‘spiritual’ Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who came to be known to the world in the course of life, the person, and the writings of his particularly chosen Apostle, and who still lives in his Church. Consequently, the data concerning the historical Jesus should be sought neither in the canonical Gospels nor in the apocrypha, but exclusively, or almost exclusively, in the writings of Paul the Apostle and of Flavius Josephus. Moreover, in line with recent analyses of the value of the criteria for reconstructing the historical Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus should highlight the data which is somehow embarrassing, which adequately explains the distinctive features of the early Church, and which reflects the pre-Christian Palestinian environment of the early first century AD. A plausible reconstruction of the historical Jesus should therefore consist of the following data: • Jesus was born in a Jewish family, • he lived in Judaea (most probably in Jerusalem),

186 • • • • • • • • • • • • •

General conclusions

he belonged to the royal posterity of David, numerous people regarded him as the Davidic Messiah, he gathered around him a symbolic group of the Twelve, he may have performed some extraordinary deeds, he behaved in such a way that at least some of his followers could later believe that he was the Son of God and the Lord, he wisely taught kindness and truth, he was humble and self-denying in his love for others (probably including those at the margins of the society), he instituted the Lord’s Supper with the use of the words which are recorded in 1 Cor 11:24d-e.25b-d, he was conscious of the religious significance of his imminent death, he died on the cross during the rule of Pontius Pilate (most probably in AD 26-27), he was buried, he was raised from the dead, he subsequently appeared to Cephas and to numerous other Jewish believers.

Such a reconstruction of the features, deeds, and words of the historical Jesus can be reconciled both with the views of the best exegetes among the Fathers of the Church (especially Origen and John Chrysostom) and with the modern teaching of the Catholic Church. Even if the most recent research on the hypertextual features of the Gospels leaves us with a seriously limited reconstruction of the historical Jesus (which can cause a kind of ‘dark night’ of Christian faith), this reconstruction is evidently correct from the point of view of the Christian doctrine. Consequently, in difference to numerous outcomes of the earlier ‘quests for the historical Jesus’, the results of the above-proposed ‘fourth quest’ can function as a solid basis for Christian theology.

Bibliography Primary sources Israelite-Jewish Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, ed. K. Elliger and W. Rudolph [et al.] (5th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 1997). Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graece: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, ed. A. Rahlfs and J. Ziegler [et al.], vol. 1-16 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1931- ). Septuaginta: Editio altera, ed. A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2006). The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. A. Knibb and E. Ullendorf, vol. 1-2 (Clarendon: Oxford 1978). Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, ed. D. Barthélemy [et al.], vol. 1-40 (Clarendon: Oxford 1955-2011). Philo Alexandrinus, Legatio ad Gaium, ed. E. M. Smallwood (E. J. Brill: Leiden 1961). Flavii Josephi Opera, ed. B. Niese, vol. 1-7 (Weidmann: Berolini 1887-1895). Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico: Der Jüdische Krieg: Griechisch und Deutsch, ed. O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, vol. 1-3 (1-3 edn., Kösel: München 1963-1982). Flavius Josèphe, Guerre des Juifs [I-V], ed. A. Pelletier, vol. 1-3 (Collection des Universités de France: Série grecque; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 19751982). Flavius Josèphe, Les Antiquités juives, ed. É. Nodet [et al.], vol. 1- (Cerf: Paris 1990- ). Flavius Josephus, Aus meinem Leben (Vita): Kritische Ausgabe, Übersetzung und Kommentar, ed. F. Siegert, H. Schreckenberg, and M. Vogel [et al.] (Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2001). Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, vol. 9, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary, [ed.] S. Mason (Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2001). Flavius Josephus, Contra Apionem, Buch I: Einleitung, Text, Textkritischer Apparat, Übersetzung und Kommentar, [ed.] D. Labow (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 167; Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2005).

188

Bibliography

Flavius Josephus, Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums [Contra Apionem], ed. F. Siegert, vol. 1-2 (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 6/1-2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008).

Graeco-Roman Inscriptions and papyri [P.Lond.] Jews and Christians in Egypt: The Jewish Troubles in Alexandria and the Athanasian Controversy: Illustrated by Texts from Greek Papyri in the British Museum, ed. H. I. Bell ([Greek Papyri in the British Museum 6]; Oxford University: [s.l.] 1924).

Literary texts Omero [Homer], Odissea, ed. S. West [et al.], trans. [ital.] G. A. Privitera, vol. 1-6 (Scrittori greci e latini; Mondadori: Roma · Milano 1981-1986). Herodotus, Historiae, ed. H. B. Rosén, vol. 1-2 (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana; Teubner: Stutgardiae · Lipsiae 19871997). Plato, Der Staat [Politeia]: Griechisch-Deutsch, ed. T. A. Szlezák, trans. R. Rufener (Tusculum; Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2000). Plinius Secundus, C., d. Ä [Pliny the Elder], Naturkunde [Naturalis Historia]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. R. König, G. Winkler, and K. Bayer [et al.], vol. 1-38 (Tusculum; 1-2 edn., Heimeran [s.l.] and Artemis & Winkler: München [et al.] 1973-2004). Plinius Caecilius Secundus, G. [Pliny the Younger], Briefe [Epistularum libri decem]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. H. Kasten (Tusculum; 7th edn., Artemis & Winkler: Zürich 1995). Tacitus, P. Cornelius, Historien [Historiae]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. J. Borst, H. Hross, and H. Borst (Tusculum; 6th edn., Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2002). Tacitus, P. Cornelius, Annalen: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. E. Heller, introd. M. Fuhrmann (Tusculum; 4th edn., Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2002). Suetonius Tranquillus, C., Die Kaiserviten [De vita Caesarum], Berühmte Männer [De viris illustribus]: Lateinisch-deutsch, ed. H. Martinet (Tusculum; Artemis & Winkler: Düsseldorf · Zürich 2000). Cassius, Dio C., Roman History [Historiae Romanae]: With an English Translation, ed. H. B. Foster, vol. 1-9 (Loeb Classical Library; Heinemann: London and Harvard University: Cambridge, Mass. 1961-1968 [repr.]).

Bibliography

189

Early Christian (I-II c. AD) Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (28th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2012). The Greek New Testament, ed. B. Aland [et al.] (4th edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 2003). The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts, ed. P. W. Comfort and D. P. Barrett (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1999). Die apostolischen Väter, ed. J. A. Fischer (Schriften des Urchristentums 1; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1981).

Church documents Leo PP. XII, Litterae encyclicae […] De Studiis Scripturae Sacrae [Providentissimus Deus], Acta Sanctae Sedis 26 (1893-94) 269-292. Benedictus PP. XV, Litterae encyclicae […] in natali MD S. Hieronymi Ecclesiae Doctoris [Spiritus Paraclitus], Acta Apostolicae Sedis 12 (1920) 385422. Pius PP. XII, Litterae encyclicae […] de Sacrorum Bibliorum studiis opportune provehendis [Divino afflante Spiritu], Acta Apostolicae Sedis 35 (1943) 297-326. Pontificium Consilium studiis Bibliorum provehendis, Instructio de historica Evangeliorum veritate [Sancta Mater Ecclesia], Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 712-718. Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, Constitutio dogmatica de divina revelatione [Dei Verbum], Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966) 817-835. Commission Biblique Pontificale, L’interprétation de la Bible dans l’Église: Allocution de Sa Sainteté le Pape Jean-Paul II et document de la Commission Biblique Pontificale (Collection des documents du Vatican; Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Città del Vaticano 1993). Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae (Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Città del Vaticano 1997). Benedictus PP. XVI, Adhortatio apostolica postsynodalis Verbum Domini Ad Episcopos, Clerum, Personas Consecratas necnon Christifideles laicos de Verbo Dei in vita et in missione Ecclesiae, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 102 (2010) 681-787.

190

Bibliography

Secondary literature Adamczewski, B., Constructing Relationships, Constructing Faces: Hypertextuality and Ethopoeia in the New Testament Writings (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2011). Adamczewski, B., ‘Ethopoeia and Morality in the Antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount’, in W. Pikor (ed.), Moralność objawiona w Biblii (Analecta Biblica Lublinensia 7; KUL: Lublin 2011), 137-145. Adamczewski, B., ‘Ewangelia według św. Marka jako „opus classicum” literatury chrześcijańskiej Europy’ (forthcoming). Adamczewski, B., The Gospel of the Narrative ‘We’: The Hypertextual Relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Acts of the Apostles (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., ‘Hans-Georg Gadamer i hermeneutyczny problem aktualizacji tekstów biblijnych’, Roczniki Teologiczne 53 (2006), fasc. 1, 71-93. Adamczewski, B., Heirs of the Reunited Church: The History of the Pauline Mission in Paul’s Letters, in the So-Called Pastoral Letters, and in the Pseudo-Titus Narrative of Acts (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., ‘Magowie ze Wschodu: za gwiazdą, przez Synaj, do Jezusowego Kościoła (Mt 2,1-12)’, in R. Bartnicki (ed.), Studia z biblistyki, vol. 8 (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012), 2538. Adamczewski, B., Q or not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2010). Adamczewski, B., Retelling the Law: Genesis, Exodus-Numbers, and SamuelKings as Sequential Hypertextual Reworkings of Deuteronomy (European Studies in Theology, Philosophy and History of Religions 1; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2012). Ahern, B., ‘Scriptural Aspects’, in J. H. Miller (ed.), Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal: International Theological Conference: University of Notre Dame: March 20-26, 1966 (University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, Ind. · London and Association Press: New York 1966), 54-67. Alkier, S., Neues Testament (UTB Basics; A. Francke: Tübingen · Basel 2010). Allen, G., Intertextuality (New Critical Idiom; Routledge: London · New York 2000). Allison, D. C., Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2010).

Bibliography

191

Allison, D. C., Jr., The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009). Allison, D. C., Jr., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Trinity: Harrisburg, Pa. 1997). Alonso Schökel, L., ‘Excelencia del Nuevo Testamento’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), La Palabra de Dios en la Historia de los Hombres: Comentario Temático a la Constitución “Dei Verbum” sobre la Divina Revelación (Teología Deusto 23; Universidad de Deusto and Mensajero: Bilbao 1991), 493-495. Álvarez, M. A., ‘San Juan de la Cruz y el carácter metafórico de la experiencia mística’, San Juan de la Cruz, NS, no. 43 (2009/1) 67-87. Alvarez Cineira, D., Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische Mission (Herders Biblische Studien 19; Herder: Freiburg [et al.] 1999). Alves, C., Ispirazione e verità: Genesi, sintesi e prospettive della dottrina sull’ispirazione biblica del concilio Vaticano II (DV 11) (doct. diss.; Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Facoltà di Teologia: Roma 2008). Angel, J. L., Otherworldly and Eschatological Priesthood in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 86; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010). Aparicio Valls, C., ‘L’ermeneutica della Sacra Scrittura nella Chiesa: Verbum Domini, nn. 29-49’, in C. Aparicio Valls and S. Pié-Ninot (eds.), Commento alla Verbum Domini, In memoria di D. Hercsik (Theologia 4; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 75-84. Arzt-Grabner, P. [et al.], 1. Korinther (Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2006). Atkinson, K., ‘The Historical Chronology of the Hasmonean Period in the War and Antiquities of Flavius Josephus: Separating Fact from Fiction’, in J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (eds.), Flavius Josephus: Interpretation and History (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 146; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 7-27. Augustinus, A., Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti, ed. I. Zycha (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 25 [vol. 1]; F. Tempsky: Pragae · Vindobonae and G. Freytag: Lipsiae 1891), 191-248. [Augustine] Sant’Agostino, Il consenso degli evangelisti, ed. P. De Luis, V. Tarulli, and F. Monteverde (Opere di Sant’Agostino: Edizione latinoitaliana, Parte I, Opere esegetiche 10/1; Città Nuova: Roma 1996). [Augustine] Sant’Agostino, La Genesi, vol. 2, La Genesi alla lettera, ed. L. Carrozzi (Opere di Sant’Agostino: Edizione latino-italiana, Parte I, Libri – Opere esegetiche 9/2; Città Nuova: Roma 1989).

192

Bibliography

Aune, D. E., ‘Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 145-175. Aune, D. E., ‘The Meaning of Εὐαγγέλιον in the Inscriptiones of the Canonical Gospels’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam [vol. 2] (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153/II; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 857-882. Baasland, E., ‘Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want?’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 31-56. Backhaus, K., ‘Christus-Ästhetik: Der „Jesus“ des Papstes zwischen Rekonstruktion und Realpräsenz’, in T. Söding (ed.), Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes: Die Antwort der Neutestamentler (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 20-29. Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Josephus, Against Apion’, in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2010), 832-834. Barclay, J. M. G., ‘Judean Historiography in Rome: Josephus and History in Contra Apionem Book 1’, in J. Sievers and G. Lembi (eds.), Josephus and Jewish History in Flavian Rome and Beyond (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 29-43. Bardet, S., Le Testmonium Flavianum: Examen historique, considérations historiographiques (Josèphe et son temps 5; Cerf: Paris 2002). Barker, D., ‘The Dating of New Testament Papyri’, New Testament Studies 57 (2011) 571-582. Bartnicki, R., Ewangelie synoptyczne: Geneza i interpretacja (4th edn., Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2012). Bauckham, R., ‘The Caiaphas Family’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10 (2012) 3-31. Bauckham, R., Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2006). Baum, A. D., ‘Ein aramäischer Urmatthäus im kleinasiatischen Gottesdienst’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 92 (2001) 257-272. Baumgarten, A. I., ‘The “Outreach” Campaign of the Ancient Pharisees: There is no such thing as a Free Lunch’, in B. Isaac and Y. Sharar (eds.), Judaea-Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 147; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 11-28.

Bibliography

193

Bauspieß, M., ‘Auf der Grenze von Theologie und Geschichte: Joseph Ratzingers „Jesus von Nazareth“ (Band I+II)’, in P. Metzger (ed.), Die Konfession Jesu (Bensheimer Hefte 102; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012), 101-130. Bauspieß, M., Geschichte und Erkenntnis im lukanischen Doppelwerk: Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu einer christlichen Perspektive auf Geschichte (Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 42; Evangelische: Leipzig 2012). Bea, A., Das Wort Gottes und die Menschheit: Die Lehre des Konzils über die Offenbarung (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1968). Bendemann, R. von, ‘Jesus und die Stadt im Markusevangelium’, in R. von Bendemann and M. Tiwald (eds.), Das frühe Christentum und die Stadt (Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 10/18 [198]; W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 43-68. Berger, K., ‘Kant sowie ältere protestantische Systematik: Anfragen des Exegeten an Benedikt XVI.’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] „Jesus von Nazareth“ kontrovers: Rückfragen an Joseph Ratzinger (2nd edn., Lit: Berlin 2007), 27-40. Berger, K., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Gütersloher: Gütersloh 2011). Betti, U., La dottrina del Concilio Vaticano II sulla trasmissione della Rivelazione: Il capitolo II della Costituzione dommatica Dei verbum (Specilegium Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani 26; [s.n.]: Roma 1985). Biguzzi, G., ‘…se ci fu una congiura all’origine della tradizione evangelica’, in G. Biguzzi and M. Gronchi (eds.), Discussione sul Gesù storico (Percorsi culturali, NS 19; Urbaniana University: Città del Vaticano 2009), 57-74. Black, M., ‘The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989) 31-41. Bloch, R. S., Antike Vorstellungen vom Judentum: Der Judenexkurs des Tacitus im Rahmen der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie (Historia: Einzelschriften 160; Franz Steiner: Stuttgart 2002). Blomberg, C. L., Matthew (New American Commentary 22; Broadman & Holman: Nashville, Tenn. 1992). Blommestijn, H., ‘The Dark Night in John of the Cross: The Transformational Process’, Studies in Spirituality 10 (2000) 228-241. Blumell, L. H., Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents 39; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012). Bock, D. L., Luke, vol. 2, 9:51-24:53 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996).

194

Bibliography

Bockmuehl, M., ‘Saints’ Lives as Exegesis’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church (Veritas; SCM: London 2009), 119-133. Boring, M. E., ‘The “Minor Agreements” and Their Bearing on the Synoptic Problem’, in P. Foster [et al.] (eds.), New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008, Festschrift C. M. Tuckett (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 239; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 227-251. Bouwman, G., Das dritte Evangelium: Einübung in die formgeschichtliche Methode, trans. H. Zulauf (Patmos: Düsseldorf 1968). Brodie, T. L., ‘Countering Romans: Matthew’s Systematic Distillation and Transformation of Paul’, in U. Schnelle (ed.), The Letter to the Romans (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 226; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2009), 521-542. Brodie, T. L., Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Oxford University: New York [et al] 2001). Brodie, T. L., The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach (Oxford University: New York · Oxford 1993). Brooke, G. J., ‘Aspects of Matthew’s Use of Scripture in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in E. F. Mason [et al.] (eds.), A Teacher for All Generations, Festschrift J. C. VanderKam [vol. 2] (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 153/II; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2012), 821-838. Brown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1999). Brown, R. E., An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1997). Burigana, R., La Bibbia nel concilio: La redazione della costituzione «Dei verbum» del Vaticano II (Testi e ricerche di scienze religiose, NS 21; Il Mulino: Bologna 1998). Burridge, R. A., ‘Biography’, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.–A.D. 400 (Brill: Boston · Leiden 2001), 371-391. Butticaz, S., ‘“Has God Rejected His People?” (Romans 11.1): The Salvation of Israel in Acts: Narrative Claim of a Pauline Legacy’, in D. P. Moessner [et al.] (eds.), Luke the Interpreter of Israel, vol. 2, Paul and the Heritage of Israel: Paul’s Claim upon Israel’s Legacy in Luke and Acts in the Light of the Pauline Letters (Library of New Testament Studies 452; T&T Clark: London 2012), 148-164.

Bibliography

195

Byrskog, S., ‘The Historicity of Jesus: How Do We Know That Jesus Existed?’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 3, The Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 2183-2211. Byrskog, S., ‘The Transmission of the Jesus Tradition: Old and New Insights’, Early Christianity 1 (2010) 441-468. Caba, J., ‘Historicité des Évangiles (DV 19): Genèse et fruit du texte conciliaire’, in R. Latourelle (ed.), Vatican II: Bilan et perspectives: Vingt ans après (1962-1987) (Recherches: Nouvelle Serie 15; Bellarmin: Montréal and Cerf: Paris 1988), 307-327. Calduch-Benages, N., ‘Exégesis, teología y hermenéutica bíblica en la «Verbum Domini»’, Phase: Revista de Pastoral Litúrgica 51 (2011) 109-121. Carbajosa, I., ‘Una exégesis a la vez científica y creyente: Comentario a Verbum Domini 29-38’, Estudios Bíblicos 69 (2011) 427-463. Carleton Paget, J., ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS 52 (2001) 539-624 [also in id., Jews, Christians and Jewish Christians in Antiquity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 251; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010), 185-265]. Carruth, S. and Garsky, A. (vol. ed. S. D. Anderson), Q 11:2b-4 (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 1996). Casey, M., Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (T&T Clark: London · New York 2010). Casey, M., ‘The Role of Aramaic in Reconstructing the Teaching of Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 2, The Study of Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 13431375. Cazier, P., ‘Le De consensu euangelistarum d’Augustin et l’historicité des évangiles’, Graphè 7 (1998) 45-68. Charlesworth, J. H., ‘The Historical Jesus: How to Ask Questions and Remain Inquisitive’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 91-128. Chilton, B., ‘John the Baptist: His Immersion and his Death’, in S. E. Porter and A. R. Cross (eds.), Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 234; Sheffield Academic: London · New York 2002), 25-44. Cholewiński, A., ‘Zur theologischen Deutung des Moabbundes’, Biblica 66 (1985) 96-111.

196

Bibliography

Chrostowski, M., ‘Katolicka hermeneutyka biblijna w świetle Adhortacji apostolskiej Verbum Domini Ojca Świętego Benedykta XVI’, Collectanea Theologica 81 (2011) no. 2, 5-23. Cipriani, S., ‘Presupposti dottrinali espliciti e impliciti della «Instructio» della Pontificia Commissione Biblica sui Vangeli’, Divus Thomas 68 (1965) 242-254. Claussen, C., ‘Vom historischen zum erinnerten Jesus: Der erinnerte Jesus als neues Paradigma der Jesusforschung’, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 20 (2007) 2-17. Cocchini, F., ‘Note sul De Principiis IV di Origene’, in N. Ciola (ed.), Servire Ecclesiae, Festschrift P. Scabini (Momenti della Chiesa Italiana 15; Dehoniane: Bologna 1998), 131-146. Collins, A. Y., Mark: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis, Minn. 2007). Cook, J. G., Roman Attitudes Toward the Christians: From Claudius to Hadrian (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 261; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Crawford, S. W., Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2008). Culpepper, R. A., ‘Mark 6:17-29 in Its Narrative Context: Kingdoms in Conflict’, in K. R. Iverson and C. W. Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 145-163. Cuvillier, E., ‘Références, allusions et citations: Réflexions sur l’utilisation de l’Ancien Testament en Matthieu 1-2’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 229-242. Dąbek, T. M., ‘Sensy Pisma Świętego w świetle dokumentu Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej’, in R. Rubinkiewicz (ed.), Interpretacja Biblii w Kościele: Dokument Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej z komentarzem biblistów polskich (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 4; Vocatio: Warszawa 1999), 178-195. Das, A. A., Solving the Romans Debate (Fortress: Minneapolis 2007). Davies, W. D. and Allison, D. C., Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1, Introduction and Commentary on Matthew I-VII (International Critical Commentary; T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1988).

Bibliography

197

De Carlo, F., „Dio mio, Dio mio, perché mi hai abbandonato?” (Mc 15,34): I Salmi nel racconto della passione di Gesù secondo Marco (Analecta Biblica 179; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2009). Deines, R., ‘Can the ‘Real’ Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus? A Review of the Pope’s Challenge to Biblical Scholarship and the Ongoing Debate’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church (Veritas; SCM: London 2009), 199-232. Descreux, J., ‘Apocalypse 12 ou de l’art d’accommoder les mythes’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 345-359. Destro, A. and Pesce, M. ‘The Cultural Structure of the Infancy Narrative in the Gospel of Matthew’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 94-115. Devillers, O., Tacite et les sources des Annales: Enquêtes sur la méthode historique (Bibliothèque d’Études Classiques 36; Peeters: Louvain · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2003). Di Pasquale Brabanti, M., Origene di Alessandria: Tra Platonismo e Sacra Scrittura: Teologia e Antropologia del De Principiis (Symbolon 25; CUECM: Catania 2003). Dion, M.-F., ‘L’identité d’Éphraïm et Manassé dans le Pésher de Nahum (4Q169)’, in P. W. Flint, J. Duhaime, and K. S. Baek (eds.), Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Collection (Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature 30; Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta 2011), 405-427. Dornseiff, F., ‘Lukas als Schriftsteller: Mit einem Anhang: Josephus und Tacitus’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 35 (1936) 129-155. Dunn, J. D. G., Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2009). Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Eyewitnesses and the Oral Jesus Tradition’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 6 (2008) 85-105. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Jesus in Oral Memory: The Initial Stage of the Jesus Tradition’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 39 (2000) 287-326 [also in D. Donnelly (ed.), Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land (Continuum: New York · London 2001), 84-145].

198

Bibliography

Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2011). Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making 1; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2003). Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Matthew as Wirkungsgeschichte’, in P. Lampe, M. Mayordomo, and M. Sato (eds.), Neutestamentliche Exegese im Dialog: Hermeneutik – Wirkungsgeschichte – Matthäusevangelium, Festschrift U. Luz (Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008), 149-166. Dunn, J. D. G., ‘Q1 as oral tradition’, in M. Bockmuehl and D. A. Hagner (eds.), The Written Gospel, Festschrift G. N. Stanton (Cambridge University: Cambridge 2005), 45-69. Ebner, M., ‘Jeder Ausleger hat seine blinden Flecken’, in T. Söding (ed.), Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes: Die Antwort der Neutestamentler (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 30-42. Ebner, M., Jesus von Nazaret: Was wir von ihm wissen können (Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2007). Eddy, P. R. and Boyd, G. A., The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2007). Eichhorn, J. G., ‘Ueber die drey ersten Evangelien: Eynge Beytrage zu ihrer künftigen kritischen Behandlung’, in id., Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur, vol. 5 [part 5-6], Weidmann: Leipzig 1794, 761-996. Eusèbe de Césarée, Histoire ecclésiastique, vol. 1-4, ed. G. Bardy (Sources chrétiennes 31, 41, 55, 73; Paris 1952-1960). Evans, C. A., Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (InterVarsity: Downers Gove, Ill. 2006). Eve, E., The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in Historical Context (SPCK: London 2009). Fabris, R., ‘Bibbia e magistero: Dalla Providentissimus Deus (1893) alla Dei Verbum (1965)’, Studia Patavina 41 (1994), no. 2, 11-36 [315-340]. Farkasfalvy, D., Inspiration & Interpretation: A Theological Introduction to Sacred Scripture (Catholic University of America: Washington, D.C. 2010). Farkasfalvy, D., ‘The Papias Fragments on Mark and Matthew and Their Relationship to Luke’s Prologue: An Essay on the Pre-History of the Synoptic Problem’, in A. J. Malherbe, F. W. Norris, and J. W. Thompson (eds.), The Early Church in Its Context, Festschrift E. Ferguson (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 90; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 1998), 92-106. Fisk, B. N., ‘Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians of Rome’, in S. E. Porter and C. D. Stanley (eds.), As It Is Written:

Bibliography

199

Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 50; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 157-185. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Biblical Commission’s Document “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”: Text and Commentary (Subsidia Biblica 18; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1995). Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels’, Theological Studies 25 (1964) 386-408. Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life’, Theological Studies 50 (1989) 244-259. Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Senses of Scripture Today’, Irish Theological Quarterly 62 (1996/97) 101-117. Fleddermann, H. T., ‘The Cross and Discipleship in Q’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 27 (1988) 472-482. Fleddermann, H. T., Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies 1; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Dudley, Mass. 2005). Förster, N., ‘Geschichtsforschung als Apologie: Josephus und die nichtgriechischen Historiker in Contra Apionem’, in Z. Rodgers (ed.), Making History: Josephus and Historical Method (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 110; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2007), 168-191. France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Carlisle 2002). France, R. T., The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2007). Franz, A., ‘Der Jesus des Papstes: Anmerkungen zu Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.: Jesus von Nazareth’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] „Jesus von Nazareth“ kontrovers: Rückfragen an Joseph Ratzinger (2nd edn., Lit: Berlin 2007), 49-63. Frevel, C., ‘Grundriss der Geschichte Israels’, in id. (ed.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie 1,1; 8th edn., W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart 2012), 701-854. Frey, J., ‘Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien’, in J. Schröter and R. Brucker (eds.), Der historische Jesus: Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 114; Walter de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002), 273-336. Freyne, S., ‘Matthew and Mark: The Jewish Contexts’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (Wissen-

200

Bibliography

schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 179-203. Fusco, V., ‘Un secolo di metodo storico nell’esegesi cattolica (1893-1993)’, Studia Patavina 41 (1994), no. 2, 37-94 [341-398]. Fuss, M., ‘Il rischio dell’interpretazione fondamentalista (Verbum Domini n. 44)’, in P. Merlo and G. Pulcinelli (eds.), Verbum Domini: Studi e commenti sull’Esortazione apostolica postsinodale di Benedetto XVI (Dibattito per il Millennio 19; Lateran University: Città del Vaticano 2011), 171-200. García, J. M., ‘La tradición evangélica y su original arameo’, in J. M. García Pérez (ed.), Rastreando los orígenes: Lengua y exégesis en el Nuevo Testamento, Festschrift M. Herranz Marco (Encuentro / CEU: Madrid 2011), 55-91. Garský, Z., Das Wirken Jesu in Galiläa bei Johannes: Eine strukturale Analyse der Intertextualität des vierten Evangeliums mit den Synoptikern (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.325; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012). Gathercole, S., The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 151; Cambridge University: Cambridge 2012). Genette, G., Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré (Seuil: [s.l.] 1982). Gieniusz, A., ‘La discussione attuale sul Gesù storico: Problemi e criteri’, in G. Biguzzi and M. Gronchi (eds.), Discussione sul Gesù storico (Percorsi culturali, NS 19; Urbaniana University: Città del Vaticano 2009), 37-56. Gilbert, M., ‘Cinquant’anni di magistero romano sull’ermeneutica biblica: Leone XIII (1893) – Pio XII (1943)’, in P. Laghi, M. Gilbert, and A. Vanhoye, Chiesa e Sacra Scrittura: Un secolo di magistero ecclesiastico e studi biblici (Subsidia biblica 17; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1994), 11-33. Gile, J. M., Dei Verbum: Theological Critiques from within Vatican II: A Retrieval and Analysis of The Unaccepted Theological Critiques Raised in Response to The Schema on Revelation During The Third and Fourth Periods of The Second Vatican Council (doct. diss.; Pontificia Università Gregoriana. Facultas Theologiae: Romae 2004). Gnilka, J., Das Evangelium nach Markus, vol. 1, Mk 1-8,26 (Evangelischkatholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Zürich · Düsseldorf / Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 1998). Goodacre, M. S., Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas’s Familiarity with the Synoptics (Wm. B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2012).

Bibliography

201

Goulder, M. D., Luke: A New Paradigm (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 20; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1989). Grech, P., ‘Further Reflections on Biblical Inspiration and Truth’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 42 (2012) 81-89. Grelot, P., ‘L’inspiration de l’Écriture et son interprétation’, in B.-D. Dupuy (ed.), La Révélation divine: Constitution dogmatique « Dei verbum » [vol. 1-2] (Unam Sanctam 70a, 70b; Cerf: Paris 1968), 347-380. Grillmeier, A., ‘Kommentar zum III. Kapitel’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erläuterungen: Lateinisch und Deutsch: Kommentare, vol. 2 (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1967), 528-557. Guillén Armendáriz, F., ‘A favor de una teología de la historia en Dei Verbum 7 y 19’, Verdad y Vida 58 (2000) 35-58. Gundry, R. H., ‘The Apostolically Johannine Pre-Papian Tradition Concerning the Gospels of Mark and Matthew’, in id., The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 178; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005), 49-73. Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1993). Haenchen, E., Das Johannesevangelium: Ein Kommentar, ed. U. Busse (J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1980). Häfner, G., ‘Das Matthäus-Evangelium und seine Quellen’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 25-71. Hagner, D. A., Matthew 1-13 (Word Biblical Commentary 33A; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). Harnack, A., ‘Der jüdische Geschichtsschreiber Josephus und Jesus Christus’, Internationale Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft Kunst und Technik 7 (1913) 1037-1068. Harrington, D. J., The Gospel of Matthew (Sacra Pagina 1; Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1991). Heckel, T. K., Vom Evangelium des Markus zum viergestaltigen Evangelium (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 120; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 1999). Heine, R. E., Origen: Scholarship in the Service of the Church (Christian Theology in Context; Oxford University: New York [et al.] 2010). Henderson, T. P., The Gospel of Peter and Early Christian Apologetics: Rewriting the Story of Jesus’ Death, Burial, and Resurrection (Wissen-

202

Bibliography

schaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.301; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Hengel, M. and Schwemer, A. M., Jesus und das Judentum (Geschichte des frühen Christentums 1; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007). Heubeck, A. and Hoekstra, A., A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 2, Books IX-XVI (Clarendon: Oxford 1989). Heutger, N., ‘Münzen im Lukasevangelium’, Biblische Zeitschrift, NF 27 (1983) 97-101. Hieke, T., ‘Die Wahrheit ist eine Person: Marginalien eines Alttestamentlers zum zweiten Teil des Jesus-Buches von Papst Benedikt XVI.’, in T. Söding (ed.), Tod und Auferstehung Jesu: Theologische Antworten auf das Buch des Papstes (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011), 17-32. Hjelm, I., ‘Mt. Gerizim and Samaritans in Recent Research’, in M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Judaica 53 / Studia Samaritana 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 25-41. Hoehner, H. W., ‘The Chronology of Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 3, The Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 2315-2359. Holthuis, S., Intertextualität: Aspekte einer rezeptionsorientierten Konzeption (Stauffenburg Colloquium 28; Stauffenburg: Tübingen 1993). Hooker, M. D., ‘Good News about Jesus Christ, the Son of God’, in K. R. Iverson and C. W. Skinner (eds.), Mark as Story: Retrospect and Prospect (Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 65; Brill: Boston · Leiden 2011), 165-180. Hooker, M. D., The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Black’s New Testament Commentary; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 1991). Hoping, H., ‘Theologischer Kommentar zur Dogmatischen Konstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung’, in P. Hünermann and B. J. Hilberath (eds.), Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil, vol. 3 (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2005), 695-831. Hoppe, R., ‘Historische Rückfrage und deutende Erinnerung an Jesus: Zum Jesusbuch von Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.’, in T. Söding (ed.), Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes: Die Antwort der Neutestamentler (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 54-65. Horn, F. W., ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive’, in C. Böttrich, J. Herzer, and T. Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen: II. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum 25.-28. Mai 2006, Greifswald

Bibliography

203

(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 209; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2007), 117-136. Howard Marshall, I., ‘Acts’, in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (eds.), Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. and Apollos: Nottingham 2008), 513-606. Hultgren, A. J., ‘Form Criticism and Jesus Research’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 649671. Instone-Brewer, D., ‘1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco-Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri’, Tyndale Bulletin 52 (2001) 101-115. Irénée de Lyon, Contre les hérésies [Adversus haereses], ed. A. Rousseau and L. Doutreleau [et al.] (Sources chrétiennes 100, 152-153, 210-211, 263264, 293-294; Cerf: Paris 1965-1982). Jacob, R., ‘La verdad de la Sagrada Escritura’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), La Palabra de Dios en la Historia de los Hombres: Comentario Temático a la Constitución “Dei Verbum” sobre la Divina Revelación (Teología Deusto 23; Universidad de Deusto and Mensajero: Bilbao 1991), 359-382. Jagodziński, M., ‘Specyfika chrystologii w dziele Jezus z Nazaretu’, in D. Skrok and D. Swend (eds.), Teologiczne refleksje po lekturze książki Josepha Ratzingera – Benedykta XVI Jezus z Nazaretu: Materiały z konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej 3 grudnia 2008 roku przez Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne Oddział w Radomiu (Unum: Radom 2009), 45-74. Jankowski, A., ‘Wprowadzenie do Konstytucji dogmatycznej o Objawieniu Bożym’, in Sobór Watykański II, Konstytucje – Dekrety – Deklaracje. Tekst polski. Nowe tłumaczenie (Pallottinum: Poznań 2002), 341-349. Joannes Chrysostomus, Homiliae in Matthaeum, vol. 1-2, ed. F. Field (Patrologia graeca 57-58; J.-P. Migne: Lutetiae Parisiorum 1862). Juan de la Cruz, Obras completas: Edición crítica, ed. J. V. Rodríguez, introd. F. Ruiz Salvador (6th edn.; Editorial de Espiritualidad: Madrid 2009). Junod, É., ‘Origéne face au problème du désaccord (διαφωνία) entre les évanglies (CIo X, 3-36)’, in E. Prinzivalli (ed.), Il Commento a Giovanni di Origene: il testo e i suoi contesti: Atti dell’VIII Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina (Roma, 28-30 settembre 2004) (Biblioteca di Adamantius 3; Pazzini: Villa Verucchio 2005), 423-439. Kahl, W., ‘Erhebliche matthäisch-lukanische Übereinstimmungen gegen das Markusevangelium in der Triple-Tradition: Ein Beitrag zur Klärung der synoptischen Abhängigkeitsverhältnisse’, Zeitschrift für die neutesta-

204

Bibliography

mentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 103 (2012) 2046. Kerr, F., ‘If Jesus Knew He Was God, How Did It Work?’, in A. Pabst and A. Paddison (eds.), The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth: Christ, Scripture and the Church (Veritas; SCM: London 2009), 50-67. Kiessel, M.-É., ‘Intertextualité et hypertextualité en Jn 11,1-12,11’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 81 (2005) 29-56. Kiilunen, J., Das Doppelgebot der Liebe in synoptischer Sicht: Ein redaktionsgeschichtlicher Versuch über Mk 12,28-34 und die Parallelen (Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia / Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B.250; Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia [Academia Scientiarum Fennica]: Helsinki 1989). Kirk, A., ‘The Memory of Violence and the Death of Jesus in Q’, in A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies 52; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2005), 191-206. Kobel, E., Dining with John: Communal Meals and Identity Formation in the Fourth Gospel and its Historical and Cultural Context (Biblical Interpretation Series 109; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011). Koester, H., Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (SCM: London and Trinity: Philadelphia, Pa. 1990). Körtner, U. H. J., ‘Papiasfragmente’, in U. H. J. Körtner and M. Leutzsch (eds.), Papiasfragmente, Hirt des Hermas (Schriften des Urchristentums 3; Wissenschaftliche: Darmstadt 1998), 1-103. Kosch, D., ‘„Um unseres Heiles willen“: Eine Relecture von „Dei Verbum“ nach 40 Jahren’, Bibel und Kirche 60 (2005) 45-51. Kręcidło, J., Nowe życie uczniów Jezusa: J 21 jako owoc eklezjologicznej relektury J 1-20 we wspólnocie Umiłowanego Ucznia (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 33; Vocatio: Warszawa 2009). Kremer, J., ‘Die Interpretation der Bibel in der Kirche: Marginalien zum neuesten Dokument der Päpstlichen Bibelkommission’, Stimmen der Zeit 212 (1994) 151-166. Kruger, M. J., ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840’, in T. Nicklas, M. J. Kruger, and T. J. Kraus (eds.), Gospel Fragments (Oxford Early Christian Gospel Texts; Oxford University: Oxford 2009), 121-215. Kudasiewicz, J., ‘Historyczność Ewangelii według Soboru Watykańskiego II’, in J. Kudasiewicz and H. Witczyk, Jezus i Ewangelie w ogniu dyskusji: Od H. Reimarusa do T. Polaka (Biblioteka „Verbum Vitae” 2; ITB Verbum: Kielce 2011), 164-194.

Bibliography

205

Kuhn, H.-W., ‘The Qumran Meal and the Lord’s Supper in Paul in the Context of the Graeco-Roman World’, in A. Christophersen [et al.] (eds.), Paul, Luke, and the Graeco-Roman World, Festschrift A. J. M. Wedderburn (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 217; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2002), 221-248. Lampe, P., Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten: Untersuchungen zur Sozialgeschichte (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.18; 2nd edn., J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen 1989). Lange, A., ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Date of the Final Stage of the Pentateuch’, in J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin (eds.), On Stone and Scroll, Festschrift G. I. Davies (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 420; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 287-304. Latourelle, R., L’accès à Jésus par les Évangiles: Histoire et herméneutique (Recherches 20; Desclé & Cie: Tournai and Bellarmin: Montréal 1978). Le Donne, A., ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Revisionist History through the Lens of Jewish-Christian Relations’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 10 (2012) 63-86. Léon-Dufour, X., ‘Sur le Nouveau Testament (commentaire du chapitre V)’, in B.-D. Dupuy (ed.), La Révélation divine: Constitution dogmatique « Dei verbum » [vol. 1-2] (Unam Sanctam 70a, 70b; Cerf: Paris 1968), 403-431. Lessing, G. E., ‘Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als blos menschliche Geschichtschreiber betrachtet’ [Wolfenbüttel 1778], in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 45-72 [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 629-654]. Lessing, G. E., ‘Theses aus der Kirchengeschichte’, in id., Theologischer Nachlass (Christian Friedrich Voß und Sohn: Berlin 1784), 73-82 [also in id., Werke und Briefe, vol. 8, Werke 1774-1778, ed. A. Schilson (Deutsche Klassiker: Frankfurt am Main 1989), 619-627]. Lincoln, A. T., The Gospel According to Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentaries 4; Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2006). Lindemann, A., ‘Paulus und die Jesustradition’, in R. Buitenwerf, H. W. Hollander, and J. Tromp (eds.), Jesus, Paul, and Early Christianity, Festschrift H. J. de Jonge (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 130; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2008), 281-316. Loader, J. A., ‘Creating New Contexts: On the Possibilities of Biblical Studies in Contexts Generated by the Dead Sea Scrolls’, in A. Lange, E. Tov, and M. Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context: Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures [vol.

206

Bibliography

1] (Supplemets to Vetus Testamentum 140/1; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 27-45. Lohaus, G., ‘Jesu Lebensereignisse in der Summa Theologiae des Thomas von Aquin und im Jesusbuch Benedikts XVI.: Ein Vergleich’, in M. Gerwing and H. J. F. Reinhardt, Wahrheit auf dem Weg (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, NF 72; Aschendorff: Münster 2009), 153-183. Lohfink, N., ‘Bund als Vertrag im Deuteronomium’, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 107 (1995) 215-239 [also in id., Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur, vol. 4 (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 31; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2000), 285309]. Luckensmeyer, D., The Eschatology of First Thessalonians (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 71; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009). Lüdemann, G., ‘Paul as a Witness to the Historical Jesus’, in R. J. Hoffmann (ed.), Sources of the Jesus Tradition: Separating History from Myth (Prometheus: Amherst, NY 2010), 196-212. Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 1, Mt 1-7 (Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1/1; 5th edn., Benzinger: Düsseldorf [et al.] and Neukirchener: Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002). Luz, U., ‘Jesus from a Western Perspective: State of Research. Methodology’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars: Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 288; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 41-64. Luzarraga, J., El Padrenuestro desde el arameo (Analecta Biblica 171; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2008). MacDonald, D. R., ‘A Categorization of Antetextuality in the Gospels and Acts: A Case for Luke’s imitation of Plato and Xenophon to Depict Paul as a Christian Socrates’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 211-225. MacDonald, D. R., The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University: New Haven · London 2000). MacDonald, D. R., ‘Luke’s Use of Papias for Narrating the Death of Judas’, in S. Walton [et al.] (eds.), Reading Acts Today, Festschrift L. C. A. Alexan-

Bibliography

207

der (Library of New Testament Studies 427; T&T Clark: London · New York 2011), 43-62. Magen, Y., Mount Gerizim Excavations, vol. 2, A Temple City (Judea & Samaria Publications 8; Israel Antiquities Authority: Jerusalem 2008). Maggioni, B., «Impara a conoscere il volto di Dio»: Commento alla «Dei Verbum» (Dabar – Logos – Parola: Lectio divina popolare; Messaggero: Padova 2001). Malbon, E. S., ‘New Literary Criticism and Jesus Research’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 777807. Manicardi, E., ‘Criteri di storicità e storia di Gesù oggi’, Ricerche Storico Bibliche 17 (2005) no. 2, 27-54. Marcus, J., Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Mark 1-8 (Anchor Bible 27; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 2000). Marcus, J., ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, Revue biblique 110 (2003) 38-61, 370-386. Marschler, T., ‘Joseph Ratzinger als Interpret der „Mysterien des Lebens Jesu“’, in H. Hoping and M. Schulz (eds.), Jesus und der Papst: Systematische Reflexionen zum Jesus-Buch des Papstes (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 90-100. Mason, S., ‘Josephus’, in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow (eds.), The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2010), 828-832. Mason, S., Josephus, Judea, and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass. 2009). Mason, S., ‘The Writings of Josephus: Their Significance for New Testament Study’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 2, The Study of Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 1639-1686. Mayordomo, M., ‘Matthew 1-2 and the Problem of Intertextuality’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 281; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 257-279. Meier, J. P., ‘Basic Methodology in the Quest for the Historical Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 291-331.

208

Bibliography

Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, The Roots of the Problem and the Person (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday: New York [et al.] 1991). Menken, M. J. J., Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 173; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven [et al.] 2004). Merkel, H., Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien: Ihre polemische und apologetische Behandlung in der Alten Kirche bis zu Augustin (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 13; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1971). Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft / United Bible Societies: Stuttgart 1998). Metzner, R., Kaiaphas: Der Hohepriester jenes Jahres: Geschichte und Deutung (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 75; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010). Mihoc, V., ‘How Did the Church Fathers Understand the History of Jesus?’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars: Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 288; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 115-152. Molthagen, J., ‘»Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam«: Das Nichtwissen des Plinius und die Anfänge der Christenprozesse’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Gemeinde 9 (2004) 112-140. Morris, L., The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 1992). Müller, M., ‘Die Lukasschriften und die Septuagint’, in S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund (eds.), Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte: 3. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.-25. Juli 2010 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 268; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 465-479. Murray, R., ‘The Human Capacity for God, and God’s Initiative (Paragraphs 26141)’, in M. J. Walsh (ed.), Commentary on the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liturgical: Collegeville, Minn. 1994), 6-35. Na’aman, N., ‘The Northern Kingdom in the Late Tenth-Ninth Centuries BCE’, in H. G. M. Williamson (ed.), Understanding the History of Ancient Israel (Proceedings of the British Academy 143; Oxford University: Oxford 2007), 399-418.

Bibliography

209

Nault, F., ‘Der Jesus der Geschichte: Hat er eine theologische Relevanz?’, in H. Häring (ed.), „Jesus von Nazareth“ in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Paperbacks 30; Lit: Wien · Berlin 2008), 103121. Neirynck, F., ‘John 21’, New Testament Studies 36 (1990) 321-336 [also in id., Evangelica II: 1982-1991, ed. F. van Segbroeck (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 99; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 1991), 601-616]. Neirynck, F., ‘Luke 10,25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?’, in S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries, Festschrift M. D. Goulder (Biblical Interpretation Series 8; Brill: Leiden · New York · Köln 1994), 149-165 [also in id., Evangelica III: 1992-2000 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 150; Leuven University and Peeters: Leuven 2001), 267-282]. Niemand, C., ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Befunde, Diskussionsstand, Perspektiven’, Protokolle zur Bibel 17 (2008) 45-71. Nihan, C., ‘Garizim et Ébal dans le Pentateuque: Quelques remarques en marge de la publication d’un nouveau fragment du Deutéronome’, Semitica 54 (2012) [M. Langlois and T. Römer (eds.), Monde sémitique et Bible hébraïque] 185-210. Nodet, É., Le Fils de Dieu: Procès de Jésus et évangiles (Josèphe et son temps 4; Cerf: Paris 2002). Nodet, É., ‘Jésus et Jean Baptiste selon Josèphe’, Revue Biblique 92 (1985) 320348, 497-524. Nodet, É., ‘Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 2, The Study of Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 1495-1543. Nodet, É., Samaritains, Juifs, Temples (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique; J. Gabalda: Pende 2010). Nodet, E., A Search for the Origins of Judaism: From Joshua to the Mishnah, trans. E. Crowley (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 248; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 1997). Noël, F., The Travel Narrative in the Gospel of Luke: Interpretation of Lk 9,5119,28 (Collectanea Biblica et Religiosa Antiqua; Wetenschappelijk Comité voor Godsdienstgeschiedenis van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten van België: Brussel 2004). Nolland, J., The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. [et al.] and Paternoster: Bletchley 2005).

210

Bibliography

Nolland, J., Luke 18:35-24:53 (Word Biblical Commentary 35C; Word Books: Dallas, Tex. 1993). Nongbri, B., ‘The Use and Abuse of p52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, Harvard Theological Review 98 (2005) 23-48. Norelli, E. (ed.), Papia di Hierapolis, Esposizione degli oracoli del Signore: I frammenti (Letture cristiane del primo millennio 36; Paoline: Milano 2005). Norelli, E., ‘La presenza di Gesù nella letteratura gentile dei primi due secoli’, Ricerche Storico Bibliche 17 (2005), no. 2, 175-215. Notley, R. S., ‘The Sea of Galilee: Development of an Early Christian Toponym’, Journal of Biblical Literature 128 (2009) 183-188. Ohlig, K.-H., ‘Der Papst schreibt ein theologisches Buch: Soll er das?’, in [K. Lehmann et al.,] „Jesus von Nazareth“ kontrovers: Rückfragen an Joseph Ratzinger (2nd edn., Lit: Berlin 2007), 41-47. O’Leary, A. M., Matthew’s Judaization of Mark: Examined in the Context of the Use of Sources in Graeco-Roman Antiquity (Library of New Testament Studies 323; T&T Clark: London · New York 2006). Omerzu, H., Der Prozeß des Paulus: Eine exegetische und rechtshistorische Untersuchung der Apostelgeschichte (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 115; de Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2002). Origène, Commentaire sur saint Jean, vol. 1-5, ed. C. Blanc (Sources chrétiennes 120 bis, 157, 222, 290, 385; 1-2 edn., Cerf: Paris 1970-1996). Origenes, Contra Celsum: Libri VIII, ed. M. Marcovich (Supplemets to Vigiliae Christianae 54; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2001). Origène, Traité des principes, vol. 1-5, ed. H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti (Sources chrétiennes 252-253, 268-269, 312; Cerf: Paris 1978-1984). Orose [Orosius, Paulus], Histoires (contre les païens) [Historiarum adversus paganos libri VII], vol. 1-3, ed. M.-P. Arnaud-Lindet (Collection des Universités de France: Série latine; Les Belles Lettres: Paris 1990-1991). Osborne, G. R., ‘Jesus’ Empty Tomb and His Appearance in Jerusalem’, in D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 247; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 775-823. Ostermann, S., ‘Lepton, Quadrans und Denar: Drei Münzen im Jerusalemer Tempel zur Zeit Jesu’, in G. Theißen [et al.] (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie, Festschrift M. Küchler (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 70; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2009), 39-56.

Bibliography

211

Paciorek, A., Ewangelia według świętego Mateusza: Wstęp. Przekład z oryginału. Komentarz, vol. 1 (Nowy Komentarz Biblijny 1/1; Edycja Świętego Pawła: Częstochowa 2005). Padilla, J., ‘Los sentidos de la escritura en el libro IV del «Peri Archôn» de Orígenes,’ Estudios Eclesiásticos 77 (2002) 201-240. Pahl, M. W., Discerning the ‘Word of the Lord’: The ‘Word of the Lord’ in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (Library of New Testament Studies 389; T&T Clark: London · New York 2009). Papola, G., L’alleanza di Moab: Studio esegetico teologico di Dt 28,69-30,20 (Analecta Biblica 174; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2008). Paschke, B. A., ‘Ein Kommen und Gehen: Wie konsequent wird im Matthäusevangelium zwischen zentripetalem und zentrifugalem Universalismus unterschieden?’, in D. Senior (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew at the Crossroads of Early Christianity (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 243; Peeters: Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2011), 637652. Peper, B. M. and DelCogliano, M., ‘The Pliny and Trajan Correspondence’, in A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison, Jr., and J. D. Crossan (eds.), The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton Readings in Religion; Princeton University: Princeton · Oxford 2006), 366-371. Pervo, R. I., Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009). Pesch, R., ‘»Der Jesus der Evangelien ist auch der einzig wirkliche historische Jesus«: Anmerkungen zum Konstruktionspunkt des Jesus-Buches’, in J.-H. Tück (ed.), Annäherungen an »Jesus von Nazareth«: Das Buch des Papstes in der Diskussion (Matthias Grünewald: Ostfildern 2007), 31-56. Pfister, M., ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität’, in U. Broich, M. Pfister, and B. Schulte-Middelich (eds.), Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35; Max Niemeyer: Tübingen 1985), 1-30. Phillips, P., ‘Biblical Studies and Intertextuality: Should the Work of Genette and Eco Broaden our Horizons?’, in T. L. Brodie, D. R. MacDonald, and S. E. Porter (eds.), The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations in Theory and Practice (New Testament Monographs 16; Sheffield Phoenix: Sheffield 2006), 35-45. Pié-Ninot, S., ‘Il Dio che parla: Verbum Domini, nn. 6-21’, in C. Aparicio Valls and S. Pié-Ninot (eds.), Commento alla Verbum Domini, In memoria di D. Hercsik (Theologia 4; Gregorian & Biblical: Roma 2012), 53-63. Pié-Ninot, S., ‘Los seis temas teológicos de la «Verbum Domini»’, Phase: Revista de Pastoral Litúrgica 51 (2011) 123-145.

212

Bibliography

Pizzuto, V. A., ‘The Structural Elegance of Matthew 1-2: A Chiastic Proposal’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012) 712-737. Ploner, M. T., Die Schriften Israels als Auslegungshorizont der Jesusgeschichte: Eine narrative und intertextuelle Analyse von Mt 1-2 (Stuttgarter Biblische Beiträge 66; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 2011). Pokorný, P., ‘Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 333-359. Pokorný, P., ‘Words of Jesus in Paul: On the Theology and Praxis of the Jesus Tradition’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 4, Individual Studies] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 3437-3467. Porter, S. E., ‘The Criteria of Authenticity’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 695-742. Porter, S. E., The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 191; Sheffield Academic: Sheffield 2000). Potterie, I. de la, ‘La Sacra Scrittura’, in R. Fisichella (ed.), Commento teologico al Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica (Piemme: Casale Monferrato 1993). Prior, J. G., The Historical Critical Method in Catholic Exegesis (Tesi Gregoriana: Serie Teologia 50; Pontificia Università Gregoriana: Roma 1999). Pummer, R., The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 129; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009). Ramsay Michaels, J., The Gospel of John (New International Commentary on the New Testament; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2010). Ratzinger, J., ‘Einleitung’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erläuterungen: Lateinisch und Deutsch: Kommentare, vol. 2 (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1967), 498-503. Ratzinger, J. / Benedikt XVI., Jesus von Nazareth, vol. 1, Von der Taufe in Jordan bis zur Verklärung (2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007); vol. 2, Vom Einzug in Jerusalem bis zur Auferstehung (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011). Ratzinger, J., ‘Kommentar zum I. Kapitel’, in H. S. Brechter [et al.] (eds.), Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil: Konstitutionen, Dekrete und Erläuterungen: Lateinisch und Deutsch: Kommentare, vol. 2 (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche; 2nd edn., Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 1967), 504-515.

Bibliography

213

Rau, E., ‘Unser Vater im Himmel: Eine These zur Metaphorik der Rede von Gott in der Logienquelle’, Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 222-243. Reiser, M., ‘Jesus Research from the Enlightenment until Today’, in C. Karakolis, K.-W. Niebuhr, and S. Rogalsky (eds.), Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars: Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 288; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), 93-113. Reiser, M., ‘Numismatik und Neues Testament’, Biblica 81 (2000) 457-488. Reiser, M., ‘Der Papst als Interpret Jesu: Eine kritische Würdigung’, Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 121 (2012) 24-42. Reuter, R., ‘Clarifying the Issue of Literary Dependence’, in K. Liljeström (ed.), The Early Reception of Paul (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 99; Finnish Exegetical Society: Helsinki 2011), 23-35. Reynier, C., ‘Questions et implications du silence de Paul sur Jésus’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 99 (2011) 61-77. Riesner, R., ‘From the Messianic Teacher to the Gospels of Jesus Christ’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 405-446. Riesner, R., Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus: Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 71; J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck): Tübingen 1994). Riesner, R., ‘Jesus as Preacher and Teacher’, in H. Wansbrough (ed.), Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series 64; JSOT: Sheffield 1991), 185-210. Riffaterre, M., ‘Compulsory Reader Response: The Intertextual Drive’, in M. Worton and J. Still (eds.), Intertextuality: Theories and Practices (Manchester University: Manchester · New York 1990). Robinson, J. M., Hoffmann, P., and Kloppenborg, J. S. (eds.), Moreland, M. C. (managing ed.), The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Peeters: Leuven 2000). Robinson, J. M., ‘The Gospel of the Historical Jesus’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 1, How to Study the Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 447474. Rochester, S. T., Good News at Gerasa: Transformative Discourse and Theological Anthropology in Mark’s Gospel (Peter Lang: Oxford [et al.] 2011).

214

Bibliography

Rodríguez, R., ‘Authenticating Criteria: The Use and Misuse of a Critical Method’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7 (2009) 152-167. Rodríguez Carmona, A., ‘La Unidad de las Escrituras: Algunos principios hermenéuticos y sus exigencias: Comentario a Verbum Domini 39-49’, Estudios Bíblicos 69 (2011) 465-491. Rothschild, C. K., ‘“Echo of a Whisper”: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist’, in D. Hellholm [et al.] (eds.), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism / Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe, vol. 1, Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity / Spätantike, Frühes Judentum und Frühes Christentum (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 176/1; De Gruyter: Berlin · Boston 2011), 255-290. Sagrario Rollán Rollán, M. del, Extasis y Purificación del Deseo: Análisis psicológico-existencial de la noche en la obra de San Juan de la Cruz (Institución «Gran Duque de Alba» de la Excma. Diputación Provincial de Avila 37; Comisión Provincial del IV Centenario de la muerte de San Juan de la Cruz: Avila [1991]). Samuelsson, G., Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.310; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Sánchez Caro, J. M., ‘La Palabra de Dios, fuente y origen de la Tradición y la Escritura: Comentario a Verbum Domini 6-21’, Estudios Bíblicos 69 (2011) 381-410. Scheifler, J. R., ‘Los Evangelios’, in L. Alonso Schökel and A. M. Artola [et al.] (eds.), La Palabra de Dios en la Historia de los Hombres: Comentario Temático a la Constitución “Dei Verbum” sobre la Divina Revelación (Teología Deusto 23; Universidad de Deusto and Mensajero: Bilbao 1991), 497-557. Schenk, W., ‘Luke as Reader of Paul: Observations on his Reception’, in S. Draisma (ed.), Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, Festschrift B. van Iersel (Kok: Kampen 1989), 127-139. Schenker, A., ‘Textgeschichtliches zum Samaritanischen Pentateuch und Samareitikon: Zur Textgeschichte des Pentateuchs im 2. Jh. v. Chr.’, in M. Mor, F. V. Reiterer, and W. Winkler (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present: Current Studies (Studia Judaica 53 / Studia Samaritana 5; De Gruyter: Berlin · New York 2010), 105-121. Schmidt, K. M., Wege des Heils: Erzählstrukturen und Rezeptionskontexte des Markusevangelium (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur

Bibliography

215

Umwelt des Neuen Testament 74; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2010). Schmidt Andrade, C. E., ‘Noche de la Fe en la vida cotidiana: Una experiencia de crecimiento’, AnáMnesis 22 (2012) 137-160. Schnelle, U., Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17; Evangelische: Leipzig 2010). Schönborn, C., ‘Der Papst auf der Agora: Über einen Anspruch, den allein Gott stellen kann’, in T. Söding (ed.), Ein Weg zu Jesus: Schlüssel zu einem tieferen Verständnis des Papstbuches (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 37-52. Schröter, J., ‘Die Offenbarung der Vernunft Gottes in der Welt: Zum Jesusbuch von Joseph Ratzinger’, in T. Söding (ed.), Das Jesus-Buch des Papstes: Die Antwort der Neutestamentler (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2007), 121-133. Schulze, M. H., Evangelientafel als eine übersichtliche Darstellung des gelösten Problems der synoptischen Evangelien in ihrem Verwandtschaftsverhältnis zu einander verbunden mit geeigneter Berücksichtigung des Evangeliums Johannes zum Selbststudium für die academische Jugend und zur Unterlage für Vorlesungen wie für Forschungen geordnet (2nd edn., A. Dieckmann: Dresden 1886). Segalla, G., ‘La verità storica dei vangeli e la «terza ricerca» su Gesù’, Lateranum 61 (1995) no. 2-3, 195-234 [461-500]. Sellin, G., ‘Biblische Texte lesen lernen’, in id. (ed. D. Sänger), Allegorie – Metapher – Mythos – Schrift: Beiträge zur religiösen Sprache im Neuen Testament und in seiner Umwelt (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testament 90; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2011), 282-299. Semmelroth, O. and Zerwick, M., Vatikanum II über das Wort Gottes: Die Konstitution „Dei Verbum“: Einführung und Kommentar, Text und Übersetzung (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 16; Katholisches Bibelwerk: Stuttgart 1966). Siegert, F., Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt: Wiederherstellung und Kommentar (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 7; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2008). Simon, R., Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament: Où l’on établit la Verité des Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée (Reinier Leers: Rotterdam 1689). Skierkowski, M. , „A swoi Go nie przyjęli” (J 1,11): Teologicznofundamentalna interpretacja Third Quest (Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego: Warszawa 2006).

216

Bibliography

Slenczka, N., ‘„Wahrhaftig“ auferstanden? Ein kritischer Dialog mit Joseph Ratzinger’, in T. Söding (ed.), Tod und Auferstehung Jesu: Theologische Antworten auf das Buch des Papstes (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2011), 179-201. Slingerland, H. D., Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 160; Scholars: Atlanta, Ga. 1997). Sokoloff, M., A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods (Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 3; Bar Ilan University: Ramat-Gan and The John Hopkins University: Baltimore · London 2002). Spence, S., The Parting of the Ways: The Roman Church as a Case Study (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 5; Peeters: Leuven · Dudley, Mass. 2004). Stakemeier, E., Die Konzilskonstitution über die göttliche Offenbarung: Werden, Inhalt und theologische Bedeutung: Lateinischer und deutscher Text mit Kommentar (Konfessionskundliche und Kontroverstheolgische Studien 18; 2 edn., Bonifacius: Paderborn 1967). Stein, R. H., ‘The Matthew-Luke Agreements Against Mark: Insight from John’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 54 (1992) 482-502. Steiner, C.-A., ‘Le lien entre le prologue et le corps de l’évangile de Marc’, in D. Marguerat and A. Curtis (eds.), Intertextualités: Le Bible en échos (Le Monde de la Bible 40; Labor et Fides: Genève 2000), 161-184. Stock, K., Marco: Commento contestuale al secondo Vangelo (Bibbia e preghiera 47; ADP: Roma 2003). Studenovský, Z. [cf. Garský, Z.], ‘“Dort werdet ihr ihn sehen” (Mk 16,7): Der Weg Jesu nach Galiläa bei Johannes und Markus’, in J. Frey and U. Schnelle [et al.] (eds.), Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175: Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2004), 517-558. Svartvik, J., ‘Matthew and Mark’, in D. C. Sim and B. Repschinski (eds.), Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries (Library of New Testament Studies 333; T&T Clark: London · New York 2008), 27-49. Szymik, S., ‘Lektura fundamentalistyczna Biblii i zagrożenia z niej płynące w świetle dokumentu Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej’, in R. Rubinkiewicz (ed.), Interpretacja Biblii w Kościele: Dokument Papieskiej Komisji Biblijnej z komentarzem biblistów polskich (Rozprawy i Studia Biblijne 4; Vocatio: Warszawa 1999), 169-177. Tábet, M., Teologia della Bibbia: Studi di ispirazione ed ermeneutica biblica (Studi di teologia 7; Armando: Roma 1998).

Bibliography

217

Tarazi, P. N., The New Testament: An Introduction, vol. 1, Paul and Mark (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 1999); vol. 2, Luke and Acts (St Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, NY 2001). Taylor, J., The Treatment of Reality in the Gospels: Five Studies (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 78; J. Gabalda: Pende 2011). Tepedino, N., Dunkle Nacht: Mystik, negative Theologie und Philosophie: Eine philosophische Lektüre von San Juan de la Cruz (Europäische Hochschulschriften 20/553; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 1998). Testaferri, F., La parola viva: Commento teologico alla Dei Verbum (Teologia Saggi; Cittadella: Assisi 2009). Theissen, G. and Winter, D., Die Kriterienfrage in der Jesusforschung: Vom Differenzkriterium zum Plausibilitätskriterium (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 34; Universitätsverlag: Freiburg Schweiz and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 1997). Theobald, M., ‘Die vier Evangelien und der eine Jesus von Nazareth: Erwägungen zum Jesus-Buch von Joseph Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI.’, Theologische Quartalschrift 187 (2007) 157-182 [also in H. Häring (ed.), „Jesus von Nazareth“ in der wissenschaftlichen Diskussion (Wissenschaftliche Paperbacks 30; Lit: Wien · Berlin 2008), 7-35]. Thyen, H., Das Johannesevangelium (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 6; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2005). Tiwald, M., Wanderradikalismus: Jesu erste Jünger – ein Anfang und was davon bleibt (Österreichische Biblische Studien 20; Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main [et al.] 2002). Tomson, P. J., ‘Divorce Halakhah in Paul and the Jesus Tradition’, in R. Bieringer [et al.] (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 136; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 289-332. Tooman, W. A., Gog of Magog: Reuse of Scripture and Compositional Technique in Ezechiel 38-39 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.52; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011). Tresmontant, C., Le Christ hébreu: La langue et l’âge des Evangiles (O.E.I.L.: Paris 1983). Tuckett, C. M., ‘The Disciples and the Messianic Secret in Mark’, in I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni (eds.), Fair Play: Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity, Festschrift H. Räisänen (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 103; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 131-149. Tuckett, C. M., Q and the History of Early Christianity (T&T Clark: Edinburgh 1996).

218

Bibliography

Turner, D. L., Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008). Van Belle, G., ‘L’unité littéraire et les deux finales du quatrième évangile’, in A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz (eds.), Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes / Études sur Mathieu et Jean, Festschrift J. Zumstein (Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 97; Theologischer: Zürich 2009), 297-315. Van Voorst, R. E., Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, UK 2000). Van Voorst, R. E., ‘Jesus Tradition in Classical and Jewish Writings’, in T. Holmén and S. E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus [vol. 3, The Historical Jesus] (Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011), 21492180. VanderKam, J. C., From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Fortress: Minneapolis and Van Gorcum: Assen 2004). Vanhoye, A., ‘Dopo la Divino afflante Spiritu: Progressi e Problemi dell’esegesi cattolica’, in P. Laghi, M. Gilbert, and A. Vanhoye, Chiesa e Sacra Scrittura: Un secolo di magistero ecclesiastico e studi biblici (Subsidia biblica 17; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 1994), 35-51. Vanhoye, A., ‘L’interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa: Riflessione circa un documento della Commissione Biblica’, Civiltà Cattolica 145 (1994), vol. 3, 3-15. Vanni, U., ‘Pio XII e la Bibbia: L’enciclica Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) e la costituzione dogmatica Dei Verbum (1965): due documenti fondamentali a confronto’, in P. Chenaux (ed.), L’Eredità del Magistero di Pio XII (Dibattito per il Millennio 13; Lateran University and Gregorian & Biblical: Città del Vaticano 2010), 71-86. Vargas-Machuca, A., ‘El nuevo Catecismo: Lectura de un exegeta’, in O. González de Cardedal and J. A. Martínez Camino (eds.), El Catecismo postconciliar: Contexto y contenidos (Teología Siglo XXI 1; San Pablo: Madrid 1993), 238-249. Victor, U., ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010) 72-82. Vogt, H. J., ‘Die Lehre des Origenes von der Inspiration der Heiligen Schrift: Ein Vergleich zwischen der Grundlagenschrift und der Antwort auf Kelsos’, Theologische Quartalschrift 170 (1990) 97-103. Waldenfels, H., Offenbarung: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil auf dem Hintergrund der neueren Theologie (Beiträge zur ökumenischen Theologie 3; Max Hueber: München 1969).

Bibliography

219

Watson, F., ‘“I Received from the Lord…” Paul, Jesus, and the Last Supper’, in T. D. Still (ed.), Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate (William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, Mich. · Cambridge, U.K. 2007), 103-124. Webb, R. L., ‘The Historical Enterprise and Historical Jesus Research’, in D. L. Bock and R. L. Webb, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 247; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2009), 9-93. Wedderburn, A. J. M., Jesus and the Historians (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 269; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2010). Weiße, C. H., Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, vol. 1 (Breitkopf und Härtel: Leipzig 1838). Whealey, A., ‘The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic’, New Testament Studies 54 (2008) 573-590. Wilckens, U., ‘Joh 21,15-23 als Grundtext zum Thema “Petrusdienst”’, in M. Beintker, E. Jüngel, and W. Krötke (eds.), Wege zum Einverständnis, Festschrift C. Demke (Evangelische: Leipzig 1997), 318-333. Williamson, P. S., Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Subsidia Biblica 22; Pontificio Istituto Biblico: Roma 2001). Wischmeyer, O., ‘Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century C. E.’, in E.-M. Becker and A. Runesson (eds.), Mark and Matthew I: Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First-Century Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 271; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2011), 355-378. Witczyk, H., ‘Pełnia Królestwa Bożego w Jezusie-PANU – meta misji Piotra i uczniów (J 21,1-8)’, in J. Kudasiewicz and H. Witczyk, Jezus i Ewangelie w ogniu dyskusji: Od H. Reimarusa do T. Polaka (Biblioteka „Verbum Vitae” 2; ITB Verbum: Kielce 2011), 439-463. Wojtyła, K., ‘Znaczenie Konstytucji Dei Verbum w teologii’, in id. [et al.], Idee przewodnie soborowej konstytucji o Bożym Objawieniu (Polskie Towarzystwo Teologiczne: Kraków 1968), 7-11. Wolter, M., ‘Was macht die historische Frage nach Jesus von Nazareth zu einer theologischen Frage?’, in U. Busse, M. Reichardt, and M. Theobald (eds.), Erinnerung an Jesus: Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung, Festschrift R. Hoppe (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 166; V&R and Bonn University: Göttingen 2011), 17-33.

220

Bibliography

Wong, E. K. C., Evangelien im Dialog mit Paulus: Eine intertextuelle Studie zu den Synoptikern (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 89; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2012). Wördemann, D., Das Charakerbild im bíos nach Plutarch und das Christusbild im Evangelium nach Markus (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 1.19; Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn [et al.] 2002). Wright, D. P., Inventing God’s Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University: New York 2009). Youngquist, L. E. [et al], Q 6:37-42: Not Judging – The Blind Leading the Blind – The Disciple and the Teacher – The Speck and the Beam (Documenta Q: Reconstructions of Q Through Two Centuries of Gospel Research Excerpted, Sorted and Evaluated; Peeters: Leuven 2011). Zahn, M. M., ‘Genre and Rewritten Scripture: A Reassessment’, Journal of Biblical Literature 131 (2012) 271-288. Zahn, M. M., Rethinking Rewritten Scripture: Composition and Exegesis in the 4Q Reworked Pentateuch Manuscripts (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 95; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2011). Zerwick, M., ‘De S. Scriptura in Constitutione dogmatica «Dei Verbum»’, Verbum Domini 44 (1966) 17-42. Ziegler, D., Dionysos in der Apostelgeschichte – eine intertextuelle Lektüre (Religion und Biographie 18; Lit: Berlin 2008). Zimmermann, R., ‘Auslegungskunst: Sehepunkte zur Wundererzählung vom Besessenen aus Gerasa (Mk 5,1-20)’, Biblische Notizen, NF no. 152 (2012) 87-115. Zumstein, J., L’Évangile selon saint Jean (13-21) (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 4b; Labor et Fides: Genève 2007). Zumstein, J., ‘Intratextualité et intertextualité dans la littérature johannique’, in C. Clivaz [et al.] (eds.), Écritures et réécritures: La reprise interprétative des traditions fondatrices par la littérature biblique et extra-biblique: Cinquième colloque international du RRENAB, Universités de Genève et Lausanne, 10-12 juin 2010 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 248; Leuven · Paris · Walpole, Mass. 2012), 331-344.

Index of ancient sources Old Testament Genesis 2:11-12 51 3:7 100 14:18-20 26 25:25 68 n. 8 25:27-28 68 n. 8 49:8-12 68 n. 8 49:11-12 68 n. 8 49:22-26 68 n. 8 Exodus 3:5 36 13:21 50 15:20-21 39 19:1 51 23:20 17, 100 33:9-10 51 Numbers 2 68 n. 8 2:3 68 n. 8 2:9 68 n. 8 2:16-17 68 n. 8 2:18 68 n. 8 2:24 68 n. 8 2:31 68 n. 8 2:34 68 n. 8 9:17 50 10:5-6 68 n. 8 10:9 68 n. 8 10:11-13 68 n. 8 10:12 50 10:14 68 n. 8 10:22 68 n. 8 12:5 51 14:14 50 23:7 49 24:15-17 49 24:16 52

Deuteronomy 1-18 67 1:1 51 1:33 50 3:24 43 4:39 43 5:6 67 8:3 116 n. 147 8:15 36 11:2-7 67 15 67 15:2 44 17:6 136 19-26 67 19:15 116 n. 147, 136 24:1 78-9 26:5-10 67 27-30 67 28:69 67 29:9-14 67 31-34 67 31:15 51 34:1-8 69 n. 12 Judges 21:25

69

Ruth 1:2-3 69 1:2 69 1:4-22 69 1:5 69 2-4 69 4:11-22 69 1 Samuel 1 Sam 1 – 1 Kgs 9 2 Samuel 5:2 50 15:16 78

69

222 20:3

Index of ancient sources 78

1 Kings 10:1-2 51 10:10 48, 51 14:19-20 69 17:10-24 109 19:1-21 37 2 Kings 3:4-27 70 3:4-5 70 8:7-15 37 9:14 51 20:20 70 23:28-29 70 1 Chronicles 3:5 115 3:10-17 115 Esther 14:17z

25:4 44 27:12-13 66 29:23 42 40:3 17, 100 55:3 66 60:6 48, 51 61:8 66 Jeremiah 2:6 66 7:22 66 7:25 66 11:4 66 11:7 66 16:14-15 66 23:7-8 66 31:31-33 66 31:32 66 32:21 66 32:40 66 34:13 66 50:5 66

44

1 Maccabees 15:8 44 Psalms 8:3 116 n. 146 8:3a 116 n. 147 16:8 68 n. 8 72[71]:10-12 48 72[71]:15 48, 51 140[139]:2 44 Song of Solomon 3:4 78 Isaiah 6:9-10 61 6:10b 116 n. 147 9:1 49, 114 11:1 18, 139 11:10 139 11:11-16 66

Ezekiel 16:39 78 16:60-62 66 27:22 51 36:23 42 36:24-27 66 37:16-20 66 37:22 66 37:24 66 37:26-28 66 37:26 66 40:1-47:12 66 47:13-48:34 66 48:8-22 66 48:35 66 Hosea 2:17 66 2:20 66 11:1 66 11:11 66 12:10 66

Index of ancient sources 12:14 Joel 3:3

66

43

Amos 2:10 66 3:1 66 9:7 66 Micah 5:1 47, 50, 62 6:4 66 7:12 66 7:15 66 Zechariah 9:9 115

New Testament Matthew 1:1-17:20 112 n. 139 1-13 116 1-2 116 1:1-2:12 48, 113 1:1-17 48, 62, 114 1:1 98 1:6-12 115 1:18 48, 115 1:21-23 115 2:1-12 45-53, 62 2:1-8 49, 62 2:1-2 52 2:1 49 2:2-7 50 2:2 46, 49, 62 2:3-7 53 2:3 47, 49, 62 2:4-6 47 2:4 50 2:5-6 50 2:5 50 2:6 47, 50, 62

2:7-9 47 2:7 49 2:8-10 53 2:8 49-50 2:9-11 49, 62 2:9-10 50-1 2:9 46, 52 n. 131, 62 2:10-11 51 2:10 51, 52 n. 131 2:11-12 53 2:11 48, 51, 52 n. 131, 53, 62 2:12 47, 52 2:13-15 113-14 2:13-14 48 2:16-18 48, 113 2:19-23 113 2:20-21 48 3-13 112 3:1-4:22 113 4:4 116 n. 147 4:14-16 115 n. 144 4:16 49, 114 4:23-25 113 4:24 114 5:1-7:29 113 5:17-48 76 5:21 116 n. 146 5:31 116 n. 146 5:42 44 6:9-13 33, 43-5 6:9b-10a 43 6:9b 43 6:10b 43 6:11 44 6:12ab 44 6:12a 44 6:12b 44 6:13a 44 6:13b 44 6:14-15 44 7:2 82 n. 56 8:1-17 113 8:17 115 n. 144 8:18-34 113 8:28 24

223

224

Index of ancient sources

9:1-38 113 10:1-11:1 113 10:2 56 10:5d 115 11:2-15 113 11:16-24 114 11:25-12:50 114 12:11 82 n. 56 12:17-21 115 n. 144 13:1-52 114 13:14-15 115 n. 144, 116 n. 147 13:35 115 n. 144 14-20 112 14:22-16:20 114 14:22-15:20 114 15:7-8 115 n. 144 15:14 82 n. 56 15:14cd 82 n. 56 15:15 82 n. 56 15:21-16:20 114 16:18 121 n. 151 16:21-20:34 114 18:1-34 114 18:16 116 n. 147 21:1-26:46 114 21-25 116 21:5 115 21:7 115 21:7a 115 n. 145 21:7c 115 n. 145 21:14 117 21:16 116 nn. 146-7 21:16e 116 n. 147 22:46 60 24:15 117 26:42 43 26:47-27:26 114 27:1 59 27:19 114 27:46bd 116 n. 146 27:62-28:10 114 27:62-66 115 28:11-15 114-15 28:16-20 54, 114 28:16-17 58

28:17-20 58 28:4 115 28:9-10 54 Mark 1:1-15:15 98 1:1-7:37 16, 98 1:1-5:20 15-23, 61 1:1-11 109 1:1-8 16-18 1:1-3 18 1:1 16, 98 1:2-8 17 1:2-6 17 1:2-3 17, 61, 97 1:2 17, 98, 100 1:3 17, 100 1:4-6 17-18, 100 1:6-7 18 1:7-8 17, 61 1:9-45 18-19 1:9-15 17-18 1:9-11 18 1:9 18, 139 1:10-11 18, 139 1:11-13 100 1:12-13 18, 61 1:13 130 1:14-15 19 1:14 17, 19, 61, 131 1:16-3:35 99 1:16-34 19 1:16-20 18 1:16-17 56 1:16 23, 55, 61 1:17 60 1:19-20 19, 101 1:19 19 1:21 101 1:24 22 1:26 31 1:29-31 25 1:30 19 1:35-45 19 1:44-45 61

Index of ancient sources 2-3 19-20 2:1-3:6 19 2:1-22 25 2:1-12 20 2:1 19, 101 2:10 35 2:13-17 20 2:13 23, 61 2:14-17 20, 39 n. 82 2:14 20 n. 17 2:16 143 n. 220 2:18-27 20 2:22 22 2:23-28 19, 76 2:23-24 143 n. 219 3:1-6 19-20 3:6 20, 22, 108 3:7-12 20, 115 n. 144 3:7 21, 23, 61 3:9 21 3:10 21 3:13-19 20 3:17 35, 101 3:20-35 20 3:20 20 3:21 20 3:22-30 20, 40 3:22 40 3:28-30 41 3:31-35 20 4:1-5:20 20-3 4:1-34 20-1 4:1-9 21 4:1-2 21 4:1 21, 23, 61 4:3-9 21 4:8 21, 61 4:10-20 21 4:12 61 4:21-23 21 4:24-25 21 4:24 82 n. 56 4:26-29 22 4:27-28 61 4:30-32 22

4:34 21 4:35-5:20 21, 99 4:35-41 22-3, 25, 28, 73 4:35-36 21 4:36 21-2 4:37 22-3 4:38 22-3 4:39 22-3, 61 4:40 22-3 4:41 22-3, 61 5:1-20 15-33 5:1 21, 23-4, 61, 101 5:2-3 24-5, 29 5:2 24 5:3-5 30, 61 5:3-4 25, 30 5:4 25, 31 5:5 24-6, 29-32 5:6-7 30 5:6 26 5:7 25-6, 30-1 5:8 24 5:9 26-7, 29, 31 5:10 27 5:11-13 29 5:11 26, 29, 61 5:12-13 29 5:12 27 5:13 23, 26-7, 32, 61 5:14-15 31 5:14 27 5:15-20 25 5:15 24, 26-7 5:16 28 5:18-19 32 5:18 28, 32 5:19-20 28 5:20 24, 101 5:21 23, 32, 61 5:22-43 25 5:22 26 5:39 22 6:1-7:5 106 6:1 139 6:7-13 36

225

226

Index of ancient sources

6:7 36 6:9 36 6:14-29 17, 20 n. 18, 61, 101, 108 6:17-29 109 6:17-27 101 6:17 101 6:19 101 6:21 101 6:22 101 6:25 101 6:30 36 6:31 60 6:34 100 6:37 38 n. 81 6:39-43 100 6:44 38 n. 81 6:45 101 6:47-49 23, 61 7:1-23 76 7:6 115 n. 144 7:11 101 7:17 82 n. 56 7:24-37 99 7:24-30 73, 100 7:31 23, 61, 101 7:32 40 7:37 40, 55 8:1-10:45 16, 98 8:10-33 99 8:11 41 8:15 108 8:22 101 8:28 101 8:35 22 9:1 42 9:2-8 100 9:14-29 99 9:18c-e 99 9:22 22 9:25 40 9:33-41 99 9:33-37 73 9:33 101 9:33b 99 9:33d-34 99

9:33d 99 9:34 99 9:35 99 9:36 99 9:37 36, 99 9:38 99 9:39 99 9:40 41 9:40a 99 9:41 99 10:11-12 78 10:17-18a 37 10:35 59, 101 10:46-15:15 106 10:46-12:44 16, 98 10:46 26 10:47 18 n. 14 10:47ac 140 11:2-10 100 11:7 115 11:10 42 11:11 140 11:15-18 54, 118 11:18 22 11:24 42 11:25 33, 41-5 11:25a 42 11:25bd 42 11:25b 44 11:25d 42 11:32 17, 101 12:9 22 12:13 108 12:14-16 99 12:14 99 12:14-17 99 12:15 99 n. 112 12:17 99 12:18 101 12:28-34 37 12:28 38 12:34 60 13:1-15:15 16, 98 13:7-8 100 13:14-27 100

Index of ancient sources 13:14 117 13:24-31 100 13:24-25 100 13:26-27 100 13:28a-c 100 13:28d-29 100 13:30a 100 13:30bc 100 13:31a 100 13:31b 100 13:32-37 99 14:22-25 73 14:22 42, 60 14:35 42 14:36 42 14:38 42 14:62-63 140 n. 209 15:16-16:8 16, 98 15:24-38 100 15:34 31, 165 15:34bd 116 n. 146 15:37 31 16:7 54, 140 Luke 1-2 116 1:1-4 102-4, 107, 122, 127 1:1-3 104-5 1:1-2 104 1:1 98, 103-6, 161 1:1a 103 1:1b-2 103 1:2-4 106, 161-2 1:2-3 121 1:2 105-6, 162 1:3-4 103, 105 1:3 103-4, 106 1:4 105-6 1:5-2:38 35 1:5-80 102 1:5-25 107 1:5 106-7 1:22 40 1:26-39 107 1:27 39

1:31 115 1:36 106 1:38 41 1:39-45 106 1:39-56 106-7 1:39 107 1:41-44 106 1:43 48 1:56 107 1:78-79 49 2:1-40 106-7 2:1-20 102 2:2 107 2:5 48 2:7 107 2:8-20 107 n. 131 2:16 48 2:19 39, 41, 48 2:21-40 102 2:21 48 2:22 107 2:23 107 2:25-35 107 n. 131 2:35 107 2:36-38 107 n. 131 2:39-40 108 2:39 108 n. 132 2:40 108 n. 132 2:41-52 103, 106, 108 2:41-42 108 2:44-46 108 2:46 108 2:47 108 2:49 108 2:51 108 n. 132 2:52 108 n. 132 3:1-4:15 106, 108 3:1-2 108 3:1 55 3:2 109 3:10-11 109 3:12-14 109 3:17 109 3:18 109 3:19-20 109

227

228 3:21-4:13 109 3:23-38 102 3:27-31 115 4:1-30 103 4:4 116 n. 147 4:14-15 109 5:1-11 54, 58, 60, 118 5:1-4 56 5:1-2 23 5:2 59-60 5:3-4 55 5:3 59 5:4 57, 59 5:5 56, 59 5:6-7 56, 60 5:6 60 5:8-9 59 5:8 60 5:9-10 57 5:10 59 5:18-19 42 5:27-32 39 n. 82 6:20-8:3 103 6:20-7:10 109 6:30 42, 44 6:38 82 n. 56 6:39 82 n. 56 6:39a 82 n. 56 6:39bc 82 n. 56 7:1-10 73 7:11-50 106, 109 7:11 109 7:12-16 109 7:17 109 7:18-23 109 7:22 40, 84 7:24-28 109 7:30 38, 109 7:31-35 109 7:36-50 110 8:2-3 48, 113 8:2 39 8:22-23 23 8:26 24 8:33 23

Index of ancient sources 8:37 24 9:1-6 36 9:10 105 9:23 42 9:51-24:53 34, 106, 110 9:51-19:28 34, 103, 110 9:51-16:17 34, 110 9:51-11:28 34-41, 61 9:51-56 34-5 9:51 34, 110 9:52-53 34, 38 9:52 35 9:52a 35 9:53 34-5 9:54-56 35 9:54 35 9:55-56 35 9:57-62 35-6, 62 9:57-58 35 9:58 35 9:59-62 62 9:59-60 35 9:61-62 36 10:1-22 36-7 10:1-16 36 10:1 36 10:3 36 10:4 36, 62 10:13-15 36 10:17-20 36-7 10:17 36 10:18 36 10:19 36 10:20 36 10:21-22 37 10:21 42 10:23-37 37-9 10:23 37 10:24 37 10:25-11:13 40 n. 86 10:25-37 37, 39, 40 n. 86 10:25-28 37-8 10:25a 38 10:25b 38 10:29-37 37-8

Index of ancient sources 10:31-33 38 10:31-32 39 10:33-35 38 10:35 38 10:37 39 10:38-11:13 39-40 10:38-42 39, 40 nn. 85-6 10:38 40 n. 85 10:39 39, 62 10:42 39, 62 11:1-13 40 nn. 85-6, 41, 45 11:1-4 40, 73 11:1 40 n. 85 11:2-4 33-45 11:2-3 42-3 11:2 43 11:2a 42 11:2d-3 42 11:2d 42 11:3 42, 44 11:4ab 42 11:4a 44 11:4b 44 11:4c 42, 44 11:5-8 40 11:9-13 40 11:14-26 40-1 11:14 40 11:15 40 11:16-17a 41 11:16 41 11:23 41 11:24-26 41 11:27-28 41 11:27c 41 11:27ef 41 11:28 41 11:28bc 41 11:44 25 11:45-52 38 11:47-51 84 12:11 42 12:37 107, 110 12:51-53 73 13:29 107

14:3 38 14:5 82 n. 56 14:12-14 110 14:15 43 14:16-24 73 14:21 110, 117 14:26-27 73 15:15 27 16:5 110 16:7 110 16:16-17 76 16:18-19:28 34, 110 16:19 42 16:23-26 111 n. 136 17:3-4 73 17:8 110 17:10 110 17:37 42 19:35 115 20:40 60 21:1-4 73 22:11 107 22:26-27 110 22:36-38 110 22:41 42 22:42 42-3 22:45 42 22:49-51 110 23:46 42 24:10 39, 40 n. 85, 48, 113 24:13-53 110 24:13-51 54 24:13-49 103 24:13 110 24:16 56, 58-60 24:20 178 24:26-27 110, 178 24:26 178 24:28 110 24:30-31 58, 60 24:30 43, 60, 110 24:32 110 24:35 43, 110 24:36-52 58 24:36-43 58, 60

229

230 24:36 59 24:37-40 56, 59 24:41-43 110 24:41 59 24:42-43 60 24:44-47 110 24:47 110 24:50-53 103 24:50-51 110 John 1:1-34 118 1:1-18 117 1:1 117 1:14-18 117 1:14 117 1:16 117 1:35-44 118 1:35 130 1:43 130 1:45-51 118 2:1-12 118 2:1 130 2:12 131 2:13-22 54, 62, 118 2:23 118 2:24-25 118 3:1-2 118 3:3-36 118 3:23-24 131 4:1-45 118 4:46-54 118 5:1-47 119 6:1-71 119 6:1 55 7:1-39 119 7:30 57 7:32 57 7:40-8:20 119 7:44 57 8:20 57 8:21-59 119 9:1-41 119 10:1-42 119 10:39 57

Index of ancient sources 11:1-45 119 11:5 121 11:36 121 11:46-12:50 119 11:48 122 11:57 57 13:1-17 119 13:18-30 119 13:23-25 121 13:31-14:14 119 14:15-20 119 14:21-24 119 14:25-29 119 14:30 120 14:31 120 15:1-8 120 15:9-17 120 15:18-16:4 120 16:5-24 120 16:25-17:26 120 16:32 165 18:1-18 120 18:13 141 18:15-16 121 18:19-27 120 18:28 120 18:29-32 120 18:33-19:12 120 19:13-16 120 19:17-27 120 19:26-27 121 19:28-20:31 120 20:2 121 21 53-4 21:1-14 53-60, 62, 118, 121 21:1 54-5, 58, 62 21:2 59 21:3 55-7, 59, 62 21:4 56, 59 21:5 59 21:6 55-7, 59-60 21:7-8 56 21:7 54, 56-7, 59-60, 62, 121 21:8 57, 62 21:9 57-8, 60

Index of ancient sources 21:10 57, 62 21:11 57, 59-60, 62 21:12-13 57 21:12 58, 60 21:13 58, 60 21:14 58 21:15-25 121 21:20-24 121 21:22-23 121 n. 151 21:24-25 117 21:24 117, 121 21:24a-c 117 21:24d-e 117 21:25 122 Acts 1:1-8:3 48, 113 1:1-6:7 116 1:1-8 118 1:1-2 104 1:1 104-6, 121 1:3 107 1:9-14 118 1:13-14 48, 114 1:14 39, 40 nn. 85-6 1:15-26 118 1:19 127 1:21-22 105 n. 125 2:1-47 48-53, 118 2:1-40 53 2:1-13 52 2:1 51, 59 2:2-3 49 2:5-13 49 2:5 49 2:6 127 2:8 127 2:9-11 49-51 2:9 49-50 2:10-11 55 2:11 51 2:14-47 49 2:14-36 53 2:16-21 50 2:16 50

2:17 49 2:19-20 49 2:22-36 50 2:22 49, 152 2:26 51 2:28 51-2 2:30 49 2:31 50 2:32 152 2:36 51 2:38 49 2:39 49 2:40-47 53 2:40 49, 52 2:41 51-2 2:42 43 2:44-45 51 2:44 52 2:46 43 3:1-11 54, 118 3:12-4:31 118 3:15 152 4:32-5:13 118 4:36 108 5:14-42 118 5:30-32 152 6:1-8:3 118 6:4 152 6:13 117 7:22 37 7:23 42 8:4-25 118 8:4-24 115 8:25-39 113-14 8:26-40 118 8:26-39 52-3 8:40 113 9:1-43 119 9:1-22 73 9:1-19 113 9:3-18 114 9:17 105 9:20-22 113-14 9:26-29 113 9:26 38

231

232 9:27 105 9:32-11:18 113 9:33-35 55 9:40 42 10:1-11:18 55, 119 10:1 55 10:36-41 152 11:19-13:4 119 11:19-26 113 11:27-30 113 12:1-17 113 12:8 36 12:12 39 12:17 55, 105 13:1-44 113 13:5-12 119 13:7 37 13:13-46 119 13:16-41 152 13:45-14:7 114 13:46 49 13:47-52 119 14:1-20 114 14:1-7 119 14:5-6 49 14:8-28 119 14:21-28 114 15:13-39 119 15:13-21 40, 45 15:1-35 114 15:1-6 119 15:7-12 119 15:7-11 114 15:36-19:20 114 15:40-16:40 119 16:10-16 105 16:11 42 17:1-34 119 17:22-31 152 18:1-6 119 18:6 49 18:7-11 119 18:12-17 120 18:18-23 120 18:24-28 120

Index of ancient sources 19:1-7 120 19:8-20 120 19:21-20:16 120 19:21-21:16 114 20:5-21:18 105 20:7 43 20:11 43 20:15 42 20:17-38 120 20:18-35 114 20:36 42 21:1-40 120 21:5 42 21:8-9 113 21:14 43 21:17-26 114 21:18-25 40, 45 21:18 42 21:27-24:27 114 21:28 117 21:39 108 21:40 127 22:1-23:9 120 22:1-21 73 22:2 127 22:3 108 23:10-14 120 23:11 42 23:15-24:9 120 24:10-26:32 120 24:24 114 26:4 105, 162 26:9-23 73 26:13 114 26:14 127 26:16-18 105 26:16 105, 162 27:1-28:31 55 27:1-28:16 105, 115 27:1-28:14 55 27:1-32 56 27:1-2 55 27:1 55, 120 27:2-8 120 27:9-28:10 114

Index of ancient sources 27:9-32 120 27:24 57 27:33-28:31 54 27:33-28:6 54-8, 121 27:33 56 27:34-38 56 27:34-36 57 27:35 43, 58 27:37 56-7 27:38 55 27:39-40 56 27:39 56-7 27:40 55 27:42-44 57 27:42 56 27:43-44 57 27:43 56-7 27:44 57 28:1-14 55 28:1-2 56 28:2 57 28:3-5 58 28:6 58 28:7-31 121 28:16-27 114 28:25-28 49 28:26-27 116 n. 147 28:28-31 114 Romans 1:1-5 107 1:1-2 16, 18 1:1 16-17, 158 1:2 17, 19, 100 1:14 152 1:17 17 1:17 98 1:3-4 18, 77, 109, 185 1:3 18, 75, 77, 139, 141, 158 1:4-5 22 1:4 18, 77, 139, 143 3:4 17, 98 3:25 143 n. 218 4:17 17, 98 5:6-8 80, 144

7:2-3 78 7:2 79 n. 45 7:3 78 8:3 77, 80, 139, 143-4, 157 8:15 42, 138, 157 8:26-34 158 8:35-39 80, 144 8:36 17, 98 9:1-15:33 16, 98 10:9 106 10:12 106 10:14-16 100 10:17 21 11:22cd 42 n. 89 12:1-6 110 12:14-23 110 13:5-7 99 13:5 99 13:6-7 99 13:7a 99 13:7b-e 99 14:15 80, 144 14:17 157 15:3 80, 144 15:8 80, 144 15:12 18, 75, 139 15:19 98, 140 15:23-24 110 15:25-32 34, 105-6, 110 15:25-31 114 15:25-28 109 15:25-27 79 15:25-26 140 15:25 34 15:25a 34, 110 15:25b 110 15:26 110 15:27 110 15:28c-29 110 15:30 110 15:30-31 34 15:31 140 15:32 110

233

234 1 Corinthians 1:1-12:27 16, 98 1:9 157 1:10 60 1:12-25 99 1:13 80, 144 1:17-18 140 1:19 37 1:20 37 1:21 37 1:22 41 1:23 140 1:24 80, 141 1:25-27 37 2:1-10 158 2:2 140 2:8 80, 140 3:1-17 99 3:2-3 99 3:18-20 37 4:1-21 99 4:1-2 99 4:1 99, 105, 162 4:5 99 4:6-8 99 4:9-13 99 4:14-15 99 4:16 99 4:17-18 99 4:17 99 4:19-20 99 4:20 157 4:21b 99 4:21c 99 5:7 80, 144 6:11 25 6:13-18 79 7:2-5 79 7:10-11 78, 79 n. 45 7:10 79 7:10b-11c 79 n. 45 7:11d 78 7:12-15 79 n. 45 7:27-28 78 7:27a 79 n. 45

Index of ancient sources 7:27bc 79 n. 45 7:28ab 79 n. 45 7:32-35 39, 40 n. 85 7:32 79 n. 45 7:34 79 n. 45 7:36 79 n. 45 7:39 78, 79 n. 45 9:1 105, 162 9:4-13 79 9:4-6 79 n. 44 9:4-5 79 9:5 19, 77, 79, 139 9:6-7 79 9:7 109 9:8-11 79 9:8-10 79 n. 44 9:12 98 9:13-14 79 n. 44 9:13 79 9:14 79 9:17-18 19 9:19-23 152 10:16-17 138, 143 11:18 60 11:23 142 n. 216 11:23-25 77, 138, 142-3 11:24 80, 144 11:24d-e 78, 145, 186 11:25 143 11:25b-d 78, 145, 186 12:12-27 75 12:25 60 14:25 26 14:36 79 n. 47 14:37 79 n. 47 15:1-4 108 15:3-8 78, 140, 142, 158 15:3-4 16, 98 15:3 80, 144 15:4 137 15:5-8 137 15:5-7 157 15:5 20, 142 15:8 105 15:14 102

Index of ancient sources 15:20-28 77, 143 15:22-23 78 15:50-52 78 16:1-3 79 16:3 140 2 Corinthians 1:16 140 1:19 157 2:12 98 3:6 143 3:16-18 158 4:4 98 5:2-4 56 5:14-16 77 5:14-15 80, 144 5:14 80, 144 5:16 102, 185 5:16b 77 5:21 80, 143 n. 218, 144 8:9 80, 141, 144 9:1 79 9:9 17, 98 9:13 98 10:1 80, 141, 144 10:5 80 10:14 98 11:23 39 11:32-33 39 11:32 107 12:1-4 18, 158 12:4 142 n. 216 12:9 142 n. 216 13:13 158 Galatians 1:1-6:15 16, 98 1:1-24 16 1:1-14 16-18, 34-5, 107 1:1 16, 35 1:3 16 1:4 80, 144 1:6-7 16 1:7-9 75 1:7 16-17, 98, 129

235

1:8 17, 35, 100 1:11 16 1:12 16, 142 n. 216, 158 1:13-14 18, 35 1:13 39 1:15-17b 18-19 1:15-17a 18 1:15-16 35-6, 107, 185 1:15-16b 37 1:15-16a 18 1:15 35 1:15ab 35 1:15b 35 1:15c-16b 36 1:16 109, 158 1:16a 37 1:16b 19, 36 1:16c 19, 36 1:17-2:14 105-6 1:17-20 99 1:17-19 140 1:17-18a 39 1:17 36-7, 51, 106-7 1:17a 19, 36 1:17b 19, 36 1:17bc 36-7 1:17c-20 19-20 1:17c 19, 37, 107 1:18-19 77, 107 1:18-21 106-7 1:18 30, 37-9, 107 1:18ab 37 1:18a 37 1:18bc 39 1:18b 38-9 1:18c 20 1:19 39-40, 77, 139 1:19a 20, 39 1:19b 20, 40, 45 1:20-22 40-1 1:20 20, 40, 107 1:21-24 20-3 1:21 20 n. 20, 23-6, 28, 33, 40, 99, 108 1:22-24 106, 108 1:22 41, 108, 140

236

Index of ancient sources

1:23-24 41 1:23 21, 41, 108 1:23bd 41 1:23c 41 1:24 41, 108 2:1-21 105 2:1-14 106 2:1-9 106, 108 2:1-2 34 2:1 16, 98, 108, 140 2:2 37 2:2-14 16, 98 2:2-9 77 2:2a 109 2:2b 109 2:2c 109 2:3 109 2:4-14 34 2:4 109 2:5 109 2:6-9 101 2:6-8 109 2:7-9 39 2:7-8 55 2:9 28, 39 n. 82, 40, 45, 75, 116 n. 147, 140 2:9a 109 2:9b-e 109 2:10 109 2:10a 19-20, 109 2:11-14 75, 101, 106, 109 2:11-12 110 2:11a 109 2:11b-12 109 2:12-14 20 n. 18 2:12 19-20, 40, 45, 107 2:12ab 39 2:12a 109 2:12b-14 109 2:12b 75 2:12c-14 75 2:14-21 110 2:14 20 2:15-21 20 2:20 77, 80, 143-4

3:13 80, 143 n. 218, 144 3:2 21 3:5 21 4:4 35, 77, 139, 143, 157 4:6 42, 157 4:14 35 4:25 36, 51-2, 107 5:22-6:15 99 6:2-10 79 6:2 80 Ephesians 3:4-5 158 Philippians 1:8 80, 144 1:27 98 2:5-8 80, 141, 144 2:5-7 77, 143 2:6-11 16, 98, 158 2:6-8 173 2:6-7 157 2:8 77, 143 2:9-11 77, 143 3:2 75 3:3 87 3:20 87 4:10 87 4:14 87 4:15 98 4:22 87 Colossians 4:10-11 75 1 Thessalonians 1:1 98, 141 1:6-10 78 1:10-5:24 16, 98 1:10 77, 139-40, 142-3, 157 2:14 140 2:15 139 3:2 16 3:10-4:18 100 3:10-13a 100

237

Index of ancient sources 3:13b 100 4:1-12 100 4:13-14 100 4:14 78, 139-40, 142 4:15 78 4:15a 100 4:15bc 100 4:16-17 78, 100 4:18 100 5:1-10 99 5:10 80, 144 2 Thessalonians 3:2 44 1 Timothy 6:13 140 n. 209 2 Timothy 2 Tim 4:18 Titus 3:13

1 Enoch 89:12-27

36

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 6:4-6 138, 143 1QS 8:1 142 1QSa 2:17-22 138, 143 4Q169 [pNah] 142 n. 214 CD 6:17-19 143 n. 218 CD 6:19 143 CD 8:21 143 CD 10:22-23 20, 143 n. 219 CD 20:12 143 Philo of Alexandria Legat. 159-161 87 n. 71, 93, 141 Legat. 299-305 141 Legat. 302 141

44

75

1 Peter 5:2 107 n. 131 5:12-13 55 1 John 1:1-4 121 2:14 59 2:18 59 Revelation 7:4 57 n. 152 14:1 57 n. 152 14:3 57 n. 152 21:17 57 n. 152

Inscriptions and Papyri P.Lond. 6.1912, ll. 88-100

Other Israelite-Jewish Works

95

Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 1.1-4 104 1.3 104 1.4 104 1.17 104 1.139 24 4.73 101 5.33-44 19 5.33 101 15.259 78 17.78 104 18.2-3 107 18.26 107 18.28 23, 101 18.31-35 141 n. 211 18.33-84 87 n. 71, 93 18.35-89 93 n. 94 18.35 141 18.36 23, 101 n. 117 18.54-84 87 n. 71, 93 18.55-59 141 18.55 93 n. 94 18.63-84 95-6

238

Index of ancient sources

18.63-64 17, 61, 86-9, 92-4, 96, 101, 140-1, 144 18.63 87-8, 139, 141, 144-5 18.64 88, 142 18.65-84 86-7, 93, 140 18.65-80 86 18.81-84 86-7 18.85-87 87, 142 18.95 141 18.106-124 17, 61 18.109-116 101 18.110-111 101 n. 117 18.110 101 18.116-119 17, 100-1 18.116 101 18.117 17 18.119 101 18.123 104 19.297 104, 141 19.326-327 95 20.97 17, 101 20.167 17, 101 20.188 17, 101 20.196 141 20.197 89 20.199-203 89 20.199-201 75 20.200-203 87 n. 70, 143 20.200 86-9, 139-41, 158 20.223 104 Bellum judaicum 1.1-3 103 1.1-2 103-4 1.1 103 1.2 103 1.3 103 1.17 103-4 1.326 23 2.119 101 2.162 75 2.169-174 141 2.259 17, 101 2.480 101 2.573 23 3.57 23, 55

3.399-404 95 3.446 101 3.463 23 3.506 23 3.519 101 4.456 55 4.517 109 5.5-26 92 5.71-72 92 5.98-105 92 5.141 92 5.412 93 6.288-299 93 6.312-313 93, 95 6.425 93 7.217 110 Contra Apionem 1.1-5 104 1.1 104 1.6-56 90 1.28-56 90 1.46 90 1.47-56 89-91 1.47-49 90 1.47 106 1.49-50 90 1.49 90 1.50-52 90 1.53-55 90 1.53 104, 106 1.54 90 1.55 105-6, 162 1.56 90 2.1-7 104 2.1 104 Vita 9 108 349 23

Other Graeco-Roman Works Homer Odyssea 5.291-393

22

Index of ancient sources 5.293 22 5.294 22 5.296 22-3 5.298 22 5.299 23 5.305-306 23 5.305 22 5.313 22-3 5.317 22 5.320 22-3 5.325 23 5.327 22-3 5.330 22 5.343 22 5.347 23 5.349 23 5.352-353 23 5.355 22 5.363 23 5.366 22-3 5.368 22 5.383 22 5.385 23 5.388 22-3 5.389 23 5.391 22-3 5.393 22-3 9.106-180 28 9.181-542 28, 32 9.182-183 29 9.184 29 9.185 29-30 9.188-192 30 9.240-243 29 9.257 30 9.275-277 30 9.305 29 9.313-314 29 9.315 29 9.340 29 9.355 31 9.364 31 9.366 31 9.373 31 9.399-402 31

9.399 31 9.402-406 31 9.404 31 9.414 31 9.416 29 9.454 31 9.464-465 32 9.471 32 9.473-525 32 9.481-484 32 9.516 31 9.537-541 32 10.238-243 28-9, 32 13.70-169 23 13.70 23 13.73-76 23 13.74 23 13.75 23 13.79-80 23 13.84 23 13.85 23 13.88 23 13.91 23 13.92 23 13.99 23 13.117-119 23 13.165 23 Herodotus Historiae 3.107 51 5.3 78 n. 43 9.108-113 101 n. 116 Plato Respublica 614 cd 111 n. 136 615 e 111 n. 136 Strabo Geographica 14.5.13-15 108

239

240 Pliny the Elder Naturalis historia 5.70 110 n. 135 Pliny the Younger Epistulae 10.96 91 10.96.1 91 10.96.5-7 91 10.96.5-6 91 10.96.7 91 10.96.8 94 10.96.9-10 91 10.97.1 91 Tacitus Annales 1.61.3 94 n. 97 2.82-85 87 n. 71, 93 2.85 87 n. 71, 93 2.85.4 87 n. 71, 93, 95, 141 4.72.3 94 n. 97 15.38.1 93 n. 93 15.40.2 93 n. 93 15.44.2-3 93, 95 15.44.2 93 n. 93, 94 n. 95 15.44.3 93-4, 140 15.44.4 94 Historiae 4.3 94 n. 97 5.11.3 92 5.12.3-4 92 5.13.1-2 92 5.13.3 93 Suetonius Tiberius 35-36 87 n. 71 36 87 n. 71, 95 Claudius 25.4 95-6 Nero 16.2 95 Vespasianus 4.5 95

Index of ancient sources 5.6

95

Dio Cassius Historiae romanae 57.18.5a 87 n. 71 60.6.6 95

Other Early Christian Works Ignatius of Antioch Ad Magnesios 11 124 Ad Smyrnaeos 1.1-2 124 Ad Trallianos 9.1-2 124 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.1.1 128-9 3.9.2 48 n. 115 3.11.8 129 Origen Contra Celsum 1.27-71 130 1.42 130 1.60 48 n. 115 Commentarium in evangelium Joannis X.III.10 130-1 X.III.13 131 X.III.14 131 De principiis IV.2.4 129 IV.2.9-3.1 130 IV.3.4 130 IV.3.5 130 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.39.15-16 125-7 3.39.16 127

Index of ancient sources John Chrysostom Homiliae in Matthaeum I.2 131-2 I.6 131 Augustine Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti 5 171 n. 85 De consensu evangelistarum 1.2.3 132 1.2.4 132 De Genesi ad litteram 2.9.20 155 n. 33 Orosius Historiae 7.6.15 96 n. 102

241