Jesus' Death in Early Christian Memory: The Poetics of the Passion 9783666539541, 3525539541, 3727814659, 9783525539545

Citation preview

$

Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben im Auftrag des Departments für Biblische Studien der Universität Freiburg Schweiz von Max Küchler, Peter Lampe und Gerd Theißen

Band 53

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen Academic Press Fribourg

Ellen Bradshaw Aitken

Jesus’ Death in Early Christian Memory The Poetics of the Passion

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen Academic Press Fribourg

Bibliografische Information Der Deutschen Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. ISBN 3-525-53954-1 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen) ISBN 3-7278-1465-9 (Academic Press Fribourg)

© 2004, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen und Academic Press Fribourg / Paulusverlag Freiburg Schweiz Internet: www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Hinweis zu § 52a UrhG: Weder das Werk noch seine Teile dürfen ohne vorherige schriftliche Einwilligung des Verlages öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden. Dies gilt auch bei einer entsprechenden Nutzung für Lehr- und Unterrichtszwecke. Printed in Germany. Druck und Bindung: Hubert & Co., Göttingen Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier

Foreword One of the delights of completing an extended project is thanking those many people whose support, encouragement, and insight contributed to its final outcome. Helmut Koester, whose expertise in this field has been a source of wisdom and challenge, continually encouraged me in pursuing this project. Gregory Nagy, who for countless years has encouraged and guided my interest in Greek poetics and oral traditions, nurtured in me the discipline of thought that undergirds creativity. Together they served as fine examples of the generosity of scholarship and teaching, and it was in conversation with both that this project took form. My colleagues François Bovon, Karen King, and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza have carefully read my work in various stages and offered me opportunities for testing new ideas. Their insights and kindness have enriched this work. I am also grateful to other colleagues and friends who have read and commented upon this project over the years. Bernadette Brooten, Klaus Baltzer, Lawrence Sullivan, Patrick Tiller, Allen Callahan, Annewies van den Hoek, Richard Valantasis, Richard Horsley, and Larry Wills have offered perceptive comments upon portions of this work. I offer deep appreciation to Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, Barbara Rossing, and Shelly Matthews; through their continual support and interest in my work, as well as their observations, they have been near and dear to my thoughts. To others who have read and commented on drafts of various chapters — Jennifer M. Phillips, John S. Richardson, Edward Rewolinski, Tamar Duke-Cohan, Alistair Stewart-Sykes, Denise Buell, Marianne Bonz, Ruth Clements, James Skedros, Christine M . Thomas, Bruce Beck, Demetrius Williams, and Gabriella Gelardini — I am especially grateful. M. Thomas Shaw, S.S.J.E., through his perspicacious questions, has extended the horizon of my thinking about this work. Christopher Bryan has not only offered invaluable advice and support over many years, but has been an important colleague from the start in thinking through the questions of performance traditions and the New Testament. I completed the writing of this project in the mountains of Trentino in the ambiance of the Smarano Organ Academy; I thank the Associazione Culturale Monsignore Celestino Eccher and especially Giacomo Corrà for their generous hospitality. Sections of this work, in earlier stages, have been presented to the Seminar on Intertextuality and Christian Apocrypha of the Society of Biblical Literature, to the New Testament Colloquium of the Boston Theological Institute, to the Harvard Divinity School Symposium in honor of Helmut Koester on his seventieth birthday, and in lectures to classes at Harvard Divinity School and the

Foreword

6

University of the South. I am appreciative of the comments and questions received on those occasions. The observations of various anonymous readers have also enriched the volume. To the editors of this series, Gerd Theissen, Max Küchler, and Peter Lampe, I express my gratitude for their suggestions, guidance, and patience. Reinhilde Ruprecht, Eva Jain, and Renate Hartog oversaw the publication of the volume; I thank them for their care and skill. I am also grateful to William H. Graham, Dean of the Divinity School at Harvard University, for his generous support of this project. Joyce Hempstead provided invaluable advice for the design of the volume. Catherine Playoust and Emily Schmidt have been of considerable assistance in the final stages of work. Translations of biblical passages are based on the New Revised Standard Version. I have taken the liberty of altering the translation on a number of occasions. Translations of the scriptures of Israel, however, follow the text of the Septuagint, unless otherwise noted. This work is dedicated to the memory of three people who died early in its conception. Albert B. Lord nurtured my love of oral poetry and provided kindly encouragement and instruction through many years. The confidence for embarking on this project derived not least from my mother, Janice H. Aitken, whose support was unswerving. My father, Hugh G. J. Aitken, not only taught me much of the art of writing and research, but also in his remarkable curiosity for biblical studies encouraged my love for the text. I regret that they did not live to see the completion of this work. Finally, to my husband, William Porter, whose questions arose out of his own expertise in musical improvisation and performance and whose love sustained me in countless ways throughout this project, I offer unbounded thanks.

Cambridge, Massachusetts September 2003

Ellen Bradshaw Aitken

In memoriam Janice Hunter Aitken Hugh George Jeffrey Aitken Albert Bates Lord

ajnoivxw ejn parabolai'" to; stovma mou fqevgxomai problhvmata ajp’ ajrch'" o{sa hjkouvsamen kai; e[gnwmen aujta; kai; oiJ patevre" hJmw'n dihghvsanto hJmi'n oujk ejkruvbh ajpo; tw'n tevknwn aujtw'n eij" genea;n eJtevran ajpaggevllonte" ta;" aijnevsei" tou' kurivou kai; ta;" dunasteiva" aujtou' kai; ta; qaumavsia aujtou' a} ejpoivhsen (Ps 78 [77]:2–4)

Contents Foreword ..............................................................................................................5 Contents ...............................................................................................................9 Introduction........................................................................................................11 Chapter I: First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult 1. Introduction............................................................................................27 2. 1 Cor 15:3–5: “That Which I Also Received”........................................28 3. 1 Corinthians 10–11...............................................................................34 1 Cor 10:1–13.....................................................................................35 1 Cor 11:23–26...................................................................................48 4. Conclusion..............................................................................................53 Chapter II: The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah 1. Introduction............................................................................................55 2. 1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn.........................................................................62 1 Pet 2:22 ...........................................................................................65 1 Pet 2:23a — loidorevw ....................................................................69 1 Pet 2:23b — ajpeilevw .....................................................................74 1 Pet 2:23c — paradivdwmi................................................................80 1 Pet 2:24 ...........................................................................................83 Chapter III: The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved 1. Introduction............................................................................................88 2. The Genre, Provenance, and Date of the Epistle of Barnabas ...............90 3. Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend.................................................95 The Covenant.....................................................................................95 Barnabas 5: Jesus’ Suffering.............................................................101 Barnabas 6: Jesus’ Suffering and Vindication...................................111 Barnabas 7–8: The Day of Atonement and the Red Heifer .............115 4. Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend ........................120

10

Contents

Chapter IV: The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest” 1. Introduction..........................................................................................130 2. The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews ..............133 3. Jesus’ Death in Hebrews......................................................................143 Heb 5:7–10: “In the Days of His Flesh”..........................................143 Heb 6:4–8: “Crucifying the Son of God”.........................................148 Heb 13:10–16: Jesus “Outside the Camp” ......................................158 4. Ritual Practice in Hebrews...................................................................161 5. Conclusion............................................................................................163 Conclusion........................................................................................................165 Abstract............................................................................................................172 Bibliography.....................................................................................................173 1. Texts and Translations.........................................................................173 2. Secondary Literature ............................................................................175 Index of Passages from Ancient Texts..............................................................192 Subject Index.....................................................................................................199

Introduction This project arises out of three areas of scholarly discourse. The first lies in the observation that a story of Jesus’ suffering and death exists in three apparently independent, but similar accounts, namely, those in the canonical gospels of Mark and John, together with that in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.1 Such a story must then belong to an early stage in the formation of gospel traditions. Attempts to find a single common source for these three accounts have not proved convincing.2 Moreover, although it is clear that Paul is familiar with a story of Jesus’ death, there is no evidence that Paul knew a text that we would recognize as one of the passion narratives in the gospels. Thus, the formation of the story of Jesus’ suffering and death, prior to the written gospels, has never received an adequate explanation. The second impetus for this project comes out of the work of the early form critics, principally Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann, in their work on the earliest stages of the gospels.3 A fundamental axiom of form criticism is that the formation of units of gospel tradition — miracle stories, apothegmata, controversy stories, parables — can be accounted for in terms of their setting in the life of early Christian communities. Thus the “form” or Gattung of a pericope leads to the identification of a plausible Sitz im Leben. It is also important to observe that form criticism emphasizes the interrelation of the formation and

1 In addition, the passion narrative in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22–23) utilizes material significantly different from that in the Gospel of Mark and corresponding in some aspects to the Johannine passion narrative; see Bovon: Luke, 7. The question of the relationship between John and Mark, as well as the other synoptics, has been examined in detail by D. Moody Smith. Smith: John, 190–192, proposes a more complex picture, based on the development of each gospel in multiple stages, than one based on a sharp choice between dependence and independence. In doing so, he draws in the question of the apocryphal gospels, recalling Koester’s discussion (Gospels: 105–130) of their role in the transmission history of the canonical gospels. My argument here does not seek to resolve the question of dependence or independence but to indicate and describe the narrative and ritual processes that may contribute to the emergence of these passion narratives. 2 I think here particularly of John Dominic Crossan (Crossan: Cross). Crossan considers the independence of the Gospel of Peter and seeks to find within that passion narrative an earlier source, the so-called Cross Gospel. This written source, in his view, is shared with the Gospel of Mark. See also Crossan: Roots. On the independence of the Gospel of Peter from the canonical gospels, see Koester: Gospels, 126–127; Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 218–219; and Denker: Petrusevangeliums. 3 Dibelius: Tradition; and Bultmann: History.

12

Introduction

transmission of traditions, on the one hand, and the needs and practices of communities, on the other.4 The formation of the passion narrative, however, presented certain problems for form criticism. Although the story can be divided into smaller pericopes, such as Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, Peter’s denial, or the trial before Pilate, few make sense without reference to the whole story; they are episodes within a larger narrative. Thus the passion narrative presents a coherence and integrity, which for the form critics could not be explained in terms of the smaller units of tradition found elsewhere in the gospels. Their response to this dilemma was to argue that the passion narrative took shape much earlier than other parts of the gospels and was based on historical, eyewitness recollection of the events of Jesus’ death. This was the position of Karl Ludwig Schmidt, who compared the cohesive nature of the narrative as a sequence of consecutive narratives with the later acts of martyrs. Schmidt argued that, in contrast to the legends of acts and sayings, such a cohesive narrative possessed a high degree of historical reliability.5 He was followed in this vein by Rudolf Bultmann and Martin Dibelius, whose work emphasized the combination of this historical account with confessional dogmatic materials in the service of the earliest Christian apologetic and preaching.6 There are a number of difficulties with this approach. The figures in the narrative whom Dibelius considered eyewitnesses — Simon of Cyrene and the young man who fled naked from the scene of Jesus’ arrest (Mark 14:51) — have been shown not to belong even to the earliest gospel tradition.7 Most of the passion narrative can be demonstrated to be the product of scriptural reflection and interpretation.8 If all that remains of an “earliest account” after such an analysis is a marker of events — “Jesus was arrested, was executed, and died” — we must ask whether this is actually a story and whether such a statement could of itself generate narrative.9 I maintain that it could not; rather we must inquire into the generating principles and building blocks available to speak of Jesus’ suffering and death. In its treatment of the passion narrative, moreover, form criticism has relinquished its basic principles. Unlike the case of smaller units of tradition, here the observation of a coherent whole did not lead to the isolation of a genre or the 4 An overview of the form-critical research into the passion narrative can be found in Theissen/ Merz: Historical Jesus, 445–446; and Theissen: Nachwort, 439–441. 5 Schmidt: Rahmen. 6 Bultmann: History, 275; Dibelius: Tradition, 182–184. See also the more extended treatment in Dibelius: Leidensgeschichte, 193–201. 7 Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 254, 301. 8 See, for example, Bultmann: History, 280–282; Dodd: Scriptures; Lindars, Apologetic; Lohse: History, 103; Mack: Myth, 255–258; Williams: Jesus’ Death. 9 See Lohse: History; Lohse turns (pp. 5–16) to 1 Cor 15:3–5, together with the three predictions of the passion in Mark (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33), as providing the core of this earliest narrative.

Introduction

13

identification of a Sitz im Leben within the life of early Christian communities for the origin and development of the passion narrative. Rather, Bultmann and Dibelius emphasized the importance of the historical reminiscence for the needs of the earliest preaching. In other words, they identified a setting for the ongoing development of the passion narrative but not for the formation of the “primitive narrative.”10 The twofold question that remains unanswered by Dibelius and Bultmann is whether there is a form or genre for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death and what Sitz im Leben provided the context for the generation of this narrative. Related to this question is how to account for the formation and transmission of larger forms or Gattungen of traditions about Jesus without necessarily making recourse to the conventions of writing. Closest to the interests and approaches of my own work are those form critics who located the elaboration of the historical core of the passion narrative within the cultic life of early Christian communities. Rather than turning to the apologetic or preaching needs of these communities, as Dibelius and Bultmann did, Georg Bertram classified the form of the earliest passion narrative as a “cultic legend.”11 Bertram maintained a notion of a core of historical reminiscence, but located its elaboration, prior to written gospels, in the cultic practices of the early church, based on the prominence of the episode of the Last Supper in the passion narrative. By cultic, he understood not only “liturgical” actions such as baptism and eucharist, but any act of veneration of Jesus, as the hero of the cult. The passion narrative is thus the cult legend of the Christ-cult.12 Although Bertram argued by analogy with hero cult, he made recourse chiefly to the psychological attitude of worshipers as shaping the interests of the passion narrative. Bertram’s argument is useful inasmuch as he recognizes the interelation of narrative and cultic practice; he does not, however, engage the question of how cultic practice contributes to the formation of narrative or how together they function to constitute a community. Moreover, he does not turn to the role of the scriptures of Israel and existing cultic legends in generating a story of Jesus’ suffering and death. In these respects, apart from the focus on “cult,” Bertram’s work contributes little to the present project. Bertram’s work was extended more concretely by Gottfried Schille who argued for three distinct cultic settings for speaking of Jesus’ suffering: the Last Supper, a Good Friday remembrance, and a cultic recollection of the empty tomb.13 Schille also connected the hymns that praise Christ’s victory over suffering and death with baptism, whereas there was more interest in the details of the earthly suffering of Jesus in a eucharistic setting recollecting the Last Sup-

10 11 12 13

Bultmann: History, 279. Bertram: Leidensgeschichte. Bertram: Leidensgeschichte, 93. Schille: Leiden, 161–205.

14

Introduction

per.14 The difficulty with Schille’s argument is that although we have indications of early baptismal and eucharistic practice, we do not have evidence of the cultic recollection of the events of Good Friday or Easter morning in the form of recurring observances in the first century. In this respect, Schille’s argument is driven by the fundamental concept of a core of historical reminiscence to the passion narratives. In addition, Schille’s argument pays little attention to the high degree to which the passion narratives are informed by psalmic and other cultic texts from the scriptures of Israel; instead the scriptural motifs are seen as apologetic or catechetical. Among those who undertook a cultic approach to the question of the form of the passion narrative, mention must also be made of Ludger Schenke. Schenke expanded upon Schille’s work with reference to the stories of the empty tomb, without modifying Schille’s approach.15 Schenke argued that these stories provide the cult legend or ideology for the early celebration of Easter at the site of Jesus’ burial. Again there is little concern for the workings of cult practice or the poetics of cult narrative so as to account for the generation of narrative. Two more recent form-critical approaches to the passion narrative do not concern themselves with the cultic dimension. Detlev Dormeyer proposed that the passion narrative should be understood as parenesis, combining the forms of the Jewish martyr acts and the so-called acts of the pagan martyrs. Jesus as the ideal Christian martyr becomes the parenetic model.16 Wolfgang Reinbold also located the setting of the earliest passion account in the life of the community, seeing it shaped scribally for the purposes of teaching within the community.17 Neither of these approaches attends much to the process of the formation of the account or to the practices that contributed to telling a story about Jesus’ suffering and death. The third impetus for this project of identifying the poetics of the passion derives from the observations of Milman Parry and Albert Lord about the workings of narrative and poetic oral traditions.18 Their analysis of ancient Greek and South Slavic epic traditions sought to identify the ways in which a traditional singer, under the constraints of performance, could compose an extended epic poem. In particular, their work attended to the diction — the treasury of meter, phrases (formulas), themes, and story patterns, together with the conditions under which they were employed — by which a song was sung. Gregory Nagy, in extending their insights of their work, has emphasized Lord’s point that oral tradition is characterized by composition in performance; that is,

14 15 16 17 18

Schille: Leiden, 170. Schenke: Auferstehungsverkündigung. Dormeyer: Passion. Reinbold: Bericht, 196–197. Parry: Homeric Verse; Lord: Singer; Lord: Tale.

Introduction

15

composition and performance are aspects of the same process.19 The brilliance of Parry and Lord’s work lies in the fact that they sought to understand how composition in performance worked within particular traditions; they turned to the phenomena of performance and of the texts themselves to ask what they indicate about their transmission, composition, authority, and construction of meaning. Thus, Lord resisted not only universal psycho-social definitions of “oral” versus “written” or of “memory,”20 but also the application of his insights as a theory of oral tradition. One way of thinking about Parry and Lord’s work is to say that they inquired into the linguistic means by which memory exists in a tradition and how it is carried by a social group, that is, how a community tells a story, particularly a story that is central to its identity and that speaks of what is most important to the community. Nagy, in analyzing the phenomena of performance of Homer and archaic Greek lyric poetry, considers the interrelation of narrative and ritual in constituting community as part of the poetics of the available traditions. His work indicates also the linguistic phenomena of memory in community and that “recollection” of the “there and then” is a matter of retelling the story and redoing the rituals in the “here and now.”21 In finding inspiration in the work of Milman Parry and Albert Lord, I do not apply their observations about the workings of certain oral traditions as though it were a universal theory. Rather I ask questions of early Christian tradition that are analogous to those that they asked concerning the poetics of archaic Greek and contemporary Balkan traditions. In particular, I attend to the diction with which the story of Jesus’ suffering and death was told, the tendencies by which that diction works, and the performance of that story in community. Likewise, I use Nagy’s insights about the interrelation of ritual and narrative in the analogous, and arguably cognate, traditions of archaic Greece as a starting point for inquiring into the cultic dimensions of a story of Jesus’ passion. In other words, since form criticism has defined the problem with regard to the passion narrative in terms of the setting of traditions about Jesus in the life of the early Christian community, I turn to investigations into the life of narrative in traditional community for the tools with which to investigate this problem. In doing so, I am following the example of the form critics themselves, whose questions and theories were informed by the folklorists of the nineteenth century.22 19 20 21 22

Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 19; Nagy: Poetry, 19. See, for example, the work of Walter Ong in Ong: Orality. Nagy: Poetry, 52. Koester: Formgeschichte, 287–288; this relationship is most apparent in the work of Hermann Gunkel, but also in that of Bultmann: History; and Dibelius: Tradition. See Gunkel: Schöpfung; Gunkel: Märchen; as well as the analysis in Kirkpatrick: Old Testament, 23–34; and Bovon: Gunkel, 86–94. The writings of Johann Gottfried Herder on folk traditions, memory, and history were particularly influential. We may note Herder’s view of the memory of history as a linguistic phenomenon cast in stories, songs, and rituals. See Herder: Christliche

16

Introduction

In this respect, I seek to identify the traditional poetics by which early Christians came to speak of Jesus’ suffering and death. In the pages that follow, I test the hypothesis that the story of Jesus’ suffering and death developed as part of the cultic practice of various early Christian communities.23 This context included the community’s use of the scriptures of Israel, especially the narrative of the exodus, wilderness, and entry into the land of promise, together with the songs and stories of the suffering righteous who were vindicated by God. These scriptures, as available in the cultic life of the community, provided the means for telling a new story and singing anew of Jesus’ death. Speaking of the cultic practice of the community encompasses not only things said, but also things done — the cultic actions in which Jesus’ death was remembered. Thus, I shall argue, the account of formation of a story of Jesus’ suffering and death also includes the dimension of ritual practice. In other words, stories were told, songs were sung, and rituals were performed in such a way that Jesus’ death became the central point in the reenactment of the cultic life of the community. Moreover, the performance of the memory of Jesus’ death, as we shall see, was closely related to the self-definition and constitution of the community. To tell a story about Jesus’ death was also to tell a story about the identity of the community. In order to test this hypothesis, it is necessary to look not at the passion narratives themselves, but rather at texts that provide indications of the process of telling of Jesus’ suffering and death. We want actually to catch glimpses of the process in action, as it were, in order to see the component parts of the narrative process in texts that are independent of the passion narratives, and in some cases earlier. It remains beyond the purview of this work, however, to examine what the poetics of the passion contribute to the formation of the passion narratives themselves. In this respect, I do not advance an argument about oral or written composition of the passion narratives as we know them from the gospels. I would assume, however, that their composition is not entirely separate from the traditional poetics that inform and carry the memory of Jesus’ suffering and death, although it will certainly shaped by numerous other considerations, literary practices, and rhetorical interests.24 Schriften, cited in Koester: Response, 348, who distinguishes such an understanding of memory and history from a “preoccupation with what actually happened.” The full account of the relation between the history of folklore scholarship and critical approaches to early Christian writings lies beyond the project at hand. 23 This approach is suggested in various remarks of Helmut Koester; see especially Koester: Leiden; and Koester: Story, 25–28. Earlier, Trocmé: Passion, 77–80, proposed that the Sitz im Leben for what he identified as the “original” passion narrative was the “worshipping life of a Christian community which was still influenced by Jewish customs” (p. 80). 24 On the ongoing practices of oral composition and performance in hellenistic society, see Thomas: Literacy, 101–127, who emphasizes orality as a medium of societal memory, coexisting alongside practices of literary composition. For a thorough discussion of orality in the practices of performative reading, scriptural interpretation, and study, see Jaffee: Torah.

Introduction

17

In investigating the poetics of early Christian memory of Jesus’ passion, I place four separate, non-narrative texts in the foreground, each of which relies significantly on traditions of Jesus’ suffering and death in order to construct their arguments concerning community life. In each case, it is possible to discern something of the interrelation of cultic practice with the actualization of the scriptures of Israel to speak of Jesus and to constitute the community that is addressed. I consider first the way in which the memory of Jesus is constructed in 1 Corinthians, focusing particularly on the traditions quoted in 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 1 Cor 15:3–5. Here the connection between ritual and story, as they are informed by the scriptures of Israel, will be apparent. I turn next to 1 Peter and to the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 in order to explore the scriptural diction for this retelling of Jesus’ suffering and death. I have chosen to work with these texts because there is wide recognition of cultic reference in each, along with indications of the telling of Jesus’ death. For both, moreover, scripture appears available in its liturgical use. The third chapter concerns the Epistle of Barnabas, which reflects extensively on the suffering and death of Jesus through the interpretation of scripture. Barnabas provides evidence of exegetical traditions concerning the passion similar to those that inform the Gospel of Peter as well as the passion narratives in Mark and John. In Barnabas, moreover, the interpretation of scripture is repeatedly connected to the cultic practice of the community, suggestive of a context for telling of Jesus’ death. The fourth text examined here is Hebrews, which in the process of developing deeper insight into Christian identity appears to presume knowledge of a story about Jesus’ death and the experience of certain cultic actions. The way in which Hebrews reflects on this story and experience again permits us to examine the constituent elements of the memory of Jesus’ death. Both Barnabas and Hebrews present a somewhat scribal approach, but they have significant access to liturgical materials and the use of scripture in the community’s ritual practice. In the case of each text, we shall explore what happens when the memory of Jesus’ death is understood within the framework of cultic action. This is a reading that attends to cult, comprised of both ritual and narrative, to the dynamics of the ritual performance of a community, and to the function of authoritative speech in cultic context. I do not imply any direct relationship or mutual influence among these four texts; rather they attest to parallel and cognate processes in separate early Christian communities.25 My work is indebted in part to the argument of George W. E. Nickelsburg regarding the genre of the passion narrative in Mark. He argues that the genre of 25 On the concept of “cognate” traditions, see Nagy: Poetry, 3; this metaphor from comparative linguistics indicates phenomena from a common source, but not derived from one another. I speak of the various processes of telling Jesus’ death as cognate in that they share a common heritage in the scriptures of Israel as well as a common interest in the memory of Jesus.

18

Introduction

the suffering and vindicated righteous has been a major influence on the overall shape of the passion narrative.26 Although I am not concerned here with the final form of the passion narrative, Nickelsburg’s proposal focuses attention on the way in which telling stories of individuals who suffer and are vindicated by God informs the construction of such a story about Jesus. For my purposes, it argues for paying particular attention to the diction of suffering and vindication in the course of this investigation. Nickelsburg’s work can thus be extended through an exploration of how and under what circumstances such scriptural passages and the genre of suffering and vindication contributed to the formation of the passion narrative. There are no descriptions of the process of narrating Jesus’ death available to us. Rather, I take as the primary evidence the traditions themselves and in particular the language used to speak of Jesus’ passion and the community. My analysis thus attends to both the form of a passage at hand and the details of its language. I focus particularly on instances of quotation of the scriptures of Israel and on vocabulary that suggests allusion to these scriptures. By “quotation,” I mean the more or less word-for-word repetition of a phrase or longer passage. We shall see in some cases variation within quotation; such variation, I suggest, takes place in part because of the community’s use of scripture as well as under the influence of related passages.27 By “allusion,” I mean an instance where the story or passage of scripture is not brought to the foreground of the text, as in the case of quotation, but remains in the background, discernible through one or more key words. We see repeatedly that a quotation or allusion is not only a reference to a particular verse, but also to the larger context.28 I am especially concerned with exploring the interwoven network of quotation and allusion within these texts. In doing so, I pay particular attention to words that speak of Jesus’ suffering or of the identity of the community and investigate the use of this diction within the scriptures of Israel. Frequently, this exploration goes beyond a single use (which may be the primary text em26 27

Nickelsburg: Genre, 153–184. On quotation technique in the New Testament, see Stanley: Environment, 18–27; and Stanley: Rhetoric, 44–58. 28 On questions of method in identifying allusions that refer both to a particular verse and to a larger context, with particular reference to Paul’s letters, see Hays: Echoes. See also Allison: Moses, 7, who distinguishes between “borrowing which allude to no subtext, borrowing which alludes to a series of subtexts, and borrowing which alludes to or cites a specific subtext.” Allison argues, for example, that the Gospel of Matthew presupposes a reader who is competent to identify these borrowings, an expertise developed out of extensive knowledge of scripture and Jewish tradition (Allison: Moses, 270). Neither Hays nor Allison discusses cultic experience and practices as contributing to the larger context upon which an allusion or quotation may draw. In a later work, however, Allison does consider the effect of allusion upon readers: “The primary purpose of allusions, however, is not to add authority or help clinch arguments. Their general effect is instead to stimulate readers to become more active”; see Allison: Allusions, 8.

Introduction

19

ployed in the passage), but shows the function of this diction within a number of different texts. I give priority to the occurrence of such diction within the cult legend of Israel and its retellings, in songs, and in texts about the suffering and vindication of the righteous. In many cases, this diction appears to be particular to these contexts. I also give priority to unusual vocabulary. The result is often an interrelated context of texts and motifs, in which it is difficult to explore any one without also involving the others. This observation in itself suggests that we are dealing with scripture mediated through its use in community, rather than with a strictly scribal use of testimonia. Albert Lord’s description of the workings of associations in oral epic also provides an apt characterization of what we shall see as the manner in which the traditional diction of scripture functions to tell a story of Jesus’ death. Where the association is not linear, it seems to me that we are dealing with a force or “tension” that might be termed “submerged.” The habit is hidden, but felt. It arises from the depths of the tradition through the workings of the traditional processes to inevitable expression. And to be numb to an awareness of this kind of association is to miss the meaning not only of the oral method of composition and transmission, but even of epic itself. Without such an awareness the overtones from the past, which give tradition the richness of diapason of full organ, cannot be sensed by the reader of oral epic. The singer’s natural audience appreciates it because they are as much part of the tradition as the singer himself.29

I am interested in identifying the submerged logic that draws together the associations; together they comprise the poetics of a tradition. To this end, it is important to attend not only to language for speaking of Jesus’ death, but also to the various indications of the practice of the community that accompany this language. My exploration of the texts considered in this project thus focuses particularly on whatever markers of ritual action there are. My analysis of the texts here also attempts to notice how authority is constructed through the traditional diction. In Lord’s portrayal of the process of oral transmission, we may note his emphasis on the importance of the audience.30 A traditional utterance stands within a community, and its full appreciation requires an audience that will accurately appreciate and understand its message. Such a story, song, or other ritual practice is thus frequently self29 30

Lord: Singer, 97. For an approach to scriptural allusion and quotation in New Testament texts that focuses on the role of the audience, see Carter: Matthew. Carter speaks (Matthew, 20) of the “authorial audience,” that is, an audience whom the author assumes has competence to “read” the text; this competence includes the “audience’s religious traditions,” as well as its “knowledge about and experience of Jesus.” Although, in working with the Gospel of Matthew, Carter speaks of readings and texts, his insights are not dissimilar to the turn toward the audience in discussions of performance and oral tradition.

20

Introduction

referential; it grants authority to those who understand it and often contains markers of the qualifications necessary to “get” the right message. The telling of a story has the capacity to establish, constitute, and reinforce a community. My investigation, as a result, shall inquire into the ways in which the formation of a story of Jesus’ death is connected to various early Christian experiments in new community, as they are refracted through the text. 31 The concept of “morphology” is useful for delineating the poetics of a tradition. By using the term “morphology,” I draw attention both to the constituent textual elements that contribute to the formation of stories about Jesus’ death and also to the logic of associations, cultic practices, and authoritative performances involved in the process. I employ the term “morphology” as a way to talk about the interplay of change and stability in various reenactments of Jesus’ death in early Christian communities. This term is applied to the study of literature, both oral or written, by analogy to its use in linguistics; it is a metaphorical use. Within structural linguistics, morphology refers to the study of morphemes, that is, “minimum units endowed with meaning.”32 Morphology looks at how these minimum units combine to form words and other larger units of meaning. When it was first applied to folklore, morphology began with the identification of units of action, or functions (equivalent to morphemes), shared by a whole body of folktales, independent of the various characters and motifs in different stories.33 The “morphology of the folktale” was the sequential arrangement of these functions. Thus, morphology is concerned with not only units of action, but also the regular order in which they occur.34 The structural use of morphology by both linguists and folklorists focuses on the formal characteristics of the texts. Since Vladimir Propp, folklorists have also attended to the performance of tales and particularly the effect of the exigencies of composition in performance.35 Similarly in linguistics, Roman Jakobson considered the relationship between morpheme and meaning in analyzing 31 In emphasizing the interrelation of ritual and narrative with the formation of community, this reading of early Christian texts parallels recent arguments on the development of Homeric poetry and Athenian tragedy in the context of the rituals of the Greek city. Cook: Odyssey, argues that the epic poem of the Odyssey evolved in symbiosis with the civic rituals of the Athenian state; he writes (p. 8) that “the Odyssey was a ritual mimesis of the most important civic cults.” Seaford: Reciprocity, analyzes Greek tragedy, as well as Homer, in terms of the interrelation of ritual and the construction of civic order. He thus proposes the emergence of tragedy as a function of the transformation of rituals of reciprocity, death rituals, and hero cult, with the purpose of constituting the polis. Both Cook and Seaford indicate the roles of narrative and ritual in constituting society, utilizing methodological perspectives that are not dissimilar to those employed in this examination of traditions about Jesus’ death. 32 Jakobson: Aspects, 107. 33 The foremost work in this regard is Propp: Morphology. 34 See Niditch/ Doran: Success Story, 179. Niditch and Doran criticize the work of Humphreys: Lifestyle, 211–223, who identified motifs in the court narratives, but not the structural order. See also Wills: Jew, 4. 35 See Ben-Amos: Concept, 30–43.

Introduction

21

how morphemes combine.36 In other words, the context of the formal characteristics has received increased attention. This shift corresponds to Lord’s remark about the formula in oral traditional narrative:37 “Only in performance can the formula exist and have definition.”38 Like the formula, the unit of tradition — the morpheme — needs to be understood within the varieties of performances of the tradition. Since performance happens within and as a part of the social order, it is necessary to include the social order in the study of the morphological context. I would therefore extend the use of the term “morphology” to include the study of the transformations of traditional units of meaning, that is, how they affect and respond to the context of their reenactments.39 Morphology thus attends to the synchronic dimensions of a system — “the workings of a system as it exists at a given time and place” — as well as to the diachronic dimensions — “the transformations of this system throughout time.”40 The advantage of using “morphology” is that it points to a system’s potential for change and also indicates that the transformations are themselves subject to a structure. By including performance and social context, as inscribed in the text, in the study of morphology, I presuppose that narrative and inscribed context are mutually informing.41 The study of the passion narratives and the reenactment of Jesus’ death in early Christian communities must find a means to understand the existence of independent but similar narratives of the passion. In other words, it is necessary to have a method capable of analyzing multiforms and transformations of a tradition.42 The linguistic metaphor of morphology, particularly as it has been used and extended by folklorists, has potential for guiding such an exploration. The working definition accompanying this study is that morphology is the study of narrative in terms of the structure and order of units of meaning and action within a tradition, the multiforms and transformations of both the struc36 37

See, for example, Jakobson: Linguistics, 62–94. Lord follows Milman Parry in defining the formula as “a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea.” See Lord: Singer, 30; and Parry: Studies, 80. 38 Lord: Singer, 33. 39 See Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 10 n. 39. 40 Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 4. 41 In a discussion of the method of interpreting religious propaganda in early Christianity and Judaism, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza stresses the need to understand early Christian writings as the products of “cultural religious rhetorical practices” and “to reconstruct the history o f early Christian literatures and communities as the history of communicative persuasion, emancipatory struggles, and common visions”; see Schüssler Fiorenza: Rhetoricity, 463. Although our tasks are somewhat different, I intend the focus on the performative strategies of language in community in this study in this vein. 42 Multiformity is a way of talking about the coexistence of various versions of a song in a tradition that does not necessitate constructing a genealogical relation among them or the search for a single “original” version of the song. See Lord: Singer, 101, 120.

22

Introduction

tures and the units in performance, and the mutual reflexivity of narrative and the social order within performance. The purpose of analyzing the various constructions of the memory of Jesus’ death is to identify the morphological building blocks of this tradition, along with the processes governing their combination. This perspective on the formation of narrative distinguishes my work from that of other attempts to account for the formation of the passion narrative. In describing the state of the question, John Dominic Crossan sets out a basic dichotomy in approaches to the passion narrative between “history remembered” (albeit with the vehicle of prophecy)43 and “prophecy historicized.”44 In other words, does the story of Jesus’ suffering and death begin with a memory of an event that is then elaborated and embellished through narrative techniques and the use of prophetic texts? This is Brown’s approach, but it is premised on a separation between memory and story, failing to grapple with memory as a linguistic phenomenon in community. Or, rather does this story arise out of a process of searching the scriptures of Israel to find texts that explicate the death of Jesus? Crossan chooses this approach, but in doing so he relies upon a context of scribal or scholarly exegesis of the scriptures as necessary for the creation of the story of Jesus’ suffering and death.45 Although in my work I am in fundamental agreement with Crossan that the story of Jesus’ passion arises out of the scriptures of Israel, I question his dependence on scribal exegesis as the vehicle for the formation of this story.46 Instead, I locate the development of such a narrative in relation to the cultic practice of various early Christian communities. That is, instead of speaking of “prophecy historicized,” I would rather speak of the reactualization of scripture in the context of its performance in ritual.47 This process of reactualization en-

43 Crossan: Roots, 1–4, uses the phrase “history remembered” to characterize the approach of Raymond Brown (Brown: Death). 44 Crossan: Roots, 1–4. Crossan portrays his work and that of Koester (Gospels, 105–130) as understanding the passion narrative as “prophecy historicized.” 45 On the scribal setting for the earliest passion account, see also Reinbold: Bericht, 196–197. 46 A further difficulty with Crossan’s argument for an early passion narrative (the socalled Cross Gospel) that is the product of scribal exegesis is that in this approach he allows little room for the continuing oral tradition about Jesus that existed alongside written texts throughout the early Christian period. Hebrews and Barnabas show the presence of reflection about Jesus’ death, independent of but later than the canonical passion narratives and the Gospel of Peter. 47 On “actualization” as the primary character of scriptural interpretation within the communities of Israel, especially after the exile, see Kugel: Interpretation. Kugel’s discussion also provides an excellent overview of the practices of rereading and interpretation of the scriptures of Israel in the Second Temple period. See also Mulder: Mikra; and Jaffee: Torah, for more detailed examinations of various aspects of these scriptural practices, including the place of orality among them. What I propose here concerning the actualization of scripture as a way of remem-

Introduction

23

tails an identification between the “there and then” of scripture and the “here and now” of the present situation of the community. The primary act of identification is the actualization of scripture to say something about Jesus and Jesus’ sufferings, as well as about the situation of the community. In this act, Jesus becomes the new focus of the process of actualization. A quite different direction is adopted by those recent scholars who attribute the authorship of the passion narrative entirely to the evangelist Mark. For them, the observation of narrative coherence and the emphasis on geographical and chronological references have pointed to literary authorship for both the overall structure and many of the individual episodes of the passion. In other words, there was no overall story of Jesus’ death prior to the Gospel of Mark. Burton Mack argues that Mark is responsible for weaving together a number of separate narrative themes, each with a distinctive theology, into the passion narrative as we have it and that Mark was the first to create a cohesive account.48 Werner Kelber, who argues that textuality is a necessary prerequisite to the description of death, credits Mark with writing a story out of scriptural references.49 Such attempts to ascribe the origin of the passion narrative to the authorship of Mark fail to take into account the fact that we have three extant passion narratives — those in the Gospels of Mark, John, and Peter — that are independent of each other and yet share many common features. The observation that cohesive narration characterizes all three argues against the attribution of the overall structure of the passion narrative to Mark’s hand. In order to account for this situation, we need to explore the relationship between the composition of a narrative about Jesus’ death and its performance in community. Certain concepts and terms will recur throughout this analysis, and it is necessary to define them at the outset. I have already used the term “performance,” which points not to an artificial, artistic situation, but rather to the function of utterances and practices to accomplish something. Performative language is distinguished from language that is primarily descriptive or discursive in that certain utterances accomplish, or perform, an action. Straightforward examples are vows, promises, confessions, curses, and blessings. In this use of language, the word is the action or, in the formulation of J. L. Austin, a “speech act.”50 The extension of this idea to poetic language emphasizes the way in which performative speech takes on meaning only by referring to the instance of its utterance;51 this aspect throws attention on the occasion of an utterance and its bering Jesus’ suffering and death belongs within the wide range of the practices of scriptural interpretation in this period. 48 Mack: Myth, 288–312. 49 Kelber: Gospel. 50 Austin: Words. For applications of the work of Austin to biblical scholarship, see the articles in White: Speech Act Theory; and Neufeld: Texts. These works do not, on the whole, consider speech acts within the context of traditional poetics. 51 See Johnson: Difference, 56; see also Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 9.

24

Introduction

relation to its interpretive community. It is important, therefore, to attend to self-referential markers in performative language, as well as to the way in which such an utterance may designate its ideal audience.52 Alongside this more linguistic description of performance, we may consider an anthropological perspective that defines cultural performances as “the ways in which the cultural content of a tradition is organized and transmitted on particular occasions through specific media.”53 Key here is the interrelation between tradition, specific performance, and social organization; performance is a social contract.54 Thus a performative approach understands certain utterances and practices as creating a reality within a community and potentially constituting that community as those for whom this performance is effective.55 As such, ritual speech is marked as distinct from ordinary language.56

52 For an example of such an approach to ancient Greek poetics, see Martin: Language. This approach is developed further in more recent Homeric scholarship; see particularly Dickson: Nestor, who analyzes the ways in which references to the processes of poetic memory are embedded in the Homeric narrative itself. Cook: Odyssey, also attends to the signs within the epic tradition that indicate the interrelation of the poetic process with ritual. Seaford: Reciprocity, looks to the rituals of reciprocity (especially gift-giving and revenge) in Homer and the tragedies as the clues to the ways in which the performance is designating and shaping its audience. See also Gentili: Poetry. 53 This definition is that of Singer: India, xii–xiii, quoted in Sullivan: Sound, 1. 54 Sullivan: Sound, 1. 55 The consideration of the relationship between performer and audience has been stressed in recent scholarship on the poetics of Greek oral tradition. Gentili: Poetry, in particular, has explored Greek lyric poetry in terms of the poet’s relation to both patron and public. This discussion shifts the focus in studying the process of composition from understanding it as residing with the performer alone to an interest in the interaction between composer-performer and audience, as a way of analyzing the adaptation of song to the here and now of the audience (Gentili: Poetry, 49). It provides a way of examining the bonds of community among the audience and between performer and audience necessary for the reception of the performance. In particular, Gentili argues (Poetry, xii) that the performance itself, inasmuch as it draws upon both ancient narratives and ritual practices, permits the audience to locate their present situation in relation to larger cultural and historical traditions. Gentili (Poetry, 118, 233) calls for the modern interpreter of the texts of such performances to be “competent” in the linguistic, anthropological, sociological, pragmatic “codes” at work between performer and audience. 56 Bakker: Poetry, 184–210, in concentrating on the relationship between ordinary speech and the special speech of poetic performance in oral tradition, argues that special speech is necessary to the expression of myth; that is, the customs of mythic expression become embedded in the formulas and phrases used within the tradition for these marked stories and ritual actions. Alexiou: Antiquity, studying the continuities of Greek language and narrative from the archaic period into modern Greece, argues that language, myth, metaphor, and ritual cannot be dissociated from one another; rather language is comprised of metaphors, which are at every turn both carrying myth and ritual and motivated by the myth and ritual. Thus understanding a linguistic utterance entails recognizing both the metaphorical aspects of language and the mythic content of those metaphors. On this basis, Alexiou explores how society is constituted not only by myth but also by metaphor, thus relating both lyric and narrative performances to the expertise of audience or community, as well as the expertise of the performer. See in particular Alexiou: Antiquity, chapters 5 and 9.

Introduction

25

“Ritual” is comprised of such performances, and I use it particularly to point to the practices by which a community reenacts its identity and constitutes itself.57 On occasion, I also use “liturgy” and “liturgical” — terms more familiar in scholarship on early Christianity — interchangeably with rite and ritual, but particularly of the actions of the community gathered for worship. Most important for this study is the interrelation of ritual and “myth,” although on the whole I avoid the term “myth” because of the negative freight it carries in Christian theology as something that is opposed to “truth.” From an anthropological perspective, however, I consider “myth” as the way in which a culture speaks of what is most true of itself and accept the working definition of “myth” as “a traditional narrative that is used as a designation of reality. Myth is applied narrative. Myth describes a meaningful and important reality that applies to the aggregate, going beyond the individual.”58 The performance of myth in narrative and song belongs to the ritual of a community, as much as do performances of myth in the ritual practices. Such narrative and song are thus ritual speech; as performative they create a certain reality in the community, which is an interpretation or performance of the “myth.”59 Throughout this study, I speak of this “applied narrative” in terms of the cult legend of Israel, that is, the story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, their journey through the wilderness with its trials, and their entry into the promised land. The notion of “cult” and “cultic” here encompasses the ritual life of the community, the sacred performances including narratives and songs, and the other ways in which it reenacts and secures its identity. A cultic legend is that foundational narrative that stands at the center of the community’s life; it is not static but rather a continual performance in the present of the identity given from the past. “Remembering” is thus a matter of cultic practice.60 It will be essential to examine the transformations of the cult legend and practices of Israel in terms of the cultic life of various early Christian communities.61 In doing so,

57 This working definition is informed primarily by that of Walter Burkert: “Ritual, in its outward aspect, is a programme of demonstrative acts to be performed in set sequence and often at a set place and time — sacred insofar as every omission or deviation arouses deep anxiety and calls forth sanctions. As communication and social imprinting, ritual establishes and secures the solidarity of the closed group.” See Burkert: Greek Religion, 8; and the discussion in Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 30. 58 This definition is Nagy’s modification of that of Burkert. See Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 31; and Burkert: Denken, 29. See also the discussion in Nagy: Poetry, 54–55. 59 For a perspective that understands a culture’s act of interpretation as a performance, see Sullivan: Sound, 28. With specific reference to biblical interpretation, see Furnish: Paul, 13. 60 We may mention in passing here the centrality of “remembrance” (rRkEz) to the cult practices of Israel; to remember is to reenact the foundational legends of the people of God with reference to particular events and festivals. 61 Nils Dahl’s discussion of memory and commemoration in early Christianity points in this direction; see Dahl: Jesus, 14. See also Bonnard: Anamnesis.

26

Introduction

we shall see the way in which the cult legend, various songs, and prophecies are actualized in a story that is bound into ritual. This process by which the past “there and then” of the cult legend or myth of the community is actualized in the present “here and now” of the community can be designated as “reenactment.” Here I am indebted to Nagy’s analysis of Aristotle’s definition of mivmhsi" as “this is that,” a definition that in the Poetics arises out of Aristotle’s consideration of the relationship between the events of myth and their ritual performance in tragedy.62 Mimesis can thus designate a ritual process, whereby the events of the past are reenacted in the present. Such mimesis, according to Aristotle, is not a pale imitation of the real thing; rather it presents the events of the past in such a way that for the people taking part the reenactment is the real thing. Nor does the relationship need to be only one to one; mimesis can include a reenacting of previous reenactments, previous occasions of actualization. As we discuss the ways in which the cult legend of Israel is reenacted in terms of Jesus, we shall need to consider the previous reenactments and actualizations of scripture that are encompassed in this new story. The task here is to identify the components of this reenactment as it comes to incorporate the new event of Jesus’ death. It is necessary for us to understand, moreover, the constructions of meaning and identity involved in the experiments in forming new community around this memory, as we see them in 1 Corinthians, 1 Peter, Barnabas, and Hebrews. To tell the story of Jesus’ death is to tell an old story anew, wherein the fate of the individual and the constitution of the community are inextricably woven together.

62 Aristotle Poetics 1448b17; see also Rhetoric 1.137a21. See the discussion in Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 42–44; and Nagy: Poetry, 55.

Chapter I First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult 1. Introduction This chapter undertakes an exploration of 1 Corinthians in order to identify traces of the process by which a narrative about Jesus’ suffering and death came into being. To this end, I examine how Jesus’ death is presented and brought into remembrance in this epistle. It is particularly significant that two of the instances where Paul makes use of traditional material — the eucharistic words in 1 Cor 11:23–25 and the kerygmatic formula in 1 Cor 15:3–5 — contain references to Jesus’ death. Through these passages we may glimpse early stages in the formation of narrative, practice, and Christian community around the memory of Jesus. We shall look here, as with the other texts under consideration, at the relation of remembering Jesus’ death to the scriptures of Israel, the cultic practice of the community, authoritative utterances, and the ways in which the community is constituted. Because of its quotation of early material concerning Jesus’ death and its extended concern with the ritual practice of the community, 1 Corinthians provides a suitable opportunity to test the hypothesis that the memory of Jesus’ suffering and death developed in relation to the cultic practice of various early Christian communities. Written by the apostle Paul around 53 to 55 C.E. from the city of Ephesus, 1 Corinthians is clearly a letter to the Christian community in Corinth.1 In it, Paul addresses issues around which there is particular disagreement in the community, matters of practice and belief. Margaret M. Mitchell has argued that 1 Corinthians is a rhetorical unity, utilizing deliberative rhetoric within a symbouleutic letter in order to contend with pervasive factionalism. She identifies 1 Cor 1:10 as the thesis of the argument,2 parakalw' de; uJma'", ajdelfoiv, dia; tou' ojnovmato" tou' kurivou hJmw'n ∆Ihsou' Cristou', i{na to; aujto; levghte pavnte" kai; mh; h\/ ejn uJmi'n scivsmata, h\te de; kathrtismevnoi ejn tw'/ aujtw'/ noi÷ kai; ejn th'/ aujth'/ gnwvmh/.

1 Koester: Introduction, 120–121, dates the epistle to the winter of 53/54 C . E . on the basis of the chronology of Paul’s journeys in Acts. For a summary of questions of dating, see Betz/ Mitchell: Corinthians, 1143, who elect a broader dating of 53–55 C .E . On the place of writing, see 1 Cor 16:8, ejpimenw' de; ejn ∆Efevsw/ e{w" th'" penthkosth'" (“I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost”). 2 Mitchell: Paul, 1.

28

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

I exhort you, brothers and sisters, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, that there not be factions among you, and that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same opinion.

In making this argument, Paul employs many of the Greco-Roman topoi concerning factionalism, as well as eschatological traditions, sayings of Jesus, and materials bearing authority for the community. As a result, 1 Corinthians contains much that has to do with how the community conducts its common life. Although the epistle does not belong to the later genre of a church order, many of its interests are similar. I do not attempt here an analysis or interpretation of the entire epistle, although it is replete with references to cultic performance and identity. As a document concerned with factionalism within the Corinthian community, it also contains many indications of the practices and other ways in which the various groups in Corinth defined themselves. I have chosen instead to focus on the quotation of traditional material in 1 Cor 15:3–5 and the larger context of the eucharistic traditions and sayings in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. I do so because of the conspicuous presence of references to the scriptures of Israel in these passages. This feature provides better grounds upon which to inquire into the relation of the cult legend of Israel to telling a story of Jesus’ death. 2. 1 Cor 15:3–5: “That Which I Also Received” In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul turns to a discussion of the resurrection of the dead, a matter about which a divergence of belief apparently exists within the Corinthian congregation. The first of the several strategies that Paul employs in order to advance unity of belief about the resurrection of the dead involves reminding his audience of their common belief in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:12). Accordingly, he begins by recalling “the gospel” that they received, gnwrivzw de; uJmi'n, ajdelfoiv, to; eujaggevlion o} eujhggelisavmhn uJmi'n, o} kai; parelavbete, ejn w|/ kai; eJsthvkate, di∆ ou| kai; swv/zesqe, tivni lovgw/ eujhggelisavmhn uJmi'n eij katevcete, ejkto;" eij mh; eijkh'/ ejpisteuvsate. parevdwka ga;r uJmi'n ejn prwvtoi", o} kai; parevlabon, o{ti Cristo;" ajpevqanen uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'nhJmw'n kata; ta;" grafa;" kai; o{ti ejtavfh kai; o{ti ejghvgertai th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ kata; ta;" grafa;" kai; o{ti w[fqh Khfa'/ ei\ta toi'" dwvdeka: I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, which you also received, in which also you stand, through which also you were saved, by what word I preached to you, if you hold it fast, unless you have believed in vain. For I handed over to you as of first importance that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve … (1 Cor 15:1–5)

1 Cor 15:3–5: “That Which I Also Received”

29

It has long been recognized that in 1 Cor 15:3–5 Paul is quoting an existing formulation of the “gospel.” A number of features indicate the presence of a quotation here. First, Paul makes use of terminology that indicates the transmission of traditions: parevdwka (“I handed over”) and parelavbete (“you received”)/ parevlabon (“I received”), evident also in 1 Cor 11:23.3 Second, the fourfold repetition of o{ti (“that”) not only marks the quotation but also introduces each of its four members. Third, 1 Cor 15:3–5 contains diction that is not typical of Paul, namely, the use of the plural “sins” (tw'n aJmartiw'n),4 the phrase kata; ta;" grafav" (“according to the scriptures”), the use of the passive w[fqh with an active meaning plus the dative (“he appeared to”); and ejghvgertai (“he was raised”).5 Thus, there is little doubt that Paul has recourse here to a summary statement, which he knows as “the gospel” (to; eujaggevlion, 1 Cor 15:1) and which exists as transmitted tradition. Moreover, Paul clearly marks this statement in terms that set it apart and draw it to the special attention of his audience. He reminds them that they already know it, that they too stand in the chain of its transmission, and indeed that it is the foundation of their present state. We may say then that this quotation functions as an authoritative utterance for the community, and as they recognize it as such it establishes their identity and affiliation with one another. The structural features of this pre-Pauline formulation are apparent. Each of the four main verbs — ajpevqanen, ejtavfh, ejghvgertai, and w[fqh — is introduced by o{ti, which emphasizes each element of the quotation;6 the verbs, moreover, are divided into two groups by the repetition of kata; ta;" grafav" (“according to the scriptures”).7 Attempts to locate the source of this formula have noted the lack of an attribution ajpo; tou' kurivou (“from the Lord”) that appears in 1 Cor 11:23 and suggested that Paul understands it as deriving from community practice. The difficulty of retroverting the statement into Hebrew or 3 Wegenast: Verständnis, 57–70; Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 6. The terminology is similar to that used of the transmission of Pharisaic and rabbinic traditions, but here lacks any reference to the names of authoritative figures with whom the tradition originates. The naming of “Christ” may, however, serve the same function, especially since, as we shall see below, the meal tradition about “the Lord” in 1 Cor 11:23–26 grounds itself in the authoritative utterances of “the Lord.” 4 In Paul, the plural is found only in connection with traditional material, as at 1 Cor 15:17; Gal 1:4; and Rom 4:7; see Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 252. 5 Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 252. w[fqh and ejghvgertai are of course used in the following extension and development of the quotation in 1 Corinthians 15; they are not otherwise found in Paul. Among the deutero-Pauline epistles, w[fqh in this construction also occurs in the traditional creedal statement in 1 Tim 3:16; similarly the perfect passive of ejgeivrw is found in 2 Tim 2:8, which also reflects earlier traditions. 6 Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 254–255. 7 Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 255, saw the second verb in each group — ejtavfh and w[fqh — underlining the first, and proposed that the statement consisted originally of a twofold contrast — ajpevqanen and ejghvgertai— and was then expanded. See also Lohse: History, 4–6.

30

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

Aramaic, coupled with the resonances with the Septuagint, has argued for its provenance within a Greek-speaking congregation that used the scriptures of Israel, such as that in Damascus or Antioch.8 For our purposes, we may note that this statement is one of the earliest references to Jesus’ death. Moreover, each half of the statement is indexed by the phrase kata; ta;" grafav" (“according to the scriptures”). This presence of this expression has led to a number of attempts to locate the particular passages from the scriptures of Israel that correspond to the elements of the formula, principally to the pair of phrases, ajpevqanen uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n (“he died for our sins”) and ejghvgertai th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ (“he was raised on the third day”).9 Such an approach, however, bespeaks the mindset of quotation and fulfillment more typical of such early Christian apologetic texts as the Gospel of Matthew or the writings of Justin Martyr and beginning toward the end of the first century C.E. It is better, in my opinion, to take the phrase “according to the scriptures” as referring to a much broader experience of the scriptures of Israel, an experience in which the language, motifs, and stories of these scriptures become the means for telling the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection.10 Helmut Koester has characterized this entire statement as a “shorthand” reference to a larger context, that is, to the manner in which the story of Jesus’ death was available to the community.11 We may note that this statement, itself an authoritative and constitutive statement for the audience, makes recourse to “the scriptures.” That is to say, it derives its authority, at least in part, from the experience of those authoritative texts in the community. Moreover, it relates the events concerning Jesus to that experience. It is necessary to inquire into the performative content of this experience in order to understand how Jesus’ death was told; we shall return to this question at the end of this chapter. If we understand “according to the scriptures” as signaling that the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection was informed by the language, motifs, and stories of the scriptures of Israel, then it is still possible to find within this summary formula indications of scriptural passages — keystones, as it were — that may have contributed significantly to this narrative. It is clear that when Paul refers to scripture, he frequently does so in a way that is aware of the larger context of the allusion or quotation.12 It is reasonable to assume that this man8 Jeremias: Eucharistic Words, 101–105, argued for the formulation first existing in Aramaic, informed by the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53. Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 253, refutes Jeremias’s arguments, indicating among other points that kata; ta;" grafav" has no Aramaic equivalent. Much earlier, Heitmüller: Paulus, 331–332, maintained that the statement originated among Hellenistic Christians, most likely in Damascus; see also Lietzmann: Korinther. 9 See, for example, Héring: Corinthians, 158–159. 10 See also Wengst: Formeln, 95; Lohse: History, 103. 11 See Koester: Origin, 2; Koester: Cult; Koester: Presence, 541–557. 12 Koester: Origin, 2.

1 Cor 15:3–5: “That Which I Also Received”

31

ner of drawing in and interpreting scripture is also true for pre-Pauline kerygmatic formulas and hymns. Thus, as we shall see below in the analysis of 1 Corinthians 10, behind a single word or phrase stands an entire story, song, prophetic oracle, or other larger unit. A phrase may also betoken a network of associated passages and motifs. We may regard the two statements, Cristo;" ajpevqanen uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n (“Christ died for our sins”) and ejghvgertai th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ (“he was raised on the third day”), in this light. Neither is an attempt to find proof in scripture for the death and resurrection of Jesus as saving events; rather both point to passages of scripture that informed the telling of those events. It is a matter of the performance of the scriptures of Israel, a performance that now speaks of Jesus. The affinity between the phrase uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n (“for our sins”) in 1 Cor 15:3 and the statements about the servant in Isaiah 53 is generally accepted.13 Although the specific phrase uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n does not occur in Isaiah 53, the portrayal of the servant as one who was handed over, suffered, and died on account of sins accords well with this idea.14 We may note in particular Isa 53:4, ou|to" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n fevrei (“this one bears our sins”); Isa 53:5, memalavkistai dia; ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n (“he was weakened be-cause of our sins”); and Isa 53:6, kai; kuvrio" parevdwken aujto;n tai'" aJmartivai" hJmw'n (“and the Lord has handed him over to our sins”).15 Noting the variation in diction within pre-Pauline statements about Jesus’ death, Klaus Wengst has proposed a group of functional equivalents comprising a “Sterbensformel” or death-formula, informed by Isaiah 53. This formula speaks of Christ’s death “for us” or “for our sins,” with the prepositional constructions uJpevr + genitive, periv + genitive, or diav + accusative.16 The 13 See, for example, Seeberg: Katechismus, 45–58; Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 255 n. 61; Senft: Corinthiens, 188; Grelot: Poèmes, 140–141. Seeley: Death, 46, while rejecting the idea that Isaiah 53 plays an role in Paul’s soteriology, admits that 1 Cor 15:3 “may contain faint echoes” of the passage. 14 We may note, however, a similar construction, uJpe;r th'" aJmartiva" mou (“for my sin”) in Ps 38 (37):18 (19), a psalm of repentance, and the phrase uJpe;r ajnomiva" (“for lawlessness”) occurs in Ps 39 (38):11 (12); these occurrences are significant because both psalms share considerable diction of suffering with Isaiah 53. 15 It has also been suggested that Isa 53:9, kai; dwvsw tou;" ponhrou;" aj n ti; th'" tafh'" aujtou' kai; tou;" plousivou" ajnti; tou' qanavtou aujtou' (“and I will appoint the evil ones in the face of his tomb and the rich in the face of his death”) influences the formulation ajpevqanen … ejtavfh (“he died … he was buried,” 1 Cor 15:3); see Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 255 n. 61. 16 Wengst: Formeln, 79. See Gal 1:3–4, ajpo; qeou' patro;" hJmw'n kai; kurivou ∆Ihsou' Cristou' tou' dovnto" eJauto;n uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n (“from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins”); 1 Thess 5:9–10, dia; tou' kurivou hJmw'n ∆Ihsou' Cristou' tou' ajpoqanovnto" uJpe;r hJmw'n (“through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us”), where there is a significant textual variant, peri; hJmw'n; Rom 4:25, o}" paredovqh dia; ta; paraptwvmata hJmw'n kai; hjgevrqh dia; th;n dikaivwsin hJmw'n (“who was handed over on account

32

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

influence of Isaiah 53 does not, moreover, exclude other stories and songs about the suffering righteous from informing how the death of Jesus was told. Rather, its role in this summary kerygmatic formula indicates that it was prominent within this narrative and performative process. If I may anticipate my conclusions, I would suggest that Isaiah 53 is conspicuous within this formula because the portrayal of the servant was already central to the process of reenacting the cult legend of Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness and thus became a key element in the reenactment of that legend in terms of Jesus.17 Accepting the idea that Isaiah 53 contributed to the telling of Jesus’ suffering and death does not necessarily entail maintaining that the title “Suffering Servant,” whether or not it functioned as such in deutero-Isaiah, was central to early Christian concepts of Jesus.18 Nor does it mean that a theology of vicarious or expiatory suffering about Jesus supplied the reason for drawing the portrayal of the servant in Isaiah 53 into christological affirmations.19 It does not mean, moreover, anything about how Jesus thought about his ministry.20 Rather, as will become evident through the texts we explore, if we move away from the perspective that sees the scriptures of Israel functioning as proofs or testimonies within the early stages of speaking of Jesus’ death, then we can locate Isaiah 53 among other songs and stories that provide the language and patterns for the new story about Jesus. We shall then be in a better position to understand any salvific or atoning implications of the use of Isaiah 53, particularly as this text relates to the reenactment of the cultic narrative of communities. Just as Jesus’ death is indexed to the scriptures of Israel in the kerygmatic statement in 1 Cor 15:3 by means of the phrase uJpe;r aJmartiw'n hJmw'n, so too is the statement about his resurrection. The phrase th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ (“on the third day”) is frequently linked to Hos 6:2,21

of our transgressions and raised on account of our justification”). Hebrews prefers the construction peri; aJmartiw'n or peri; aJmartiva" (see Heb 5:3; 10:6; 10:8; 10:18; 10:26; 13:11), most likely because of its prominence in the prescriptions concerning the sacrifices at Yom Kippur. 17 The identity of the servant in deutero-Isaiah with Moses is the foundational argument in Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, especially 120–127. Baltzer notes that this identification was first proposed in 1922 by Sellin: Mose, 77–113. 18 See the caution in Juel: Review, 149. 19 For a rejection of the prominence of the prophecies of deutero-Isaiah within early Christian thought, and especially of vicarious or atoning interpretations of the servant’s sufferings, see Hooker: Servant. Snaith: Isaiah, 204–205, attempts to qualify Hooker’s position by arguing that deutero-Isaiah depicts not the vicarious or atoning sufferings of the servant, but rather the servant’s triumph over illogical sufferings, consequences of sins that were not his own. 20 Snaith: Isaiah, 209, concludes that Jesus deliberately modeled his ministry on the concept of the servant of deutero-Isaiah. 21 See McArthur: Third Day, 82; and Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 253.

1 Cor 15:3–5: “That Which I Also Received”

33

poreuqw'men kai; ejpistrevywmen pro;" kuvrion to;n qeo;n hJmw'n, o{ti aujto;" h{rpaken kai; ijavsetai hJma'", patavxei kai; motwvsei hJma'": uJgiavsei hJma'" meta; duvo hJmevra", ejn th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ ajnasthsovmeqa kai; zhsovmeqa ejnwvpion aujtou': Let us go and return to the Lord our God, because he has seized and he will heal us, he will strike and will bind us up. He will make us whole after two days, on the third day we shall be raised and shall live before him. (Hos 6:1–2)

McArthur argues that the statement in 1 Cor 15:4, kai; o{ti ejghvgertai th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ (“and that he was raised on the third day”), was derived from this passage, particularly because in somewhat later rabbinic sources the motif of deliverance or vindication on the third day is frequently associated with Hos 6:2. Although our considerations here lie primarily with the diction of Jesus’ suffering and death, we may note that the larger context around Hos 6:2 contains many of the motifs that are prominent in the reenactment of Jesus’ suffering, death, and vindication. In particular, the prophecy of Hosea is structured around the pattern of loosing and remaking the covenant, articulated formally in Hos 1:9 and Hos 2:25 (LXX). Hos 6:1–3 is itself a faithful response to the judgment of the Lord in the face of the transgressed covenant. We shall see that making and renewing the covenant proves to be significant in the performance of the memory of Jesus’ death, inasmuch as the fate of Jesus is determinative for the identity and status of the covenant community. In Barnabas a baptismal ritual is interpreted in terms of the covenant and specifically linked with the epithet “beloved” (hJgaphmevno") for Jesus; this diction is also prominent in Hosea.22 It seems likely that the covenantal prophecies of Hosea were important in narrating the vindication of Jesus, especially as it concerned the covenantal identity of the community. Moreover, there may be a hint here as to the ritual context for the telling of Jesus’ death and vindication, namely, in relation to practices relating to the renewal of the covenant. Such a context becomes more conceivable in view of the cultic concerns associated with the covenant and with Jesus’ death in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11.

22 Hos 2:25 (LXX), kai; sperw' aujth;n ejmautw'/ ejpi; th'" gh'" kai; ejlehvsw th;n Oujkhjlehmevnhn kai; ejrw' tw'/ Ouj-law'/-mou Laov" mou ei\ suv, kai; aujto;" ejrei' Kuvrio" oJ qeov" mou ei\ suv (the codices B and V add here kai; ajgaphvsw th;n oujk hjgaphmevnhn) (“And I shall sow her for myself on the land, and I shall have mercy on Not-pitied, and I shall say to Not-my-people, ‘You are my people,’ and he shall say, ‘You are the Lord my God’” [the codices B and V add here, “and I shall love her who was not beloved”]). Rom 9:25 appears to be familiar with a reading similar to that represented in B and V. Note also the place of quotations from Hosea in the extended catena of prophecies in Rom 9:25–33 within the discussion of the relation of Gentiles to the covenant with Israel. The quotations from Hosea are associated in the catena with ones from Isaiah 28 concerning the rejected stone that appear in connection with Jesus’ suffering in 1 Peter and Barnabas.

34

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

3. 1 Corinthians 10–11 In 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Paul addresses issues of concern to the Corinthian community and himself with regard to their eating practices, namely, the question of whether to eat food that has been offered in pagan worship and Paul’s observation that the cultic meal of the community is reflecting the divisions of the community rather than expressing its unity.23 If we look at these issues from the perspective of the proper performance of cult, rather than simply from the perspective of individual ethical behavior, it is possible to characterize what is at stake here as a contrast between the cultic meal properly performed and the cultic meal gone awry. In the two discussions of meal practice in these chapters, Paul makes use of eucharistic traditions as authoritative for community practice (1 Cor 10:16–21 and 11:23–26). In the second instance, Paul quotes the eucharistic tradition as something that he has received “from the Lord” (ajpo; tou' kurivou) and has handed on to the Corinthian community. This tradition appears as a saying of Jesus and is explicitly connected to Jesus’ death by the phrase, ejn th'/ nukti; h/| paredivdeto (“on the night on which he was handed over,” 1 Cor 11:23). Throughout this analysis of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, therefore, I wish to keep this quoted tradition in view and to ask specifically about the consequences of remembering Jesus’ words and actions as authoritative within the cultic context of the Corinthian community. What is the memory of Jesus that is constructed in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11? What is accomplished by remembering certain words and actions as words and actions of Jesus, particularly in connection with his death? Moreover, what is the relation of this act of remembering to the proper performance of cult? Answers to these questions may permit us to discern some indications of the formation of a narrative about Jesus’ death. To this end, I shall present a reading of materials in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 that attends to cult, comprised of both ritual and narrative, and to the function of authoritative speech in cultic context.24 It is important to be clear that by the phrase “the proper performance of cult” I do not mean solely a concern with whether the community is using the right words or performing the right actions in the execution of the ritual meal. Rather, this phrase refers to a reenactment that works, a reenactment in which the community can say of the cult legend as it expressed in ritual, “This is about us.” Thus, it is also a reenactment at every performance of which the community is constituted anew. At the heart of this theoretical understanding of reenactment and the proper performance of cult lies the Aristotelian notion of

23 See, for example, Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 170, 193, 202; Mitchell: Paul, 151–157. 24 See also Aitken: Eucharistic Memory, 359–370.

1 Corinthians 10–11

35

mimesis, ou|to" ejkei'no", “this is that.”25 We should be clear, moreover, that the assessment of whether a performance of cult “works” arises from within that same cultic tradition. Thus, in this reading of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, we encounter the perspective about the proper performance of cult that Paul inscribes in the text as his own and as his understanding of the cultic tradition of his audience. 1 Cor 10:1–13 The foundational legend of the cult of Israel is that narrative which includes the story of the exodus, the making of the covenant at Sinai, the time in the wilderness, and the entry into the land of promise.26 That this cult legend already had a long history of reenactment is evident, for example, from its forms in various liturgical texts associated with covenant renewal, from deutero-Isaiah, the Book of Judith, and various psalms, notably 78 (77), 95 (94), 105 (104), and 114 (113a). As we shall see below, texts such as the Epistle of Barnabas, Hebrews, and some of the baptismal hymns in 1 Peter demonstrate the ways in which this cult legend and the practice of covenant renewal were foundational for a number of early Christian communities in their experiments in cultic and social identity and in articulating the memory of Jesus. This cult legend, specifically Israel’s journey through the sea and its time in the wilderness, clearly underlies 1 Cor 10:1–13. Wayne Meeks has argued that this passage is a “midrashic homily,” composed independently of the rest of the epistle, whether by Paul or someone else, and employed in the epistle for parenetic purposes.27 Although he adopted the characterization, “homily,” Meeks did not discuss the form itself. Lawrence Wills, however, has identified the pattern of exempla, conclusion, and exhortation within this passage as corresponding to the form of the “word of exhortation” or sermon in hellenistic Ju25 26

Aristotle Poetics 1448b17. Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 42–44. It is important not to restrict this cult legend to the story of the Exodus from Egypt per se or to think of the observance of Passover as the sole cultic action that connected with this narrative. Such a narrowness of understanding is one of the difficulties with the approach of Jeremias: Eucharistic Words. Jeremias argued (pp. 41–84) that the accounts of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthians are best understood as describing a Passover meal and thus that Jesus’ death was interpreted in terms of the Passover sacrifice. Rather, the cult legend in its fullness comprises all the events from the departure from Egypt to the entry into the promised land, particular moments of which may be the focus of reenactment in cultic observance and in the self-understanding of the community. 27 Meeks: Urban Christians, 99. Meeks: Midrash, 64–78, presents a detailed development of this observation. Meeks adopts the terminology of “midrash” for this passage from Weiss: Korintherbrief, 250. See also Luz: Geschichtsverständnis, 118–119, who concludes that this passage consists of a Hellenistic-Jewish midrash, adopted and modified by Paul. Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 165, accepts 1 Cor 10:1–10 as “a piece of teaching that was already established before the composing of the epistle.” 1 Cor 10:1–4 is marked by a high degree of parataxis, as well as by notable p alliteration and h assonance, which may distinguish it from its context.

36

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

daism and early Christianity.28 We may note also that the passage begins with the phrase, ouj qevlw ga;r uJma'" ajgnoei'n (“I do not want you to be ignorant,” 1 Cor 10:1), which Paul frequently employs to introduce traditional material.29 Putting aside the question of whether the passage reflects Paul’s exegesis of scripture or that of the Corinthian congregation,30 we may observe that the argument that it is a sermon or homily locates the passage within the ritual practice of the community as an articulation of the cult legend. Here the foundational narrative of Israel is actualized, as I shall show, with specific reference to the cultic meal. Meeks’s analysis of the passage indicates its contrasting fivefold structure. There are five events in which “all our ancestors,” signaled by the five repetitions of pavnte", participated. ouj qevlw ga;r uJma'" ajgnoei'n, ajdelfoiv, o{ti oiJ patevre" hJmw'n pavnte" uJpo; th;n nefevlhn h\san kai; pavnte" dia; th'" qalavssh" dih'lqon kai; pavnte" eij" to;n Mwu>sh'n ejbaptivsqhsan ejn th'/ nefevlh/ kai; ejn th'/ qalavssh/ kai; pavnte" to; aujto; pneumatiko;n brw'ma e[fagon kai; pavnte" to; aujto; pneumatiko;n e[pion povma: e[pinon ga;r ejk pneumatikh'" ajkolouqouvsh" pevtra", hJ pevtra de; h\n oJ Cristov". For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all went through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed, and the rock was Christ. (1 Cor 10:1–4)

28 Wills: Form, 288–289, 299; see also Black: Rhetorical Form, 1–18, for a response to Wills’s article. A further line of investigation would concern whether 1 Cor 10:1–13 reflects the midrashic interpretation in diaspora Judaism in terms of either general practices or the patterns of association among these texts from the story of the Israelites in the wilderness. 29 Compare 1 Thess 4:13; 1 Cor 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; Rom 1:13; 11:25. See also Jeske: Rock, 246. 30 Although Meeks: Midrash, 65, asserted that 1 Cor 10:1–13 was composed prior to its use in the epistle, he was equivocal whether Paul himself composed it or used an existing source. Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 165, described 1 Cor 10:1–11 as “a self-contained, scribal discourse on passages from the biblical exodus narrative”; his comments on this passage appear to presume that the author was Paul. Jeske: Rock, 251, argued that in 1 Cor 10:1–17 it is possible to perceive an exegesis of the exodus as it was understood by the Corinthian community. He thereby isolated verses 1–4, 6a, 11, 13, and 16–17 as a Vorlage, which Paul adapted by interjecting comments. In the Corinthians’ ecclesiology, according to Jeske, they were the “eschatological community … which was free from the dangers that beset it” (p. 249), whose salvation was secure, and who could thus embrace a life-style characterized by “conscious engagement with the demons of the ages.” Mitchell: Paul, 138 n. 438, while agreeing with Jeske that the focus of the passage is ecclesiology, attributed the authorship to Paul, who “introduced the scriptural references himself … to respond to Corinthian factionalism.” Most recently, Schrage: Korinther, vol. 2, 383–384, has acknowledged that there may be a Vorlage employed here but that Paul has so reworked it that it is not possible to distinguish between the source and the redaction.

1 Corinthians 10–11

37

These are matched by five negative events in which “some” (tine") shared (1 Cor 10:5–10). ajll∆ oujk ejn toi'" pleivosin aujtw'n eujdovkhsen oJ qeov", katestrwvqhsan ga;r ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/. tau'ta de; tuvpoi hJmw'n ejgenhvqhsan, eij" to; mh; ei\nai hJma'" ejpiqumhta;" kakw'n, kaqw;" kajkei'noi ejpequvmhsan. mhde; eijdwlolavtrai givnesqe kaqwv" tine" aujtw'n, w{sper gevgraptai: ejkavqisen oJ lao;" fagei'n kai; pei'n kai; ajnevsthsan paivzein. mhde; porneuvwmen, kaqwv" tine" aujtw'n ejpovrneusan kai; e[pesan mia'/ hJmevra/ ei[kosi trei'" ciliavde". mhde; ejkpeiravzwmen to;n Cristovn, kaqwv" tine" aujtw'n ejpeivrasan kai; uJpo; tw'n o[fewn ajpwvllunto. mhde; gogguvzete, kaqavper tine;" aujtw'n ejgovggusan kai; ajpwvlonto uJpo; tou' ojloqreutou'. But God was not pleased with the majority of them, for they were slain in the wilderness. And these things happened as types of us, so that we might not be desirers of evil things, as those ones also desired. Do not become idolaters, as some of them were, as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” Let us not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Let us not test Christ, as some of them tested and were destroyed by serpents. Do not murmur, as some of them murmured and were destroyed by the destroyer. (1 Cor 10:5–10)

All shared in cloud, sea, baptism into Moses, spiritual food, and spiritual drink, but some engaged in desiring evil things, the worship of idols, sexual immorality (porneiva), testing, and murmuring. The events are marked twice as tuvpoi, “types”: 1 Cor 10:6, tau'ta de; tuvpoi hJmw'n ejgenhvqhsan (“and these things happened as types of us”) forms an inclusio with 1 Cor 10:11, tau'ta de; tupikw'" sunevbainen ejkeivnoi", ejgravfh de; pro;" nouqesivan hJmw'n (“and these things happened to them by way of types and were written for our admonition”).31 The term tuvpoi functions as a key indicator of the process of reenactment of scripture in the here and now.32 Indicating the inclusio by the use of tuvpoi/ tupikw'" thus not only reinforces the passage’s structure, but also makes clear that the point of invoking the scriptural examples is that the cult legend is to be actualized in the life of the community. The passage contains only one explicit quotation of scripture, namely, the quotation of Exod 32:6 in 1 Cor 10:7, ejkavqisen oJ lao;" fagei'n kai; pei'n kai; ajnevsthsan paivzein (“the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play”). In its context in Exodus this statement refers to the ritual meal following the sacrifices made to the golden calf. It is thus a cultic meal in idolatrous circumstances (Exod 32:1–6). Philo’s description of the worship of the golden calf stresses the antithesis of this action to proper cultic performance, ei\ta crusou'n tau'ron kataskeuasavmenoi, mivmhma tou' kata; th;n cwvran iJerwtavtou zwv/ou dokou'nto" ei\nai, qusiva" ajquvtou" ajnh'gon kai; corou;" 31 32

Meeks: Midrash, 65. See the discussion in Zwettler: Manifesto, 95–101.

38

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

ajcoreuvtou" i{stasan u{mnou" te h\/don qrhvnwn oujde;n diafevronta" kai; ejmforhqevnte" ajkravtou diplh'/ mevqh/ kativsconto, th'/ me;n ejx oi[nou, th'/ de; kai; ajfrosuvnh", kwmavzontev" te kai; pannucivzonte" ajproovratoi tou' mevllonto" hJdevsi kakoi'" sunebivoun, ejfedreuouvsh" divkh", h} mh; blevponta" e[blepe kai; w|n a[xioi timwriw'n eijsin. Then, having fashioned a golden bull, an imitation of the animal held most sacred in that country, they offered sacrifices which were no sacrifices, set up choirs which were no choirs, sang hymns which differed in no way from laments, and, filled with strong drink, were overcome by the twofold intoxication of wine and folly. And so, reveling and carousing the entire night, and unwary of the future, they lived wedded to their pleasant vices, while justice, the unseen watcher of them and the punishments they deserved, stood ready to strike. (Philo Vit. Mos. 2.162)

In the episode of the golden calf we have a cultic meal gone terribly awry; it is a covenant sacrifice and meal to what is not God. Meeks argues, furthermore, that the verb paivzein, “to play,” encompasses all the idolatrous and rebellious actions named here in 1 Corinthians and that the entire passage is founded on an exegesis of this verse from Exodus 32.33 The episode of the golden calf appears central to the negative examples in 1 Cor 10:1–13, especially since it is highlighted by the explicit quotation of scripture. As the preeminent example of a cultic meal gone wrong, it contrasts with another, equally central, cultic and covenantal meal, reference to which is submerged in the first section of the passage. In Exod 32:6 the offerings brought to the golden calf are named in Greek as qusiva swthrivou (“a sacrifice of well-being [or salvation]”). kai; ejdevxato ejk tw'n ceirw'n aujtw'n kai; e[plasen aujta; ejn th'/ grafivdi kai; ejpoivhsen aujta; movscon cwneuto;n kai; ei\pen ou|toi oiJ qeoiv sou, ∆Israh;l, oi{tine" ajnebivbasavn se ejk gh'" Aijguvptou. kai; ijdw;n ∆Aarw;n wj/kodovmhsen qusiasthvrion katevnanti aujtou', kai; ejkhvruxen ∆Aarw;n levgwn eJorth; tou' kurivou au[rion. kai; ojrqrivsa" th'/ ejpauvrion ajnebivbasen oJlokautwvmata kai; proshvnegken qusivan swthrivou, kai; ejkavqisen oJ lao;" fagei'n kai; piei'n kai; ajnevsthsan paivzein. And he took [the gold earrings] from their hands and formed them in the mold and made them into a molten calf and said, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it, and Aaron proclaimed, saying, “Tomorrow is a feast of the Lord.” Rising early on the next day, he brought up burnt offerings and 33 Meeks: Midrash, 69–70. For the purposes of understanding how the reenactment of scriptural memory contributes to the formation of the passion narrative, it is worth noting that the semantic range of paivzein and ejmpaivzein includes “to mock, to make fun of” and that ejmpaivzein is used for the mocking of Jesus in Mark 15:20, 31. Meeks notes that the use of paivzein in the quotation would readily suggest the episodes of “testing Christ” and “grumbling” in 1 Cor 10:9 and 10, but did not explicitly connect this use with the passion narrative.

1 Corinthians 10–11

39

offered a sacrifice of well-being, and the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. (Exod 32:4–6)

This instance is the only time in the scriptures of Israel that this technical term is used within a negative context. Moreover, although the term occurs repeatedly in Numbers and Leviticus, particularly in the context of the ritual instructions for this sacrifice,34 it occurs in only one other episode in Exodus. Exodus 24 narrates the ritual for the making of covenant at Sinai; here the offerings for the ratification of the covenant are named as qusiva swthrivou (Exod 24:5). This phrase thus connects the two episodes as contrasting rituals. After the sacrifice in Exodus 24, not only does Moses sprinkle the altar with the blood of the sacrifices and read the book of the covenant to the people, but he also sprinkles the people with the blood, saying, “See the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (ijdou; to; ai|ma th'" diaqhvkh", h|" dievqeto kuvrio" pro;" uJma'" peri; pavntwn tw'n lovgwn touvtwn, Exod 24:8). That this statement has a close connection with the interpretation contained in the eucharistic word of Jesus over the cup in 1 Cor 11:25, tou'to to; pothvrion hJ kainh; diaqhvkh ejsti;n ejn tw'/ ejmw'/ ai{mati (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”) is generally acknowledged because of the similarity between to; ai|ma th'" diaqhvkh" and hJ kainh; diaqhvkh ejn tw/' ai{mati.35 Here we have one link between Exodus 24 and the cultic meal of 1 Corinthians, but we must yet consider the meal that accompanies the making of the covenant in Exodus 24. After the sprinkling with the blood of the covenant, Moses and the leaders of Israel ascend part way up the mountain, where they eat and they drink in the presence of God. kai; ajnevbh Mwu>sh'" kai; ∆Aarw;n kai; Nada;b kai; ∆Abiou;d kai; eJbdomhvkonta th'" gerousiva" ∆Israh;l kai; ei\don to;n tovpon, ou| eiJsthvkei ejkei' oJ qeo;" tou' ∆Israhvl: kai; ta; uJpo; tou;" povda" aujtou' wJsei; e[rgon plivnqou sapfeivrou kai; w{sper ei\do" sterewvmato" tou' oujranou' th'/ kaqariovthti. kai; tw'n ejpilevktwn tou' ∆Israhvl ouj diefwvnhsen oujde; ei|": kai; w[fqhsan ejn tw'/ tovpw/ tou' qeou' kai; e[fagon kai; e[pion. And Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the place there where the God of Israel stood; what was under his feet was like the work of sapphire brick and like the appearance of the firmament of heaven in purity. And not one of those summoned of Israel de-

34 35

See especially Lev 3:1–17 and 7:11–18. Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 199; Héring: Corinthians, 116–117; Barrett: Commentary, 268–269; Lietzmann: Korinther, 57.

40

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

serted; they appeared in the place of God and they ate and they drank. (Exod 24:9–11)36

The leaders then remain where they are on the mountain, while Moses goes farther up. It is significant, however, that the cloud comes and covers the whole mountain (Exod 24:15). The meal that the leaders of Israel share on the mountain in the divine presence functions, in my opinion, as the covenant meal for the ratification of the Sinai covenant. As such it contrasts with the idolatrous meal following the covenant with the golden calf.37 I would argue that it is this episode to which 1 Cor 10:1–4 primarily refers. The widespread interpretation of the phrase, “Our ancestors were all under the cloud,” is that it refers to the pillar of cloud that went before the Israelites by day as they journeyed (Exod 13:21). Recourse is usually made to the psalm of the exodus, Ps 105 (104):39a, diepevtasen nefevlhn eij" skevphn aujtoi'" (“He spread out a cloud upon them for a shelter”) in order to explain the discrepancy between being under a cloud and following behind a pillar of cloud.38 Although I would not exclude the resonance of this motif in 1 Corinthians 10, I suggest that Exodus 24 supplies the narrative that is primarily activated by 1 Corinthians. I do so first because Exodus 24 also contains the reference to eating and drinking in the presence of God, which corresponds well with “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink.” The food and drink are pneumatikav (“spiritual”) because they are a covenant meal in the divine presence. It is true that 1 Cor 10:4b explicates the spiritual drink as coming from the following rock (which was Christ), but this explication breaks up the parallel structure of the passage and may well be a gloss.39 Indeed, the manna and miraculous water 36 The differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are striking. The Masoretic text reads, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. He did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank” (Exod 24:9–11). As is frequently the case, the Septuagint avoids the directness of seeing God. The phrase, “not one of those summoned of Israel deserted,” in place of “he did not lay his hand on the chief men of Israel” is significant in light of the emphasis in 1 Corinthians 10. 1 Cor 10:1–4 stresses the experience of all the ancestors, whereas 1 Cor 10:6–11 draws out their subsequent desertion and quarreling (diefwvnhsen may also be translated “disagreed”). 37 Callan: Paul, 3, points out the role that the interpretation of the episode of the golden calf plays in the contrast between the meal of the Christian community and idolatry in 1 Cor 10:16–22. 38 See, for example, Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 165. Most commentators also cite Wis 10:17, kai; ejgevneto aujtoi'" eij" skevphn hJmevra" kai; eij" flovga a[strwn th;n nuvkta (“and she [Wisdom] became for them for a covering by day and a pillar of stars by night”) and Wis 19:7, hJ th;n parembolh;n skiavzousa nefevlh (“the cloud which was overshadowing the camp”). 39 1 Cor 10:4c, hJ pevtra de; h\n oJ Cristov" (“and the rock was Christ”) is very likely to be a Pauline gloss; see Luz: Geschichtsverständnis, 118; and Meeks: Midrash, 64. In making this interpretation, Paul draws upon wisdom traditions that identify the miraculous well and the

1 Corinthians 10–11

41

in the wilderness, as expressions of divine faithfulness to the covenant, may have been understood as extensions of the covenant meal on Sinai. It may be objected that the order of items in 1 Cor 10:1–4 — cloud, sea, baptism into Moses in cloud and sea, food, and drink — precludes using Exodus 24 as the primary frame of reference. The fact that the cloud twice comes before the sea would, in this view, mean that it necessarily refers to the pillar of cloud that goes before the Israelites to lead to them to the Red Sea (Exod 13:21) and protect them from the Egyptians as they cross the water (Exod 14:19–20). The spiritual food and drink would then be the manna and the water in the wilderness, which all the Israelites share. This may be the case, but I would argue nonetheless that there is a contrast between wilderness meals associated with faithfulness to the covenant and wilderness meals associated with idolatry. It is important to remember, moreover, that in the cult legend the cloud is always the same cloud; it is always the manifestation of the divine presence and as such functions almost as a character in the narrative. That is, the cloud can be taken as the sign of the covenantal presence of God wherever it occurs in the narrative, even if it is before the explicit making of the covenant at Sinai. We need not, therefore, be bound to selecting one appearance of the cloud to the exclusion of others; if the covenant meal in the presence of God in Exodus 24 stands in the foreground of 1 Cor 10:1–4, then the other stories about the cloud, as well as about miraculous food, stand in the background. A second reason for connecting Exodus 24 with 1 Corinthians 10 is the problematic phrase eij" to;n Mwu>sh'" ejbaptivsqhsan (“they were baptized into Moses”).40 The phrase is formulated by analogy to the baptismal formula, eij" Cristo;n baptisqh'nai (“to be baptized into Christ”), that Paul uses elsewhere (Gal 3:27 and Rom 6:3).41 The baptismal formula, in Pauline usage, denotes entry into the covenant defined by Jesus’ death and is a ritual of identification with Christ. Similarly baptism into Moses here denotes entry into the covenant at Sinai and identification with Moses.42 In this expression, we see the link be-

water from the rock in the wilderness with divine wisdom (compare Philo Leg. all. 2.86); see Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 167. Malina: Manna, 97, points out that the omission of the giving of the Law is remarkable, but may be explained by traditions of interpreting the well either as the Law or as imparting the Law. Malina refers to rabbinic traditions as well as to the exegesis of Num 21:18 in CD 6.3–4. See also Cullmann: pevtra, 97. If it is an interpretive gloss and if 1 Cor 10:1–4 derives from a homily belonging to the Corinthian community, it is not required to see the identification of the rock with Christ as the work of Paul; this gloss could equally be added within the evolution of the homiletic material in the community. 40 Reading the aorist middle ejbaptivsanto (“they baptized themselves”) found in a number of important witnesses would not significantly alter my interpretation. 41 Mitchell: Paul, 138 n. 436; and Barrett: Commentary, 221. Paul plays with this for mula in his discussion of the factions in Corinth by asking, “or were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (h] eij" to; o[noma Pauvlou ejbaptivsqhte… 1 Cor 1:13). See also Schrage: Korinther, vol. 2, 391. 42 Christiansen: Covenant, 291–293, 301–302.

42

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

tween the fate of the individual (Moses, Jesus) and the new identity and status of the members of the community. Four of the five items in 1 Cor 10:1–4 then can be connected with Exodus 24. That is, they are linked to a portion of the cult legend that is already activated by the eucharistic word over the cup and which contrasts particularly with the idolatrous meal in Exodus 32. Thus, at the heart of this homily is a contrast between two cultic meals, one eaten in the presence of the Lord and one in the presence of an idol, the golden calf. This contrast is precisely that which Paul makes in 1 Cor 10:19–21, namely, between the table of the Lord and the table of demons, when he addresses the problem of Christians’ participation in sacrificial meals in pagan cults. In order to draw out this contrast, Paul employs the diction of the Song of Moses from Deuteronomy 32. He describes the sacrificial meals in the terms that the Song uses of the idolatrous worship in the wilderness. We may compare 1 Cor 10:20, ajll∆ o{ti a} quvousin, daimonivoi" kai; ouj qew'/ quvousin (“but [I say] that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God”) with Deut 32:17a, e[qusan daimonivoi" kai; ouj qew'/ (“they sacrificed to demons and not to God”). Paul also concludes this argument with the rhetorical questions, h] parazhlou'men to;n kuvrion… mh; ijscurovteroi aujtou' ejsmen… (“Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” 1 Cor 10:22). In the first question, the verb parazhlovw serves as another link to the Song of Moses. In the continuation of God’s response to the idolatry in the wilderness, parazhlovw occurs twice, aujtoi; parezhvlwsavn me ejp’ ouj qew'/, parwvrgisavn me ejn toi'" eijdwvloi" aujtw'n: kajgw; parazhlwvsw aujtou;" ejp’ oujk e[qnei, ejp’ e[qnei ajsunevtw/ parorgiw' aujtouv". They have provoked me to jealousy at what is not God, they have angered me with their idols; and I will provoke them to jealousy at what is not a people, and I will anger them with a foolish people. (Deut 32:21)43

This song is not only a central cultic text about the covenant, it is also employed frequently, as we shall see, in the formation of a story about Jesus’ passion when that death is understood in covenantal terms. It is important to bear in mind also that the Song of Moses is closely related to the death of Moses both on a narrative level as one of Moses’ last acts and because it functions as a 43 parazhlovw is also one of the key words in Psalm 78 (77), in its poetic retelling of the experience in the wilderness, kai; parwvrgisan aujto;n ejn toi'" bounoi'" aujtw'n kai; ejn toi'" gluptoi'" aujtw'n parezhvlwsan aujtovn (“and they angered him with their high places and provoked him to anger with their statues,” Ps 78 [77]:57 [58]).

1 Corinthians 10–11

43

reenactment of the cult legend, recalling the community to faithfulness and acting as a witness for the covenant (Deut 31:19).44 Its performance, in my view, compensates for the death of Moses inasmuch as in the absence of Moses it stands as a witness against the people of God in the event of their unfaithfulness to the covenant (Deut 31:19–22). The effectiveness of employing the Song of Moses here in 1 Cor 10:14–22 depends upon the community’s identity in relation to the cult legend of Israel. It serves as a reminder of the covenant and of the consequences of falling away. In order to see more clearly the contrast with the meals associated with idolatry, we can consider the other episodes summarized in the second part of the homily, in addition to the idolatry of the golden calf. As in the first section, where the events in which “all” shared are alluded to simply by a key word, here too an entire episode of the cult legend is mentioned only in a summary fashion. The result is a text that assumes familiarity with the stories and their larger contexts. The summary statement in 1 Cor 10:5 contains the rare verb, katastrwvnnumi. ajll∆ oujk ejn toi'" pleivosin aujtw'n eujdovkhsen oJ qeov", katestrwvqhsan ga;r ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/. But God was not pleased with the majority of them, for they were slain in the wilderness.

The use of this verb here recalls Moses’ intercession for the Israelites following their murmuring and complaint in Numbers 14. Moses tries to persuade God not to disinherit and kill the people, by pointing out that such action will give God a bad reputation among the Egyptians and other nations, kai; ejktrivyei" to;n lao;n tou'ton wJsei; a[nqrwpon e{na, kai; ejrou'sin ta; e[qnh, o{soi ajkhkovasin to; o[nomav sou, levgonte" para; to; mh; duvnasqai kuvrion eijsagagei'n to;n lao;n tou'ton eij" th;n gh'n, h}n w[mosen aujtoi'", katevstrwsen aujtou;" ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/. And you will wipe out this people as one person, and the nations, as many as have heard your name, shall say, “Because the Lord was not able to lead this people into the land, which he promised them, he slew them in the desert.” (Num 14:15–16) 44 The discussion of the role of the Song of Moses in Barnabas below develops this thought in greater detail. Swancutt: Rock, has proposed that Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 32 together with his quotation of and allusion to a number of biblical hymns that name the God of deliverance as the “rock” suggests the existence of a collection of such hymns in use in some early Christian congregations. We may also note that Meeks: Midrash, 66, suggests that the homiletic form of 1 Cor 10:1–13 was similar to the admonitory form of the Song of Moses, among other texts.

44

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

Moses’ intercession is of course only partially successful: God does slay this generation in the desert, but permits the next, led by Joshua and Caleb, to enter the land of promise. katastrwvnnumi thus serves as an appropriate key word to summarize God’s response to the various idolatries and abuses in the wilderness.45 It is implicit in God’s response, moreover, that Moses will not enter the land but will be among the generation that dies beforehand (Num 14:20–35). This is the first indication of the death of Moses in the wilderness. Each of the five examples is presented in 1 Cor 10:6–10 in terms of a negative exhortation, “Do not do this, as they did”; the purpose of the “types” is that the community addressed might not do the same thing. The result of this formulation is to draw upon an identity between the audience and the wilderness generation, but also to place a distance between the two in that the audience still possesses the possibility of faithful and proper performance of the covenant. Thus, they are first told to avoid being “desirers of evil things, as those ones also desired” (eij" to; mh; ei\nai hJma'" ejpiqumhta;" kakw'n, kaqw;" kajkei'noi ejpequvmhsan, 1 Cor 10:6). “Desiring evil things” is a specific reference to the craving for meat in Numbers 11.46 This episode is structured as an etiological legend for the place name Kibroth-hattaavah, or in the Septuagint, Mnhvmata th'" ejpiqumiva", “graves of desire.”47 The giving of the place name is connected, within the narrative, to God’s anger with the people and with the plague that God sends to destroy a large number of them. ta; kreva e[ti h\n ejn toi'" ojdou'sin aujtw'n pri;n h] ejkleivpein, kai; kuvrio" ejqumwvqh eij" to;n laovn, kai; ejpavtaxen kuvrio" to;n lao;n plhgh;n megavlhn sfovdra. kai; ejklhvqh to; o[noma tou' tovpou ejkeivnou Mnhvmata th'" ejpiqumiva", o{ti ejkei' e[qayan to;n lao;n to;n ejpiqumhthvn. And the meat was still in their teeth before it was consumed, and the Lord was incensed at the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very great

45 Mitchell: Paul, 138–139 n. 439, contends that 1 Cor 10:5 refers not to Num 14:16, but to the episode at Kibroth-hattaavah in Numbers 11, where the Israelites who desired meat were killed with a great plague. She argues for this connection because of the prominence of the verb “desire” in Numbers 11, which she links with 1 Cor 10:6, kaqw;" kajkei'noi ejpequvmhsan (“as those ones also desired”). I agree entirely with her observation that 1 Cor 10:6 refers to Numbers 11, but I would not take 1 Cor 10:5–6 as a single unit. The interpretive assertion, tau'ta de; tuvpoi hJmw'n ejgenhvqhsan (“these things happened as types of us”), essential to the structure of the whole passage, interrupts the two ideas and appears to mark the beginning of the contrasting list of five negative examples. In addition, the fact that within the Pentateuch katastrwvnnumi occurs only here and that in the New Testament its use in 1 Cor 10:5 is a hapax legomenon argues for some link between the two passages. Thus, 1 Cor 10:5 serves appropriately as a summary statement of God’s response to all the problems in the wilderness, much as Moses’ intercession in Numbers 14 concerns not a single episode but the whole covenant relation. 46 Schrage: Korinther, vol. 2, 397; Meeks: Midrash, 68; Barbaglio: Corinzi, 474. 47 Mitchell: Paul, 138–139 n. 439.

1 Corinthians 10–11

45

plague. And the name of that place was called, “Graves of Desire,” because there they buried the desirous people. (Num 11:33–34)

The emphasis in this episode is not so much on desiring meat in itself, but on this desire as a complaint against Moses and God. Bruce Malina has observed that the manna traditions are usually linked with the motifs of complaint or testing and presented in some kind of homiletic or cultic framework.48 The complaints concerning food directed at Moses (Num 11:4–6) are in his view consistently interpreted as complaints against the Lord.49 Within the larger framework of the cult legend, therefore, this episode belongs with those that speak of the sufferings and abuse of Moses and God in the wilderness, as well as with those that contribute to Moses’ death before the entry into the land. The second negative example is that of the idolatry before the golden calf, which we have examined above as paradigmatic for the whole presentation of the cult legend in 1 Cor 10:1–13. The third episode concerns sexual immorality, mhde; porneuvwmen kaqwv" tine" aujtw'n ejpovrneusan kai; e[pesan mia'/ hJmevra/ ei[kosi trei'" ciliavde" (“let us not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day,” 1 Cor 10:8). Here the warning against sexual immorality (porneiva) is connected to the episode narrated in Numbers 25, where this activity was associated with idolatrous worship of Baal of Peor and its meals.50 kai; katevlusen ∆Israh;l ejn Sattivn: kai; ejbebhlwvqh oJ lao;" ejkporneu'sai eij" ta;" qugatevra" Mwavb. kai; ejkavlesan aujtou;" ejpi; tai'" qusivai" tw'n eijdwvlwn aujtw'n, kai; e[fagen oJ lao;" tw'n qusiw'n aujtw'n kai; prosekuvnhsan toi'" eijdwvloi" aujtw'n. And Israel lodged in Shittim. And the people were profaned by indulging in sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab. And they invited them to the sacrifices for their idols, and the people ate of their sacrifices and worshipped their idols. (Num 25:1–2)

The resulting anger of God brings a plague that kills, according to Num 25:9, twenty-four thousand of the Israelites. The pattern is similar to that in the first example. In this instance, porneuvw (“to indulge in sexual immorality”) is the key word in 1 Cor 10:8 that, together with the numbering of the dead, evokes the episode from Numbers 25. The dimensions concerning the meal and the idolatry are not explicitly mentioned in 1 Cor 10:8, but once the episode is recalled the themes of idolatry and improper cultic meals come into play as well. The story from Numbers 25 is thus closely tied to the motifs of 1 Cor 10:1–13. 48 49 50

Malina: Manna, 39. Malina: Manna, 24. Schrage: Korinther, vol. 2, 400.

46

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

Next, the audience is exhorted, “Let us not test Christ, as some of them tested and were destroyed by serpents” (mhde; ejkpeiravzwmen to;n Cristovn, kaqwv" tine" aujtw'n ejpeivrasan kai; uJpo; tw'n o[fewn ajpwvllunto, 1 Cor 10:9).51 The motif of testing and being destroyed by serpents in 1 Cor 10:9 comes from the episode at the waters of Meribah, which is related twice — in Num 20:1–13 and Exod 17:1–7. (Being destroyed by serpents actually derives from Num 21:4–9, but is taken here as part of the same story.) Indeed in Exodus 17, testing becomes the key word for the episode, expressed in the place name, Massah, which the Septuagint translates as Peirasmov". This event is an instance of problematic drinking, which matches the problematic eating elsewhere. In Numbers and Deuteronomy the episodes at Meribah and Massah are the reasons for the death of Moses prior to the entry into the promised land. As we shall see in our investigations below, this episode appears central to the construction of a narrative about the suffering and death of Jesus. Indeed, concern for the fate of Moses in the wilderness appears likely to contribute to the construction of narrative about the fate of Jesus. The lack of a direct object for peivrasan (“they tested”) in 1 Cor 10:9 is striking; on the basis of parallelism with the preceding, mhde; ejkpeiravzwmen to;n Cristovn (“let us not test Christ”) and with the narratives in Exodus and Numbers, we might expect God or Moses as the object. We are instead faced with a certain effacement of Moses in this retelling of the wilderness narrative. I suggest that this feature may be related to the death of Moses and the motif of the blotting out of his name.52 Baltzer, in his argument that the servant of deuteroIsaiah is to be identified with Moses, locates the possible reason for the anonymity of the servant in Moses’ oath after the episode of the golden calf, kai; nu'n eij me;n ajfei'" aujtoi'" th;n aJmartivan, a[fe": eij de; mhv, ejxavleiyovn me ejk th'" bivblou sou, h|" e[graya". kai; ei\pen kuvrio" pro;" Mwu>sh'n ei[ ti" hJmavrthken ejnwvpiovn mou, ejxaleivyw aujto;n ejk th'" bivblou mou. “And now, if you forgive them the sin, you have forgiven. But if not, wipe me out of your book, which you have written.” And the Lord said to Moses, “If any one sins before me, I shall wipe him out of my book.” (Exod 32:32–33)

Not only does Moses die before entering the promised land, because of the sin of the people, but his presence is effaced from the account.53 If this proposal is 51 A number of witnesses read here kuvrion rather than Cristovn; the manuscript evidence for each reading is equally strong. Cristovn, however, is the more difficult reading, introducing a new element into the retelling of Numbers 25, whereas kuvrion would fit without novelty into the situation in the wilderness. 52 See Baltzer: Erhöhung, 55. 53 Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 21, connects Exod 32:32 with Isa 48:19, where the erasure of the name of the Servant of God is a result of Israel’s disobedience and failure to keep the commandments.

1 Corinthians 10–11

47

correct, this interpretation of Exod 32:32 may also lie behind the absence of Moses in 1 Cor 10:6–13. The final negative example in 1 Cor 10:1–13 is the murmuring of the Israelites: mhde; gogguvzete, kaqavper tine;" aujtw'n ejgovggusan kai; ajpwvlonto uJpo; tou' ojloqreutou' (“do not murmur, as some of them murmured and were destroyed by the destroyer,” 1 Cor 10:10). Although murmuring is a frequent motif of the wilderness journey, it comes to the fore in Num 14:27–35, where the verb or its cognate noun is repeated three times in verse 27 alone. e{w" tivno" th;n sunagwgh;n th;n ponhra;n tauvthn… a} aujtoi; gogguvzousin ejnantivon ejmou', th;n govggusin tw'n uiJw'n ∆Israhvl, h}n ejgovggusan peri; uJmw'n, ajkhvkoa. How long [shall I stand] this evil congregation? I have heard what they murmur against me, the murmuring of the sons of Israel, which they murmur concerning you. (Num 14:27)

It is, furthermore, the reason why none of that generation of Israelites except Joshua and Caleb will enter the promised land. We have seen above how this episode belongs with the problems associated with Moses’ death. The motif of eating is also present here, since much of the murmuring concerns food and questions God’s faithfulness to the covenant. In conclusion, we may observe that the foundational legend of the cult of Israel is reenacted in the sermon’s narrative and exhortation in such a way that the Corinthian community is located in the wilderness, as having a choice between the cultic meal properly performed and the cultic meal gone awry. Episodes concerning idolatry and complaint are consistently linked to meals. This presentation of the cultic narrative in this homiletic material provides the framework for understanding the cultic practices discussed in 1 Cor 11:17–34. There is, moreover, another motif at work here. All of the negative examples from the wilderness experience point toward the death not only of the wilderness generation, but also of Moses, before the entry into the land of promise (Deut 34:5). The name of Moses, though, is strikingly missing from this reenactment, perhaps as a reflex of the erasure of his name as a result of the people’s disobedience (Exod 32:32; Isa 48:19). The events of the wilderness concern the testing and abuse Moses endured; Moses suffers the same fate as the people, yet appears not to have participated in their idolatrous actions. To what extent any soteriological association between Moses and Jesus is active in Paul’s argument remains an open question at this point.54 I would suggest, however, that the reenactment of the cult legend here in 1 Cor 10:1–13 in connection with questions concerning cultic meal practice — a practice that in 54 Schrage: Korinther, vol. 2, 406, proposes that, for Paul, Jesus is not a second Moses, but that Moses is a first Christ.

48

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

1 Cor 11:23 is interpreted in terms of Jesus’ death — may indicate that telling the fate of Moses in relation to the people of Israel contributed to the telling of Jesus’ sufferings and death.55 1 Cor 11:23–26 We turn now to the account of the Lord’s supper in 1 Cor 11:23–26, ejgw; ga;r parevlabon ajpo; tou' kurivou, o} kai; parevdwka uJmi'n, o{ti oJ kuvrio" ∆Ihsou'" ejn th'/ nukti; h|/ paredivdeto e[laben a[rton kai; eujcaristhvsa" e[klasen kai; ei\pen: tou'tov mouv ejstin to; sw'ma to; uJpe;r uJmw'n: tou'to poiei'te eij" th;n ejmh;n ajnavmnhsin. wJsauvtw" kai; to; pothvrion meta; to; deipnh'sai levgwn: tou'to to; pothvrion hJ kainh; diaqhvkh ejsti;n ejn tw'/ ejmw'/ ai{mati: tou'to poiei'te, oJsavki" ejan; pivnhte, eij" th;n ejmh;n ajnavmnhsin. oJsavki" ga;r ejan; ejsqivhte to;n a[rton tou'ton kai; to; pothvrion pivnhte, to;n qavnaton tou' kurivou kataggevllete a[cri ou| e[lqh/. For I received from the Lord that which I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was handed over took bread, and after giving thanks he broke [it] and said, “This is my body which is for you; do this in my memory.” And likewise also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in my memory.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Cor 11:23–26)

It is immediately apparent that Paul is quoting a tradition that already has authority in the community.56 This is marked speech, or an event in language set apart from ordinary speech. I would suggest that, as marked speech, the quotation of this tradition functions somewhat like a riddle or an enigmatic, but authoritative, utterance in this context. Like the riddles found in Homer and Hesiod, like the fables of Aesop, the quotation of this tradition entails a commu55 I would remark here briefly on the relation of the discussion about head covering in 1 Cor 11:2–16. Given its location between the discussion of cultic meal practice in 1 Corinthians 10 and the eucharistic traditions in 1 Cor 11:23, the passage has often been deemed an interpolation; see the discussion in Mitchell: Paul, 261 n. 417. Without prejudice as to whether the passage is original to the epistle or a later addition, I would point out one connection with the cult legend. Mitchell locates the emphasis in terms of factionalism in the Corinthian community and sees a plea for unity of practice. She further identifies filovneiko" (“loving of strife”) as the key word in the argument. This adjective is used in Ezek 3:7 to refer to the rebellion of the Israelites. In Symmachus’s translation, it is used of the breaking of the covenant at Ezek 44:6 and Ps 78 (77):17. In other Hexaplic versions, it appears in Lev 13:51 and Lev 14:44 in a discussion of leprosy, and most notably at Num 20:10 in the episode at the waters of Meribah. I would suggest, although further investigation is needed, that the appearance of the adjective in 1 Cor 11:16 is connected to its use to designate the rebellion in the wilderness, particularly as that is related to factionalism on the part of Miriam and Aaron. 56 See Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 197–198; Mitchell: Paul, 156; Koester: Cult. Bornkamm: Herrenmahl, 321, identifies the tradition as coming from the Christian community in Antioch.

1 Corinthians 10–11

49

nity that has specific qualifications for “getting” what it means. Gregory Nagy’s analysis of such marked speech in earlier Greek literature has shown that such a community is characterized as ajgaqoiv, that is, having a particular ethic, sofoiv, or having the intellectual skills necessary for the decoding of the utterance, and filoiv, having certain affiliative bonds.57 In particular, being sofoiv is closely related to being well integrated into the central, defining narrative of the community. Each of these three types of qualifications enables the reenactment of marked speech in the community’s life, that is, in its cult, comprising ritual, narrative, and ethic. Although early Christian literature does not always employ this earlier diction for indicating the qualifications proper for those belonging to community thus constituted through cult, these categories are useful for analogically thinking about how marked speech functions in a variety of circumstances, as, for example, here in 1 Corinthians 11.58 1 Cor 10:1–13, I suggest, sets the stage by defining that what is at stake in “getting” what this marked utterance is about, namely, the proper performance of the cultic meal. Of the three categories of qualifications — roughly, the ethical, the affiliative, and the intellectual — the ethical and the affiliative are more the concern of much of the material surrounding the eucharistic tradition quoted in 1 Corinthians. For the present, we may simply point to the concern about koinwniva (“common life”) in 1 Cor 10:16–18 and the regard for the weaker and those without food in 1 Cor 11:17–22 as indications of these categories. The quotation of the eucharistic tradition itself, in my opinion, contains the clues to the proper “intellectual” stance for the cultic reenactment. Specifically, being sofoiv in this case entails awareness of the actualization of the cult legend in the person of Jesus. It is, in other words, a matter of knowing how the story goes in the here and now. I now examine 1 Cor 11:23–26 as marked, authoritative speech for indications of how its authority is constructed and for indications of how the cult legend encompasses the memory of Jesus. First, Paul marks the tradition as one that he received “from the Lord” (ajpo; tou' kurivou, 1 Cor 11:23). Whatever else this phrase may indicate, here it serves to ground the authority of the tradition in Jesus. Moreover, the utterance has the status of familiarity to the commu57 Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 148. With particular reference to Pindar, Nagy offers the following definitions: the sofoiv are “those who are ‘skilled’ in decoding the message encoded by the poet in his poetry,” the ajgaqoiv are “those who are intrinsically ‘noble’ by virtue of having been raised on proper ethical standards, which are the message encoded in the poetry,” and the filoiv are “those who are ‘near and dear’ and who are thereby interconnected to the poet and to each other, so that the message that is encoded in the poetry may be transmitted to them and through them.” It is important to note that to a large extent each capability requires the others. 58 This way of analyzing traditional utterances is informed by the work of Roman Jakobson and other members of the Prague School of Linguistics. See, for example, Jakobson: Word, 136; Jakobson/ Pomorska: Concept, 134–140. The situation of performance of Greek lyric and epic poetry provides a suitable analogy for exploring the formal characteristics of the performance of cult in ritual and narrative in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere in early Christianity.

50

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

nity; it is supposed to have influence as part of their cultic treasure horde. In other words, they should know already how the story goes; they should be sofoiv. The marked utterance itself consists of certain actions and certain words that “the Lord Jesus” is said to have done. Whatever the historical grounding of this memory, my concern here is with the cultic consequences of attributing these words and actions to “the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor 11:23). These words and actions are further indexed by the phrase, “in the night in which he was handed over” (ejn th'/ nukti; h|/ paredivdeto, 1 Cor 11:23).59 That is to say, this phrase connects the words and actions to an existing narrative of Jesus’ passion and to the scriptures informing that narrative, particularly Isaiah 53 and certain psalms of the suffering righteous. Jesus’ word concerning the bread, “this is my body which is for you,” (tou'tov mouv ejstin to; sw'ma to; uJpe;r uJmw'n, 1 Cor 11:24) is not only given authority as a word of Jesus, it is also an interpretive saying.60 uJpe;r uJmw'n, “for you,” points to Isaiah 53 as the scriptural memory informing this saying. The act of putting this saying with its scriptural memory on the lips of Jesus establishes Jesus as the key to the reenactment of the cult legend, here referred to through its performance in the songs of the suffering righteous in Isaiah. This act grounds the cult legend and ritual in the person of Jesus. Similarly, the saying of Jesus concerning the cup, “this cup is the new covenant in my blood,” defines this present cult action in relation to the narrative of the covenant at Sinai in Exodus 24, as we have seen.61 The phrase, “new covenant,” also indexes the action to the scriptural reenactment of that narrative in Jeremiah 31.62 We should also notice the obvious, namely, that the cultic action of the Corinthian community is defined in terms of an existing cultic action: the making and renewing of a covenant. Just as the there and then of the cult legend is reenacted in the here and now of, for example, the homily in 1 Corinthians 10 or in the reference to the covenant here, so too this utterance allows the practice of the Lord’s supper to be a reenactment of the foundational cultic ritual performed now in terms of Jesus. 59 The imperfect form paredivdeto is striking. Elsewhere when forms of paradivdwmi are employed in connection with Jesus’ death, the aorist is customary, as it is in Isa 53:6. The only other instance of the imperfect in this connection is in the hymn in 1 Pet 2:23, paredivdou de; tw'/ krivnonti dikaivw" (“he handed [himself] over to the one who judges justly”). Since both 1 Pet 2:21–24 and 1 Cor 11:23–26 employ early liturgical traditions about Jesus’ passion, we may suspect that the use of the imperfect of paradivdwmi belongs to the early cultic tradition of Jesus’ death. 60 Koester: Cult; see also above for the discussion of uJpe;r + genitive in 1 Cor 15:3. 61 Bornkamm: Herrenmahl, 331. 62 See especially Jer 31 (38):31, ijdou; hJmevrai e[rcontai, fhsi;n kuvrio", kai; diaqhvsomai tw'/ oi[kw/ ∆Israh;l kai; tw'/ oi[kw/ ∆Iouvda diaqhvkhn kainhvn (“behold days are coming, says the Lord, and I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”); Conzelmann: First Corinthians, 199.

1 Corinthians 10–11

51

We can say more about this saying of Jesus, however. The phrase ejn tw'/ ejmw'/ ai{mati (“in my blood”) locates Jesus, and in particular Jesus’ death, within the reenacted narrative as the offering that ratifies the covenant. Here we have, I suggest, an indication that the formation of a narrative of Jesus’ death took place with relation to the community’s practice of renewing the covenant. It is possible to document an analogous process for the formation of the passion traditions in Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the Epistle of Barnabas, but 1 Corinthians supplies some of the earliest evidence of such a process. As with the saying about the bread, moreover, this saying and its attribution to Jesus make Jesus’ death the pivotal point for the reenactment of the cult legend and ritual. The quoted tradition also contains the ritual mandate for the continuing practice of the cult with the repeated “Do this in my memory” (tou'to poiei'te eij" th;n ejmh;n ajnavmnhsin, 1 Cor 11:24, 25). The placement of this saying on the lips of Jesus not only gives it authority, it also contributes to the creation of the memory of Jesus. Specifically, it locates Jesus as the source and founder of the ongoing cultic practice of the community. In other words, it makes Jesus into the initiator of the cult and, in effect, the lawgiver for the community. With this in mind, we can return to Jesus’ words over the bread and cup with their indices to the story of Jesus’ death and notice that in these utterances Jesus is indirectly portrayed as the initiator of the reenactment of the cult legend in the story of his death. The final indication of what it means to be “wise” to what the practice of the cultic meal entails is given in 1 Cor 11:26, that as often as you do this, you “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (to;n qavnaton tou' kurivou kataggevllete a[cri ou| e[lqh/). This verse is probably not part of the quoted tradition that precedes it, although it is woven into it by the similarities of diction. It provides the key to understanding the riddle, as it were, by specifying “the Lord’s death” as the center of the ritual. Moreover, it points to the continuing practice of the reenactment of the cult legend in proclamation.63 The verb used here, kataggevllw, at times functions as a technical term for the interpretation of an authoritative text in such a way that it is understood as actualized in the present.64 In other words, the verb refers to the speech event in which the 63 Schniewind: aj g geliv a , 70–71, cites instances of kataggevllw referring to proclamations of sacred festivals and competitions, which would be likely to include a telling of the relevant cult legend. 64 This appears to be the consistent pattern in Acts; kataggevllw refers to the process of proclaiming Jesus as the actualization of the writings of the law and prophets (Acts 3:24; 4:2; 13:38; 17:3) or as the true reference of a cultic inscription (Acts 17:23). The other occurrences of the verb in Acts describe activity in particular connection with Jewish worship (Acts 13:5; 15:36; 17:13) or in close connection to the interpretation of the scriptures (Acts 26:23). The other uses of kataggevllw in Pauline writings do not explicitly refer to this process, but in 1 Cor 2:1 and 9:14 it refers particularly to apostolic activity. Bornkamm: Herrenmahl, 333, argues on the basis of the self-referential vocabulary of the psalms that the verb designates a verbal activity, not merely the cultic actions of the meal. See also Dahl: Jesus, 23. Käsemann, in ana-

52

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

authoritative there and then is identified with the present here and now. If this observation is correct, then the use of this verb here in 1 Corinthians refers to the formation of a story of Jesus’ death out of the authoritative texts of the community, that is, as a reenactment of the cult legend. That through this narrative, the community proclaims the Lord’s death “until he comes” (a[cri ou| e[lqh/, 1 Cor 11:26) signals that the community is constituted as having an eschatological future. This accords well with the motifs of the covenant, since on the narrative level of the cult legend of the exodus and wilderness journey the proper performance of the cult — faithfulness to the covenant — permits the people to have a future, expressed there in terms of entry into the land. The cultic meal properly performed, in contrast to the meal gone awry, is that which is successful in its reenactment of the cultic legend. In the case of the Corinthian meal, the foundational legend of the covenant is told in terms of the death of Jesus. This memory, as an event in ritual and narrative, as well as being reenacted in the ethic and common life (koinwniva) of the people, becomes here, for Paul at least, the criterion for the successful performance of the cult.65 Moreover, it has the power to define the community anew, as the people who “get it” through ethical, affiliative, and intellectual capacities. The memory of Jesus’ death thus constitutes a community and provides a certain shared identity within this reenactment of the covenant. The memory of Jesus that is constructed in 1 Corinthians 11 through the utterances attributed to him here is not only that of Jesus’ death. It is also a memory of Jesus as the initiator of the cult and the authoritative interpreter of the cultic action in relation to the story of the passion, as well to the covenantal cult of Israel. In addition to being the initiator and authoritative interpreter of the cult, however, this same Jesus becomes the interpretation and reenactment of the cultic legend and ritual, in that it becomes a story about Jesus. Furthermore, the Jesus constructed by 1 Corinthians 11 is also the one who constitutes the community in their performance of the cult. This threefold role is the consequence of a marked utterance that refers to the speaker and which, inasmuch as the community grasps it, defines the identity of the community. It is also a point at which ritual points to itself and to its constitution. Such a self-reference is not surprising for a stage of the cult in which there is a significant shift in the terms of the reenactment.66 Indeed, such a shift occurs when the new event of lyzing kataggevllw in relation to the technical language of transmission of traditions, refers the meaning to the eucharistic words themselves, contending that “the account of the Lord’s Supper is thus a formulation of sacred Law”; see Käsemann: Doctrine, 120. 65 See Stendahl: Background, 55–56, who stresses that the issue in 1 Cor 11:17–26 is the breakdown of community related to lack of discernment of the community and its affiliative obligations. Heitmüller: Taufe, 28, draws out the connections of the remembrance and proclamation of the death of Jesus with practices of covenant and common life (koinwniva). 66 Nagy: Pindar’s Homer, 60, 388, remarks upon the phenomenon of ritual referring to itself as a sign of a crisis of genre and practice. With reference to Euripides, he correlates the

1 Corinthians 10–11

53

Jesus’ death becomes the center of proper performance of the cultic meal and narrative, that is, the prism through which the scriptures and the existing cultic practices of the community are refracted. 4. Conclusion It is now possible to return to the summary kerygmatic statement of 1 Cor 15:3–5 and to examine it in light of what we have observed about the reenactment of the cult legend of Israel. To say that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (Cristo;" ajpevqanen uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n kata; ta;" grafav") is a statement about the process of narrating Jesus’ death; it refers the events about Jesus to the experience of scripture as authoritative in the community. From 1 Cor 10:1–13 it is evident that this experience of scripture means the reenactment of the cult legend of Israel — the story of the exodus, the Sinai covenant, the trials in wilderness, and the entry into the land of promise. This reenactment includes the proper performance of cultic actions; it belongs within a context of ritual. Together, things said — the telling of the story — and things done — the ritual practices — are constitutive of the community. Thus the statement that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” presupposes a larger context of ritual and story, a story in which the scriptures of Israel are actualized in terms of the suffering and death of Jesus. This interpretive process, however, is better characterized as a narrative process in which the scriptures of Israel supply the language, motifs, and patterns for speaking of Jesus. That is to say, the memory of Jesus’ death exists as a speech event for the community; remembering Jesus’ death requires language, and such language is provided by the stories and songs of scripture. The retelling of the cult legend of Israel that lies behind 1 Cor 10:1–13 focuses not only on the constituting of the people of God, but also on the trials in the wilderness, the idolatry and falling away of that generation of Israelites, and the abuses and testing that Moses and God experienced. These negative events contribute to one of the chief problems in the narrative, namely, the death of Moses and his failure to enter the promised land. The story of the future of the community, however, would be inconceivable without this central figure.67 We begin to see indications phenomenon with the changes in Athenian society at the end of the fifth century B .C .E . and the decline in the importance of the City Dionysia. I would propose that as cultic practice incorporates the new event of Jesus’ death into its reenactment, it too faces a crisis of genre and practice and similarly becomes self-referential. 67 See Exod 32:30–35 and Deut 9:19–20; Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 420, argues on the basis of these passages that “we can say that Moses offered his life, taking upon himself the consequences of the ‘great sin’ of the deviation into idolatry.” Baltzer further connects this action with Isa 53:10. Ps 106 (105):23 also speaks of Moses standing in the breach to avert God’s anger from destroying the people after the episode of the golden calf; see Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 127.

54

First Corinthians: Jesus as Initiator and Interpreter of Cult

that the story of the suffering and death of Moses in the wilderness informs the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. In other words, as the cult legend of Israel turns upon the fate of the individual, Moses, so its reenactment as the cult legend of a Christian community turns upon the fate of the individual, Jesus. Jesus provides the new pivot for the reenactment. What happens to Moses and Jesus is constitutive for the community. The point of the reenactment, furthermore, is the identity of the community. In telling a story about Jesus, in constructing the memory of Jesus’ suffering, the identity of the community is at stake. In the proper performance of cult, moreover, the point is the identity of the community. Thus, we need to understand the kerygmatic statement of 1 Cor 15:3–5 within the context of an experiment in the constitution of community around the memory of Jesus. The two scriptural indices in 1 Cor 15:3–5 — that Jesus died uJpe;r tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n (“for our sins”) and that he was raised th'/ hJmevra/ th'/ trivth/ (“on the third day”) — suggest that this process of cultic reenactment took place within a context of songs and stories of the suffering righteous and of the covenant practices.68 Such songs and stories, including those from deutero-Isaiah that tell of the sufferings of God’s servant on behalf of the people, would contribute further to telling of Jesus’ sufferings. The celebration of the meal of the community was understood in covenantal terms; moreover, Jesus is portrayed in 1 Cor 11:23–26 as the authentic initiator and interpreter of the meal practice in terms of the covenant and of his death. Such a conjunction indicates, in my view, that the covenant is the principal interpretive framework for the constitution of the community around the memory of Jesus’ death. Thus in 1 Corinthians some of the morphological elements belonging to the poetics of the passion come into view: the performance of the cult legend of Israel with particular interest in the trials in the wilderness and the suffering of Moses, the stories and songs of the suffering righteous, the covenant as the interpretative framework for the practices and identity of the community, and the practice of a cultic meal. These elements come together within the process of reenactment, in which at every point mimesis is necessary between the there and then of the narrative and the here and now of the community as it is expressed in ritual activity, ethical behavior and the formation of new narrative.

68 The cultic setting is further indicated by the overarching concern in 1 Corinthians 12–14 with how members of the community are to conduct themselves within communal gatherings, particularly in the gatherings for worship.

Chapter II The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah 1. Introduction The poetics of the passion consist not only of morphological elements but also with the dynamics of ritual performance within a community. Here an extended passage concerned with Jesus’ suffering provides an opportunity to perceive the dynamics of performance as an existing song tradition comes to speak of Jesus’ suffering and vindication. The portrayal of Jesus’ suffering in 1 Pet 2:21–25, independently of the passion narratives in the canonical gospels and the Gospel of Peter, speaks of the fate of Jesus and its consequences for the community. Because there is wide recognition of the presence of a hymn embedded in this passage and because the primary occasion of a hymn is the ritual of a community, it enables us to relate the poetics of the passion to the shaping of community identity. Our point of entrance will be to discern the ways in which this hymn arises out of a store of traditional motifs and stories that are held and used within the ritual life of the community. How is this hymn shaped by traditional ways of speaking of the suffering righteous, vindicated by God? Is it possible to read this hymn in terms of the primary cult legend of Israel — the story of the exodus and the journey through the wilderness into the promised land? How is this cult legend actualized in the hymn? In other words, how does the “there and then” of scripture inform the “here and now” of the hymn? What are the moments of mimesis through which ideally the hymn constitutes a community? The construction of Jesus’ suffering through this diction and through the dynamics of mimetic performance may thus be connected to communally held narrative practices and settings. It is widely recognized that language from the scriptures of Israel saturates the First Epistle of Peter to a very high degree. In this respect, it is a “biblical” document, informed especially by Isaiah, the Psalms, and Proverbs as well as by the portrayal of a chosen people in the Pentateuch. The scriptures supply many of the epistle’s motifs and phrases.1 Seldom is a quotation formula employed;2 rather, a phrase will simply flow without a seam into a quotation. One example of this technique is how Isa 8:12–13, to;n de; fovbon aujtou' ouj mh; 1 2

See the discussion in Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 12. The exceptions are 1 Pet 1:16, diovti gevgraptai ªo{tiº a{gioi e[sesqe, o{ti ejgw; a{giov" ªeijmiº (“Therefore it is written, “You will be holy, because I am holy”) and 1 Pet 2:6, diovti perievcei ejn grafh'/, (“Therefore it stands in scripture”), which introduces Isa 28:16.

56

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

fobhqh'te oujde; mh; taracqh'te: kuvrion aujto;n aJgiavsate, kai; aujto;" e[stai sou fovbo" (“You shall not fear its [this people’s] fear nor shall you be disturbed. Sanctify him as the Lord, and he will be your fear”) appears in 1 Pet 3:14–15, ajll∆ eij kai; pavscoite dia; dikaiosuvnhn, makavrioi. to;n de; fovbon aujtw'n mh; fobhqh'te mhde; taracqh'te, kuvrion de; to;n Cristo;n aJgiavsate ejn tai'" kardivai" uJmw'n But also if you suffer on account of righteousness, you are blessed. Neither fear their fear nor be disturbed, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts.

This manner of using scripture indicates a process that is not scribal; phrases from scripture are not employed as proof but comprise part of the common vocabulary of the author and the audience. This style, together with other aspects of the epistle, suggests the availability of scripture mediated through its cultic use in the community.3 In 1 Peter we also find embedded various traditional materials, drawn from liturgy, catechesis, and parenesis.4 There are, for example, hymns, liturgical and kerygmatic formulas, catalogues of virtues and vices, household codes, and sayings of Jesus.5 In these cases, it is important to be aware of the dynamics accompanying the use of traditional materials. They are, in a certain sense, utterances that are marked by an authority derived other than from their appearance in this text, whether from their familiarity to the audience of the text or from the context out of which they come as that context is expressed in their form.6 The final shape of the epistle thus establishes its authority out of a great store of church tradition in order to compose a persuasive argument. We may note, moreover, that these authoritative utterances drawn from the experience of Christian communities appear within the text in much the same way that biblical materials do, that is, without seams and contributing to the regular diction. Consider, for example, 1 Pet 1:3, eujloghto;" oJ qeo;" kai; path;r tou' kurivou hJmw'n ∆Ihsou' Cristou', oJ kata; to; polu; aujtou' e[leo" ajnagennhvsa" hJma'" eij" ejlpivda zw'san di∆ ajnastavsew" ∆Ihsou' Cristou' ejk nekrw'n 3 On this point and the characterization of 1 Peter’s language as “biblical,” see Koester: Introduction, 295. Beare: Peter, 26, observes that 1 Peter appears to know the scriptures of Israel only in Greek. 4 Bovon: Foi, 29–30; Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 22; and Koester: Introduction, 294. See also Gabarrón: Pasión, 53. 5 On possible sayings, see Best: Gospel Tradition, 95–113. It is likely that some of these sayings are drawn from a source similar to the Jewish-Christian source available to Matthew and from which he supplemented the Synoptic Sayings Source, Q, while others are also found in Q itself; see Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 64–66. 6 A discussion of the synchronic and diachronic dynamics of quotation appears in Morawski: Function, 690–703. See also Compagnon: Main.

Introduction

57

Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given us new birth in accordance with his great mercy to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The blessing here begins without introduction and flows into the subsequent text in such a way that it is difficult to discern where this liturgical formula ends.7 In other words, the epistle is whole cloth, woven out of utterances that possessed authority within the life of Christian communities. Utterances from the scriptures of Israel are similarly authoritative and deployed in the same fashion. In this chapter, I shall examine one such traditional utterance, the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25, not in terms of its use within the epistle, but rather to explore how it constructs Jesus’ suffering and death out of the scriptures of Israel. 1 Peter also establishes its authority by claiming the apostle Peter as its author. It is, however, almost certainly pseudonymous and more closely related to Pauline traditions than Petrine.8 The epistle is addressed to a number of eastern churches, namely, those in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1); it can thus be regarded as a circular letter.9 It is likely to have originated in Rome, as the coded reference to “Babylon” in 1 Pet 5:13 suggests, as does also the letter’s combination of Pauline ideas with Petrine authority, which is similar to the linking of these two figures in another Roman document, 1 Clement. The date of composition is debated, and it is useful to examine briefly some of the proposals. Apart from those proposals that have regarded the epistle as written by the apostle Peter,10 most arguments have centered upon the situation of persecution for which the epistle appears to have been written (see especially the discussion of suffering “as a Christian” in 1 Pet 4:12–19), the extent of this persecution, and whether it was official or unofficial. The letter of Pliny the Younger to the emperor Trajan, written while Pliny was governor of 7 8

On the identification of a blessing here, see Cothenet: Liturgie, 218–219. Koester: Introduction, 293, calls 1 Peter deutero-Pauline, arguing that nearly everything in the text derives either from Paul or from common Christian tradition. He thus locates the epistle in relation to an understanding of Peter and Paul as the two great Christian martyrs, as with the letters of Ignatius and 1 Clement. Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 18, admits the relation to a “Pauline way of theological reflection,” but contends that it is the result of the common use of early liturgical and confessional material or that 1 Peter knows of Paul, not through familiarity with any part of the Pauline corpus (relationships with Romans and Ephesians are the most commonly adduced), but from Pauline material that had entered common tradition. Beare: Peter, 25, characterizes 1 Peter as dependent on Pauline theological ideas and language and as steeped in the Pauline letters. See also the discussion in Cothenet: Première, 3689–3690. 9 On the genre of the circular letter in hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, see Michaels: Letters, 268–275. In light of the prominence of deutero-Isaiah in 1 Peter (see below), its use, along with a concern for suffering and vindication, in 2 Baruch is striking. 2 Bar 86.1 suggests that the circular letter was intended to be read in the public assembly, especially on fast days (see Michaels: Letters, 270–271). 10 See, for example, Selwyn: Peter, 56–63. Selwyn links the epistle to persecution under the emperor Nero.

58

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

Bithynia and Pontus (ca. 112 C.E.), refers to a practice of persecuting Christians in the same geographic area to which 1 Peter was addressed;11 it has been argued that the situation about which Pliny inquires is that to which 1 Peter refers. If this is the case, then the epistle can be dated fairly precisely to around 112 C.E.12 It is also argued, however, that Pliny’s letter refers to a persecution of Christians in the same area some twenty-five years earlier and this may be the opposition of which 1 Peter speaks. This argument, which results in a date during the reign of Domitian (81–96 C.E.), also looks to the Book of Revelation to attest some form of persecution in Asia Minor during this period. Achtemeier, moreover, emphasizes that Ignatius and 1 Clement, although of similar provenance, appear unaware of 1 Peter; he thus prefers a dating early in the period between 80 and 100 C.E.13 Since my present concern lies with particular traditions embedded within 1 Peter rather than with the epistle itself, my argument does not hang upon establishing a date for the writing of the epistle. I am, nonetheless, persuaded by the similarities between Pliny’s letter and 1 Peter and would prefer to locate the final form of the epistle within the reign of Trajan (98–117 C.E). Commentators have identified numerous baptismal motifs throughout the epistle. Chief among these are the opening blessing of the God “who has given us new birth” (oJ … ajnagennhvsa" hJma'", 1 Pet 1:3) and the description of the community as those who have been “born again” (ajnagegennhmevnoi, 1 Pet 1:23) and as “newborn infants” (wJ" ajrtigevnnhta brevfh, 1 Pet 2:2). In the exhortation, ajpoqevmenoi ou\n pa'san kakivan kai; pavnta dovlon kai; uJpokrivsei" kai; fqovnou" kai; pavsa" katalaliav", wJ" ajrtigevnnhta brevfh to; logiko;n a[dolon gavla ejpipoqhvsate, i{na ejn aujtw'/ aujxhqh'te eij" swthrivan, eij ejgeuvsasqe o{ti crhsto;" oJ kuvrio". Since you therefore have put away all evil and every deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander, like newborn infants long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that you may grow up into salvation, if you have tasted that the Lord is good. (1 Pet 2:1–3)

we find not only the characterization of the community as “newborn infants,” corresponding to their new status as “born again,” but also a twofold scenario of putting away evil and growing up into salvation, suggestive of a change of life related to entry into the community. In addition, the reference here to longing for milk has been linked to the later practice of giving the newly baptized milk and honey attested in the Apostolic Tradition (23.2). The presence of such mo11 12 13

Pliny Epistulae 10.96. See Beare: Peter, 14, 33; and Koester: Introduction, 294. See Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 48.

Introduction

59

tifs may indicate that 1 Peter is drawing upon the experience of initiation into a community and the new status or way of life that accompanies it. 1 Peter contains only a single explicit reference to “baptism,” o} kai; uJma'" ajntivtupon nu'n swv/zei bavptisma, ouj sarko;" ajpovqesi" rJuvpou ajlla; suneidhvsew" ajgaqh'" ejperwvthma eij" qeovn, di∆ ajnastavsew" ∆Ihsou' Cristou'. And baptism, of which this was an antitype, now saves you also, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an pledge to God of a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet 3:21)

This description of baptism follows an exposition of the story of Noah, which here becomes the “antitype” of baptism, since Noah and his family were saved di’ u{dato" (“through water,” 1 Pet 3:20). Various proposals have been offered for the significance of the noun ejperwvthma here; it may indicate a prayer, a pledge, or a contractual question and answer within the baptismal rite.14 ejperwvthma would then designate performative speech in a cultic setting; by including this reference the epistle is thus drawing upon cultic experience. This single use of the term “baptism,” moreover, falls within what has been identified as a baptismal or creedal hymn (1 Pet 3:18–22).15 M.-E. Boismard has isolated two groups of traditional material within 1 Pet 3:18–22.16 The first, a christological hymn, includes the phrases, qanatwqei;" sarkiv zwopoihqei;" pneuvmati poreuqei;" eij" oujranovn. Put to death by the flesh, Made alive by the spirit, Gone into heaven.

1

14 Windisch: Katholische Briefe , 73, translating the phrase ajlla; suneidhvsew" ajgaqh'" ejperwvthma eij" qeovn as “sondern Gebet zu Gott um ein gutes Gewissen,” suggested that it was apparently a reference to a prayer addressed to God, following the administration of baptism. Beare: Peter, 149, doubted that this meaning applied here and preferred to connect ejperwvthma with the Latin stipulatio (“pledge”) and thus comparable to sacramentum (“oath”) used in Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Epistulae 10.96) in his description of the Christian ritual. Selwyn: Peter, 205, argued that ejperwvthma and stipulatio could also refer to a “clause in a contract containing the formal question and answer (oJmologiva) of the contracting parties” and thus designated the questioning and confession of the baptismal candidate. Goppelt: I Peter, 271, rejected the idea that ejperwvthma is a vow and prefers to regard it as “an obliging entreaty by means of which the baptized person engages in the baptismal promises, i.e., in the pledge of God ‘to save’” which “entails a new way of conducting oneself,” hence a good conscience. We may note that all of these proposals regard ejperwvthma as referring to some sort of performative speech in a ritual setting. 15 Boismard: Liturgie, 182. 16 Boismard: Hymnes, 57–109.

60

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

The second, which Boismard calls a baptismal creed, contains the following, Cristo;" a{pax peri; aJmartiw'n e[paqen … di’ ajnastavsew" ∆Ihsou' Cristou' o}" e[stin ejn dexia'/ qeou' Christ suffered once for sins, … through the resurrection of Jesus Christ who is at the right hand of God.

It is striking that in conjunction with the use of the term “baptism,” which appears to refer to an act known to the community, we find texts derived from cultic experience. Thus 1 Pet 3:18–22 offers an example of the construction of a cultic frame of reference. Cultic experience is recalled for the addressees by the designation of both “baptism” and a speech act (ejperwvthma), as well as by the integration of texts derived from ritual action. The cultic frame of reference, however, serves the larger argument of 1 Peter here, which is to exhort the community toward good conduct as Christians even if they suffer for it (1 Pet 3:13–17). It is thus possible to appreciate Achtemeier’s assertion that “baptism is in fact not a major theme” of the epistle,17 if by this statement he means that the epistle is not “about baptism.” I would not, however, agree with his assessment that “allusions to [baptism] seem no more than incidental to the discussion of the kind of life Christians must live under adverse conditions.”18 Rather, referring to the cultic experience that has constituted the community of the addressees in a particular way is one of the chief means by which the author of 1 Peter shapes the rhetoric of the epistle as persuasive. In other words, the author has recourse to the certain texts and cultic acts as authoritative for the community because these texts and acts are constitutive of their identity. The presence of baptismal motifs throughout the text has led to a proposal that the epistle is composite and contains a baptismal homily (1 Pet 1:3–4:11) to which an epistolary introduction (1 Pet 1:1–2) and a “word of comfort” (1 Pet 4:12–5:14) have been added. Richard Perdelwitz first advanced this argument, noting in particular that the concluding doxology in 1 Pet 4:11 would provide a suitable ending for a homily and that 1 Pet 4:12 appears to begin a new section, concerned with imminent persecution.19 Wills, although maintaining the literary composition of 1 Peter, has identified a number of instances

17 18 19

Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 61. Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 61. Perdelwitz: Mysterienreligion. The argument has been accepted by Windisch: Katholische Briefe1, 82, and Beare: Peter, 6, 25–26, among others. Noting the prominence of Psalm 34 (33) in the so-called homily, Bornemann: Petrusbrief, 143–165, suggested that it was sermon to baptisands based on this psalm.

Introduction

61

where what he argues is the form of the sermon in early Christianity appears within the epistle, producing cycles of exempla, conclusion, and exhortation.20 In an analogous fashion, Herbert Preisker analyzed 1 Pet 1:3–4:11 as containing the text of a baptismal liturgy, including not only the hymns and prayers of the congregation but also sentences belonging to various participants.21 F. L. Cross furthered this hypothesis by noting the prominence of the verb pavscw (“I suffer”) and its cognates in the text, the contrasting motifs of suffering and joy, and similarities to what is known about pre-Nicene Easter celebrations. On this basis, Cross argued that 1 Pet 1:3–4:11 provides the more or less complete text of an Easter baptismal liturgy.22 For Cross, however, the distinction in the first century between “liturgy” and “homily” was not as clear as in later times; he proposed in fact that 1 Peter contained the “celebrant’s part for the Paschal Vigil,” comprising prayers, homily, and addresses to the baptismal candidates.23 C. F. D. Moule reviewed Cross’s argument in detail; while he did not deny the prominence of baptismal motifs in 1 Peter, he remained unconvinced by the thesis that it contains an actual liturgy.24 Perhaps most telling is his assessment, which addresses issues of genre and occasion, I do not find it easy (as Preisker and Cross apparently do) to conceive how a liturgy-homily, shorn of its “rubrics” (which, of course, were probably oral), but with its changing tenses and broken sequences all retained, could have been hastily dressed up as a letter and sent off (without a word of explanation) t o Christians who had not witnessed its original setting.25

It is also necessary to ask why an actual liturgy, as Cross and Preisker conceive it, would be so packaged. Furthermore, if 1 Peter contained the actual text of a liturgy, it would be remarkable in its uniqueness as a fixed text for an entire rite at this period in either Christianity or Judaism. It is preferable, in my opinion, to view 1 Peter as having a close relation to cultic actions and cultic texts, which provide much of the authoritative language for the argument. This way of understanding 1 Peter allows for the literary integrity of the document and for its own rhetorical aims,26 such as consolidating the community in the face of suffering and exhorting to the members of the community to endure harsh treatment from within the household and without. To this end, 1 Peter makes use of various traditions, including those about Jesus’ suffering. 20 21

Wills: Form, 289–290. This argument is contained in Preisker’s appendix to his edition of Windisch’s commentary on the catholic epistles; see Windisch: Katholische Briefe3, 156–162. 22 Cross: I. Peter, 23–27. 23 Cross: I. Peter, 37. 24 Moule: Nature, 1–11. 25 Moule: Nature, 4. 26 For examples of such interpretations of 1 Peter, which also acknowledge the dependence on baptismal motifs, see Elliott: Home; Goppelt: I Peter; and Martin: Metaphor.

62

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

2. 1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn The particular focus of my analysis of passion material in 1 Peter is the extended description of Jesus’ suffering in 1 Pet 2:21–25.

21 eij" tou'to ga;r ejklhvqhte, o{ti kai; Cristo;" e[paqen uJpe;r uJmw'n uJmi'n uJpolimpavnwn uJpogrammo;n i{na ejpakolouqhvshte toi'" i[cnesin aujtou', 22 o}" aJmartivan oujk ejpoivhsen oujde; euJrevqh dovlo" ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou', 23 o}" loidorouvmeno" oujk ajnteloidovrei, pavscwn oujk hjpeivlei, paredivdou de; tw'/ krivnonti dikaivw": 24 o}" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n aujto;" ajnhvnegken ejn tw'/ swvmati aujtou' ejpi; to; xuvlon, i{na tai'" aJmartivai" ajpogenovmenoi th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ zhvswmen, ou| tw'/ mwvlwpi ijavqhte. 25 h\te ga;r wJ" provbata planwvmenoi, ajlla; ejpestravfhte nu'n ejpi; to;n poimevna kai; ejpivskopon tw'n yucw'n uJmw'n. 21

For into this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps, 22 he who did not do sin nor was guile found in his mouth, 23 who, when he was abused, did not return abuse, when he suffered, did not threaten, but handed [himself] over to the one who judges justly, 24 he who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that leaving behind sins we might live to righteousness, he, by whose bruise you have been healed, 25 for you were straying like sheep, but you have turned now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.

It is possible to discern the presence of a hymn in this passage, as much of the scholarship on 1 Peter has done. Following the proposal of Hans Windisch, Rudolf Bultmann and M.-E. Boismard have argued for a hymn on the basis of a

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

63

number of features.27 First, the shift from a second person plural address in what precedes (1 Pet 2:18–21) to the first plural (2:24) and back to the second plural in what follows (2:25f–3:9) suggests the insertion of material into a parenetic address. Second, 1 Pet 2:22–24 is marked by a series of phrases that begin with the relative pronoun, all of which refer back to the subject, Cristov", in 1 Pet 2:21. This stylistic feature is a characteristic of many early Christian hymns. Third, the use of this text parallels the use of a hymn in 1 Pet 3:18–22. In both cases, a parenetic exhortation concerning suffering introduces material describing Christ. In 1 Peter 3, the quotation of traditional material (3:18–22) undergirds the encouragement for Christians who suffer for doing right (3:13–17). In 1 Peter 2, the example of Christ’s sufferings supports the instructions to slaves who suffer under unjust masters. In the two cases, the description of Christ is introduced by similar phrases: o{ti kai; Cristo;" e[paqen uJpe;r uJmw'n (“because Christ also suffered for you,” 1 Pet 2:21a); o{ti kai; Cristo;" a{pax peri; aJmartiw'n e[paqen (“because Christ also suffered once for sins,” 1 Pet 3:18a). Thus, in 1 Pet 2:22–25, we are dealing with the reuse of older material, embedded within the parenetic context of the epistle. It is possible then to separate the hymn from its context in order to examine how the hymn itself is constructed and how it depicts the sufferings of Jesus. In other words, although the author of 1 Peter employs the hymn to exhort slaves to accept the authority even of unjust masters, we may explore the construction of the hymn apart from this use. Furthermore, Boismard has remarked upon the similarity of certain aspects of this hymn to the baptismal motifs found in Romans 6 and argued in detail that Paul is here making use of traditions derived from this hymn. He contends that the hymn in 1 Pet 2:21–25 was known to Paul and his Roman audience from its liturgical use. If this is the case, Boismard argues, then it is possible to establish a terminus ad quem of 58 C.E. for the hymn and, from its familiarity in the liturgy, to date it somewhat earlier, around 50 C.E. or before.28 This is a conservative dating, and there is indeed no reason why the hymn cannot be significantly earlier than 50 C.E. The boundaries of the hymn cannot be located precisely. Boismard has suggested that the introductory phrase in 1 Pet 2:21a does not belong to the hymn itself, but is an echo of a confession of faith, which here serves as a transition into the quotation of the hymn.29 Bultmann supposed that this line re-

Windisch: Katholische Briefe1, 65; Bultmann: Bekenntnis, 295–297; Boismard: Hymnes, 111–115; see also Selwyn: Peter, 179; Cothenet: Liturgie, 225–228; Deichgräber: Gotteshymnus, 140–143. 28 Boismard: Hymnes, 173. 29 Boismard: Hymnes, 112. 27

64

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

worked an opening line of the hymn, o}" e[paqen uJpe;r hJJmw'n.30 Neither considered the remainder of 1 Pet 2:21, uJmi'n uJpolimpavnwn uJpogrammo;n i{na ejpakolouqhvshte toi'" i[cnesin aujtou' (“leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps”) as belonging to the hymn, but as part of the transition from parenesis to example. The combination of relative clauses and the quotations from Isaiah 53 makes it plausible that 1 Pet 2:22–24 belongs in its entirety to the hymn, as both Bultmann and Boismard argued. Where the quotation of the hymn ends, however, is not certain. The wording of 1 Pet 2:24e–25a remains close to Isaiah 53, but the address shifts back to the second person plural (ijavqhte, h\te). In 1 Pet 2:24e, this shift is a change from the first person plural of Isa 53:5, tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen (“by his bruise we have been healed”).31 In 1 Pet 2:25b–c, the address remains in the second plural, but the phrasing continues to be informed by scriptural allusion, as we shall see below. For our purposes, it is not necessary to identify the exact end of the hymn. It may be that in 1 Pet 2:25 the author adapted the end of the hymn, shifting it to the second person plural in accordance with the return to parenesis.32 Establishing the presence of a hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 defines to a certain extent how we should investigate its contents. The fact that it is a hymn means that it belongs to a context of communal ritual. Like the Hodayot of the Qumran community,33 this hymn contains many expressions from scripture. These expressions are thus mediated through use in performance in ritual. I presuppose that the situation of performance activates not only single phrases, but whole songs and stories. Thus, it is not sufficient simply to locate the source of an expression or to recognize where particular vocabulary may be found in scripture. Rather, we need to look at the larger context of a quotation or allusion, noting such matters as its genre, its role in a larger narrative, and whether it belongs to a group of texts used regularly to speak of the suffering righteous who are vindicated by God. In other words, I am attempting here to explore the traditional diction out of which the hymn in 1 Peter emerges and with which it speaks of the sufferings of Christ. Moreover, I wish to see if there are aspects of this passage that can be accounted for best by regarding it as a hymn and thereby under the constraints of performance and song. 30 Bultmann: Bekenntnis, 296. Bultmann also argued on the basis of the pre-Pauline formula Crivsto" ajpevqanen uJpe;r hJmw'n (“Christ died for us”) that the variant ajpevqanen (“he died”), not e[paqen (“he suffered”), stood in the hymn. e[paqen resulted from the emphasis in 1 Peter on “suffering.” See also Wengst: Formeln, 83–84. 31 Although ijavqhmen is attested for 1 Pet 2:24e, the evidence is not strong. Most likely, it is an attempt to bring the text in line with Isa 53:5. 32 Bultmann: Bekenntnis, 296, and Boismard: Hymnes, 113, both tentatively proposed that the hymn ends at 1 Pet 2:24e, on the basis of the shift in pronouns and, for Boismard, the reference to “conversion” in 1 Pet 2:25. My investigation of the scriptural allusions in 1 Pet 2:25 below may suggest that the hymn continues here, but that the author of the epistle has adapted it to the second person plural to ease the transition back into the parenesis in 1 Pet 3:1. 33 Carmignac: Citations, 357–394.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

65

A detailed consideration of the construction of the hymn shows that 1 Pet 2:22–25 stands in a close relation to the suffering servant song of Isaiah 53; indeed it appears that there are a number of phrases which also appear in Isaiah 53 and that the hymn may be a reworking of the song of Isaiah 53 in terms of the sufferings of Christ.34 We must also inquire, however, about the parts of the hymn that are not derived from Isaiah 53. From where do they come? What songs and stories are activated by the particular phrases and words employed? What is their relation to the motifs of the suffering righteous in Isaiah 53? 1 Pet 2:22 1 Pet 2:22 corresponds almost entirely to the second half of Isa 53:9. We may compare, o}" aJmartivan oujk ejpoivhsen oujde; euJrevqh dovlo" ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou'

o{ti ajnomivan oujk ejpoivhsen, oujde; euJrevqh dovlo" ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou'

who did not do sin nor was guile found in his mouth (1 Pet 2:22)

because he did not do lawlessness, nor was guile found in his mouth (Isa 53:9b)

It is possible to account for the fact that 1 Pet 2:22 has aJmartivan where Isa 53:9 has ajnomivan by saying that 1 Peter has modified the quotation from Isaiah. What, however, gives rise to this modification? F. W. Beare thought that the modification was not deliberate, but was the result of the sort of corruption “apt to occur in a citation made freely, from memory.”35 The alteration is more understandable within the larger context of Isaiah 53. In this text, ajnomiva (“lawlessness”) and aJmartiva (“sin”) regularly function as parallel terms. In Isa 53:5, for example, the parallelism of construction indicates the equivalence of the two words, aujto;" de; ejtraumativsqh dia; ta;" ajnomiva" hJmw'n kai; memalavkistai dia; ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n He was wounded because of our lawless deeds and weakened because of our sins (Isa 53:5)

34 35

Grelot: Poèmes, 154–157. Beare: Peter, 122–123.

66

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

The textual history of Isaiah 53 also shows an interchangeability of the two words. Some readings of Isa 53:5 transpose the two words.36 Isa 53:12 also demonstrates the close relation of the words. kai; ejn toi'" ajnovmoi" ejlogivsqh: kai; aujto;" aJmartiva"37 pollw'n ajnhvnegken kai; dia; ta;" aJmartiva"38 aujtw'n paredovqh. And he was counted among the lawless, and he himself bore the sins of many and was handed over because of their sins. (Isa 53:12)

Here too the textual history suggests an equivalence of the terms and a variety of ways of constructing parallelism. Semantically, they are also linked by the presence of ajnovmoi" (“lawless ones”) in this passage. We can say then that in a song text ajnomiva and aJmartiva are functional equivalents, and 1 Pet 2:22 can easily contain aJmartiva in place of ajnomiva. We turn next to 1 Pet 2:22b, oujde; euJrevqh dovlo" ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou' (“nor was guile found in his mouth”), and its relation to the final phrase of Isa 53:9. 1 Pet 2:22b corresponds to the reading of Isa 53:9d found in a number of witnesses (AQScCp), but two manuscripts (BS*), as well as the Lucianic recension, read oujde; dovlon ejn tw'/ stovmati (“nor [did he do]39 guile with his mouth”), which matches the Masoretic text wyIp;b hDm√rIm aølwV . Beare took this as the correct reading of Isa 53:9d, supposing that the other derived from 1 Peter.40 The textual history here can be described well through the concept of mouvance, according to which the various manuscript readings would reflect “a performance tradition that is alive in a given culture.”41 Whether the hymn is here quoting Isa 53:5 directly or instead drawing from its diction, the use of dovlo" is also conditioned by its occurrence in other song texts that relate to the suffering and vindication of the righteous. In Psalm 32 (31), for example, we find, makavrioi w|n ajfevqhsan aiJ ajnomivai kai; w|n ejpekaluvfqhsan aiJ aJmartivai: makavrio" ajnhvr, ou| ouj mh; logivshtai kuvrio" aJmartivan, oujde; e[stin ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou' dovlo".

36 The Hexaplaric recension and the recension of the catena tradition exhibit this transposition, as do 1 Clement, Eusebius, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria when they quote the passage. 37 Here MS 106 reads ajnomiva". 38 Here the manuscript evidence for ajnomiva" is as strong as in for aJmartiva". 39 ejpoivhsen is supplied from the first phrase. 40 Beare: Peter, 122–123. 41 Nagy: Poetry, 10.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

67

Blessed are they whose lawless deeds are forgiven and whose sins are covered over; Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not reckon nor is there guile in his mouth. (Ps 32 [31]:1–2)

The similarity of the last line to 1 Pet 2:22b and Isa 53:5 is apparent, as is the parallelism of ajnomivai and aJmartivai in light of the preceding discussion of 1 Pet 2:22a. Moreover, much of the vocabulary in the rest of the psalm informs reflections on Jesus’ suffering in other contexts. We may note in particular verse 7b, to; ajgallivamav mou, luvtrwsaiv me ajpo; tw'n kuklwsavntwn me (“my gladness, ransom me from those who encircle me”). In Barnabas and Hebrews, “gladness,” “ransoming,” and “those who encircle” are important phrases for the way in which Jesus’ death is remembered and the community’s identity is established. Similarly, the diction of Ps 32 (31):10, pollai; aiJ mavstige" tou' aJmartwlou', to;n de; ejlpivzonta ejpi; kuvrion e[leo" kuklwvsei (“many are the scourges of the sinner, but mercy will encircle the one who hopes in the Lord”), is activated in contexts concerning Jesus’ death in Barnabas and Hebrews. mavstige" (“scourges”) is also a key element in the portrayal of the suffering servant in Isa 50:6, a verse which Barnabas employs with reference to Jesus’ suffering (see Barn. 5.14). We may also note that in Ps 32 (31):3a, o{ti ejsivghsa, ejpalaiwvqh ta; ojsta' mou (“because I kept silent, my bones grew old”), we have the motif of the silence of the righteous one, found also in Isaiah 53, even though the vocabulary is different. In this verse also, the reference to ta; ojsta' (“bones”) recalls the two occurrences of ta; ojsta' in Psalm 22 (21), wJsei; u{dwr ejxecuvqhn, kai; dieskorpivsqh pavnta ta; ojsta' mou I was poured out like water, and all my bones were scattered abroad (Ps 22 [21]:15) o{ti ejkuvklwsavn me kuvne" polloiv, sunagwgh; ponhreuomevnwn perievscon me, w[ruxan cei'rav" mou kai; povda". ejxhrivqmhsa pavnta ta; ojsta' mou, aujtoi; de; katenovhsan kai; ejpei'dovn me. for many dogs encircled me, a synagogue of wicked people encompassed me, they pierced my hands and feet. I have counted out all my bones, and they gaze and observe me. (Ps 22 [21]:17–18)

This psalm is employed not only in the passion narratives themselves but also in Barnabas to speak of Jesus’ crucifixion. In Barn. 6.6, as I shall show below, ejkuvklwsan functions as a key word to attract other psalms of suffering, deliv-

68

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

erance, and vindication, particularly Psalm 118 (117). I would say, therefore, on the basis of these connections that Psalm 32 (31) belongs to a complex of songs of vindication out of which the diction of Jesus’ passion emerged. The use of dovlo" ejn tw'/ stovmati aujtou' is thus resonant not only with Isa 53:5, but also within this complex of songs. Psalm 34 (33) may also be part of this complex of songs to which the diction of 1 Pet 2:22 belongs. Early in this century, W. Bornemann argued for the importance of this psalm for 1 Peter, noting its explicit quotation at 1 Pet 2:3 and 3:10–12.42 Indeed, in the portion of the psalm that appears at 1 Pet 3:10–11, dovlo" appears something for the righteous to avoid. tiv" ejstin a[nqrwpo" oJ qevlwn zwh;n ajgapw'n hJmevra" ijdei'n ajgaqav"… pau'son th;n glw'ssavn sou ajpo; kakou' kai; ceivlh sou tou' mh; lalh'sai dovlon. Who is the person who wants life, who loves to see good days? Keep your tongue from evil and your lips so that they do not speak guile. (Ps 34 [33]:13–14)

In addition, this psalm speaks of the “bones” of the righteous: kuvrio" fulavssei pavnta ta; ojsta' aujtw'n, e}n ejx aujtw'n ouj suntribhvsetai (“the Lord guards all their bones; not one of them will be crushed,” Ps 34 [33]:21).43 Finally, the vocabulary of Ps 55 (54):11–12 is also noteworthy for the evidence it provides for the traditional diction of suffering and vindication. The psalm is a prayer for deliverance from violence in the city. hJmevra" kai; nukto;" kuklwvsei aujth;n ejpi; ta; teivch aujth'", ajnomiva kai; kovpo" ejn mevsw/ aujth'" kai; ajdikiva, kai; oujk ejxevlipen ejk tw'n plateiw'n aujth'" tovko" kai; dovlo". By day and night he encircles her on her walls; lawlessness and pain and injustice are in the midst of her, and oppression and guile do not depart from her public squares. (Ps 55 [54]:11–12).

Here kuklovw, ajnomiva, dovlo" are familiar from other songs of oppression. The psalm goes on to say that God will “ransom” (lutrwvsetai) the soul in peace (Ps 55 [54]:19). In addition, the psalm speaks of the betrayal of the familiar friend, a motif that contributes to the formation of Judas’s role in the passion narrative. 42 43

Bornemann: Petrusbrief, 143–165. John 19:36 makes use of this verse in the account of Jesus’ crucifixion.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

69

Thus, although I do not argue that such psalms as 32 (31), 34 (33), and 55 (54) are necessarily activated by 1 Pet 2:22b, they nonetheless provide a glimpse into the traditional diction of suffering and vindication. These complexes of vocabulary and motifs provide the means for speaking of Jesus’ suffering. It is not incidental either that the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 derives its diction, at least in part, from song texts, since this vocabulary provides for a way of speaking of suffering and vindication within the genre of song and under the constraints of performance within ritual. This relationship suggests that it may be best to understand 1 Pet 2:22–25 as a trope developing within the performance of such songs. We may conclude then that 1 Pet 2:22 corresponds almost entirely to the second half of Isa 53:9, allowing for such variation in vocabulary as occurs in regular parallelism in Isaiah. In addition, the diction of this verse is markedly similar to the vocabulary and motifs found in the psalms of the suffering and vindicated righteous, which may have been available within traditions of performance. 1 Pet 2:23a — loidorevw The next phrase of the hymn, o}" loidorouvmeno" oujk ajnteloidovrei (“who, when he was abused, did not return abuse,” 1 Pet 2:23a) does not correspond to any specific passage from the scriptures of Israel, nor is the verb loidorevw (“I abuse”) or its cognates found in deutero-Isaiah. We must ask, therefore, whether this phrase can be understood within the traditional diction of scripture. It should be noted, first, that the author of 1 Peter picks up this diction in the development of the household code (1 Pet 3:1–9), to; de; tevlo" pavnte" oJmovfrone", sumpaqei'", filavdelfoi, eu[splagcnoi, tapeinovfrone", mh; ajpodidovnte" kako;n ajnti; kakou' h] loidorivan ajnti; loidoriva", toujnantivon de; eujlogou'nte" o{ti eij" tou'to ejklhvqhte i{na eujlogivan klhronomhvshte. Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love for one another, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but on the contrary, repay with a blessing, for into this you were called, so that you might inherit a blessing (1 Pet 3:8–9).

It has been suggested that the epistle is here commenting or expanding upon the hymn.44 If this is the case, then it is striking that this passage leads into the quotation of Ps 34 (33):13–17 at 1 Pet 3:10–12, since we have noted above that this psalm employs the diction of suffering and vindication and may be linked to the hymn already by the use of dovlo" (Ps 34 [33]:14).

44

Brox: Petrusbrief, 153–154.

70

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

Three instances of loidorevw and its cognate noun, loivdoro" (“abuser”), in the New Testament occur in 1 Corinthians in traditional lists. This group of words is otherwise rare in the New Testament. 1 Cor 4:12, loidorouvmenoi eujlogou'men (“when we are abused, we bless”) locates this verb within a list of apostolic hardships. 1 Cor 5:11 and 1 Cor 6:10 both include loivdoro" in lists of those who do wrong and who (1 Cor 6:9) will not inherit the kingdom of God. These occurrences, together with the use of loidoriva in 1 Pet 3:9, suggest that the word belongs in catechetical material, that is, in the formation of the ethical identity of communities. Although this parenetic use may contribute to the presence of loidorevw in 1 Pet 2:23, it is also possible to locate it with reference to the cult legend of Israel. loidorevw functions as one of the key words in the Greek version of the story of the testing of God in the wilderness found in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20. In Exodus, this episode is one of the first events of the journey in the wilderness, whereas in Numbers it takes place at the end of the forty years. In Exodus 17, the prominence of the verb is clear. kai; ejloidorei'to oJ lao;" pro;" Mwu>sh;n levgonte" do;" hJmi'n u{dwr, i{na pivwmen. kai; ei\pen aujtoi'" Mwu>sh'" tiv loidorei'sqev moi, kai; tiv peiravzete kuvrion… And the people abused Moses saying, “Give us water, so that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why you abuse me, and why do you test the Lord?” (Exod 17:2)

Num 20:3 uses the same verb to characterize the people’s actions against Moses. kai; ejloidorei'to oJ lao;" pro;" Mwu>sh;n levgonte" o[felon ajpeqavnomen ejn th'/ ajpwleiva/ tw'n ajdelfw'n hJmw'n e[nanti kurivou. And the people abused Moses saying, “We ought to have died in the destruction of our brothers before the Lord.”

The verb is so associated with the episode that its cognate loidovrhsi" (“abuse”) is sometimes used in the Septuagint to translate the name Meribah, the place where this episode occurred. Most notably, it is used in the renaming of the place in Exod 17:7, kai; ejpwnovmasin to; o[noma tou' tovpou ejkeivnou Peirasmo;" kai; Loidovrhsi" dia; th;n loidorivan tw'n uiJw'n ∆Israh;l kai; dia; to; peiravzein kuvrion levgonta" eij e[stin kuvrio" ejn hJmi'n h] ou[… And they named that place “Testing” [=Massah] and “Abuse” [=Meribah] because of the children of Israel’s abuse and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

71

Similarly, in Num 20:24, the name of the place is rendered ejpi; tou' u{dato" th'" loidoriva" (“at the water of abuse”).45 I would propose, therefore, that loidorevw and its cognates are so important to this narrative that their use elsewhere recalls the episode of the cult legend. Thus, its use in catechetical material would cause the example from the wilderness narrative to be remembered. But if what is happening in the creation of a story about Jesus’ suffering is the new formation of a cult legend, then the presence of this verb in the hymn, in the context of ritual performance, indicates one point of connection between the cult legend of Israel and this new story. Although other episodes from the cult legend of Israel are not specifically activated within this hymn in 1 Peter as the events at Meribah are, the combination of the song from Isaiah 53 with one event from the cult legend is already evident. In other words, at least in this one regard the shaping of the hymn is able to understand deutero-Isaiah in terms of the wilderness narrative and to identify the servant of Isaiah 53 with Moses.46 Of course, within the hymn itself, this identity of the servant and Moses appears now to shift to Christ, although we may note that he is not named except within the frame of the hymn (1 Pet 2:21). Three other aspects of the story of Meribah are important for the formation of the story of Jesus’ suffering and the identity of a community shaped by this story, namely, the water from the rock, the significance of Meribah for the fate of Moses, and the proximity of the Meribah episode to the prescription of the ritual of the red heifer. The first of these starts with an obvious feature of the narrative. The reason for the people’s abuse of Moses is their lack of water. The solution is the miracle whereby, under God’s instruction, Moses strikes the rock and water gushes out. Although we do not find the motif of the water from the rock in 1 Peter, in other texts it occurs with reference to ritual contexts and the story of Jesus’ suffering. We have seen how, for example, in 1 Corinthians 10, drinking the water from the rock is a key element in Paul’s use of the cult legend of the exodus and the journey through the wilderness. It appears to com45 Elsewhere, Meribah appears in Greek as u{dwr ajntilogiva" (“water of controversy”); see Num 20:13; 27:14; Deut 32:51; 33:8; Pss 81 (80):8; 106 (105):32. The prefix ajnti- in this phrase may contribute to the formation ajntiloidorevw in 1 Pet 2:23. 46 Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 340–341, argues that the third Servant Song (Isa 50:4–11) includes reference to the Meribah episode among the sufferings the Servant undergoes. He connects Isa 50:8, “Who wishes to dispute [using the root byîr] with me?” with the events at Meribah, as well as with the complaint of Moses at the beginning of Deuteronomy (Deut 1:12), “How can I bear all by myself the weight and the burden of you, and your strife [again using the root byîr]?” The LXX, to translate mRkbV yîrw◊ at Deut 1:12, utilizes ajntilogiva, which in many other instances also signals the events at Meribah. Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 302, also notes that the story of Meribah and the tradition of splitting the rock to obtain water in the wilderness is also drawn into the second Servant Song at Isa 48:21, “They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts; he made water flow for them from the rock; he split open the rock and the water gushed out.”

72

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

prise an extension of the covenant meal of “spiritual food and drink” on Sinai (Exodus 24; see above) and is thus an expression of divine faithfulness to the covenant. This remembrance of the miraculous food and drink in the wilderness here serves as a typology for the eucharistic meal of the Christian community, a meal that “proclaim[s] the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor 11:26). Paul does not make explicit reference in this context to the motif of loidovrhsi" (“abuse”), but in 1 Cor 10:9, the motif of “testing” (peirasmov"), which is the counterpart to loidovrhsi" and used as the translation of Massah in Exodus 17 and Numbers 20, comprises one of the negative examples corresponding to the positive examples from the cult legend. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 10–11 the story of the abuse and testing in the wilderness, the spiritual drink from the rock, and the story of Jesus’ death combine within the ritual context of the community’s meal. This episode from the wilderness also comes to the fore in Hebrews 3 through the quotation of Ps 95 (94):7–11, a brief, poetic version of the events at Meribah and Massah. The quotation is used to contrast the wilderness generation with the Christian community to which Hebrews is addressed. According to Hebrews, through the disobedience at Meribah the wilderness generation had lost the possibility of entering the land of promise, God’s “rest,” whereas through the obedient death of Jesus, that promise was still available to the Christian community. Here too we see this episode from the cult legend contributing to the way in which the fate of the community results from the suffering and death of Jesus. As we shall see below in the discussion of Barnabas, “rock” is one of the motifs indicative of Barnabas’s baptismal frame of reference. It is also used extensively in reflection on Jesus’ suffering and endurance. Here the rock has strong covenantal associations as a metaphor for God and as an expression of God’s vindication of the covenanted people. The story of Meribah does not appear in Barnabas,47 but I would suggest that the prominence of the “rock” in Barnabas may well bring this story to remembrance as well. If this is the case, then in Barnabas, as in 1 Corinthians and Hebrews, we have this particular episode of the cult legend coming together with the story of Jesus’ suffering and the ritual of the community, in this instance, baptism. Second, the episode at Meribah determines the fate of Moses, at least according to the account in Numbers 20. After Moses strikes the rock and the Israelites drink from the water flowing from it, the Lord tells Moses, o{ti oujk ejpisteuvsate aJgiavsai me ejnantivon uiJw'n ∆Israhvl, dia; tou'to oujk eijsavxete uJmei'" th;n sunagwgh;n tauvthn eij" th;n gh'n, h}n devdwka aujtoi'".

47 The next episode in the exodus story, the battle with Amalek which also takes place at Rephidim, is developed allegorically to speak of Jesus’ authority in Barn. 12.8–9.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

73

Because you did not believe that I would show my holiness before the the Israelites, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them. (Num 20:12)

This detail is missing from the parallel narrative in Exodus 17, but the connection between the episode at Meribah and Moses’ death before the entry into the promised land is clear in Deut 32:51 and Ps 106 (105):32. Psalm 106 (105) is significant as a version of the cult legend in song form; the instance in Deuteronomy 32 occurs within the narrative immediately after Moses recites the Song of Moses, a central text in reenactments of the fate and vindication of Moses as well as in the construction of the story of Jesus’ suffering. It is important to observe, however, that on a narrative level the reason for Moses’ fate remains enigmatic. Although Num 20:12 and Deut 32:51 suggests that the problem is Moses’ lack of faith, the preceding narrative would not lead to this conclusion. Ps 106 (105):32 links Moses’ fate to the behavior of the community, kai; parwvrgisan aujto;n ejf’ u{dato" ajntilogiva" kai; ejkakwvqh Mwu>sh'" di’ aujtouv" And they angered him at the water of controversy [= Meribah] and Moses was ill-treated because of them.

In other words, the people’s actions at Meribah — testing the Lord and abusing Moses — result in Moses’ death prior to the entry into the promised land. A preliminary observation about the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 is appropriate at this point. The figure of the suffering servant from Isaiah 53 becomes or is already associated with the cult legend of Israel and especially with the figure of Moses. Within the hymn, moreover, the combined figure of Moses and the servant is actualized in terms of Jesus. Jesus becomes the new pivot of the reenactment of the cult legend. In particular, the episode of Meribah, which is crucial to the fate of Moses and which is brought to the foreground in the hymn by the use of the verb loidorevw, contributes to the construction of Jesus’ suffering. I suggest that here it is evident that the death of Moses is a key element in the formation of the story of Jesus’ death. This process is analogous to that which was observed in the previous chapter with reference to 1 Corinthians 10 and 11. In 1 Pet 2:22–25, the actualization of the cult legend takes place in the person of Jesus. That is, remembering Jesus in traditional diction becomes generative of a new performance of the cult legend. In 1 Corinthians, it is the ethical and ritual behavior of the community that reenacts the legend, which has already been shaped in terms of the death of Jesus. In the case of 1 Peter, however, this actualization of the cult legend, brought into focus by the use of loidorevw, takes place in a hymn, that is, within the ritual and most likely the baptismal actions of the community. Thus it points to a reenactment, not only in the construction of Jesus’ sufferings, but also in the community as it is constituted by its ritual actions. The author of

74

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

1 Peter, furthermore, appears aware of the link between the hymn and the identity of the community when in 1 Pet 3:9 the term loidoriva is incorporated into the parenesis. We can regard the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 as contributing to an experiment in the construction of a new community, the identity of which is informed by the memory of Jesus’ death. The third connection between the story of the water of Meribah and Jesus’ passion is the ritual of the red heifer. The account of Meribah in Numbers 20 follows directly upon the instructions for this ceremony of purification from contact with a corpse. The ceremony of the red heifer appears not to inform the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25. At first glance the sequence of episodes seems incidental for our purposes, but in Barnabas 8 these ritual actions are the basis for speaking of Jesus’ death and forgiveness. In particular, the use of scarlet wool, wood, and hyssop are all taken as indications of the crucifixion; we may note that these elements also find their various ways into the passion narratives as we know them. Hebrews also contrasts the sacrifice of the red heifer and the Yom Kippur rituals with the “blood of Christ” (Heb 9:14). The story of Meribah and the instructions for the red heifer ritual in Numbers both contribute to the formation of ways of speaking of Jesus’ death. Both are important parts of the cult legend of the people of Israel. Both are actualized on a number of occasions, although not always in the same texts, in ritual contexts with regard to Jesus’ death. At this stage of analysis, it is not apparent whether and in what ways they should be seen as belonging together and, if they were linked, what the significance of this connection was for various early Christian communities. 1 Pet 2:23b — ajpeilevw The next line of the hymn, pavscwn oujk hjpeivlei (“when he suffered, he did not threaten”), further characterizes Jesus. Again, it is necessary to inquire into the diction of this phrase and the scriptures that inform this portrayal of Jesus. Many commentators have remarked on the centrality of the verb pavscw and its cognates in 1 Peter, not least in the baptismal hymns.48 The second verb, ajpeilevw (“threaten”), has received much less attention. Like loidorevw it is not drawn from Isaiah 53, but this verb and its cognate noun ajpeilhv appear elsewhere in the prophetic tradition, notably in Isaiah 50 and Zechariah 9, and in stories of the suffering righteous. These traditions may have contributed to its emergence in this hymn. It should be noted also that ajpeilevw and ajpeilhv are fairly rare words, so their occurrence in these passages carries greater significance. In Isa 50:2, immediately preceding the third of the servant songs, God responds to those who question his ability to save. 48 Gabarrón: Pasión, 108; Cross: I. Peter, 13; Boismard: Hymnes; Lamau: Exhortation, 122; Hill: Suffering, 181.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

75

mh; oujk ijscuvei hJ ceivr mou tou' rJuvsasqai… h] oujk ijscuvw tou' ejxelevsqai… ijdou; th'/ ajpeilh'/ mou ejxerhmwvsw th;n qavlassan kai; qhvsw potamou;" ejrhvmou", kai; xhranqhvsontai oiJ ijcquve" aujtw'n ajpo; tou' mh; ei\nai u{dwr kai; ajpoqanou'ntai ejn divyei. Is my hand not strong for rescuing or am I not strong for setting free? Behold, by my threat I shall dry up the sea and I will make rivers deserts and their fish shall become dry from there being no water and they shall die of thirst. (Isa 50:2)

Two features of this passage are notable in light of the earlier discussion of the story of Meribah. First, questioning God’s ability to save — the implicit problem in the passage — is similar to the complaint of the people in the wilderness. Second, if God should threaten, the result is the lack of water, which is exactly what the people are complaining about in the wilderness. Given that one of the concerns of deutero-Isaiah is to present the exile as a reenactment of the exodus, this correspondence is not surprising. Moreover, if we follow Klaus Baltzer’s argument that the suffering servant is best understood as Moses within this reenactment,49 then we may also read the suffering servant song of Isa 50:4–11 in terms of Moses’ endurance of abuse from the people at Meribah. In Isa 50:4–11, the suffering servant does not return the people’s abuse in kind and is thus the assurance that God’s threat is not carried out. Similarly, the assertion in 1 Pet 2:23b that Christ did not threaten when he suffered assures deliverance and vindication for the covenant people. In the Meribah story and Isaiah 50, the supply of water is the sign of God’s constancy. It is notable in this regard that the description of the suffering servant here includes the phrase, ajlla; e[qhka to; provswpovn mou wJ" sterea;n pevtran (“But I set my face as a solid rock,” Isa 50:7) since, as I shall argue below, the expression sterea; pevtra appears in both Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon in baptismal and passion contexts. The portrayal of the suffering servant in Isaiah 50 plays an important role in the construction of Jesus’ passion in Barnabas, the Odes of Solomon, and the passion narratives. It also corresponds well to the themes of the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 inasmuch as both depict one who does not respond in like manner to those who threaten and abuse him. Thus, I would propose that the song in Isaiah 50 is activated by the use of ajpeilevw in 1 Pet 2:23b, in connection with the Meribah story. Once again the combination of the fate of the servant and the 49 See Baltzer: Erhöhung, 45–56, where he proposes this idea in relation to Isaiah 52. In his recent commentary on deutero-Isaiah, Baltzer develops the argument with regard to the other songs; see Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 138–142, 205–208, 251–252, 318.

76

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

fate of Moses is reenacted in the construction of Jesus. Jesus and his sufferings become the new focus of the cult legend.50 Another prophetic context that may inform the use of ajpeilevw in 1 Pet 2:23b is Zechariah 9–13. Consider the occurrence of ajpeilhv in Zech 9:14, a poetic text. kai; kuvrio" e[stai ejp’ aujtou;" kai; ejxeleuvsetai wJ" ajstraph; boliv", kai; kuvrio" pantokravtwr ejn savlpiggi salpiei' kai; poreuvsetai ejn savlw/ ajpeilh'" aujtou'. And the Lord will be over them and he will come forth like a flash of lightning, and the almighty Lord will sound forth with a trumpet and will come in the rolling wave of his threat. (Zech 9:14)

The prophetic oracle here speaks of God’s advent to rescue the people from the Assyrians; we may note a number of features in the surrounding context. First, the promise of God’s saving protection is again linked with a supply of water: aijtei'sqe uJeto;n para; kurivou kaq’ w{ran provimon kai; o[yimon: kuvrio" ejpoivhsen fantasiva", kai; uJeto;n ceimerino;n dwvsei aujtoi'", eJkavstw/ botavnhn ejn ajgrw'/ (“ask rain from the Lord in the early season and in the later; the Lord has made appearances and will give wintry rain to them, vegetation in the field to each person,” Zech 10:1). Second, much of Zechariah 10–11 concerns the “shepherds of Israel” who lead the people astray. This motif is important for the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25, since 1 Pet 2:25, h\te ga;r wJ" provbata planwvmenoi (“for you were straying like sheep”), corresponds to a similar phrase from Isa 53:6, pavnte" wJ" provbata ejplanhvqhmen (“all we like sheep have gone astray”).51 Third, Zechariah contributes a great deal to the story of Jesus’ suffering in Barnabas and the passion narratives. We may note the importance of Zech 9:9 (LXX), ijdou; oJ basileuv" sou e[rcetaiv soi, divkaio" kai; swv/zwn aujtov", prau'" 50 ajpeilhv (“threat”) is again used in Isa 54:9 when God swears not to be angry or to threaten the people ever again, evoking God’s oath in the days of Noah. The promise then recalls the “covenant of peace” that will remain forever (Isa 54:10). For our purposes, this instance of ajpeilhv is interesting primarily because it occurs in the only developed midrash on the story of Noah in the scriptures of Israel. 1 Pet 3:20–21, however, uses the story of Noah as an “antitype” (ajntivtupo") of baptism, a ritual which may have covenantal associations for 1 Peter. The explicit appearance of the story of Noah in deutero-Isaiah and 1 Peter, but in few other places, suggests that the author of 1 Peter may have seen the story of Noah as related to the suffering servant and the patience of God in not fulfilling his threat. 51 Although the Masoretic text of Zech 10:2 speaks of the people “going astray like sheep” (using a verb different from that in Isa 53:6), the Septuagint reads instead, dia; tou'to ejxhvrqhsan wJ" provbata kai; ejkakwvqhsan (“therefore they were taken up like sheep and maltreated”). Thus, it is not possible to say that Zech 10:2 contributes to the diction of 1 Pet 2:25, but certainly it shares the motif of the sheep in difficult circumstances.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

77

kai; ejpibebhkw;" ejpi; uJpozuvgion kai; pw'lon nevon (“Lo, your king comes to you, just and saving is he, humble and riding upon a donkey and a new colt”) for the story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem before the crucifixion (Mark 11:7; John 12:15). The thirty pieces of silver in Zech 11:12–14 are taken up in the synoptic portrayal of Judas’s handing over of Jesus (Matt 26:15; 27:9). The second part of Zech 12:10, “Then they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him as for a beloved, they shall grieve as for a first-born” is incorporated into John’s account of the crucifixion (John 19:37) and that of the Gospel of Peter (Gos. Pet. 3.9; 7.25), most likely out of the exegetical tradition attested in Barn. 7.7–11.52 Barn. 5.12, in an extended scriptural reflection on Jesus’ death, incorporates Zech 13:6–7, referring to the wounds (plhgaiv) and recalling the phrase, patavxate tou;" poimevna" kai; ejkspavsate ta; provbata (“strike the shepherd and scatter the sheep”). This section of Zechariah is particularly concerned with the relationship between the shepherd and the sheep, whereby the behavior of the leader is decisive for the fate of the community. Lastly, given the significance of the covenant for the construction of Jesus’ death in other texts, the concluding verse of Zechariah 13 is important for its iteration of the covenant formula, kai; ejrw' laov" mou ou|tov" ejstin, kai; aujto;" ejrei' kuvrio" oJ qeov" mou (“And I shall say, ‘This is my people,’ and it [the people] shall say, ‘The Lord is my God,’” Zech 13:9).53 52 The text of Zech 12:10 is that found in Lucian, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as well as quoted in Justin 1 Apol. 52.12, tovte o[yontai eij" o}n ejxekevnhthsan. See Koester: Überlieferung, 152–153; and Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 224–225. 53 This section of Zechariah may also inform 1 Pet 2:25b and c, ajlla; ejpestravfhte nu'n ejpi; to;n poimevna kai; ejpivskopon tw'n yucw'n uJmw'n (“but you have turned now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls”). Compare the use of the verb ejpiskopevw (“oversee”) with reference to God in the condemnation of the bad shepherds in Zech 10:2–3, diovti oiJ ajpofqeggovmenoi ejlavlhsan kovpou", kai; oiJ mavntei" oJravsei" yeudei'", kai; ta; ejnuvpnia yeudh' ejlavloun, mavtaia parekavloun: dia; tou'to ejxhvrqhsan wJ" provbata kai; ejkakwvqhsan, diovti oujk h\n i[asi". ejpi; tou'" poimevna" parwxuvnqh oJ qumov" mou, kai; ejpi; tou;" ajmnou;" ejpiskevyomai: kai; ejpiskevyetai kuvrio" oJ qeo;" oJ pantokravtwr to; poivmnion aujtou' to;n oi\kon ∆Iouda' kai; tavxei aujtou;" wJ" i{ppon eujpreph' aujtou' ejn polevmw/ (“Therefore those who speak plainly spoke empty things, and the diviners were speaking false visions and false dreams; they encourage idle things. Because of this, they were carried off like sheep and were harmed; therefore there is no healing. My anger was provoked against the shepherds and I shall oversee my lambs. The Lord, the almighty God will oversee his flock, the house of Judah and will order them like his glorious horse in war”). A similar conjunction of diction occurs also in Zech 11:16 as well as in Ezek 34:4–16, which is also concerned with distinguishing true and false “shepherds” or leaders for the community. In Zechariah 10–11, the leadership of the false shepherds results in the idolatry of the people. In Ezekiel 34, God, the true shepherd, renews the covenant with the community (see Ezek 34:24 for the statement of substance and Ezek 34:25–30 for the listing of the covenantal blessings). The affirmation of God as shepherd and overseer accords well with the use of the cult legend in 1 Pet 2:22–25 and is a way of indicating the vindication of the community (see below). Although it is not possible to be certain whether 1 Pet 2:25b and c belong to the hymn itself, it is apparent that these lines flow easily into the structure and sequence of the hymn. I would suggest that even if they are the composition of the author of 1 Peter, they were composed with an awareness of the traditions that informed the hymn.

78

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

If ajpeilhv alone were the link between Zechariah and the characterization of the passion in 1 Pet 2:22–25, it would not be enough to associate the two passages. The link between ajpeilhv in Zech 9:14 and ajpeilevw in 1 Pet 2:23b, however, exists within a large and active complex of passion motifs, many of which appear in Barnabas and in the passion narratives of John, Mark, and the Gospel of Peter. In addition, the story of the water of Meribah, the song traditions of deutero-Isaiah, and the prophetic oracle of Zechariah 9–13 together comprise a network of diction and motifs which informs the hymn of 1 Pet 2:22–25 and its portrayal of the fate of the individual as decisive for the life of the community. Other passages from the scriptures of Israel provide evidence of the traditional diction which informs the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25. In Prov 20:2–3, loidoriva and ajpeilhv occur in close succession, ouj diafevrei ajpeilh; basilevw" qumou' levonto", oJ de; paroxuvnwn aujto;n aJmartavnei eij" th;n eJautou' yuchvn. dovxa ajndri; ajpostrevfesqai loidoriva", pa'" de; a[frwn toiouvtoi" sumplevketai. The threat of a king is not different from the wrath of a lion, and the one who provokes him sins against his own soul. It is glory to a man to turn away from abuse, but every fool is engaged in such things.

I would not argue that these sayings have influenced 1 Pet 2:22–25 directly;54 rather, given that neither loidoriva nor ajpeilhv is a common word, their conjunction here suggests that they belong together within traditional diction, perhaps because of the association of the Meribah story with prophetic traditions about God’s threat. The stories about the suffering righteous of Israel contribute in various ways to the formation of the passion narrative.55 The several occurrences of ajpeilhv and ajpeilevw in the account of the Maccabean martyrs in 4 Maccabees are thus striking.56 The “threat” is always from the oppressors against the seven brothers; implicitly they do not threaten when they suffer. Although in its explicit use, the employment of ajpeilhv here is the opposite of that in 1 Pet

54 The other instances of ajpeilhv in Proverbs also provide evidence of the place of this word within the diction of suffering and vindication. Note particularly Prov 13:7–8 (oiJ tapeinou'nte", luvtron, ajpeilhv) and 17:10–11 (ajpeilhv, mastigovw, ajntilogiva). 55 See Nickelsburg: Genre, 155–157. 56 See 4 Macc 7:2; 8:19; 9:5, 32; 13:6 (by implication); and 14:9.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

79

2:23b, the message is the same: threats belong to those who do not rely on God’s vindication.57 The story of Judith is also an important witness for the use of ajpeilevw in a narrative of deliverance. In her speech before the elders of Bethulia (Jdt 8:11–27), Judith reproves them for putting God to the test (peiravzw, 8:12) and warns them not to anger God but to wait for God to help (bohqevw, 8:15)58 them. She supplies the following reason for this counsel. o{ti oujc wJ" a[nqrwpo" oJ qeo;" ajpeilhqh'nai oujd’ wJ" uiJo;" ajnqrwvpou diaithqh'nai. because God is not like a human to be threatened nor like a son of man to be turned by entreaty. (Jdt 8:16)

Judith’s speech concerns the deliverance of Israel from the Assyrians, but the immediate problem for the besieged city is the lack of water. Uzziah asks Judith to pray that God will fill their cisterns (Jdt 8:30–31). Thus, the situation of the inhabitants of Bethulia is much like of the Israelites in the wilderness who demand water. Moreover, Judith’s statement quoted above is nearly identical to a passage from Balaam’s second oracle in Num 23:19. oujc wJ" a[nqrwpo" oJ qeo;" diarthqh'nai oujde; wJ" uiJo;" ajnqrwvpou ajpeilhqh'nai God is not like a human to be misled nor like a son of man to be threatened.

Balaam’s oracle pertains to Israel’s deliverance from foreign oppression by the Moabites. The account of Balaam forms part of the cult legend of the journey in the wilderness and in Numbers follows close upon the story of Meribah and the miraculous spring of water. The story of Judith is thus arguably a reenactment of portions of the cult legend of the wilderness. If this is the case, then it shows the transformation of the cult legend into a story of the suffering and deliverance of the people under new circumstances; it may therefore be an indication of the process by which the cult legend of the exodus and wilderness journey is reenacted as a new story about Jesus’ death. The statement in 1 Pet 2:23b that Jesus did not threaten when he suffered signals the reenactment of the narrative traditions about

57 To these uses can be added 3 Macc 2:24 (the threats of Ptolemy or Simon against Israel); 3 Macc 5:18, 30, 33, 37 (the threats of Ptolemy against Hermon). Similarly, ajpeilevw is also used for the threats against Susanna’s life (Sus 28). 58 bohqevw is a key word for God’s deliverance of the suffering righteous, particularly throughout the Psalms.

80

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

threatening God or God’s people, together with prophetic traditions about God’s refraining from threat, in a song about Jesus’ suffering. 1 Pet 2:23c — paradivdwmi The next line of the hymn, paredivdou de; tw'/ krivnonti dikaivw" (“but handed [himself]59 over to the one who judges justly”) does not appear to be drawn as a whole directly from Isaiah 53, although the verb paradivdwmi occurs there three times (Isa 53:6 and twice in Isa 53:12). Its diction is conditioned, however, not only by the common motif of God as the just judge, but also by the use of paradivdwmi in the prophets and the Psalms. In the passion narratives,60 paradivdwmi is the verb used for a number of the key narrative movements: for Judas’s action of handing Jesus over to the Jewish leaders (e.g., Mark 14:10, 18, 41, 42; John 18:2), for Jesus’ delivery to Pilate (Mark 15:1), for the handing over of Jesus to be crucified (Mark 15:10, 15; John 19:16), and for Jesus’ handing over his spirit (John 19:30).61 The use of paradivdwmi for Jesus’ trial in the gospels has influenced the textual history of 1 Pet 2:23c in the Western tradition. In a few lectionaries, some manuscripts of the Vulgate as well as in a Latin translation of Clement of Alexandria and in Cyprian, we find tw'/ krivnonti ajdikw'" or “iudicanti se iniuste” (“to the one who judges him unjustly”) rather than tw'/ krivnonti dikaivw" (“to the one who judges justly”). The former reading is understandable as an attempt to conform the hymn to the passion narratives.62 Of the numerous instances of paradivdwmi in the scriptures of Israel most refer to the giving of enemies into Israel’s hands, the giving of Israel into the hands of enemies, or the giving of the promised land to Israel. In the Psalms, however, this verb is usually found in songs of suffering and despair and in prayers for deliverance.63 We may note in particular its occurrence in Ps 106 (105):41, kai; parevdwken aujtou;" eij" cei'ra" ejqnw'n (“and he handed them over into the hands of the nations”) because in this psalm the story of the wandering in the wilderness is retold, including the episode at Meribah and its ef-

59 The lack of a direct object is awkward and has resulted in various variant readings. The construction may be influenced by the two preceding finite verbs, ajnteloidovrei and hjpeivlei, which also lack objects, and by the hymnic style. 60 It is also used in the passion predictions (e.g., Mark 9:31; 10:33). 61 The use of paradivdwmi in the Gospel of Peter is somewhat different. Here Pilate “hands over” a prisoner at the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Gos. Pet. 2.5) and soldiers to guard the tomb (Gos. Pet. 8.30–31). 62 Goppelt: I Peter, 212; Boismard: Hymnes, 114–115. ajdikw'" may have also been introduced due to the presence of the same adverb at the end of 1 Pet 2:19; see Beare: Peter, 123. Harnack: Revision, 89–90, accepted this reading as original. 63 Pss 10:14 (9:35); 27 (26):12; 41 (40):3; 63 (62):10 (11); 74 (73):19; 78 (77):48, 61; 88 (87):9; 140 (139):9. Hezekiah’s prayer for deliverance from sickness is similar (Isa 38:12–13).

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

81

fects on Moses’ fate (Ps 106 [105]:32). More striking for its use in passion contexts is the appearance of paradivdwmi in Ps 118 (117):18, paideuvwn ejpaivdeusevn me oJ kuvrio" kai; tw'/ qanavtw/ ouj parevdwkevn me. The Lord has surely instructed me and has not handed me over to death.

As I shall show below, this psalm is important for the construction of Jesus’ suffering and death in Barnabas and Hebrews. One of its contributions to this construction is the motif of the stone rejected by the builders (Ps 118 [117]:22), employed by the author of 1 Peter (1 Pet 2:7). Although this line of the hymn is not drawn from Isaiah 53, paradivdwmi occurs three times within this song of the suffering servant. First, it occurs in the context of the wandering sheep, incorporated into 1 Pet 2:25. pavnte" wJ" provbata ejplanhvqhmen, a[nqrwpo" th'/ oJdw'/ aujtou' ejplanhvqh: kai; kuvrio" parevdwken aujto;n tai'" aJmartivai" hJmw'n. All we like sheep have gone astray, a person has gone astray in his own way, and the Lord has handed him over to our sins. (Isa 53:6)

The other two uses occur in close proximity to each other in a section of the song that we have considered already for the occurrences of aJmartiva in it. dia; tou'to aujto;" klhronomhvsei pollou;" kai; tw'n ijscurw'n meriei' sku'la, ajnq’ w|n paredovqh eij" qavnaton hJ yuch; aujtou', kai; ejn toi'" ajnovmoi" ejlogivsqh: kai; aujto;" aJmartiva" pollw'n ajnhvnegken kai; dia; ta;" aJmartiva" aujtw'n paredovqh. Therefore he will inherit many and have a share in the spoils of the strong for whose sake his soul was handed over into death, and he was counted among the lawless, and he himself bore the sins of many and was handed over because of their sins. (Isa 53:12)

The prominence of paradivdwmi in this passage is significant for our understanding of 1 Pet 2:23c, since the next line of the hymn, o}" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n aujto;" ajnhvnegken (“who himself bore our sins) is closely related to the line,

82

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

kai; aujto;" aJmartiva" pollw'n ajnhvnegken (“and he himself bore the sins of many”) in this passage (Isa 53:12e).64 I would suggest that the threefold use of paradivdwmi in Isaiah 53, together with its regular occurrence in psalms of suffering and deliverance or vindication, is sufficient for its activation in the formation of the hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25. The occurrence of paradivdwmi in close association with entire phrases that exist in both Isaiah 53 and 1 Pet 2:22–25 is further evidence of how the diction of passion traditions functions.65 In none of the cases that we have examined is paradivdwmi specifically associated with the motif of one who judges rightly, as it is in 1 Pet 2:23c. The several references to God’s judgment in deutero-Isaiah66 remind us that this text is governed by the framework of a covenant lawsuit and an assumption of God’s justice.67 In Jeremiah 11, one of the prophet’s laments over the broken covenant, the description of the prophet’s sufferings issues in a plea for God to judge righteously.68 ejgw; de; wJ" ajrnivon a[kakon ajgovmenon tou' quvesqai oujk e[gnwn: ejp’ ejme; ejlogivsanto logismo;n ponhro;n levgonte" deu'te kai; ejmbavlwmen xuvlon eij" to;n a[rton aujtou' kai; ejktrivywmen aujto;n ajpo; gh'" zw'ntwn, kai; to; o[vnoma aujtou' ouj mh; mnhsqh'/ e[ti. kuvrie krivnwn divkaia dokimavzwn nefrou;" kai; kardiva", i[doimi th;n para; sou' ejkdivkhsin ejx aujtw'n, o{ti pro;" se; ajpekavluya to; dikaivwmav mou. But I, led like a lamb without evil to be sacrificed, did not know, against me they calculated an evil plot, saying, “Come, let us throw wood upon his bread 64 The diction of this line of the hymn is also influenced by a similar line earlier in the suffering servant song, ou|to" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n fevrei (“this one bears our sins,” Isa 53:4a). It would be incorrect to say that 1 Pet 2:24a here quotes a combination of the two lines; rather the use of the song in ritual provides the diction that informs a new song about Jesus’ suffering. 65 The use of the imperfect paredivdou in 1 Pet 2:23 is unusual; Isaiah 53 employs the aorist parevdwken. The use of imperfects in the hymn, in distinction from the use in Isaiah 53, has led Achtemeier: 1 Peter, 159–160, to assert that “the choice of tenses for the verbs rests directly with the author.” I would observe, however, that the imperfect paredivdeto also occurs in 1 Cor 11:23, where Paul quotes an earlier tradition also related to Jesus’ death. The imperfect may indeed belong to the earliest constructions and cultic traditions of Jesus’ passion. 66 See, for example, Isa 49:25; 50:8; 51:22; 53:8. 67 Cross: Council, 274; Huffmon: Covenant Lawsuit, 284–295. Similarly, Deuteronomy 32, which also contributes significantly to passion traditions in Barnabas and Hebrews, can be understood in terms of a covenant lawsuit. To what degree this framework affects the story of Jesus’ trial remains to be seen. See Wiebe: Form, 121; and Sanders: Provenance, 87–96. Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 19, 398–429, argues that Isa 52:13–53:12 should be understood as a scene in the heavenly lawcourt, in which the servant of God is vindicated through the testimony of true witnesses who speak of his suffering on behalf of the people. This insight has important implications for understanding the vindication of Jesus before God, the righteous judge. 68 On the relation of Jer 11:19 to 1 Pet 2:23, see Boismard: Hymnes, 115.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

83

and let us rub him out from the land of the living, and his name will not be remembered any longer.” O Lord, who gives just judgments, who tries kidneys and hearts, may I see vengeance out of them from you because I have uncovered my acquittal toward you. (Jer 11:19–20)

This passage shares the diction of the suffering righteous one particularly in the motif of the blameless lamb led to be killed. This comparison corresponds closely to the description of the suffering servant in Isa 53:7. Vindication of the suffering both here and in Isaiah 53 depends upon the God who judges justly. Thus, in terms of both diction and motifs, 1 Pet 2:23c draws upon the traditions of the suffering righteous.69 It is, therefore, possible to describe 1 Pet 2:22–25 not as a quotation or the deliberate reproduction and transformation of a text, but rather as a multiform of a song, in this case sung with reference to Jesus’ suffering. The production of such a song is possible within the conditions of performance and ritual, in which song traditions are held within a community’s practice. In particular, the need to speak of the suffering and death of Jesus provides a new occasion for the cult legend. Here the song traditions about the suffering and vindicated servant combine with the narrative about the fate of Moses around the new focus of Jesus’ death and its consequences for the community. 1 Pet 2:24 We have already examined the first phrase of this verse, o}" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n aujto;" ajnhvnegken (“who himself bore our sins”), noting that it does not reproduce either Isa 53:4a or 53:12e exactly. Rather, it is best understood in terms of one song participating in the diction of another song. The next phrase, ejn tw'/ swvmati aujtou' ejpi; to; xuvlon (“in his body on the tree”) is not informed at all by the diction of Isaiah 53, by the cult legend of Israel, or by the traditional diction of the suffering righteous. In Barnabas 5, however, where there is an extended use of deutero-Isaiah and Zechariah, including the motif of the straying sheep, there is also mention of Jesus’ death ejpi; xuvlou (Barn. 5.13). Using xuvlon (“tree, wood”) appears to belong to the early construction of a memory of Jesus’ death.70 In the hymn, this phrase allows the identification of the subject of the hymn to be made, not primarily with Moses or with the suffering servant, but with Jesus and specifically with the suffering and dying Jesus. In other words, up to this point in the hymn the identity of 69 The presence of xuvlon and suntrivbw here in Jer 11:19 may be associated with the diction of the suffering righteous. Verbs with the root trivbw occur regularly in the scriptures used in passion traditions. xuvlon appears in constructions of Jesus’ death, as in 1 Pet 2:24 and in Barnabas; it may derive also from the curse in Deut 21:23. 70 Compare the use of xuvlon in Gal 3:13, where it also appears as an archaic element in Paul’s argument. The motif of the “curse” found in Galatians 3 is notably missing from the use in 1 Pet 2:24.

84

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

the subject has remained ambiguous inasmuch as it has been constructed from the diction of the cult legend and its reenactment in deutero-Isaiah. The phrase, “in his body on the tree,” however, establishes the new focal point of the legend — Jesus. The next two lines of the hymn mark the shift from a characterization of Jesus to statements about the community to which the hymn belongs. i{na tai'" aJmartivai" ajpogenovmenoi th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ zhvswmen so that leaving behind sins we might live to righteousness (1 Pet 2:24)

We have seen before how the reenactment of the cult legend establishes an identity for the community out of the fate of the individual. Now that the phrase, “in his body on the tree,” has secured the hymn’s reenactment in terms of Jesus, it is therefore fitting that the concern shifts to the status of the community. The contrasting form of these two lines belongs to early statements about the effects of entering the community, that is, to a baptismal context.71 We may compare, for example, the contrasting states of life linked to Jesus’ death in 2 Cor 5:15.,kai; uJpe;r pavntwn ajpevqanen, i{na oiJ zw'nte" mhkevti eJautoi'" zw'sin ajlla; tw'/ uJpe;r aujtw'n ajpoqanovnti kai; ejgerqevnti (“and he died for all, so that those who live might live no long for themselves but for him who died and was raised for them”).72 This observation does not lead to excluding these lines from the hymn; rather it suggests that the ritual diction for the identity of a community contributes to the hymn. That is, if attempts to speak of Jesus’ passion are closely linked to experiments in constituting new community, it is not surprising that a hymn about Jesus’ suffering also contains important markers of the community’s understanding of itself. Indeed, the singing of such a hymn would itself be an act of constituting community through performance, through the reenactment of Jesus’ suffering and through the reenactment of a number of traditional stories and songs, particularly those concerned with the fate of Moses and the fate of the suffering righteous. With the next phrase, ou| tw'/ mwvlwpi ijavqhte (“by whose bruise you have been healed”), we return to the diction of Isaiah 53. Compare Isa 53:5d, tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen (“by his bruise we have been healed”). This sin71 The use of ajpogenovmenoi here has led some to connect this verse with a form of baptism influenced by initiations into various mystery religions; see Büchsel: giv n omai, 686. See also Windisch: Katholische Briefe1, 66; and Dieterich: Mithrasliturgie, 14, 157–158. 72 Compare also Rom 6:11, ou{tw" kai; uJmei'" logivzesqe eJautou;" ªei\naiº nekrou;" me;n th'/ aJmartiva/ zw'nta" de; tw'/ qew'/ ejn Cristw'/ ∆Ihsou' (“so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus”); Rom 6:18, ejleuqerwqevnte" de; ajpo; th'" aJmartiva" ejdoulwvqhte th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ (“you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness”). On the similarity of these contrasting forms, see Boismard: Hymnes, 121–128.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

85

gle line, moreover, contains the link between the suffering of the individual and the resulting new status of the community. In Isaiah 53, this phrase is immediately followed by the motif of the wandering sheep and the statement, kai; kuvrio" parevdwken aujto;n tai'" aJmartivai" hJmw'n (“and the Lord has handed him over to our sins,” Isa 53:6). It is illuminating to compare the sequence of the hymn and Isa 53:5–6 at this point. 1 Pet 2:23c–25a

Isa 53:4–6

paredivdou de; tw'/ krivnonti dikaivw": o}" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n aujto;" ajnhvnegken ejn tw'/ swvmati aujtou' ejpi; to; xuvlon, i{na tai'" aJmartivai" ajpogenovmenoi th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ zhvswmen, ou| tw'/ mwvlwpi ijavqhte. h\te ga;r wJ" provbata planwvmenoi

ou|to" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n fevrei kai; peri; hJmw'n ojduna'tai, kai; hJmei'" ejlogisavmeqa aujto;n ei\nai ejn povnw/ kai; ejn plhgh'/ kai; ejn kakwvsei. aujto;" de; ejtraumativsqh dia; ta;" ajnomiva" hJmw'n kai; memalavkistai dia; ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n: paideiva eijrhvnh" hJmw'n ejp’ aujtovn, tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen. pavnte" wJ" provbata ejplanhvqhmen, a[nqrwpo" th'/ oJdw'/ aujtou' ejplanhvqh: kai; kuvrio" parevdwken aujto;n tai'" aJmartiva" hJmw'n

but handed [himself] over to the one who judges justly, he who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that leaving behind sins we might live to righteousness, he, by whose bruise you have been healed, for you were straying like sheep

This one bears our sins and suffered for us and we have accounted him to be in pain and wound and misfortune. He was wounded because of our lawless deeds and weakened because of our sins; our discipline of peace is upon him; by his bruise we have been healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, each person has gone astray in his own way, and the Lord has handed him over to our sins.

As we have noted the two song texts share a great deal, but the sequence is different. Whereas in Isaiah the impression is of a lack of narrative sequence, in 1 Pet 2:22–25, there is a plot of sorts — Jesus’ actions lead to certain results for the community. Moreover in 1 Peter this embryonic narrative appears to be the result of a rearrangement of the ideas and phrases from Isaiah 53. So, whereas in Isaiah, “by his bruise we have been healed” comes in the middle of

86

The First Epistle of Peter: Jesus at the Waters of Meribah

the passage and can be followed by “the Lord has handed him over,” in 1 Peter the statement about healing concludes the sequence and paradivdwmi falls much earlier. The transformation of the song in 1 Peter corresponds structurally to the contrast between sins and righteousness in 1 Pet 2:24cd; there is an antecedent history with consequences for the present. I would propose that the ritual of baptism or initiation into a community contains within it the nucleus of this kind of narrative sequence. Hence, the transformation of Isaiah 53 into a baptismal song entails the introduction of a narrative sequence.73 The correspondence is not exact, however; the movement in baptism from sins to righteousness is not equivalent to the contrast between an antecedent history about Jesus and the present life of the community. Rather, if we think about this matter in terms of mimesis, we can identify a number of mimetic moments in the performance of this hymn. First, there must be the recognition of identity between the statements about Moses, the servant of Isaiah 53, and Jesus, as well as between the other suffering and vindicated ones whose stories contribute to the hymn and Jesus. The reenactment of the cult legend in terms of Jesus needs to be successful. Then, in addition, there needs to be a recognition of identity between the present audience, the “we” of the hymn, and the “we” of Isaiah. The baptismal statements of 1 Pet 2:24cd entail a further mimesis: the recognition that the past life of the members of the community corresponds to the “sins” of Isaiah 53. The story of Jesus — constructed particularly in terms of the fate of Moses and the servant of the Lord — here provides a new antecedent history for the community; any narrative about the past life of the community (“sins”) gives place to this antecedent history. In the logic of the hymn, the community’s “living to righteousness” continues the narrative; the reenactment in terms of Jesus becomes a reenactment in the life of the community. The sequence in Isaiah 53 from tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen (“by his bruise we have been healed”) to pavnte" wJ" provbata ejplanhvqhmen (“all we like sheep have gone astray”) recurs in 1 Peter. It functions as a way of linking the preceding narrative to a restatement of contrast, h\te ga;r wJ" provbata planwvmenoi, ajlla; ejpestravfhte nu'n ejpi; to;n poimevna kai; ejpivskopon tw'n yucw'n uJmw'n. For you were straying like sheep, but you have turned now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. (1 Pet 2:25) 73 Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 413, however, argues that Isa 53:4–6 itself summarizes in clear sequence the events of the wilderness trials. If this is the case, then the transformation of Isa 53:4–6 into a baptismal song about Jesus entails the rearrangement of an existing sequence, rather than the introduction of sequence for the first time.

1 Pet 2:22–25: A Hymn

87

We may note here again a narrative of sorts in the form of a then and now sequence. This sequence reinforces the sense of 1 Pet 2:24c–d, but requires a mimetic identification between the wandering sheep of Isa 53:6 and the members of the community. Having recognized this identity, the community is formed anew through the shaping of Isaiah 53 into a narrative about Jesus’ suffering and vindication. It is noteworthy that in this hymn there is nothing that would indicate that Jesus was delivered or vindicated. I would argue that the incorporation of the community into this narrative through its cultic performance functions as the vindication. On the level of the cult legend told in terms of Jesus and the present community, the vindication is marked by the statement about the present character of the community. The vindication takes place in the cultic action, however, as the community is able to recognize itself in the singing of the hymn and in the performance of a ritual such as baptism. These provide the crucial mimetic moments for the actual constitution of the community. In other words, as th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ zhvswmen in 1 Pet 2:24d marks the present life of the community as constituted through ritual, it also signals the vindication of Jesus. The hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 indicates that the story of Jesus’ passion arises at an early stage within the song tradition. The primacy of the song tradition in the formation of the memory of Jesus’ death has analogies. Such cultic songs as Exodus 15 (the Song of the Sea); Deuteronomy 32 (the Song of Moses), and Judges 5 (the Song of Deborah) are widely accepted as being much older than the prose narratives of the events they relate. In 1 Pet 2:22–25 we observe the hymnic process constructing the memory of Jesus’ death, and that it is through such hymns that this memory is alive within an early Christian community. The song tradition allows for the reconstrual of existing songs such as the songs of the suffering servant in deutero-Isaiah so that they come to speak of Jesus. Speaking of the new event of Jesus and his suffering and death both within traditional diction and in terms of cultic meaning generates a new enactment of the song tradition and the cult legend. In this case, the hymn about Jesus is the performance, the telling, that actualizes the cult legend and the prophecy. Moreover, this reenactment is bound closely to ritual; things said accompany things done so that together they constitute a community whose identity is informed by the cultic performance.

Chapter III The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved 1. Introduction The Epistle of Barnabas1 makes a bold statement about its audience, namely, that they have been brought into the “good land” flowing with milk and honey (Barn. 6.13–17). In speaking thus of the community that it addresses, Barnabas is making use of the central cult legend of Israel: the exodus, the journey through the wilderness, and the entry into the land. Unlike other early Christian writings that identify their audiences with the wilderness generation, Barnabas locates the Christian community in the land of promise as the heirs of the covenant. This corporate identity is central to the other concerns of the text, notably, the development of practices that distinguish this community from others.2 Within the context of the reenactment of this cult legend, Barnabas also speaks of the suffering and death of Jesus. Indeed, the death of Jesus is what has enabled the community addressed to enter the good land and become the heirs of the covenant. In other words, the identity of the community turns upon the fate of an individual. The way in which Barnabas speaks of Jesus’ suffering and death suggests, moreover, that Barnabas is familiar with a tradition of constructing a narrative of Jesus’ death out of the scriptures of Israel. In particular, this tradition connects the cult legend of the wilderness experience and the entry into the land with numerous song texts that are concerned with the suffering of the Lord’s servant, vindicated by God. These song texts are employed to speak of Jesus’ suffering and its consequences for the community. If we understand Barnabas in terms of the interaction of narrative and ritual within the dynamics of cultic performance, then it is possible to see in Barnabas, as in the other texts that we have examined thus far, indications of the formation of a new cult legend around the memory of Jesus’ death. This “new” cult legend is better conceived as a reactualization of the narrative of the exodus, wilderness, and entry into the land. The presence of song texts in close association with this reenactment of the cult legend suggests an existing practice of using such songs in this context, quite apart from any narrative about Jesus. In Barnabas these narrative and ritual reactualizations comprise material upon 1 A critical text of Barnabas is found in Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé; the Greek text is established here by Kraft, and the notes and commentary by Prigent. My English translations are based on those of Kraft: Barnabas. 2 See Hvalvik: Struggle, 140.

Introduction

89

which the discourse draws in order to derive meaning for the audience. In other words, in Barnabas we do not see a new narrative per se or the description of ritual practices, but rather the interpretation of these performances and a sharply drawn polemic based upon the interpretation. The tradition of retelling the cult legend requires the “there and then” of the story to be actualized in the “here and now” of the present situation. There are two main focuses of this process of actualization: the individual and the community. As the cult legend is told in the Pentateuch these are Moses and the Israelites; as the narrative is actualized in Barnabas the two points of focus are Jesus and the community that the text addresses. Although Barnabas never explicitly addresses the problem of the death of Moses prior to the entry into the promised land, I contend that this issue is nonetheless crucial to shaping the narrative about Jesus. To anticipate my conclusions, the narrative tradition about Jesus’ death that Barnabas knows appears to hear the suffering and vindicated righteous of the songs identified as Moses. Thus the fate of Moses and the fate of Jesus can be told in the context of the cult legend through the diction of these songs. The vindication of the individual — whether it be Moses, the servant of God, or Jesus — is expressed in terms of the fate of the community. Barnabas emphasizes that the benefit of Jesus’ death for the community consists of forgiveness and healing. Describing the benefit in this way is derived, as I shall show, not from the cult legend, which speaks rather of entry and possession of the land, but from the songs of the suffering righteous. Because the songs are interwoven with the cult legend, Barnabas is able to speak of forgiveness and entry into the land as equivalent. In terms of constructing the memory of Jesus’ death, however, the fact that the songs identify the benefit as forgiveness and healing allows the “problem” to be described as the need for forgiveness and located thus within the cult legend. In this light, it will be possible to see how the rituals of the red heifer and the scapegoat supply important parts of the diction for Jesus’ death. These are the rituals given within the cult legend for forgiveness, healing, and purity. Thus, although Barnabas does not explicitly make Moses’ death salvific, the wilderness problems of sin and idolatry (which prevent entry into the land) are resolved for the heirs of the covenant who receive forgiveness through Jesus’ death. It will be important to explore how the narrative of the fate of Jesus is constructed within the poetics of the cult legend, what treasury of traditions and practices is drawn upon, and how the “grammar” of composition works. In other words, how do the morphological building blocks of the story of Jesus’ suffering come together in this text? Because performance of a cult legend in community involves both narrative and ritual dimensions, it is also necessary to consider the cultic practices through which the community appropriates this narrative for itself so that the story about Jesus also becomes a story about it. In this case, as in the others we have explored already, the morphology em-

90

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

braces things done as well as things said. We shall look thus at the way in which reflection upon Jesus’ death is accompanied by the indices of ritual and in particular how the practice of covenant ratification and entry into the covenant, so central to the telling of the cult legend, is reenacted within Barnabas’s community as a practice of water baptism. I shall suggest that this practice provided one of the occasions for telling the story of the death of Jesus within this community. The performance of this story in conjunction with this rite would repeatedly constitute the community as the heirs of the covenant. 2. The Genre, Provenance, and Date of the Epistle of Barnabas Before we turn to an examination of the text in detail, we must consider what sort of document Barnabas is. Most important is the question of its genre, since identifying the genre of a work assists in locating it within the practice of a community. “Epistle” is certainly a misnomer for the work; aside from the salutation, caivrete, uiJoi; kai; qugatevre", ejn ojnovmati kurivou tou' ajgaphvsanto" hJma'", ejn eijrhvnh/ (“Greetings, sons and daughters, in the name of the Lord who loved us in peace,” Barn. 1.1), which could equally belong to other genres, the document gives no indication of a letter form. Robert Kraft suggests that it is more accurately a catechetical tractate.3 Numerous scholars have proposed that it is a homily or shows traces of homiletic form.4 For example, Lawrence Wills notes that the structure of the work corresponds to the form of hellenistic synagogue preaching.5 Klaus Baltzer has argued for the covenant formulary as the genre of Barnabas and described the sections as follows, Barnabas 2–17: dogmatic section, corresponding to an antecedent history, making use of numerous quotations and allusions to scripture, and expounding a relationship between creation and the passion of Christ (Barn. 5.1–7.2). Barnabas 18–20: statement of substance and ethical stipulations. Barnabas 21: summary of the commandments, followed by eschatological blessings and curses.6

By comparing the use of the covenant formulary here with its appearance in other early Christian texts, Baltzer has proposed that in early Christianity the covenant formulary was used as a homiletic form.7 It should be noted that Balt3 4 5 6 7

Kraft: Barnabas, 80. See, among others, Richardson/ Shukster: Barnabas, 55. Wills: Form, 292. Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 123–127. Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 172–175.

The Genre, Provenance, and Date of the Epistle of Barnabas

91

zer discusses only the form of Barnabas and does not consider whether the content of the document corresponds in any way to its genre. Kraft doubts whether the covenant formulary can account for the present shape of Barnabas but is willing to grant that if Baltzer’s general thesis is correct, it provides a comprehensive Sitz im Leben from which the diversity of material (homily, commentary, didache, etc.) in Barn could arise …. Barn 1–17 may reflect a collection of various materials which originally were used at different times but in which the same emphases were presented in the framework of the covenant formula.8

I would add to this assessment that Barnabas contains much evidence of the scriptural passages, theological understandings, and practices associated with the ritual of renewal or ratification of the covenant, as we shall see. Thus the form of the document may be related in this case to some of its central concerns. James Carleton Paget, in attempting to honor the ancient witnesses9 who call Barnabas an epistle, has proposed that it is an encyclical letter and hence lacks the specificity of address one might otherwise expect.10 Reider Hvalvik notes that Barnabas possesses many traits that suggest a situation of preaching; in particular he calls attention to the numerous references to hearing, the imperatives that summon the addressees’ attention, and the use of direct address and rhetorical questions. He concludes that the best explanation is that the author is making use of “material earlier employed in oral teaching/ preaching,” especially in chapters 6–9, 13, and 16. In his view, homiletical material is incorporated within an epistolary context.11 The views of Hvalvik and Carleton Paget, however, fail to acknowledge what Wills and Baltzer separately have observed about Barnabas, namely, that its overall structure corresponds to the form of early Christian and hellenistic synagogue preaching. If Barnabas is in any sense an epistle, that is, a document sent to another community, then it must be acknowledged that it is an epistle that makes use of the form of a homily. The value of these observations about the homiletical character of Barnabas, both in its form and in aspects of its style, is that they permit us to investigate it as a text that is closely connected to the cultic life of a community. In other words, although it is highly unlikely that Barnabas is a transcription of an actual homily, it nevertheless draws upon the narrative and ritual experiences of the cultic setting as well as upon the addressees’ expectations established within those experiences. It thus permits us a window into the processes of the forma-

8 9

Kraft: Quotations, 278 n. 6. Origen (Hom. in Lev. 9) adopted the label kaqolikh; ejpistolhv for Barnabas. See also Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.13.6; 6.14.1. 10 Paget: Epistle, 42–45. 11 Hvalvik: Struggle, 74–75.

92

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

tion of narrative and ritual around the memory of Jesus’ death, albeit as they are refracted through the polemical interests of the discourse. Leslie Barnard has gone the farthest in describing Barnabas as a homily, saying that it was “designed to be read at the Paschal Feast which culminated in the Easter baptism and eucharist — a solemn occasion when large numbers of Christians were gathered together.”12 He enumerates various aspects of the text that indicate a baptismal or paschal setting: the emphasis on suffering; the conjunction of the suffering and the glory of Jesus with particular reference to the “day” (“Good Friday” and “Easter” are not separated); the exodus setting of much of the discussion; explicit references to baptism, references to baptismal practice, catechetical background, creedal references, mention of a eucharist with milk and honey, and themes of light and darkness. Moreover, the fact that Clement of Alexandria quoted Barnabas with such esteem and regarded it as authoritative Barnard takes as evidence that the text had been used for a long time in public worship in Alexandria, probably on important occasions.13 Barnard’s work is useful for identifying those aspects of Barnabas that are akin to what we know from later sources as baptism. His overall argument falters, however, on the assumption of established baptismal practice and theology by the time of the writing of Barnabas. He asserts, for example, “In the early Church the regular season for baptism was Easter and the celebration of the baptismal-eucharist was central to the Paschal liturgy.”14 In applying this statement to Barnabas, Barnard is reading a later practice back into a text for which a “Paschal liturgy” is not attested. His interpretation forms an excellent example of what Paul Bradshaw, in writing on method in liturgical scholarship, has termed “the tendency towards harmonization.”15 This tendency fails to take into account the pluriform nature of early Christianity and is premised on the idea that “a single, uniform archetype ultimately underlies the later diversity in Christian worship practices.”16 In my view, it is better to understand the ritual references in Barnabas as evidence of one sort of cultic practice within the pluriformity of early Christianity than to read them through the lens of later paschal/ baptism practice. It is necessary, therefore, to search the text for indications of Barnabas’s own ritual framework within which narrative traditions about Jesus’ death functioned. The questions of the provenance and especially the date of the Epistle of Barnabas are the subject of considerable scholarly debate. In recent years, arguments have been put forth for a Syrian, Alexandrian, or western Asian place of 12 13

Barnard: Homily, 9–10. Barnard: Homily, 22. These arguments are repeated in his more recent article, Barnard: Setting, 172–173. 14 Barnard: Homily, 16. 15 Bradshaw: Search, 36–37. 16 Bradshaw: Search, 37.

The Genre, Provenance, and Date of the Epistle of Barnabas

93

origin for the discourse. Proposing that the kind of hellenistic Gnostic Jewish Christianity found in Barnabas is best seen as the same as that of the opponents of Ignatius in Philadelphia, Klaus Wengst locates Barnabas in western Asia Minor (ca. 130–132 C.E).17 Barnard, among others, has argued extensively on the basis of an Alexandrian setting for the work.18 An Alexandrian setting is supported by an affinity with the allegorical method of Philo, particularly in ther treatment of the food laws (Barn. 10.1–12), and the fact that Clement of Alexandria, the first author to quote Barnabas, appears quite familiar with the text and regards it as authoritative.19 In his commentary on Barnabas, however, Pierre Prigent argues for a Syrian provenance based on affinities between Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls, early rabbinic Judaism, the writings of Justin Martyr, and particularly the Odes of Solomon — documents which all have a closer connection to Syria than to Egypt. Prigent accounted for Clement of Alexandria’s familiarity with the text through Clement’s journey to acquaint himself with instruction outside of Alexandria (Strom. 1.11.2). Moreover, the method of scriptural interpretation in Barnabas has much in common with the pesher method employed at Qumran. It is also important to note that allegorical interpretations need not be confined to Alexandria and indeed are widespread in the hellenistic and Roman world.20 Hvalvik judiciously admits that the work has affinities with all three regions and that at this point all that is certain is that it originated in the eastern Greek-speaking Mediterranean.21 I find a Syrian setting for Barnabas more persuasive chiefly because of the connections with the Odes of Solomon, as well as with the passion narratives in Mark, John, and the Gospel of Peter which are best located in Syro-Palestine. The question of provenance, however, can remain open for the purposes of this present work; observances about Barnabas’s role in the creation of the passion narrative may contribute to this debate. Likewise, the question of the date of the final form of the text is by no means essential to my argument. Discussion of the dating has centered on two passages in Barnabas: 16.1–4 (a reference to the rebuilding of the temple by oiJ tw'n ejcqrw'n uJphrevtai [“the servants of the enemy”]) and 4.3–5 (to; tevleion skavndalon h[ggiken [“the last scandal is at hand”]). This “last scandal” is explicated through apocalyptic timetables provided by Daniel and an unnamed prophet: basilei'ai devka ejpi; th'" gh'" basileuvsousin, kai; ejxanasthvsetai o[pisqen mikro;" basileuv", o}" tapeinwvsei trei'" uJf’ e}n tw'n basileiw'n (“Ten 17 18

See Wengst: Tradition, 114–118. A summary of much of Barnard’s earlier work can be found in his overview, Barnard: Setting, 161–207. He has been joined by Carleton Paget: Epistle, 42, who calls an Alexandrian provenance “probable.” 19 Barnard: Setting, 172. See also Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 20–22. On the use of Barnabas by Clement and Origen more generally, see van den Hoek: Clement, 97–98. 20 Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 20–24. 21 Hvalvik: Struggle, 44.

94

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

kingdoms will reign on the earth. And afterwards there will arise a little king, who will humiliate three of the kingdoms simultaneously”). Based on these two passages, a number of possibilities in the period from 70 to 135 C.E. have been proposed: ca. 132 C.E. in reaction to Jewish or Roman plans to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem under Hadrian;22 a date toward the end of the reign of Trajan, ca. 115–117 C.E.;23 the period in which Vespasian shared his reign with his sons, Titus and Domitian;24 and, most recently, immediately after the reign of Nerva, ca. 98 C.E.25 Carleton Paget has argued strongly for this latter dating, locating the aims of Barnabas in the context of a renewed hope for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple under the more tolerant policies of Nerva.26 Kraft, however, has pointed out that because of Barnabas’s extensive use of source material, the age of these materials should be distinguished from the date of the final editing of the text.27 Even if a definite date for the final editing could be established, a possibility about which Kraft is not optimistic, the materials — and I would add, processes — that contributed to Barnabas could date from earlier periods.28 Indeed, it is likely that, because it is a text with close connections to cultic practice, Barnabas has a tendency to preserve older materials and evidence of the working of archaic traditions. It thus provides us insight into narrative processes that predate the passion narratives that we possess. This examination of Barnabas will on occasion make mention of the Odes of Solomon. This set of early Christian hymns from Syria (most likely Edessa or Antioch) and roughly contemporary with Barnabas is important for identifying how a narrative about Jesus’ suffering is formed.29 Prigent was, to my knowledge, the first to recognize any affinity between the Odes of Solomon and Barnabas.30 Moreover, the Odes and Barnabas share many allusions to the same passages of scripture and reflect a similar interest in baptism and the covenant, as we shall see below. Although neither text is dependent upon the other, the Odes of Solomon show that the verbal expressions employed in Barnabas also come together in songs, most likely ritual songs. In other words, these hymns provide evidence for the availability in a ritual context of the scriptural allusions that are found in Barnabas. If we follow Prigent in locating Barnabas in Syria, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Gunther: Barnabas, 143–151; and Barnard: Setting, 180. This view is summarized but not accepted by Richardson/ Shukster: Barnabas, 33. Robinson: New Testament, 313–319. Richardson/ Shukster: Barnabas, 53–55. Carleton Paget: Epistle, 28. Kraft: Barnabas, 42–43. Kraft: Barnabas, 42–43. See the critical edition of Charlesworth: Odes; as well as the translation (employed here) and commentary, in Charlesworth: OTP, vol. 2, 725–779; and Lattke: Oden. Charlesworth dates the Odes to ca. 100 C.E. (OTP vol. 2, 727). Note also the recent French translation of Marie-Joseph Pierre: Odes. 30 Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 24.

The Genre, Provenance, and Date of the Epistle of Barnabas

95

then it is possible to suppose close contact between Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. The Odes of Solomon contain a single explicit reference to the covenant: “Put on the crown in the true covenant of the Lord, and all those who have conquered [or, were declared blameless] will be inscribed in his book” (Odes Sol. 9.11). Like Barnabas, however, the Odes of Solomon employ the images of sprinkling and the entry into the land. Moreover, there are numerous parallels between the Odes and the Hodayot or thanksgiving hymns of Qumran (1QH), not only in the use of common themes and key expressions, but also in that both are hymnic elaborations on the basis of older psalms and hymns.31 It has been suggested that the Hodayot were used in the covenant renewal ceremonies of Qumran, described in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.32 If this is indeed the case, the relationship between the Hodayot and the Qumran covenant may provide an analogy for understanding the relationship between the Odes of Solomon and Barnabas. It may suggest that the Odes of Solomon were used in the ritual activity to which Barnabas alludes, namely, the renewal or ratification of the covenant. The Odes of Solomon are valuable for this project because they refer to many of the same motifs and practices that come together in Barnabas around the memory of Jesus. 3. Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend The Covenant It is immediately obvious that the scriptures of Israel pervade Barnabas, informing its diction, concerns, and governing concepts. In his recent monograph on Barnabas, Hvalvik has argued that the chief matter of contention in the text is the question of to whom the scriptures and their promises belong.33 That is, within the context of competition with other communities of Israel, Barnabas addresses the questions: With whom does God have a covenant? Which community possesses the correct interpretation of scripture, such that this interpretation gives authority to the distinct identity of the community? Barnabas rarely names its opponents, only to call them on occasion “Israel”; rather it prefers the polemical terminology of “they” or “those ones” versus “we.” As one instance, we may note the contentious question, i[dwmen dev, eij ou|to" oJ lao;" klhronovmo" h] oJ prw'to" kai; eij hJ diaqhvkh eij" hJma'" h] eij" ejkeivnou" (“but let us see if this people is the heir or the former people, and if the covenant is for us or for them,” Barn. 13.1). Barnabas finds an answer to this question by reading 31 32 33

Charlesworth: OTP, vol.2, 728. Holm-Nielsen: Hodayot, 316–320, 330–348; Kuhn: Enderwartung. Hvalvik: Struggle, 142.

96

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

scripture in such a way that the stories of the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh and of Moses’ breaking the tablets of the law are interpreted as authorizing “this people” — Barnabas’s audience — as the legitimate heirs of the covenant. My concern here is not with the historical identity of Barnabas’s audience or its opponents; it is instead with the way in which this text constitutes and gives authority to a community, namely, the ideal community assumed and addressed by its performance. Covenant, both as a theological category and as a ritual practice, is the principal means by which scripture becomes constitutive of community in this text. To this end, we must pay particular attention to references to the covenant as a central feature of the cult legend and of this discourse. Barnabas contains a number of explicit references to covenant. Among these are the two retellings of the story of Moses’ receiving the covenant on Mount Sinai (Barn. 4.7–8 and 14.1–4). According to these passages, the Israelite people had not received the covenant because Moses had broken the tablets of the law when he saw the idolatry of the people. Barnabas distinguishes between “them,” that is, the Israelites, and “us,” Barnabas’s community. Thus in Barnabas’s scheme, the addressees are made the true heirs of the covenant through Jesus’ suffering and death. Mwu>sh'" me;n e[laben, aujtoi; de; oujk ejgevnonto a[xioi. pw'" de; hJmei'" ejlavbomen, mavqete. Mwu>sh'" qeravpwn w]n e[laben, aujto;" de; oJ kuvrio" hJmi'n e[dwken eij" lao;n klhronomiva", di’ hJma'" ujpomeivna". Moses, then received [the covenant], but they did not prove worthy. And how did we receive it? Learn! Moses received it in the capacity of servant but the Lord himself gave it to us, to a “people” of inheritance, by enduring for us. (Barn. 14.3–4)

Redemption (luvtrwsi") is for the purpose of making a covenant with “us” (Barn. 14.5). Barnabas supports this interpretation of the giving of the law in Deuteronomy by quoting Isa 42:6–7, levgei ou\n oJ profhvth": ejgw; kuvrio" oJ qeov" sou ejkavlesav se ejn dikaiosuvnh/ kai; krathvsw th'" ceirovv" sou kai; ijscuvsw se, kai; e[dwkav se eij" diaqhvkhn gevnou", eij" fw'" ejqnw'n, ajnoi'xai ojfqalmou;" tuflw'n kai; ejxagagei'n ejk desmw'n pepedhmevnou" kai; ejx oi[kou fulakh'" kaqhmevnou" ejn skovtei. ginwvskete ou\n povqen ejlutrwvqhmen. Therefore the prophet says: “I, the Lord your God, have called you in righteousness, and I will grasp your hand and empower you, and I have given you as a covenant to the people, as a light for the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, and to lead out from their bonds those who have been shackled and from their prison house those sitting in darkness.” Know, then, whence we were redeemed. (Barn. 14.7)

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

97

In the interpretation of this quotation, Barnabas equates those who have been freed with those who have been given the covenant. Implicitly, through the use of this quotation and the two subsequent ones (Isa 49:6–7 and Isa 61:1–2), Jesus is identified as the redeemer who gives the covenant to the people (Barn. 14.7–9).34 The parallel to this passage (Barn. 4.6–8) concludes with the statement, kai; sunetrivbh aujtw'n hJ diaqhvkh, i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou ∆Ihsou' ejnkatasfragisqh'/ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th'" pivstew" aujtou' (“and their covenant of them was smashed to bits so that the covenant of Jesus the beloved might be sealed in our heart, in hope of his faith,” Barn. 4.8). The significance of “sealed” and of “beloved” as an epithet for Jesus will be investigated below; for now it suffices to say that both have associations within the ritual life of the community. The view of the covenant and of the role of Jesus here is consistent with the interpretation in Barn. 14.6–9. We may make some observations at this point. First, these passages take up one of the most problematic events in the cult legend of Israel, namely, the idolatry of the Israelites in making and worshipping the golden calf while Moses was receiving the law on Sinai (Exodus 32; Deuteronomy 9).35 For Barnabas, this episode becomes the dividing point between the two groups, because the breaking of the tablets becomes the sign of God’s abandonment of the Israelites. We are left wondering what happens to the covenant; in the biblical accounts new tablets are made (Exod 34:1–4; Deut 10:1–5) but no mention of this renewing of the covenant appears in Barnabas. We should note, however, that in the biblical accounts it is never quite clear why Moses is unable to enter the land of promise, but that the idolatry of the people, both here and elsewhere in the wilderness, appears to underlie this problem. Furthermore, it is as though his death compensates for the sin of the people, enabling the next generation to enter the land. This brings us to the second observation. After the breaking of the tablets, Barnabas 14 moves from narrating the episode to a mention of Jesus and Jesus’ endurance. That is, the fate of the covenant now hangs upon Jesus’ suffering “for us” (di’ hJma'", Barn. 14.4), diction that is reminiscent of deutero-Isaiah. Moreover, Barnabas then quotes three song texts from deutero-Isaiah, as though telling of the servant of God through these songs continues the cult legend. The third observation is that redemption from lawlessness (ajnomiva) becomes the focus of Jesus’ work,

34 35

Kraft: Barnabas, 125. Carleton Paget: Epistle, 114, argues that these doublets in Barnabas do not correspond closely to either biblical account, but seem closer to Deuteronomy 9.

98

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

o}" eij" tou'to hJtoimavsqh, i{na auto;" faneiv", ta;" h[dh dedapanhmevna" hJmw'n kardiva" tw'/ qanavtw/ kai; paradedomevna" th'/ th'" plavnh" ajnomiva/ lutrwsavmeno" ejk tou' skovtou", diavqhtai ejn hJmi'n diaqhvkhn lovgw/. who was prepared for this reason, that by appearing himself and redeeming from darkness our hearts which had already been paid over to death and given over to the lawlessness of error he might establish a covenant with us by a word. (Barn. 14.5b)

Not only is the covenant reestablished by Jesus, but the sin of the wilderness generation is addressed by Jesus’ suffering, suffering that is expressed in terms of the songs of deutero-Isaiah. The benefits of Jesus’ work, however, are not available to the wilderness generation or those contemporaries with whom Barnabas identifies them, but rather to the community whom Barnabas addresses. The problem of the idolatry is resolved. I want to emphasize, however, the crucial shift in the cult legend: the fate of the covenant and so of the community hangs here upon an individual, but this individual and the benefits for the community are portrayed through deutero-Isaiah’s portrait of the suffering righteous, rather than through a story explicitly about Moses. Barnabas 6 contains an extended scriptural discussion of the suffering and vindication of Jesus, the construction of which I shall examine below. Remembering Jesus’ suffering in the first part of this chapter, however, is again linked to the new status of the community and to the covenant. This flow of thought is evident in Barn. 6.7–8, where the quotation of the promise of entering the good land flowing with milk and honey immediately follows reference to the persecution of the righteous. In Barn. 6.11–19 the recreation of the people is tied in several ways to the covenant, as well as to forgiveness. ejpei; ou\n ajnakainivsa" hJma'" ejn th'/ ajfevsei tw'n aJmartiw'n ejpoivhsen hJma'" a[llon tuvpon, wJ" paidivon e[cein th;n yuchvn, wJ" a]n dh; ajnaplavssonto" aujtou' hJma'". Since then he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us to be another type (of creation), so that we should have the soul of children, as though he were fashioning us anew. (Barn. 6.11)

This recreation gives dominion over creation; the quotation of Gen 1:26 in Barn. 6.12 makes this idea clear. Furthermore, the refashioning is described first in terms of removing the hearts of stone and giving hearts of flesh, an allusion to Ezek 11:19 and 36:26, and then as the entrance into the “good land” flowing with milk and honey (Barn. 6.13–17). The passage concludes with the statement, eij ou\n ouj givnetai tou'to nu'n, a[ra hJmi'n ei[rhken povte — o{tan kai; aujtoi; teleiwqw'men klhronovmoi th'" diaqhvkh" kurivou gevnesqai (“If then, this is not the present situation, he has told us when it will be — when we ourselves have been perfected as heirs of the Lord’s covenant,” Barn. 6.19).

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

99

Beyond this final statement, this passage contains several items with connections to the covenant as it is found in the scriptures of Israel. First, many postexilic statements of the covenant formulary extend the antecedent history beyond the story of the exodus to include creation and the role of humanity in creation.36 The discussion here of creation and dominion and the quotation of Gen 1:26, 28 may well be a vestige of this pattern: Barnabas’s community might well expect any discussion of covenant to include reference to creation.37 Second, as we shall see, not only does the entrance into the land flowing with milk and honey comprise another important item in the traditional formulation of the covenant promise, its prominence in Deuteronomy is closely connected with the giving of the covenant. We may compare Deut 4:13–14, “And he declared to you his covenant, which he charged you to observe, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two stone tablets. And the Lord charged me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances for you to observe in the land that you are about to enter into and inherit,” and Deut 6:3, “Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe them [the commandments] diligently, so that it may go well with you, and so that you may multiply greatly, just as the Lord, the God of your ancestors, has promised to give you a land flowing with milk and honey.” These formulations provide for Barnabas a primary way of talking about the new status of the community as the recipients of the covenant. The prominence of the covenant as part of the recreation is evident in the contrast between the hearts of stone and the hearts of flesh, i[de ou\n, hJmei'" ajnapeplavsmeqa, kaqw;" pavlin ejn eJtevrw/ profhvth/ levgei: ijdouv, levgei kuvrio", ejxelw' touvtwn, toutevstin w|n proevblepen to; pneu'ma kurivou, ta;" liqivna" kardiva", kai; ejmbalw' sarkivna". See, then, we have been fashioned anew! As he says in another prophet: “Behold, says the Lord, I will remove from them” — that is, from those whom the Lord’s spirit foresaw — “their stony hearts, and I will insert fleshly hearts.” (Barn. 6.14a)

Kraft notes that, although this quotation resembles Ezek 11:19 and 36:26, it does not correspond to any known text of Ezekiel.38 In both of these similar passages in Ezekiel, however, the contrast between the two kinds of hearts is linked to the covenant. In Ezek 11:19–20, God tells the prophet, I will give them another [or, a new] heart and I will put a new spirit within them; I will remove the stony heart from their flesh and give them a fleshly

36 37

Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 178. Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 131, notes the interrelation of the motifs of creation, the giving of Torah, and the death of Moses in the first servant song of deutero-Isaiah (Isa 42:1–9). 38 Kraft: Barnabas, 99.

100

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

heart, so that they may follow my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them. Then they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Not only does this passage refer explicitly to the statutes and ordinances (ta; dikaiwvmata, compare Barn. 1.2, etc.), but it also concludes with a summary of the covenant, “they shall be my people, and I shall be their God.” To this summary, we may compare the usual statement of substance in the covenant formulary, defining the relationship between God and the people (see Lev 19:1; Exod 19:5–6).39 In Ezek 36:26–28, the other passage that Barn. 6.14 resembles, the new heart enables the people to follow the ordinances of God and to enter into the land. At the end of verse 28 there is a statement of substance similar to that in Ezek 11:20, “You shall be my people and I shall be your God.” We have already seen that entry into the land in Deuteronomy is connected to the giving of the covenant. Ezek 36:25, furthermore, reads, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses and from all your idols, and I will cleanse you.” As we shall see, sprinkling with water is found linked to the covenant in both Deuteronomy and Barnabas. Here in Ezekiel, ablution imagery expresses eschatological transformation within a covenantal framework. Adela Yarbro Collins has proposed that the origins of the baptism practiced by John the Baptist and therefore also the origins of Christian baptism lie in a prophetic-apocalyptic tradition of which Ezekiel’s imagery forms a part.40 This will be important to bear in mind in a later consideration of the role of baptism in Barnabas. Although neither of these passages from Ezekiel speaks explicitly of the covenant, the breaking of the covenant and its renewal or the giving of an everlasting covenant comprise one of the prophet’s major themes. Ezek 16:59–63 describes an everlasting covenant, as does Ezek 37:24–28. This latter passage also contains the promise that the people will live in the land, followed by the familiar statement of substance, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Ezek 37:27). We may reasonably say that the reference to hearts of stone and flesh in Barnabas carries with it the associations of the covenant, entrance into the land, and sprinkling as ablution. In Barn. 6.11–19, therefore, a multitude of scriptural quotations and allusions combine to portray the new status of the community as the legitimate heirs of the covenant. They are located within the cult legend of Israel as the people who enter the promised land, but this covenant status is also described in terms of creation and recreation. As we saw in the discussion of Barnabas 4 and 14, forgiveness is a key to the new status. In this case, Ezekiel’s reenactment of the making of the covenant becomes the vehicle for the theme of for39 40

Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 28. Yarbro Collins: Origin, 35.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

101

giveness. Within the larger scheme of Barnabas 6, the constitution of this new identity for the community depends upon Jesus’ passion. We may also note that the covenant is mentioned in passing in the discussion of circumcision (Barn. 9.6) and the observance of food laws (Barn. 10.2). Barnabas 13 contains a longer discussion of how this younger people, Barnabas’s audience, could be the heirs of the covenant, instead of the older people, that is, the Israelites. Barnabas here interprets Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s younger son Ephraim over the older Manasseh as indicating that the younger is the heir of the covenant (Barn. 13.4–7). Simply on the basis of textual references to the covenant in Barnabas, it is thus evident that the covenant is one of the controlling theological ideas to which the text repeatedly returns. The audience of the text is to understand itself, its relation to God, and its attitude toward other religious groups in terms of the covenant. We must recall at this point that “covenant” is not only a concept but in the first place a relationship enacted through story in cultic performance. On the level of narrative, Barnabas refers on a number of occasions to the making, breaking, or remaking of the covenant. Barnabas appears familiar, moreover, with ways of telling the story of the covenant that resolve the sins of the wilderness in terms of the suffering of an individual and thus emphasize such actions as forgiveness and redemption. Thus Barnabas is able to refer to a story in which the entry into the land of promise is actualized in the new identity of the community as recipients of redemption and so also of the covenant. Barnabas 5: Jesus’ Suffering We have seen how the reenactment of the cult legend that Barnabas knows and the new status of the community hinge on the fate of an individual. It remains to examine how the fate of the individual is portrayed in order to understand how a narrative about Jesus’ suffering and death is constructed. The key question in Barnabas 5–8 is why Jesus endured suffering and death. To answer this, Barnabas employs a number of scriptural quotations, which are interpreted in such a way as to describe Jesus. From the perspective of Barnabas, these texts find their true meaning in Jesus’ passion; they are thus actualized both in the more recent memory of Jesus’ death and in the present life of Barnabas’s community. We begin with Barn. 5.1–2, eij" tou'to ga;r uJpevmeinen oJ kuvrio" paradou'nai th;n savrka eij" katafqoravn, i{na th'/ ajfevsei tw'n aJmartiw'n aJgnisqw'men, o{ ejstin ejn tw'/ rJantivsmati aujtou' tou' ai{mato". gevgraptai ga;r peri; aujtou' a} me;n pro;" to;n ∆Israhvl, a} de; pro;" hJma'" — levgei de; ou{tw": ejtraumativsqh dia; ta;" ajnomiva" hJmw'n kai; memalavkistai dia; ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n: tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen: wJ" provbaton ejpi; sfagh;n h[cqh kai; wJ" ajmno;" a[fwno" ejnantivon tou' keivranto" aujtovn.

102

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

For it was for this reason that the Lord endured to hand over his flesh to destruction, that by the forgiveness of sins we might be purified, that is, by the sprinkling of his blood. For it is written concerning him — partly with reference to Israel and partly to us — and it says thus: He was wounded because of our lawless deeds and weakened because of our sins; by his bruise we have been healed. As a sheep to the slaughter he was led, and as a lamb silent before his shearer.

This passage does not quote Isa 53:5–7 in its entirety, but rather selects phrases to interpret with reference to Jesus. Kraft notes that the phrases used here show only minor variation from the Septuagint.41 In the following quotation of the Septuagint passage, I indicate with italics the phrases incorporated into Barn. 5.2. aujto;" de; ejtraumativsqh dia; ta;" ajnomiva" hJmw'n kai; memalavkistai dia; ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n: paideiva eijrhvnh" hJmw'n ejp∆ aujto;n tw'/ mwvlwpi aujtou' hJmei'" ijavqhmen: pavnte" wJ" provbata ejplanhvqhmen, a[nqrwpo" th'/ oJdw'/ aujtou' ejplanhvqh: kai; kuvrio" parevdwken aujto;n tai'" aJmartivai" hJmw'n. kai; aujto;" dia; to; kekakw'sqai oujk ajnoivgei to; stovma: wJ" provbaton ejpi sfagh;n h[cqh kai; wJ" ajmno;" ejnantivon tou' keivronto" aujto;n a[fwno" ou{tw" oujk ajnoivgei to; stovma aujtou': He was wounded because of our lawless deeds and weakened because of our sins; our discipline of peace is upon him; by his bruise we have been healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, each person has gone astray in his own way, and the Lord has handed him over to our sins. And he did not open his mouth because of the evil done; as a sheep to the slaughter he was led, and as a lamb silent before its shearer, thus he did not open his mouth.42 (Isa 53:5–7)

Prigent and Kraft have proposed that what they perceive as a piecemeal method of citing of scripture is accounted for by the fact that Barnabas is making use of a testimonia source at this point.43 Such a source may not have contained the omitted phrases. I would propose another explanation. Other early Christian texts make use of different parts of Isa 53:5–7. For example, 1 Pet 2:24–25, 41 42 43

Kraft: Quotations, 55. The Latin MS of Barnabas (L) includes this last phrase, “sic non aperuit os suum.” Prigent: Testimonia, 158–159; Kraft: Isaiah Text, 371–373.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

103

which quotes some of the same phrases but omits others, includes the reference to sheep going astray: o}" ta;" aJmartiva" hJmw'n aujto;" ajnhvnegken44 ejn tw'/ swvmati aujtou' ejpi; to; xuvlon, i{na tai'" aJmartivai" ajpogenovmenoi th'/ dikaiosuvnh/ zhvswmen, ou| tw'/ mwvlwpi ijavqhte. h\te ga;r wJ" provbata planwvmenoi, ajlla; ejpestravfhte nu'n ejpi; to;n poimevna kai; ejpivskopon tw'n yucw'n uJmw'n. He who himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that leaving behind sins we might live to righteousness; he, by whose bruise you have been healed, for you were straying like sheep, but you have turned now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.

The Odes of Solomon, moreover, know the tradition of Jesus’ silence as part of his endurance at the passion. Odes of Solomon 31, for example, which contains many of the same items of Jesus’ suffering as Barnabas does, includes the verse, “But I endured and held my peace and was silent, that I might not be disturbed by them” (Odes Sol. 31.10). We should notice here that both 1 Pet 2:24–25 and Odes of Solomon 31 are hymns. Their use of Isaiah 53 is that of one hymn troping upon another, engaging some phrases but not bound to replicate the song from Isaiah verbatim. The use of Isaiah 53 in Barn. 5.2 may reflect how parts of Isaiah are used as hymns in Barnabas’s community. Some support for this hypothesis is supplied by the Latin manuscript of Barnabas. At Barn. 5.12b it adds the phrase, “we have all been healed,” (“omnes sanati sumus”) and an attribution to Isaiah, thus producing, “dicit autem Esaias plaga corporis illius omnes sanati sumus.” This is a striking addition, since Barn. 5.12b concerns the scattering of the sheep, levgei ga;r oJ qeo;" th;n plhgh;n th'" sarko;" aujtou' ejx aujtw'n: o{tan patavxwsin to;n poimevna aujtw'n, tovte ajpolei'tai ta; provbata th'" poivmnh" (“For God says that his flesh’s wound came from them: when they strike their own shepherd, the sheep of the flock will be lost”) — an apparent allusion to Zech 13:7, patavxate tou;" poimevna" kai; ejkspavsate ta; provbata (“strike the shepherds and scatter the sheep”). It would seem that at least the Latin manuscript knows the association of wounds and straying sheep from Isa 53:5–6 and employs it in this fluid manner. What 44 This first phrase derives not from Isa 53:5–7, but from the larger context of the Isaiah passage, namely, Isa 53:4 and 53:12.

104

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

we see in the use of Isa 53:5–7 in Barnabas suggests that the text was held in the community in such a way that phrases that are not explicitly quoted or brought to the foreground nevertheless trigger associations, as though the entire song text is present. This suggests use of the text in a context of performance. When we consider Barn. 5.1–2 in light of the cult legend, the way in which Barnabas sets the quotation as addressed “partly with reference to Israel and partly to us” is striking. From the larger context of the text it is apparent that Barnabas is able take the first person plural pronouns of the quotation and divide them: “our lawless deeds” and “our sins” refer to Israel, while the subject of “we have been healed” refers to Barnabas’s community. What for deuteroIsaiah was one people has become in Barnabas two. I would suggest that Barnabas is able to understand the quotation in this manner because of familiarity with a telling of the cult legend that makes Jesus the dividing point between the two communities. The diction of Isaiah 53 assists in constructing this narrative in that it supplies the means for constructing the memory of Jesus. In Barn. 5.5, the question of Jesus’ suffering is refined: how is the passion compatible with the role of Jesus at creation? eij oJ kuvrio" uJpevmeinen paqei'n uJpe;r th'" yuch;" hJmw'n, w]n panto;" tou' kovsmou kuvrio", w|/ ei\pen oJ qeo;" ajpo; katabolh'" kovsmou: poihvswmen a[nqrwpon kat’ eijkovna kai; kaq’ oJmoivwsin hJmetevran, pw'" ou\n uJpevmeinen uJpo; ceiro;" ajnqrwvpwn paqei'n… If the Lord endured to suffer for our souls — he who is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said from the foundation of the world: “Let us make the human in accord with our image and likeness” — then how is that he endured to suffer at the hand of humans?

This verse contains first a reference to the preexistence of Jesus, he “to whom God said from the foundation of the world,” elaborated by the quotation of Gen 1:26, and then a statement of the problem, “how is it that he endured to suffer at the hand of humans?” We have already noted in reference to the extended reflection on creation, dominion, and recreation in Barn. 6:11–19 that the antecedent history in the covenant formulary comes in later periods to encompass creation. It is not surprising, then, that Barn. 5.5 is followed by a dogmatic section, also characteristic of the antecedent history, which outlines the work of Jesus, oiJ profh'tai, ajp’ aujtou' e[conte" th;n cavrin, eij" aujto;n ejprofhvteusan: aujto;" de;, i{na katarghvsh/ to;n qavnaton kai; th;n ejk nekrw'n ajnavstasin deivxh/, o{ti ejn sarki; e[dei aujto;n fanerwqh'nai, uJpevmeinen, i{na toi'" patravsin th;n ejpaggelivan ajpodw'/ kai; aujto;" eJautw'/ to;n lao;n to;n kaino;n eJtoimavzwn ejpideivxh/ ejpi; th'" gh'" w[n, o{ti th;n ajnavstasin aujto;" poihvsa" krinei'. The prophets, after they had received special insight from him, prophesied concerning him. And he endured so that he might break the power of death

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

105

and demonstrate the resurrection from the dead — thus it was necessary for him to be manifested in flesh. Also (he endured) so that he might fulfill the promise to the ancestors and, while he was preparing the new people for himself and while he was still on earth, to prove that after he has brought about the resurrection he will judge. (Barn. 5.6–7)

Barn. 5.8–9 goes on to make reference to the earthly life of Jesus, mentioning teaching, performing thlikau'ta tevrata kai; shmei'a (“such great wonders and signs”), teaching, calling the apostles, and revealing himself as God’s son. The content of this entire section, Barn. 5.5–9, corresponds well to the traditional form of an antecedent history within the renewal of the covenant. This observation points, however, to the function of the passage on the level of cultic performance; it may indicate a governing structure within which the telling of Jesus’ suffering took place. Many of the items enumerated in Barn. 5.6b–7, moreover, are paralleled in Odes of Solomon 31. This song is an important counterpart to the various aspects of the passion of which Barnabas speaks; it bears closer examination. 1 Chasms vanished from before the Lord, And darkness was destroyed by his appearance. 2 Error erred and perished on account of him; and Contempt received no path, for it was submerged by the truth of the Lord. 3 He opened his mouth and spoke grace and joy; and recited a new chant to his name. 4 Then he raised his voice toward the Most High, and offered to him those that had become sons through him. 5 And his face was justified, because thus his Holy Father had given to him. 6 Come forth, you who have been afflicted, and receive joy. 7 And possess yourselves through grace, and take unto you immortal life. 8 And they condemned me when I stood up, me who had not been condemned. 9 Then they divided my spoil, though nothing was owed them. 10 But I endured and held my peace and was silent, that I might not be disturbed by them. 11 But I stood undisturbed like a solid rock, which is continuously pounded by columns of waves and endures. 12 And I bore their bitterness because of humility; that I might save my nation and instruct it. 13 And that I might not nullify the promises to the patriarchs, to whom I was promised for the salvation of their offspring. Hallelujah.

106

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

The opening verse of Odes of Solomon 31 conveys an idea similar to Barn. 5.6, “so that he might break the power of death and demonstrate the resurrection from the dead.” Odes Sol. 31.4 corresponds to Barn. 5.7, with its mention of the preparation of “the new people for himself.” Likewise, “the promises to the patriarchs” in Odes Sol. 31.13 is found in Barn. 5.7, “that he might fulfill the promise to the ancestors.”45 The theme of dividing Jesus’ spoil is reminiscent of Ps 22 (21):18 (19) and employed in Barn. 6.6; it is also found in Odes Sol. 28.18. We have already noted the theme of silence and enduring in Odes Sol. 31.10, shared with Barn. 5.2. These associations indicate that the summary of Jesus’ actions in Barn. 5.6–7 may be related to song traditions about Jesus’ sufferings. Barn. 5.11 contains a reference to the persecution of the prophets “to death” as one of the reasons for the coming of Jesus in the flesh, oujkou'n oJ uiJo"; tou' qeou' eij" tou'to ejn sarki; h\lqen, i{na to; tevleion tw'n aJmarthmavtwn ajnakefalaiwvsh/ toi'" diwvxasin ejn qanavtw/ tou;" profhvta" aujtou' (“thus the Son of God came in flesh for this reason, that he might bring to summation the total of sins of those who persecuted his prophets to death”). By this statement, Barnabas draws upon earlier stories of the persecuted righteous to speak of the fate of Jesus;46 he implies, moreover, that their ultimate vindication is dependent upon Jesus’ actions. If Barnabas includes Moses among the persecuted prophets, who elsewhere is the persecuted prophet par excellence, then in this brief statement Barnabas may connecting the suffering of Jesus with the idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness. The string of scriptural quotations that follows in Barn. 5.12–14 contributes to the specific portrayal of Jesus’ suffering and allows Barnabas to align those who put Jesus to death with those who persecuted the prophets and thus also with the idolatrous Israelites. As we consider these quotations, it will be important to notice their resonances with traditions of the suffering and vindicated righteous and within the cult legend of Israel. Regarding to the quotations in Barn. 5.12–14, Kraft has remarked that “each of these quotations has marked peculiarities when compared with the extant Septuagint manuscripts.”47 Kraft also notes that the manuscripts of Barnabas at this point are equally varied.48 In addition, Koester has analyzed the variations of Barn. 5.12 from the Septuagint versions of Zech 13:6–7, as well as from the parallels in Matt 26:31 and Mark 14:27, concluding that Barnabas was making use of a recension of Zechariah different from that known to Matthew or Mark.49 This argument is crucial for establishing Barnabas’s independence 45 46 47 48 49

It is also found in Ps 22 (21):3–5 (4–6). Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 112. Kraft: Quotations, 139. Kraft: Quotations, 140. Koester: Überlieferung, 128–129.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

107

from the canonical gospels; instead of speaking solely of recensions, however, it may be preferable to speak of the nonfixity or multiformity of the text of Zechariah as what was available to Barnabas. In Barn. 5.13a the phrase e[dei gavr, i{na ejpi; xuvlou pavqh/ (“for it was necessary that he suffer on a tree”) in speaking of Jesus’ suffering “on a tree” employs archaic diction for the passion, which we have already seen in 1 Pet 2:24. The introductory “it was necessary” (e[dei) typically signals a correspondence between the scriptures of Israel and the events concerning Jesus (as in Luke 24:26) and here may indicate the poetics of actualization whereby Jesus’ suffering is spoken of in terms of scripture. Barn. 5.13b contains a complicated psalmic composition, comprised of material found in at least four psalms. levgei ga;r oJ profhteuvwn ejp∆ aujtw':/ fei'saiv mou th'" yuch'" ajpo; rJomfaiva", kai; kaqhvlwsovn mou ta;" savrka", o{ti ponhreuomevnwn sunagwgh; ejpanevsthsavn moi. For the one who prophesies concerning him says: “Spare my soul from the sword and affix my flesh with nails, for a synagogue of wicked people came upon me.”

The phrases are woven together without evident seams, and Kraft argues that here Barnabas is making use of a hymnic source. Just as the Hodayot of Qumran, and I would add the Odes of Solomon, make use of Psalm 22 (21) to describe a messianic figure,50 so too here at Barn. 5.13 and again at 6.6, as Kraft notes, phrases from the psalms are embedded in hymnic formulations.51 Kraft analyzes this composition as containing phrases from Pss 22 (21):21a; 119 (118):120a; Ps 22 (21):17b; and 86 (85):14.52 fei'sai (“spare”) in the first section does not appear in Ps 22 (21):21a, however, which reads, rJu'sai ajpo; rJomfaiva" th'n yuchvn mou (“rescue my soul from the sword”).53 In Ps 19 (18):14, though, fei'sai does occur: kai; ajpo; ajllwtrivwn fei'sai tou' douvlou sou (“spare your servant from strangers”). This psalm contains vocabulary and themes shared by Barnabas such as “ordinances,” “honey,”54 an emphasis on “cleansing” from sin, and finally the use of “rock” for God.55 50 On the use of Psalm 22 (21) to articulate the sufferings of an individual, see Menn: Lament, 301–341. Menn examines the uses of Psalm 22 (21) in the gospel narratives of Jesus’ sufferings and in the rabbinic interpretations of the story of Esther. 51 Kraft: Quotations, 144–145. 52 Kraft: Quotations, 142. 53 Compare also Odes Sol. 28.5, “And the dagger shall not divide me from him, nor the sword.” 54 See Ps 19 (18):11b, kai; glukuvtera uJpe;r mevli kai; khrivon (“sweeter than honey and honeycomb”), a phrase found also in Odes Sol. 30.4. 55 See Ps 19 (18):15, kuvrie bohqev mou kai; lutrwtav mou (“O Lord, my help and my redeemer”). “Rock” appears only in the Hebrew, and it is replaced by “help” (bohqov") in the Septuagint. Sanders: Provenance, 142, remarks that although there seems to have been “delib-

108

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

Elsewhere in the Septuagint, fei'sai is used in prayers for forgiveness and vindication (2 Esd 23:22; Joel 2:17). That this verb possesses such associations could well bring it into use in Barn. 5.13 to speak of Jesus. The second phrase, “affix my flesh with nails,” is dependent on the Greek of Ps 119 (118):120b, kaqhvlwson ejk tou' fovbou sou ta;" savrka" mou (“affix my flesh with nails out of fear of you”), since the Masoretic text reads “ M y flesh bristles (rAmDs).”56 The immediate context of this verse in Psalm 119 (118) speaks of the love of God’s ordinances; verse 116, moreover, includes the themes of shame and hope, “let me not be put to shame in my hope.” Thus, the psalm itself combines notions of covenant and vindication. The third phrase, ponhreuomevnwn sunagwghv “the synagogue of wicked people,” derives from Ps 22 (21):17b and is best discussed in the context of the quotation of other parts of this verse in Barn. 6.6. The final words, ejpanevsthsavn moi (“they came upon me”), Kraft connects to Ps 86 (85):14 because of the occurrence of “synagogue” in the same verse, oJ qeov", paravnomoi ejpanevsthsan ejp’ ejmev, kai; sunagwgh; krataiw'n ejzhvthsan th;n yuchvn mou kai; ouj proevqentov se ejnwvpion aujtw'n (“O God, those who break the law came upon me, and a synagogue of very strong people sought my soul, and they did not set you before them”).57 I would also note that this psalm is a prayer for vindication and help against enemies, and so possibly used to understand Jesus’ own vindication. The composition of Barn. 5.13 indicates the use of phrases from psalms in a way that is aware of the larger complex of meaning in the psalms from which they derive. This feature suggests that Barnabas provides evidence of the performance of these psalms and others like them within the community’s practice. Moreover, the combination of phrases from psalms into a new psalmlike composition may point to the existence of an ongoing song tradition about the suffering righteous. Barn. 5.14 continues the portrayal of Jesus’ suffering in the language of scripture, kai; pavlin levgei: ijdouv, tevqeikav mou to;n nw'ton eij" mavstiga", kai; ta;" siagovna" eij" rJapivsmata, to; de; provswpovn mou e[qhka wJ" sterea;n pevtran. And again he says: “Behold, I set my back for scourges, and my cheeks for smitings, but I have set my face as a solid rock. (Barn. 5.14)

erate suppression of the rock metaphor” in the Septuagint and the oldest targums because of an attempt to avoid a comparison between earthly phenomena and the divine, “Jewish circles deliberately seeking to connect with older Israelite traditions still used the metaphor”; see Sir 4:6; 51:12 suppl.; 1QH 9.28; 11.15; 1QpHab 5.1. 56 See LSJ, s.v. kaqhlovw. 57 Kraft: Quotations, 143.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

109

Comparison with Isa 50:6–7 indicates the degree to which the verse is informed by the diction of Isa 50:6–7; again the italics show the phrases from Isaiah that appear in Barnabas. to;n nw'tovn mou devdwka (Barn. tevqeika) eij" mavstiga", ta;" de; siagovna" mou eij" rJapivsmata, to; de; provswpovn mou, oujk ajpevstreya ajpo; aijscuvnh" ejmptusmavtwn: kai; kuvrio" bohqov" mou ejgenhvqh, dia; tou'to oujk ejnetravphn, ajlla; e[qhka to; provswpovn mou wJ" sterea;n pevtran kai; e[gnwn o{ti ouj mh; aijscunqw'. I gave my back for scourges, and my cheeks for smitings, my face I did not turn from the shame of the spitters; and the Lord became my help, therefore I was not put to shame, but I set my face as a solid rock and I knew that I would not be ashamed. (Isa 50:6–7)

The two passages begin in a similar fashion; then the phrase to; de; provswpovn mou acts as a catchword to draw in the next occurrence of the noun, e[qhka to; provswpovn mou wJ" sterea;n pevtran (“I set my face as a solid rock”). Here we encounter one of the most significant phrases for characterizing the suffering righteous. The reference to the “solid rock” here is picked up in Barn. 6.3 in the context of the vindication of the Lord’s servant, kai; e[qhkev me wJ" sterea;n pevtran (“and he established me as a solid rock”). The reference to pevtra (“rock”) here appears occasioned in part by the chain of quotations concerning the stone (livqo") as a motif of vindication. The solid rock, moreover, appears prominently in the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32, where in the Hebrew r…wx (“rock”) is the name of God. The Septuagint substitutes oJ qeov" throughout for the Hebrew r…wx (“rock”) except at Deut 32:13, ejqhvlasan mevli ejk pevtra" kai; e[laion ejk sterea'" pevtra" (“they suckled with honey from the rock and oil from the solid rock”). Despite the effacement of this name for God in the Septuagint, there is evidence that it continued to have significant resonance within the traditions of suffering and vindication. Not least is its use at Isa 51:1, ejmblevyate eij" th;n sterea;n pevtran, h}n ejlatomhvsate (“look to the solid rock from which you were hewn”), which resembles Deut 32:18, “you were unmindful of the Rock (LXX, qeov") that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Isa 51:1 and 50:7 are the only two uses of the phrase in deutero-Isaiah, and it would appear that in using the phrase deutero-Isaiah is deliberately evoking the Song of Moses.58 In the context of the cult legend of Israel, the Song of Moses plays a key role. It is presented in Deuteronomy 32 as one of Moses’ last acts before his 58

See Baltzer: Deutero-Isaiah, 346.

110

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

death; it concludes the making of the covenant and functions as a witness to the covenant (Deut 31:28). Not only does the Song relate the idolatry of the Israelites, but it also affirms the faithfulness of God in vindicating the people (Deut 32:36). In itself it is a reenactment of the cult legend.59 I would suggest that the Song compensates on some level for the absence of Moses in that its performance recalls the community to the covenant relationship with God. The Song in its continual performance provides the vindication of Moses. Moreover, the use of the phrase sterea; pevtra in deutero-Isaiah not only names the God of the covenant relation (Isa 51:1) but also describes the servant who is vindicated (Isa 50:7). In Barnabas the application of the phrase to Jesus both identifies Jesus with the vindicated servant of deutero-Isaiah and locates the suffering and vindication of Jesus in direct proximity to the Song of Moses and thus to the cult legend of Israel. It is perhaps not going too far to say that Jesus’ suffering and vindication is here brought into contact with the suffering and vindication of Moses, through the use of the songs from Deuteronomy and deutero-Isaiah.60 What is striking about the use of this passage from Isaiah in Barn. 5.14 is that Barnabas omits the reference to spitting, which elsewhere (Barn. 7.8–9) is adduced for Jesus’ passion. Kraft explains the omission here by proposing that Barnabas “took his quotation from a source which did not include these words.”61 Instead of presupposing a source in which the spitting was missing, I would suggest that quoting Isaiah here derives from a context of performance; the community’s experience of the songs of deutero-Isaiah would render the references available for application to Jesus. At any given point, some phrases may be explicitly quoted, whereas others remain implicit within the treasury of traditional diction and available for use at other points, as the reference to spitting in Barn. 7.8 suggests.

59 Wiebe: Form, 154, cites evidence that Deuteronomy 32 was used by some postexilic groups as part of the cultic liturgy of the New Year’s celebration; he contends at Qumran the Song was used in the covenant renewal and that the Samaritan Yom Kippur ritual was also based on Deuteronomy 32. See Wieser: Psalms, 35; and Lehmann: Yom Kippur, 120–121. For a discussion of the genre and setting of Deuteronomy 32, see Sanders: Provenance, 91–94. 60 We may note the presence of the phrase “solid rock” in Odes Sol. 31.11, “But I stood undisturbed like a solid rock, which is continuously pounded by columns of waves and endures.” There is no extant Greek for this ode, but sterea; pevtra is found in Odes of Solomon 11, the one ode preserved in Greek, and is likely to lie behind the same phrase in Odes of Solomon 31. Within Odes Sol. 31.11 the phrase joins with other scriptural elements in reference to Jesus’ enduring, as in Barnabas. Whether Odes Sol. 11.5, “And I was established upon the rock of truth (Greek: stereva" pevtra") where he had set me,” refers to the motif of suffering and vindication remains an open question; given the strong baptismal connections of Ode 11, this association would not be unlikely. 61 Kraft: Quotations, 148–149.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

111

Barnabas 6: Jesus’ Suffering and Vindication Barn. 6.1–2 picks up the flow of the song from Isaiah, quoting the next verses (Isa 50:8b–9). o{te ou\n ejpoivhsen th;n ejntolhvn, tiv levgei… tiv" oJ krinovmenov" moi… ajntisthvtw moi: h] tiv" oJ dikaiouvmenov" moi… ejggisavtw tw'/ paidi; kurivou. oujai; uJmi'n, o{ti uJmei'" pavnte" palaiwqhvsesqe wJ" iJmavtion kai; sh;" katafavgetai uJma'". When, therefore, he performed the commandment, what does he say? “Who disputes my judgment? Let him oppose me. Or who vindicates himself in my presence? Let him draw near to the servant of the Lord. Woe to you, for you will all grow old like a garment, and a moth will devour you.” (Barn. 6.1–2)

Omitted between the ending of the quotation in Barn. 5.14 and its resumption in Barn. 6.1 are the phrases, kai; e[gnwn o{ti ouj mh; aijscunqw', o{ti ejggivzei oJ dikaiwvsa" me: (“And I knew that I would not be ashamed, because he who vindicates me is near,” Isa 50:7c–8a). Similarly Isa 50:9a is omitted, ijdou; kuvrio" bohqei' moi: tiv" kakwvsei me… (“Behold the Lord helps me; who will harm me?”). These assurances of vindication might well be implicit because of the audience’s familiarity with the song. There are, moreover, two remarkable features to the quotation of Isa 50:8b–9 here. The first is the way in which the quotation is framed, o{te ou\n ejpoivhsen th;n ejntolhvn, tiv levgei… (“When, therefore, he performed62 the commandment, what does he say?” Barn. 6.1). Although there is no reference to the commandment either in the immediate context in Barnabas other than here or in the passage from Isaiah, the quotation from Isaiah suggests a situation like a court of law, perhaps a covenant lawsuit. The speaker, faithful in carrying out the covenant, relies upon divine vindication against opponents in such a setting. Thus, the frame reinforces the righteousness of the servant/ Jesus in the face of persecution. The second notable feature of this passage is that in Barnabas we read, ejggisavtw tw'/ paidi; kurivou (“let him draw near to the servant of the Lord”) rather than ejggisavtw moi (“let him draw to me”), found in Isa 50:8. Within deuteroIsaiah the phrase oJ pai'" mou (“my servant,” referring to the servant of the Lord) is a prominent feature (for example, Isa 41:8, 9; 42:1; 43:10); we may note the use of the similar epithet in Isa 50:10, tiv" ejn uJmi'n oJ fobouvmeno" to;n kuvrion… ajkousavtw th'" fwnh'" tou' paido;" aujtou' (“Who among you is the one who fears the Lord? Let him hear the voice of his servant”), the latter half of which is quoted in Barn. 9.2c in the discussion of the circumcision of the ears. Certainly 62 It is important to note that ejpoivhsen should be translated as “performed, accomplished, carried out” as is usual with ejntolhv in the Septuagint (e.g. Lev 26:15; Deut 6:25). Compare Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 115, “il aura accompli”; and Windisch: Barnabasbrief, 333, “er ausführte”; but contra Kraft: Barnabas, 96, “he made the commandment” — hence, there is no reference to the giving or making of the law here.

112

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

such diction rendered the phrase available for substitution in this quotation. The specific construction, oJ pai'" kurivou, points to other significant resonances, however. Its attribution to Moses accounts for the majority of its occurrences in the Septuagint. This title, moreover, appears, from a narrative point of view, only after the death of Moses and is specifically linked to entry into the land and the keeping of the covenant that accompanies the entry. We may consider, for example, the apportionment of the land to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh in Joshua 22, kai; ei\pen aujtoi'" uJmei'" ajkhkovate pavnta, o{sa ejneteivlato uJmi'n Mwu>sh'" oJ pai'" kurivou, kai; ejphkouvsate th'" fwnh'" mou kata; pavnta, o{sa ejneteilavmhn uJmi'n. And he [Joshua] said to them, “You have heard everything that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, and you have attended to my voice in everything that I have commanded you. (Josh 22:2)

The construction is not used of Moses before his death, but becomes a regular epithet for him in Joshua (Josh 12:6; 13:8; 18:7; 22:5).63 The opening of Joshua in Hebrew also suggests the prominence of the idea within the conceptual framework of the book, hÎwh◊y dRbRo hRvOm twøm yérSjAa yIh◊yÅw (“And it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord,” Josh 1:1); the Greek lacks “the servant of the Lord” here.64 Thus, this epithet derives from a specific portion of the cult legend, namely, the entry into and possession of the land inasmuch as that is related to covenant faithfulness. I would argue, moreover, that within the cult legend the use of the epithet indicates the vindication of Moses, narrated by means of the entry of the community into the land. When the epithet appears without explicitly naming Moses, it nevertheless activates the theme of the vindication of Moses. It is then likely, in my opinion, that oJ pai'" kurivou and its functional equivalents in the songs of deutero-Isaiah show us that the songs are a reenactment of the cult legend and that the epithet refers in the first place to the vindicated Moses.65 Since the theme of the entry into the land is, as we have seen, central to how Barnabas locates the Christian community, the use of the epithet oJ pai'" kurivou in Barn. 6.1 links the quotation of deutero-Isaiah to the reenactment of the cult legend in terms of the suffering and vindication of Jesus. The servant of 63 Note also the use of oJ pai'" mou/aujtou' in Joshua; Josh 1:7; 9:24. As an epithet of Moses, these phrases also occur in 1 Chr 6:49; 2 Chr 1:3; 2 Chr 24:9. In Nehemiah’s prayer of repentance (Neh 1:5–11), he twice describes Moses as oJ pai'" sou. These similar constructions can be understood as functional equivalents. 64 In Josh 1:2, however, the approximate equivalent oJ qeravpwn mou translates the Hebrew yîd; bV oA (“my servant”), again referring to Moses. 65 Compare the argument in Baltzer: Erhöhung, 45–56. See also Orlinsky: Servant, 9–10, who remarks that the epithet “servant of the Lord” or “servant of God” was employed in biblical times as “something of a technical term for Moses.”

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

113

God, Moses, and Jesus all come together when this construction is employed here. Not only does the quotation from Isaiah, placed here on the lips of Jesus, the one who has accomplished the commandment, express clearly God’s vindication of Jesus’ suffering, calling Jesus oJ pai'" kurivou speaks of how his fate is determinative of the present status of the community. They are the inhabitants of the land, as indeed Barn. 6:8–19 makes clear.66 The next section devoted to Jesus’ suffering is Barn. 6.6–7, in which there again appears a hymnic composition out of psalms. Barn. 6.6a reads, perievscon me sunagwgh; ponhreuomevnwn, ejkuvklwsavn me wJsei; mevlissai khrivon, kai; ejpi; to;n iJmatismovn mou e[balon klh'ron. A synagogue of wicked people encompassed me, they encircled me as bees around honeycomb, and for my clothing they cast lots.

The first phrase derives from Ps 22 (21):17b, although it is not quoted exactly; this entire verse merits attention. o{ti ejkuvklwsavn me kuvne" polloiv, sunagwgh; ponhreuomevnwn perievscon me, w[ruxan cei'rav" mou kai; povda". For many dogs encircled me, a synagogue of wicked people encompassed me; they pierced my hands and feet. (Ps 22 [21]:17)

Verse 17a is not quoted here or elsewhere in Barnabas, but it is found in Odes of Solomon 28, a hymn of persecution and vindication, “they surrounded me like mad dogs” (verse 14) From this section of the psalm verse, however, ejkuvklwsan (“encircled”) functions as a key word in Barn. 6.6a to attract Ps 118 (117):12, ejkuvklwsavn me wJsei; mevlissai khrivon, (“they encircled me as bees around honeycomb”). In Psalm 118 (117), a thanksgiving for deliverance from enemies, “encircle” is one of the most prominent words, occurring four times in verses 10–12. The psalm is also noteworthy for Barnabas because it contains two phrases that figure in Barn. 6.4, livqon, o}n ajpedokivmasan oiJ oijkodomou'nte", ou|to" ejgenhvqh eij" kefalh;n gwniva" (“the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,” Ps 118 [117]:22) and au{th hJ hJmevra, h}n ejpoivhsen oJ kuvrio" (“this is the day that the Lord has made,” Ps 66 Barnabas is also able to use Joshua as a type for Jesus in Barn. 12.8–11, based in part on the identity of the two names in Greek. Here Joshua’s role in spying out the land is emphasized. See also Kraft’s extensive note on Joshua and the defeat of the Amalekites (Barnabas, 121).

114

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

118 [117]:24). The psalm also speaks of joy and gladness (v. 24), which in Barnabas are important motifs of entry into the land and the present status of the community, as we shall see below. The fact that it is bees which encircle the honeycomb here, and not the dogs of Psalm 22 (21) who are nowhere mentioned in Barnabas, is due to the milk and honey theme connected with the covenant and seen in Barn. 6.10–19.67 The last part of Barn. 6.6a, kai; ejpi; to;n iJmatismovn mou e[balon klh'ron (“and for my clothing they cast lots”) quotes Ps 22 (21):19b, diemerivsanto ta; iJmavtiav mou eJautoi'" kai; ejpi; to;n iJmatismovn mou e[balon klh'ron They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots. (Ps 22 [21]:19)

Notable is the fluidity of placement with which phrases from this psalm occur in Barnabas and also in the Odes of Solomon, particularly those concerned with themes of suffering and vindication. Odes of Solomon 28, which also mentioned the encircling by dogs (Ps 22 [21]:17), appears in verse 18 to allude to this part of the psalm, “and in vain did they cast lots against me,” while Odes Sol. 31.9 makes use of the preceding part of the parallelism in the psalm, “then they divided my spoil.” The diction of the psalms informs the composition of these odes; in a similar fashion song texts from the psalms and prophets provide the basis for the hymnic compositions in Barnabas, as was also apparent in Barn. 5.2. In Barn. 6.6, it appears that we have the clear interweaving of two psalms, 22 (21) and 118 (117), expressions from each of which are found throughout this section of Barnabas. The hinge connecting the two psalms is ejkuvklwsan (“encircled”), which is repeated so strongly and so often in Psalm 118 (117) that it must become in some sense the keynote of persecution in the psalm. These characteristics again bespeak a context of ritual performance of the psalms and the prophets in which new composition is possible and where the song texts can come to speak of Jesus. This discussion of Jesus’ suffering concludes with the following summary statement, ejn sarki; ou\n aujtou' mevllonto" fanerou'sqai kai; pavscein, proefanerwvqh to; pavqo". levgei ga;r oJ profhvth" ejpi; to;n ∆Israhvl: oujai; th'/ yuch'/ aujtw'n, o{ti bebouvleuntai boulh;n ponhra;n kaq’ eJautw'n, eijpovnte": dhvswmen to;n divkaion, o{ti duvscrhsto" hJmi'n ejstivn. 67 The final phrase of Ps 22 (21):17, w[ruxan cei'rav" mou kai; povda" (“they pierced my hands and my feet”) is never used in Barnabas, although it is prominent in the canonical passion narratives.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

115

Thus, since he was about to be manifested in flesh and to suffer, his passion was revealed beforehand. For the prophet says concerning Israel: “Woe t o them, for they devised a wicked plot against themselves when they said, ‘Let us bind the righteous one, for he is displeasing to us.’” (Barn. 6.6b–7)

The quotation from “the prophet” in this passage, including the phrase, dhvswmen to;n divkaion, o{ti duvscrhsto" hJmi'n ejstivn (“let us bind the righteous one, for he is displeasing to us”) quotes Isa 3:9–10 almost exactly. Windisch, Kraft, and Prigent, however, all note that Wis 2:12 is also involved: “let us lie in wait (ejnedreuvswmen) for the righteous one, because he is displeasing to us.”68 Moreover, Wis 2:12–20 is a description of the suffering of a “servant of the Lord” (pai'" kurivou, Wis 2:13), modeled on Isa 52:13–53:12.69 The passage from the Wisdom of Solomon demonstrates the reenactment of this song from deutero-Isaiah apart from any application to Jesus. It is further evidence for the active life of these traditions and uses of scripture. The resonance of the epithet pai'" kurivou with the vindication of Moses reinforces the relationship between the reenactment of the song tradition and the cult legend of Israel. The song in the Wisdom of Solomon, moreover, appears as an internal critique of Israelite religion, in line with the cultic critique found in Barnabas. Barnabas makes the critique more pointed, connecting the speakers with Israel or the “they” over against whom he defines his community. Thus Barnabas locates the suffering of Jesus within an ongoing performance tradition of the suffering and vindicated righteous, going back to Moses. Once again, Barnabas identifies the opponents of the righteous, “they,” with the opponents of his own community, linking the fate of Jesus with the community’s vindication. Barnabas 7–8: The Day of Atonement and the Red Heifer The next two chapters of Barnabas speak of Jesus’ suffering and death in terms of the rituals of the Day of Atonement (Barnabas 7) and the ceremony of the red heifer (Barnabas 8). Barnabas here engages in a complex argument whereby both the scapegoat and the sacrificed goat become types of the suffering Jesus. Similarly, in Barnabas’s view, the sacrificed red heifer, the ashes of which are mixed with water for purification, indicates Jesus. On the surface of the text, according to the argument of Hvalvik, Barn. 7.6–8.7 demonstrates a contentious concern for the “correct” reading of scripture, namely, to understand scripture and here these rituals from scripture as speaking about Jesus.70 Helmut Koester has argued that an earlier exegetical tradition is visible in this section. To express the suffering of Jesus this interpretive process takes a verse from a psalm followed by an explanation of a sacrificial ritual of Israelite tradition, which gives rise to “a new insight into a detail of the circumstances of 68 69 70

Windisch: Barnabasbrief, 334; Kraft: Barnabas, 97; Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 121. Nickelsburg: Genre, 156; Nickelsburg: Resurrection, 62–82. Hvalvik: Struggle, 193.

116

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

the suffering of Jesus that would eventually be developed into a narrative account.”71 He demonstrates the workings of this tradition in some detail in considering the allusion to Ps 69 (68):22 in Barn. 7.3a, ajlla; kai; staurwqei;" ejpotivzeto o[xei kai; colh'/ (“but when he was crucified he was also given vinegar and gall to drink”). This allusion is then linked to a detail of the Yom Kippur liturgy, namely, that the priests ate the entrails of the sacrificed goat with vinegar (Barn. 7.4b).72 It is clear that the explication of the atonement ritual makes use of extrabiblical traditions, later attested in the Mishnah and Talmud, notably, placing crimson wool on the scapegoat and then upon a thorn bush in the wilderness (m. Yoma 4.2; 6.6).73 Moreover, what befalls the scapegoat in Barn. 7.8, kai; ejmptuvsate pavnte" kai; katakenthvsate kai; perivqete to; e[rion to; kovkkinon peri; th;n kefalh;n aujtou' (“and all of you, spit on and pierce [that goat] and place the crimson wool around its head”) is informed by Isa 50:6 (spitting) and Zech 12:10 (piercing).74 Thus we observe a process whereby passages about the suffering righteous shape the diction by which ritual prescriptions are adduced in the act of speaking about Jesus’ death. In turn, the ritual prescriptions (for example, the crimson wool and the crowning) contribute to the construction of Jesus’ death, as we see from how these details occur within the passion narratives.75 Two further observations about the composition of Barnabas 7 are in order. First, in explaining the double typology of the two goats, each indicating Jesus, Barnabas writes, ejpeidh; o[fontai aujto;n tovte th'/ hJmevra/ to;n podhvrh e[conta to;n kovkkinon peri; th;n savrka kai; ejrou'sin: oujc ou|tov" ejstin, o{n pote hJmei'" ejstaurwvsamen ejxouqenhvsante" kai; katakenthvsante" kai; ejmptuvsante"… Because they will see him then, on that day, wearing the crimson robe around his flesh and they will say, “Is not this he whom we once crucified, despising and piercing and spitting on him?” (Barn. 7.9b)

This passage takes the features of the exegetical tradition and associates them with the phrase, o{n pote hJmei'" ejstaurwvsamen (“whom we once crucified”), 71 Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 228. In narrative form, this tradition is reflected in the Gospel of Peter, which includes mention of gall and vinegar (Gos. Pet. 5.16). 72 Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 130–131, point out that this detail is not known from the biblical prescriptions for the ritual in Leviticus 16; indeed there the sacrificed goat is a holocaust, uneaten. Following Windisch, Prigent and Kraft adduce evidence from Philo (Spec. leg. 1.190) and the Mishnah (m. Menah. 11.7) for part of the goat being eaten by the priests. None of these texts, however, includes a reference to eating the entrails with vinegar. Windisch: Barnabasbrief, 344–345, proposed that this detail resulted from the influence of Exod 12:8 where the passover lamb is eaten with bitter herbs or, according to some rabbis, vinegar. 73 Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 133–135. 74 Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 224; Koester: Überlieferung, 152–153. 75 Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 226–229.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

117

hence creating a narrative of sorts. Moreover, the passage looks forward to a future time, tovte th'/ hJmevra/ (“then, on that day,”), a further indication of narrated plot. It seems likely then that Barnabas is familiar not only with exegetical traditions around Jesus’ death, but also with a story narrated through traditional diction. Second, Barn. 7.5 puts words shaped by allusion to Ps 69 (68):22 onto the lips of Jesus, ejpeidh; ejme; uJpe;r aJmartiw'n mevllonta tou' laou' mou tou' kainou' prosfevrein th;n savrka mou mevllete potivzein colh;n meta; o[xou", favgete uJmei'" movnoi, tou' laou' nhsteuvonto" kai; koptomevnou ejpi; savkkou kai; spodou'. Because you are about to give me gall with vinegar to drink, when I am about to offer my flesh for the sins of my new people, eat, you alone, while the people fast and mourn with sackcloth and ashes. (Barn. 7.5)

Some traces of narrative are evident here also in the interrelation of actions. In addition, Barnabas would appear to employ this statement as a piece of received tradition, a saying of Jesus concerning the offering of himself, already familiar to the audience. In this light, it is striking that the “saying” makes use of the psalm verse about gall and vinegar, together with an early formula about Jesus’ death uJpe;r aJmartiw'n (“for sins”; see 1 Cor 15:3). The use of this formula is matched by the next verse’s instructions about the goat that is sacrificed uJpe;r aJmartiw'n (Barn. 7.6a).76 I would propose that in this passage we see evidence of the development of authoritative utterances of Jesus within the construction of his passion. In other words, the pieces of tradition that may combine to speak of Jesus’ death also come together in the form of self-referential sayings of Jesus used in the course of a story about Jesus.77 The ritual of the red heifer, employed in Barnabas 8, is prescribed in Numbers 19 for purification after contact with a corpse. The ritual involves the sacrifice and burning of a red heifer; the priest throws xuvlon kevdrinon kai; u{sswpon kai; kovkkinon (“cedarwood, hyssop, and crimson material,” Num 19:6) into a fire. The ashes are gathered and, after they are mixed into water, become available for purification on the third and seventh days after contact with a corpse. For Barnabas, not only is the heifer Jesus (Barn. 8.2), but the wood indicates the cross (Barn. 8.1). The hyssop is a sign of salvation and healing (Barn. 8.6). In this instance, there is no psalm verse motivating the appropriation of this ritual to the passion, as there is in Barnabas 7. In Hebrews 9 also, the red heifer ritual plays a prominent role in reflection on Jesus’ death. This

76

The instructions in Leviticus 16 use the construction peri; aJmartiva" (“concerning

77

We see a similar process in the eucharistic sayings of 1 Cor 11:24–25.

sin”).

118

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

would suggest an early exegetical tradition around the red heifer, as around the goats of Yom Kippur. The three materials thrown into the fire — wood, crimson, and hyssop — contribute through this exegetical tradition to the poetics of the passion. The prominence of the wood is clear: it is one of the earliest ways of referring to Jesus’ death (see, for example, 1 Pet 2:24; Gal 3:13) as well as the way customary in Barnabas (Barn. 5:13). It would appear that Jesus’ death on the wood is part of why this sacrificial ceremony is drawn in. The crimson (of unspecified material) of Num 19:6 becomes in Barn. 8.1 crimson wool, perhaps by assimilation to the crimson wool of the scapegoat ritual and also, as we shall see, by the similarity of this ritual to that for the healing of leprosy (Leviticus 14). The role that the crimson has played in shaping the passion narratives has been amply demonstrated.78 The hyssop too combines with traditions about drinking vinegar in John 19:29, spovggon ou\n mesto;n tou' o[xou" uJsswvpw/ periqevnte" proshvnegkan aujtou' tw'/ stovmati (“Then, when they had placed a sponge filled with vinegar on hyssop, they brought it up to his mouth”). The question remains, however, why these particular rituals inform some of the earliest reflection on Jesus’ death. What logic draws them into the traditional process of telling the story of the suffering and vindicated righteous? In the case of the rituals of Yom Kippur, we have already seen the way in which Barn. 7.5 links the exegetical tradition around this observance with the early Christian formula that Jesus’ suffering was uJpe;r aJmartiw'n and specifically “for the sins of my new people.” Similarly within this context Barn. 7.3, kai; aujto;" uJpe;r tw'n hJmetevrwn aJmartiw'n e[mellen to; skeu'o" tou' pneuvmato" prosfevrein qusivan (“and he was about to offer the vessel of the spirit as a sacrifice for our sins”) makes use of the same construction. In Barn. 7.2 Jesus’ suffering is said to be di’ hJma'" (“on account of us”), which echoes the statements about the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53. Earlier, we observed the way in which redemption from sins is, for Barnabas, the principal way of characterizing the benefit of Jesus’ death for the community. Seen in light of the reenactment of the cult legend of Israel, redemption is equivalent to the entry into the land. I would argue that the stress on redemption within the reenactment of the cult legend is motivated here by the prominent use of the songs of deuteroIsaiah with their emphasis both on the suffering on account of the people and on forgiveness and healing as the benefit. The songs of deutero-Isaiah do not speak of the ritual component of redemption. It is important to remember, however, that the giving of the statutes concerning the Day of Atonement is encompassed within the cult legend. Read within the narrative, it addresses the disruption following an outstanding episode of disobedience in the wilderness: the actions of Aaron’s sons and their 78

Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 224–226.

Constructing the Memory of Jesus’ Death: The Reenactment of the Cult Legend

119

death, consumed by fire (Leviticus 10). The connection is explicit in the phrase introducing the Day of Atonement statutes, “The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they employed a foreign fire before the Lord and died” (Lev 16:1). In other words, the behavior of Aaron’s sons counts among the actions that would prevent the Israelites from entering the land of promise; it may even be possible to say that they add to the suffering of Moses. As a means of resolving this problem on a narrative level the Day of Atonement ritual becomes available for characterizing what needs to happen in order for the community to enter the land. The emphasis on forgiveness within the song tradition of suffering and vindication requires that this ritual for dealing with sin come to the foreground in the tradition around Jesus’ death. With the ceremony of the red heifer the logic is not as straightforward. I will make two proposals, which are not mutually exclusive and which must remain quite speculative. The first notes that on the level of cult early Christians were faced with the problem of contact with Jesus’ corpse or, more significantly, with the lack of contact, if the empty tomb traditions are part of the story of the suffering and death.79 It may be that the death of Jesus from an early time drew in ritual prescriptions to resolve the issue of impurity from contact with the corpse. Alternately, reflection on the empty tomb, which would have presented no impurity, may have motivated the narrative or exegetical use of the ritual that resolved such impurity in reflection. My second proposal begins by noticing the marked similarity between the ceremony of the red heifer (Numbers 19) and the ritual associated with healing from leprosy (Leviticus 14). The principal difference, of course, is the fact that there is no heifer and hence no ashes in the rite for leprosy. Both, however, employ cedarwood, crimson material, and hyssop in making the water for purification (Lev 14:6; Num 19:6). These prominent details may have been sufficient to bring the two sets of ritual prescriptions into contact with each other within the exegetical tradition.80 Furthermore, within the narrative the red heifer statutes are placed between the jealousy of Miriam and Aaron against Moses (Numbers 12) and Miriam’s death (Numbers 20). Numbers 12 is important not only as a key episode of rebellion in the wilderness81 but also because Miriam’s punishment is leprosy (Num 12:10). The next time Miriam appears in the narrative is in Num 20:1 at her death and burial just prior to the episode of the waters of Meribah. With regard to 1 Pet 2:23 and 1 Corinthians, I have shown that this episode is central to how the cult legend is reenacted in terms of Jesus, not least 79 80

Koester: Ancient Christian Gospels, 231. Features of the leprosy rite are structurally similar to the Yom Kippur liturgy as well. In Lev. 14:4–7, there are two birds, one of which is sacrificed but the other is let go “into the open field”; see Harlé/ Pralon: Lévitique, 141. The analogy between the two goats and the two birds may have reinforced the association of Leviticus 14 and Numbers 19 within the exegetical tradition concerning Jesus’ death. 81 See, for example, 1 Clem. 4.11, where it serves as a negative example of jealousy.

120

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

because this episode supplies the reason for Moses’ death prior to entry into the land. That is to say, the ceremony of the red heifer falls directly between two key wilderness events and between two significant stories about Miriam. In this instance, the sequencing of narrative events may function to draw the ceremony of the red heifer into the poetics of Jesus’ passion. The problem of Miriam’s leprosy and its healing may further compound confusion or conflation between the rite of the red heifer and that for healing of leprosy. An additional factor may be at work here also. I argued above how because of their emphasis on forgiveness the songs of deutero-Isaiah brought the Day of Atonement ritual to the foreground. The songs as they are employed within Barnabas also emphasize healing (see, for example, Isa 53:5 quoted in Barn. 5.2). Barnabas specifically associates healing with the hyssop of the red heifer liturgy, as though it were a well-known connection, o{ti kai; oJ ajlgw'n savrka dia; tou' rJupv ou tou' uJsswvpou ija'tai (“for one who suffers with regard to the flesh is healed through the vileness of the hyssop,” Barn. 8.6). I would say then that the prominence of healing in the songs used within the cult legend draws in a ritual of healing linked already in a number of ways with the sacrificial rite of the red heifer. In summary, the use of the songs within the cult legend of Israel as it was reenacted to encompass the memory of Jesus’ death resulted in the inclusion of certain rituals within this tradition of exegesis and performance. Details from the liturgy of the Day of Atonement and the ceremony of the red heifer, combined with the rite of healing of leprosy, were thus able to inform the way in which Jesus’ suffering and death was told. Jesus’ death thus becomes the act that resolves some of the chief problems of the wilderness and enables the community to enter the promised land. Told in the diction of the songs, the suffering of the servant (who may be identified as Moses or Jesus) brings forgiveness and healing. This new status for the community is the vindication of the servant, just as the entry of the people into the promised land is the vindication of Moses. 4. Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend Thus far we have been concerned with the narrative level of the traditional construction of Jesus’ death as reflected in Barnabas. Cult concerns things done as well as things said; cultic action is not only the setting for the reenactment of the cult legend, it is also the means by which the community appropriates the narrative and says that it is true of them. Narrative is also capable of expressing elements that cannot be articulated in the ritual action itself. It is necessary, therefore, to examine Barnabas for indications of any cultic action that accompanied the story of Jesus’ death in order to see whether such actions ought also to be considered part of the process of the formation of this narrative.

Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend

121

The preceding analysis of Barnabas noted the importance of the covenant both for Barnabas’s argument and for the narrative framework of the text. Barnabas refers on a number of occasions to the making, breaking, and renewing of the covenant. In addition, the genre of the covenant formulary may be determinative of the shape of the document. It is reasonable to ask, therefore, whether and in what ways the covenant with its associated cultic actions defines the ritual frame of reference of Barnabas. The ritual associated with entrance into the covenant for Israel is circumcision, and so it is striking that Barnabas 9 contains a lengthy discussion of circumcision. The chapter begins by connecting “hearing” with circumcision, levgei ga;r pavlin peri; tw'n wjtivwn, pw'" perievtemen hJmw'n ta;" ajkoa;" kai; ta;" kardiva" (“for he speaks again concerning the ears, how he circumcised our ears and our hearts,” Barn. 9.1).82 Throughout the scriptures of Israel hearing is linked to obedience to God and God’s commandments. At the same time, proper observance of the covenant is expressed in terms of circumcision of the heart (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4).83 Thus, Barnabas is drawing upon existing ethical traditions of the covenant in combining circumcision of the ears and that of the heart. These and other scriptural verses adduced in Barn. 9.1–3 are interpreted by the concluding statement, oujkou'n perievtemen hJmw'n ta;" ajkoav" hJmei'" i{na ajkouvsante" lovgon pisteuvswmen, (“therefore he circumcised our ears so that when we hear the word, we might believe,” Barn. 9.3). The next section, Barn. 9.4–9, contrasts circumcision of the flesh with the circumcision of the heart thus spoken of by the prophets. In believing that circumcision was in the flesh, Israel had been misled by “an evil angel” (Barn. 9.4b).84 Abraham, however, although he was circumcised in the flesh, did so “looking ahead in the spirit to Jesus.” To support this claim, Barnabas employs a complicated reading of the report (Gen 17:27 combined with Gen 14:14) that Abraham circumcised the three hundred and eighteen men of his household. As Barnabas explains the gematria, the number 318 is represented in Greek characters as IHT, and thus stands for Jesus (IH) and the cross (T). According to Barnabas, proper circumcision thereby points to Jesus’ death. Thus the covenant and Jesus’ death are here related. Moreover, those who understand this meaning of circumcision have the knowledge that is the mark of the true community, Barnabas’s audience, the heirs of the covenant. This knowledge permits correct interpretation of scripture, which in turn issues in appropriate ritual and ethical behavior (Barnabas 1–4). 82 83

On the reading of this text, see the discussion in Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 141. The numerous scriptural quotations and allusions in this discussion of circumcision have been analyzed in detail in Kraft: Quotations, 188–197. 84 Hvalvik: Struggle, 140, correctly points out that Barnabas is not arguing that the commandment to circumcise was wrong, but that interpreting the command in terms of circumcision of flesh was mistaken. It was in this interpretation that the Israelites were misled by “an evil angel.”

122

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

Circumcision is described as a seal (sfragiv") of belonging to the covenant at Barn. 9.6, ajll’ ejrei'": kai; mh;n peritevtmhtai oJ lao;" eij" sfragi'da (“but you will say, ‘And yet the people were circumcised as a seal’”). Similarly, in rabbinic Judaism, if not before, physical circumcision was often referred to as the seal of the covenant.85 Paul’s discussion of Abraham’s circumcision may reflect a similar usage, kai; shmei'on e[laben peritomh'" sfragi'da th'" dikaiosuvnh" th'" pivstew" th'" ejn th'/ ajkrobustiva/ (“he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which was during the uncircumsion,” Rom 4:11). Barn. 4.8 describes the purpose of the failure of Israel to receive the covenant from God through Moses as i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou ∆Ihsou' ejnkatasfragisqh'/ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th'" pivstew" aujtou' (“so that the covenant of Jesus the beloved might be sealed in our hearts, in hope of his faith”). If Barnabas rejects circumcision in the flesh, as chapter nine indicates, is there then a physical seal of the covenant to which Barn. 4.8 refers? Some earlier commentators have held that the “seal” here referred to baptism; if this is the case, then baptism would be defined in terms of covenant.86 This does not necessitate arguing that this baptism ritual included a physical “sealing” with oil or through other means, as developed in later liturgical practices; rather, to name baptism as a “seal” is to claim conceptually, though this metaphor, the covenantal practices as informing the action. If we accept the proposal that the Odes of Solomon are hymns with a close relation to baptism,87 then they may help in detecting the ritual informing Barnabas. The expressions “seal” and “circumcision” both occur in various passages within the Odes. Charlesworth notes that the use of “seal” in Odes Sol. 4.6–7, For who shall put on your grace and be rejected? Because your seal is known; And your creatures are known to it,

may refer to baptism and its protective power.88 Baptism may also be alluded to later in the same ode, “Sprinkle upon us your sprinklings, and open your bountiful springs which abundantly supply us with milk and honey” (Odes Sol. 4.10).89 Sprinkling, springs, and milk and honey are all expressions found in Barnabas. Circumcision forms an important part of the imagery in Ode 11,

85 86

Fitzer: sfragiv", 947. See Gebhardt/ Harnack: Epistula, 17. Noting that Dölger: Sphragis, advocated this interpretation of “seal,” Windisch: Barnabasbrief, 322, suggested that seal may also signify the giving of the spirit. 87 See the discussion in Charlesworth: OTP, vol. 2, 728; and Bernard: Odes. 88 Charlesworth: Odes, 24. 89 Charlesworth: Odes, 24.

Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend

123

oJ u{yisto" perievtemevn me tw'/ aJgivw/ pneuvmati aujtou' kai; ejguvmnwse pro;" aujto;n tou;" nefrouv" mou kai; ejplhvrwsevn me th'" ajgavph" aujtou' ejgevnetov moi eij" swthrivan hJ peritomh; aujtou' e[dramon oJdo;n ajlhqeiva" ejn eijrhvnh/ aujtou'.90 The Most High circumcised me by his Holy Spirit, then he uncovered my kidneys toward him, and filled me with his love. And his circumcising became my salvation, and I ran in the way of truth in his peace. (Odes Sol. 11.2–3).

As was the case with the circumcision of the heart and ears in Barnabas 9, here circumcision leads to salvation and keeping in the “way.” This ode has other points of connection with Barnabas, notably in the series of images used to express the effect of this “circumcising” on the believer. For example, Barn. 1.3a speaks of the “fountain of the Lord,” dio; kai; ma'llon sugcaivrw ejmautw'/ ejlpivzwn swqh'nai, o{ti ajlhqw'" blevpw ejn uJmi'n ejkkecumevnon ajpo; tou' plousivou th'" phgh'" kurivou pneu'ma ejf’ uJmav". Wherefore I, who also hope to be saved, inwardly rejoice all the more because I can truly see in you that the spirit has been poured out upon you from the abundance of the fountain of the Lord.

Prigent has remarked on the baptismal allusions in this verse: ejkkecumevnon (“poured out”), while reminiscent of the use of Joel 2:28 (3:1) to describe the coming of the spirit in Acts 2:17, also occurs in baptismal contexts in Titus 3:5–6 and 1 Clem. 46.6, as well as in a fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews on Jesus’ baptism.91 The phrase phgh'" kurivou, moreover, is found in Odes Sol. 11.6, kai; to; u{dwr to; lavloun h[ggise pro;" ta; ceivlh mou ajpo; phgh'" zwh'" kurivou ejn ajfqoniva/ aujtou' (“and speaking water touched my lips from the fountain of life of the Lord in his abundance”). Odes of Solomon 11 is the only one of these hymns for which a Greek text exists (it is thought to be a translation of the original Syriac).92 Verse 16, found only in the Greek text, but considered by Charlesworth to be authentic and derived from a Semitic original,93 speaks of “a river of joy,” “the land of their 90 91

I am relying on the edition of the Greek text found in Franzmann: Odes, 86–87. Fragment 2, preserved in Jerome on Isa 11:2. See Prigent/ Kraft: Barnabé, 74. We may also compare a passage from 1QS10, “With the coming of day and night, I will enter the Covenant of God, and when evening and morning depart, I will recite His decrees …. I will say to God ‘My Righteousness’ and ‘Author of my Goodness’ to the Most High, ‘Fountain of Knowledge’ and ‘Source of Holiness.’” 92 Charlesworth: Odes, 11–12. 93 Charlesworth: Odes, 36–37.

124

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

eternal life,” and “trees” fed by the river, as descriptive of the life resulting from the Spirit’s “circumcising,” ejqeasavmhn devndra wJrai'a kai; karpofovra, kai; aujtofuh;" h\n oJ stevfano" aujtw'n. qavllei ta; xuvla aujtw'n kai; ejgevlwn oiJ karpoi; aujtw'n: ajpo; ajqanavtou gh'" aiJ rJivzai aujtw'n. kai; potamo;" cara'" ejpovtizen aujtav" kai; kuvklw/ th'" gh'" zwh'" aijwniva" aujtw'n. I contemplated mature and fruit-bearing trees, and self-grown was their crown. Their branches were flourishing and their fruits were laughing; their roots were from an immortal land. And a river of joy was watering them and round about the land of their eternal life. (Odes Sol. 11.16)

The motif of the land is central to Barnabas’s design, and Barnabas 11, in its discussion of the righteous, likewise makes use of imagery of trees and water (see below). That it is the river “of joy” that irrigates the trees coheres well with the emphasis on joy and gladness which we have seen as characteristic of the Christian life throughout Barnabas. The Odes of Solomon are valuable in that they permit the identification of a number of motifs in Barnabas that may be associated with baptism. An explicit reference to baptism occurs in Barn. 11.2, peri; me;n tou' u{dato" gevgraptai ejpi; to;n ∆Israhvl, pw'" to; bavptisma to; fevron a[fesin aJmartiw'n ouj mh; prosdevxontai, ajll’ eJautoi'" oijkodomhvsousin. Concerning the water it is written with reference to Israel how they will not accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but they will build for themselves.

In light of the earlier discussion of the role of forgiveness in shaping the cult legend, the characterization of baptism as that which “brings forgiveness of sins” is significant. In the following discussion of the water, Barn. 11.6–8 quotes and comments on Ps 1:3–6, kai; pavlin ejn a[llw/ profhvth/ levgei: kai; e[stai oJ tau'ta poiw'n wJ" to; xuvlon to; pefuteumevnon para; ta;" diexovdou" tw'n uJdavtwn, o} to;n karpo;n aujtou' dwvsei ejn kairw'/ aujtou', kai; ta; fuvlla aujtou' oujk ajporruhvsetai, kai; pavnta o{sa a]n poih'/ kateuodwqhvsetai. oujc ou{tw" oiJ ajsebei'", oujc ou{tw", ajll’ h] wJ" oJ cnou'", o}n ejkrivptei oJ a[nemo" ajpo; proswvpou th'" gh'". dia; tou'to oujk ajnasthvsontai ajsebei'" ejn krivsei oujde; aJmartwloi; ejn boulh'/ dikaivwn, o{ti ginwvskei kuvrio" oJdo;n dikaivwn, kai; oJdo;" ajsebw'n ajpolei'tai. aijsqavnesqe, pw'" to; u{dwr kai; to;n stauro;n ejpi; to; aujto; w{risen. tou'to ga;r levgei: makavrioi, oi} ejpi; to;n stauro;n ejlpivsante" katevbhsan eij" to; u{dwr, o{ti to;n me;n misqo;n levgei ejn kairw'/ aujtou':

Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend

125

tovte, fhsivn, ajpodwvsw. nu'n de; o} levgei: ta; fuvlla oujk ajporruhvsetai. tou'to levgei: o{ti pa'n rJh'ma, o} ejan; ejxeleuvsetai ejx uJmw'n dia; tou' stovmato" uJmw'n ejn pivstei kai; ajgavph/, e[stai eij" ejpistrofh;n kai; ejlpivda polloi'". And again he says in another prophet: And the one who does these things will be like the tree planted by springs of waters, which will produce its fruit at the proper time, and its leaves will not fall off; and everything he does will prosper. The impious are not like this — not in the least. But rather, they are like the dust, which the wind drives from the face of the land. For this reason, the impious will not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the council of the righteous, because the Lord knows the way of the righteous but the way of the impious will be destroyed. Perceive how he referred to the water and the cross together. For this is what he is saying: “Blessed” are those who, having placed their hope in the cross, descended into the water. For the reward, he says, comes “at the proper time” — then he says, I will repay. But now he says this, “The leaves will not fall off.” He is saying that every word which will flow forth from you — through your mouth — in faith and love, will be a means of conversion and hope to many. (Barn. 11.6–8)

This passage employs a macarism, makavrioi, oi} ejpi; to;n stauro;n ejlpivsante" katevbhsan eij" to; u{dwr (“Blessed are those who, having placed their hope in the cross, descended into the water”) to interpret Psalm 1. It is not possible to know whether Barnabas has composed this macarism or whether it was already in use as an authoritative utterance within the community. Nevertheless, it clearly refers to a practice of a water ritual that is the mark of the righteous community. The same practice is referred to at Barn. 11.10b, tou'to levgei, o{ti hJmei'" me;n katabaivnomen eij" to; u{dwr gevmonte" aJmartiw'n kai; rJuvpou, kai; ajnabaivnomen karpoforou'nte" ejn th'/ kardiva/ to;n fovbon kai; th;n ejlpivda eij" to;n ∆Ihsou'n ejn tw'/ pneuvmati e[conte". He says this, that we go down into the water full of sins and vileness,94 and we come up bearing fruit in the heart, having reverence and hope toward Jesus in the spirit.

It is reasonable to read this passage as referring to the practice of baptism. I would further contend that the reference to “the cross” in this context serves to associate the ritual with a narrative of Jesus’ death. Speaking of the “water” and the “wood” together, thus, indicates a cultic action and a cultic narrative. The psalm that undergirds Barnabas’s argument at this point, Psalm 1, makes use of the scheme of the “two ways” found in Barnabas 18–21 and frequently employed in the blessings and curses section of the covenant formu94 The diction here, aJmartiw'n kai; rJup v ou (“sins and vileness”) resonates with that found in Barnabas’s discussion of the rituals of the Day of Atonement and the red heifer (Barnabas 7–8).

126

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

lary.95 The tree planted by streams of water is first a metaphor for the righteous and then becomes for Barnabas a type of the water and the cross together, that is, for the indivisibility of baptism and the passion of Jesus.96 To turn again to Odes of Solomon 11, we find further similarities with the characterization of the results of baptism. Odes Sol. 11.11–13 speaks of recreation and enlivening, oJ kuvrio" ejnekaivnisevn me ejn tw'/ ejnduvmati aujtou' kai; ajnekthvsatov me tw'/ fwti; aujtou' kai; ajnezwopoivhsevn me th'/ ajfqarsiva/ aujtou' ejgenovmhn wJ" hJ gh' qavllousa kai; gelw'sa toi'" karpoi'" aujth'" kai; oJ kuvriov" moi ejgevneto wJ" oJ h{lio" ejpi; provswpon th'" gh'". And the Lord renewed me in his garment, and possessed me by his light and he made me alive again by his immortality. I became like the land which blossoms and laughs in its fruits. And the Lord became to me like the sun upon the face of the land. (Odes Sol. 11.11–13)

The “land” is the subject of extended interpretation in Barn. 6.8–17, where the suffering land first becomes the type of Jesus who suffers, and then the land flowing with milk and honey is the inheritance of the people of the covenant.97 Some commentators also see the discussion of milk and honey here as an allusion to the meal given to the newly baptized.98 The work of God is described in terms of renewing (ajnakainivzw), refashioning (ajnaplavssw), and making alive (zwopoievw), as was the case in Ode 11. Those who are made new are the possessors of the land and the heirs of the covenant (Barn. 6.19). Thus, the practice of baptism is explicitly interpreted in terms of the cult legend of Israel. Odes of Solomon 11 and Barnabas share thematic material: circumcision by the Holy Spirit leading to salvation, the “two ways,” knowledge, water, the 95 96

Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 125–127. In Odes of Solomon 11, the trees and the water are not explicitly linked to the suffering of Jesus, and thus it is not possibly to say that the passion is related to the baptismal motifs there. As we have seen, however, the suffering and vindication of the Christ is an important topic for other hymns within this collection, particularly Odes of Solomon 28 and 31. 97 In the Odes of Solomon both milk and honey are important metaphors for life and nourishment given by God. See, for example, Odes Sol. 19.1–4, “A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is he who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is she who milked him; Because his breasts were full, and it was undesirable that his milk should be released without purpose”; this Ode goes on to say that by receiving this milk, the “Virgin” conceived and “bore the Son” (Odes Sol. 19.6–8). Compare Odes Sol. 40.1, “As honey drips from the honeycomb of bees, and milk flows from the woman who loves her children, so also is my hope upon you, O my God.” See also Odes Sol. 4.10, discussed below. 98 Dahl: Terre, 70.

Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend

127

fountain of the Lord, recreation, enlivening, trees with water, joy, and the land. The baptismal associations of all these themes in the Odes of Solomon combined with the explicit discussion of baptism in Barnabas 11 strengthen the possibility that the rite of entrance into the covenant for the community of Barnabas was baptism. This baptism was the equivalent of circumcision in that it was the “seal” of the covenant. It is important that we not conceive of this ritual in terms of later baptismal forms; Barnabas itself prefers to speak of the “water.”99 We may say then that water was associated with the ritual of entrance into the covenant and its benefits expressed in terms of the cult legend of Israel as entry into the land. Moreover, as Barnabas 11 shows, this cultic action is paired with “the cross,” in other words, with the story of Jesus’ death. Baptism, for Barnabas’s community, was the action through which the cult legend, told in terms of Jesus’ sufferings, became the story that defined their identity. Let us consider this interrelation in terms of a principal designation for Jesus in Barnabas. The epithet hjgaphmevno" (“beloved”) is used to refer to Jesus three times, eij" tou'to ou\n, ajdelfoiv, oJ makrovqumo" problevya", wJ" ejn ajkeraiosuvnh/ pisteuvsei oJ lao;" o}n hJtoivmasen tw'/ hjgaphmevnw/ aujtou', proefanevrwsen hJmi'n peri; pavntwn. For this reason [the announcement of liberation], brothers and sisters, when he foresaw how the people whom he prepared for his beloved would believe with innocence, the long-suffering one gave us a preview concerning everything. (Barn. 3.6) to; tevleion skavndalon h[ggiken, peri; ou| gevgraptai, wJ" ∆Enw;c levgei. eij" tou'to ga;r oJ despovth" suntevtmhken tou;" kairou;" kai; ta;" hJmevra", i{na tacuvnh/ oJ hjgaphmevno" aujtou', kai; ejpi; th;n klhronomivan h{xei. The last scandal is at hand, concerning which it has been written — as Enoch says. For the master cut short the times and the days for this reason, that his beloved might hasten and come into his inheritance. (Barn. 4.3) kai; sunetrivbh aujtw'n hJ diaqhvkh, i{na hJ tou' hjgaphmevnou ejnkatasfragisqh'/ eij" th;n kardivan hJmw'n ejn ejlpivdi th'" pivstew".

∆Ihsou'

And their covenant was smashed to bits so that the covenant of Jesus the beloved might be sealed in our heart, in hope of his faith. (Barn. 4.8c)

The term hjgaphmevno" is rare in the New Testament, used of Jesus only in what may be a baptismal context in Eph 1:6, 99 The term “baptism” in Barn. 11.2 is used in a polemical setting against Israel. This may indicate that “water” is the term used within the community, but “baptism” is the way of describing the rite in relation to those outside.

128

The Epistle of Barnabas: The Covenant of Jesus the Beloved

proorivsa" hJma'" eij" uiJoqesivan dia; ∆Ihsou' Cristou' eij" aujtovn, kata; th;n eujdokivan tou' qelhvmato" aujtou', eij" e[painon dovxh" th'" cavrito" aujtou' h|" ejcarivtwsen hJma'" ejn tw'/ hjgaphmevnw/. ejn w|/ e[comen th;n ajpoluvtrwsin dia; tou' ai{mato" aujtou', th;n a[fesin tw'n paraptwmavtwn, kata; to; plou'to" th'" cavrito" aujtou'. He destined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of the trespasses, according to the riches of his grace. (Eph 1:5–7)

The use of ajgaphtov" (“beloved”) in the stories of Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration (Matt 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22), as well as of the heir who is killed in the parable of the vineyard (Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13), may be related. If so, then hjgaphmevno" in Barnabas may be connected to baptism and the legitimization of Jesus as the servant of God.100 Among the uses of hjgaphmevno" in the Septuagint, we should note in particular its use in place of the proper name Jeshurun (a poetic name for Israel) in Deut 32:15; 33:5, 26; and Isa 44:2.101 Its use in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) and in the final testament of Moses (Deuteronomy 33) is significant in light of the role that the Song and Moses’ death play as the cult legend comes to speak of Jesus. The “beloved” here is the community whose future life is the vindication of Moses. The use of hjgaphmevno" in deutero-Isaiah to designate Jacob/ Israel, God’s servant, bears closer examination, nu'n de; a[kouson, pai'" mou ∆Iakw;b kai; ∆Israhvl, o}n ejxelexavmhn: ou|tw" levgei kuvrio" oJ qeo;" oJ poihvsa" se kai; oJ plavsa" se ejk koiliva" e[ti bohqhqhvsh/, mh; fobou', pai'" mou ∆Iakw;b kai; hjgaphmevno" ∆Israhvl, o}n ejxelexavmhn. Now listen, Jacob my servant and Israel, whom I have chosen. Thus says the Lord God who made you and formed you from the womb. Still you will be helped, do not fear, Jacob my servant and beloved Israel, whom I have chosen. (Isa 44:1–2)

The epithet here may be dependent on its use in the final chapters of Deuteronomy. I would argue that the combination assists in the appropriation of the 100 “Beloved” is used frequently in the Odes of Solomon to refer to Jesus (Odes Sol. 3.5–7; 8.21; 38.11). Other early Christian uses of hjgaphmevno" include Ignatius Smyrn. introduction; 1 Clem. 59.2; Herm. Sim. 9.12.5; and Justin Dial. 137.2. 101 hjgaphmevno" is also used to denote Benjamin (Deut 33:12); Abraham (2 Chr 20:7); Sirion (=Mount Hermon, Ps 29 [28]:6); Moses (Sir 45:1); Samuel (Sir 46:13); Judah (Jer 11:15; 12:7); and Israel (Bar 3:37). In this connection we should also note its use in Isa 5:1–7 in the parable of the vineyard of the beloved, that is, Judah. For a full discussion of the diction of “beloved” in Jewish tradition, see Levenson: Death. In particular, the use of “beloved” to signal one doomed to die and in relation to the tradition of the Akedah, or the binding of Isaac, has important implications for early Christian understandings of Jesus’ baptism and death.

Cultic Action: The Appropriation of the Cult Legend

129

metaphor for Jesus, as the songs and prophecies of the suffering servant are employed by Barnabas for Jesus’ suffering within the context of the cult legend with possible baptismal associations. Thus, to name Jesus as the beloved in Barnabas points toward a covenantal framework interpreted through the suffering of Jesus and enacted both in narrative and ritual. Much then in Barnabas points toward the cult legend and practice of the covenant as the ritual frame of reference in which to interpret the discourse. This material was available to Barnabas because it was found in the primary ritual practice of the community. A water ritual, “baptism,” functioned as the entrance to the covenant, the understanding of which was mediated through the memory of Jesus’ death. Barnabas’s focus on the covenant can be seen, accordingly, as a concern for the proper telling of the cult legend, for its reenactment in terms of Jesus’ suffering and vindication. Through the process of the performance of the narrative in cultic action and through baptism, the community is constituted as the heirs of the covenant, the people of the promised land, forgiven and healed. The performance of this ritual becomes the occasion of covenant appropriation for this community. The indications of ritual in the text, therefore, not only point to the context within which the narrative of Jesus’ suffering and death was reenacted, but also suggest the vehicle by which this narrative became effective for the community. The story of the fate of the individual, Jesus, is determinative for the life of the community through the poetics of the passion.

Chapter IV The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest” 1. Introduction Jesus’ suffering and death occupies a central place within the Epistle to the Hebrews both in its interpretation of the scriptures and cult of Israel and in its parenetic passages. Specific attention to the components that contribute to the memory of Jesus and its function within the larger program of Hebrews sheds light on the workings of the poetics of the passion as part of what provides Hebrews the means to cultivate the community’s identity and ethical orientation. As with the other texts we have examined, I shall attend here to the ways in which the scriptures of Israel inform the construction of Jesus’ suffering, the relation of this portrayal to the cult legend of Israel, particularly the death of Moses, and to song traditions of suffering and vindication. Moreover, if we regard Hebrews alongside the other texts we have explored as reflecting and building upon an experiment in constituting new community around the memory of Jesus, then it will be valuable to locate any indications there may be of how the community appropriated this identity. Such indices may point to the framework of cultic action in which the memory of Jesus’ suffering and death was reenacted. To this end, I consider the place of Jesus’ suffering and death within the overarching scheme of the document, particularly as that scheme is informed by the wandering in the wilderness, the covenant, and the performance of the cult of Israel. I then focus on certain passages within Hebrews in which a characterization of Jesus’ suffering comes to the foreground. It is thus possible to examine the construction of Jesus’ suffering on both macro- and microscopic levels. Attention to ritual and parenetic indices then provides some insight into the performative dimension of this narrative within the practice of the community to which Hebrews is addressed. Above all, however, we see in this discourse how the poetics of the passion provide a structure for articulating and cultivating communal identity as the covenantal people of God. There are few internal clues regarding Hebrews’s provenance, but the concluding greeting sent from oiJ ajpo; th'" ∆Italiva" (“those from Italy”) has led to the suggestion that it was written to Christians in Rome. Affinities with 1 Peter and the apparent quotation of two passages from Hebrews in 1 Clement, written from Rome, reinforce Hebrews’s relation to Rome.1 The use of Hebrews in 1

See Attridge: Hebrews, 10. See also the discussion in Bruce: Document, 3513–3519.

Introduction

131

1 Clement permits Hebrews to be dated before the end of the first century C.E.2 Despite its title, which appears first in a fragment of Clement of Alexandria preserved in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 6.14.4) and is suggestive of an understanding current in second-century Alexandria, Hebrews was most likely addressed to a mixed Gentile and Jewish congregation.3 The numerous references to the cult of Israel in the text derive not so much from the temple practice in the first century C.E. as from the biblical prescriptions for Israel’s worship in the wilderness. The text itself makes no claim about authorship; in the East, first in Alexandria, it was regarded as Pauline, but not in the Latin West. Tertullian, for example, suggested that it was written by Barnabas.4 Like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Hebrews gives little indication, aside from the concluding greetings (Heb 13:24), that it is indeed a letter. Rather, the text characterizes itself as a “word of exhortation” (lovgo" th'" paraklhvsew", Heb 13:22), and its structure shows many similarities to the genre of hellenistic sermon or homily.5 It is important to observe the extended explications of scripture which frequently issue in parenesis; Hebrews’s theological concerns are linked to the actions of the community. Attridge also makes note of the high degree of rhetorical skill in the composition of Hebrews.6 Although it is probably not possible to identify Hebrews as a sermon as such, it nonetheless contains many homiletic features and thus may be located with reference to homiletic experience, traditions, and conventions. As such, it stands close to the ritual of the community, and we may expect its use of scriptural quotations and motifs, as well as of hymns and confessional materials, to be related to cultic practice. Ernst Käsemann has argued, for example, that the “entire conceptuality” of Hebrews “would have been intelligible as a continuous allusion to the community’s liturgy.”7 Moreover, Hebrews would have depended upon familiarity with ritual use of scripture for its authority and its persuasive2 Koester: Introduction, 272. 1 Clement is usually dated to the end of the reign of Domitian or immediately afterwards, ca. 95–97 C.E. (Koester: Introduction, 288; and Welborn: Clement, 1060). Attridge: Hebrews, 9, suggests that Hebrews was composed between 60–100 C .E . Elsewhere I have argued that Hebrews was composed as a response to the celebration within the city of Rome of the Flavian triumph following the First Jewish War, that is, between 70 and 81 C.E. and may be interpreted in relation to the expression of that triumph, particularly following the death and divinization of Titus in 81 C.E.; see Aitken: Temple, 73–88. 3 Attridge: Hebrews, 11–12. 4 Tertullian De pudic. 20. This proposal bears closer investigation, not because of a possible association with the apostle Barnabas, known in Acts, but because of the number of scriptural motifs shared between the Epistle of Barnabas and Hebrews. That is, Tertullian’s attribution of Hebrews to Barnabas may indicate knowledge of shared interpretive, cultic, or narrative traditions. 5 See Wills: Form, 280–283; see also MacRae: Heavenly Temple, 179–199. Hebrews’s homiletic character is accepted by Attridge: Hebrews, 14. 6 Attridge: Hebrews, 14; within the categories of classical rhetoric Attridge calls Hebrews an “epideictic oration.” 7 Käsemann: Wandering People, 172.

132

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

ness. Because of Hebrews’s relationship to the liturgy of its community, I presuppose that Hebrews employs scripture, particularly psalms and other scriptural hymns, mediated through liturgical use, rather than out of a strictly scribal use of testimonia.8 This process is analogous to what we have observed with regard to the Epistle of Barnabas; indeed there is significant overlap between Barnabas and Hebrews in the psalms and prophecies that they use. In other words, if we regard Hebrews as relying upon the performance strategies of a homily, then it is possible to say that Hebrews draws upon much material that would be familiar to its community in its cultic life: psalms, stories, hymns, liturgical patterns, and ritual observances. I would posit, moreover, that this material had an existing life, which to some extent we can recover. This existing life has built up a network of associations in words and liturgical practices that triggers their use and coincidence in Hebrews. My purpose is to examine the references to Jesus’ suffering and death in Hebrews in order to discern how these preexisting traditions and practices function. In order to understand the program contained in Hebrews, it is also important to recognize that the text characterizes itself as concerned with those who have already received the foundations of the Christian life and who are going on toward “perfection” or “maturity,” requiring deeper knowledge. dio; ajfevnte" to;n th'" ajrch'" tou' Cristou' lovgon ejpi; th;n teleiovthta ferwvmeqa, mh; pavlin qemevlion kataballovmenoi metanoiva" ajpo; nekrw'n e[rgwn kai; pivstew" ejpi; qeovn, baptismw'n didach'" ejpiqevsewv" te ceirw'n, ajnastavsewv" te nekrw'n kai; krivmato" aijwnivou. Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the initial account of Christ, and not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Heb 6:1–2)

If we were to use later categories of Christian teaching, it would be possible to describe Hebrews as a mystagogic text since it seeks to lead its already initiated audience into further understanding of the narrative and practice of the community. Hebrews’s method of scriptural interpretation has thus been likened to that of Philo not only because both use extended allegorical readings of scripture and cult in which the earthly is only a shadow of the heavenly reality,9 but also because both provide a kind of esoteric knowledge.10 As we examine specific passages concerned with Jesus’ sufferings, it will be apparent that Hebrews presupposes awareness of an account of Jesus’ suffering and death and seeks to 8 Later collections of testimonia, for example, those used by Matthew or Justin Martyr, may derive from the use of those scriptures in liturgy. 9 Dey: World. 10 Koester: Introduction, 273–274; Koester also argues that in Hebrews this esoteric knowledge is aimed at controverting gnostic understandings of redemption and salvation.

Introduction

133

develop further insight out of this memory. I would propose that this awareness corresponds to “the initial account of Christ” (to;n th'" ajrch'" tou' Cristou' lovgon) in Hebrews’s own statement of its intent (Heb 6:1). As this passage suggests, the text also presupposes familiarity with certain ritual practices belonging to the community. My presupposition for Hebrews, however, is that it knows neither a fixed text of a passion narrative nor fixed liturgical forms that we could identify with the later forms of baptism and eucharist. Rather, like many other documents of its time, it reflects a particular attempt to constitute a Christian community through the creation of a story and ritual. Inasmuch as Hebrews aims at communicating deeper knowledge, it builds upon the community’s experience of story and ritual and attempts to reinforce the identity and practice of the community established through these means. The terms with which it does so, I shall argue, draw upon the cult legend and practices, as well as the psalms, stories, and prophecies of the suffering righteous vindicated by God, because these are constitutive of the community’s foundational story and ritual. Through the patterns of scriptural interpretation and parenesis in Hebrews, we see how scripture and cultic practice are activated, reshaped, and reenacted, with reference to the death of Jesus and the life of the community gathered in his name. 2. The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews That the conceptual scheme of Hebrews is informed by the scriptures of Israel is evident from the initial announcement, polumerw'" kai; polutrovpw" pavlai oJ qeo;" lalhvsa" toi'" patravsin ejn toi'" profhvtai" ejp∆ ejscavtou tw'n hJmerw'n touvtwn ejlavlhsen hJmi'n ejn uiJw'/, o}n e[qhken klhronovmon pavntwn, di∆ ou| kai; ejpoivhsen tou;" aijw'na". In many and various ways God spoke of old to our ancestors in the prophets, and at the end of these days he spoke to us in a son, whom he appointed as heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:1–2)

This statement accords not only with the observation that Hebrews utilizes stories, figures, and motifs from scripture as revelatory of Christ and the community, but also with Hebrews’s conviction that with Christ a decisive event within this history has occurred. Hebrews’s opening has caused F. F. Bruce to assert that Hebrews is much more concerned with a contrast between then and now than with one between the earthly and the heavenly.11 This view fails to take into account Hebrews’s emphasis on where Christ is “now,” namely, in heaven at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3; 1:13 [citing Ps 110 (109):1]; 8:1; 10:12; 11

Bruce: Document, 3508.

134

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

12:2). In terms of patterns of actualization and reenactment, the “there and then” of scripture belongs to the earthly dimension, but the “here and now” partakes of both the heavenly as where Christ is and the earthly as the present situation of the community. Thus Hebrews is governed by both sets of contrasts.12 This is seen most clearly when we consider how the cult legend of Israel functions within Hebrews. Amid the many scriptural quotations and allusions in Hebrews, it has long been recognized that the audience is characterized in terms of the story of the exodus, wilderness, and entry into the land. Specifically, Hebrews understands the community it addresses as the people of God journeying in the wilderness toward the land of promise.13 We may contrast this use of the cult with that found in Barnabas, for example, where the community is located within the land of promise. The exposition within Hebrews 3 and 4 focuses on the issue of entering the land, here expressed in terms of God’s “rest,” and depends on both an identification and a contrast between the wilderness generation and the audience. Heb 3:7–11 quotes Psalm 95 (94):7–11 in order to emphasize the exhortation not to harden one’s heart, as well as God’s oath that the wilderness generation “shall not enter my rest.” In contrast, the possibility of entering God’s rest is still available to the community of Hebrews and becomes the parenetic goal, fobhqw'men ou\n, mhvpote kataleipomevnh" ejpaggeliva" eijselqei'n eij" th;n katavpausin aujtou' dokh'/ ti" ejx uJmw'n uJsterhkevnai. kai; gavr ejsmen eujhggelismevnoi kaqavper kajkei'noi: ajll∆ oujk wjfevlhsen oJ lovgo" th'" ajkoh'" ejkeivnou" mh; sugkekerasmevnou" th'/ pivstei toi'" ajkouvsasin. eijsercovmeqa ga;r eij" ªth;nº katavpausin oiJ pisteuvsante", kaqw;" ei[rhken: wJ" w[mosa ejn th'/ ojrgh'/ mou: eij eijseleuvsontai eij" th;n katavpausivn mou. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as he said, “As in my anger I swore, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” (Heb 4:1–3)

The success of the parenesis depends on the audience’s identification with the wilderness generation, with the possibility of failing to enter the “rest.” Nevertheless, that the “rest” is still available distinguishes the two communities; what

12 Compare MacRae: Heavenly Temple, 179, who speaks of the coexistence of the “realized, Alexandrian eschatology” of the author and the “futurist, apocalyptic eschatology” of the readers. See also Cody: Sanctuary, 1–2, who speaks of a “bivalence” in Hebrews’s use of terminology through which a horizontal, purely historical perspective and a vertical perspective of eternity touching upon time are “brought to syzygy in Christ.” 13 Käsemann: Wandering People, 19.

The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews

135

makes this marked difference possible lies, as we shall see, in the unfolding of the cult legend in Hebrews. The quotation of Psalm 95 (94) here is important not only because it contains God’s oath and the exhortation not to harden one’s heart, but also because the portion of the psalm used here is itself a retelling of the episode of rebellion at Meribah and Massah, mh; sklhruvnhte ta;" kardiva" uJmw'n wJ" ejn tw'/ parapikrasmw'/ kata; th;n hJmevran tou' peirasmou' ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/, ou| ejpeivrasan oiJ patevre" uJmw'n ejn dokimasiva/ kai; ei\don ta; e[rga mou tesseravkonta e[th: dio; proswvcqisa th'/ genea'/ tauvth/ kai; ei\pon: ajei; planw'ntai th'/ kardiva/, aujtoi; de; oujk e[gnwsan ta;" oJdouv" mou, wJ" w[mosa ejn th'/ ojrgh'/ mou: eij eijseleuvsontai eij" th;n katavpausivn mou. Do not harden your hearts as in the provocation, as on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your ancestors put me to the test, though they had seen my works for forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, and I said, “They always go astray in their hearts, and they have not known my ways.” As in my anger I swore, “They shall not enter my rest.” (Heb 3:8–11)

The Greek of Psalm 95 (94) uses parapikrasmov" (“provocation”) and peirasmov" (“testing”) to translate the proper names Meribah and Massah that appear in the Hebrew.14 The reenactment of this episode in the psalm makes Meribah and Massah the reason why the wilderness generation does not enter the land. In Numbers 20, the episode is connected to Moses’ death prior to entry into the land. Hebrews adopts the perspective of Psalm 95 (94) and makes it the reason for the loss of the covenant and the abrogation of the promises to the people in the wilderness. Heb 3:16–19 further interprets Psalm 95 (94) by explaining that those who provoked God, who sinned, and with whom God was angry were those “whose bodies fell in the wilderness” (w|n ta; kw'la e[pesen ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/, Heb 3:17). In this way Hebrews connects the oath in Ps 95 (94):11 with God’s extended oath 14 Note also the prominence of the motif of “testing” in the suffering of Jesus in Heb 2:18, ejn w|/ ga;r pevponqen aujto;" peirasqeiv", duvnatai toi'" peirazomevnoi" bohqh'sai (“because he was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested”) and Heb 4:15, ouj ga;r e[comen ajrciereva mh; dunavmenon sumpaqh'sai tai'" ajsqeneivai" hJmw'n, pepeirasmevnon de; kata; pavnta kaq∆ oJmoiovthta cwri;" aJmartiva" (“for we do not have a high priest who is unable to suffer with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin”).

136

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

in Num 14:27–35. In Numbers 14, God’s response to the complaint and rebellion of the people is that they will die in the wilderness. The phrase, ejn th'/ ejrhvmw/ tauvth/ pesei'tai ta; kw'la uJmw'n (“in this wilderness your bodies will fall”), occurring in Num 14:29 and recalled in Num 14:32 and 33, is the resounding note of the curse.15 Hebrews takes it as fulfilled, transforms it into a narrative statement, and links it specifically to the episode at Meribah. It is important to note, moreover, that in Numbers 14 Moses’ intercession has ameliorated God’s curse, causing God to allow Caleb and Joshua to enter the land. This aspect of Moses’ action contributes to Hebrews’s characterization of Jesus as the intercessor, which enables the community addressed to enter God’s “rest.” The centrality of the Meribah episode within the soteriological program of Hebrews is striking in light of the role that this episode has played in constructing the memory of Jesus’ suffering in other texts. Any link to Jesus in Hebrews 3:7–4:11 flows only implicitly from the parallel between Moses and Jesus in Heb 3:1–6. The quotation of Psalm 95 (94) is immediately preceded by this contrast, kai; Mwu>sh'" me;n pisto;" ejn o{lw/ tw'/ oi[kw/ aujtou' wJ" qeravpwn eij" martuvrion tw'n lalhqhsomevnwn, Cristo;" de; wJ" uiJo;" ejpi; to;n oi\kon aujtou': ou| oi\kov" ejsmen hJmei'", ejavnªperº th;n parrhsivan kai; to; kauvchma th'" ejlpivdo" katavscwmen. And Moses was faithful in all his house as a servant, to testify to the things that would be spoken, but Christ was faithful over his house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and boasting of hope. (Heb 3:5–6)

The use of the epithet qeravpwn (“servant”)16 for Moses resonates particularly with the authorization of Moses as the qeravpwn of the Lord in the face of the jealousy and rebellion of Miriam and Aaron, oujc ou{tw" oJ qeravpwn mou Mwu>sh": ejn o{lw/ tw'/ oi[kw/ mou pistov" ejstin (“My servant Moses is not thus; he is faithful in all my house,” Num 12:7).17 Moses’ faithfulness, and presuma15 kw'lon (“limb, body”) is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament and occurs only rarely in the Septuagint outside of Numbers 14 (Lev 26:30, related to the curse for idolatry; 1 Kgdms 17:46, of the Philistines; and Isa 66:24). The occurrence in Isa 66:24 is thus all the more noteworthy, falling at the very end of the book after the declaration of the new creation and the vindication of Zion, kai; ejxeleuvsontai kai; o[yontai ta; kw'la tw'n ajnqrwvpwn tw'n parabebhkovtwn ejn ejmoiv: oJ ga;r skwvlhx aujtw'n ouj teleuthvsei, kai; to; pu'r aujtw'n ouj sbesqhvsetai, kai; e[sontai eij" o{rasin pavsh/ sarkiv (“And they [the vindicated] will go out and see the bodies of the people who transgressed against me. For their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be as a vision for all flesh”). 16 Whether the Septuagint’s use of qeravpwn to translate dRbo R shows awareness of earlier Greek cultic ideas of ritual substitution deserves further investigation. See Nagy: Achaeans, 33. 17 Attridge: Hebrews, 110; and Dorival: Nombres, 302.

The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews

137

bly Jesus’ also, is defined in relation to the situation of opposition; if this observation is correct, then we have a glimpse of how the episodes of rebellion in the wilderness contribute to the portrayal of Jesus in Hebrews. Another trace may be found in Heb 12:3, ajnalogivsasqe ga;r to;n toiauvthn uJpomemenhkovta uJpo; tw'n aJmartwlw'n eij" eJauto;n ajntilogivan, i{na mh; kavmhte tai'" yucai'" uJmw'n ejkluovmenoi. For consider him who endured such controversy against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.

Here Jesus’ endurance of ajntilogiva (“controversy”) makes him an exemplary model for this exhortation. Moreover in the previous verse, Jesus’ endurance includes an explicit reference to his death, ajforw'nte" eij" to;n th'" pivstew" ajrchgo;n kai; teleiwth;n ∆Ihsou'n, o}" ajnti; th'" prokeimevnh" aujtw'/ cara'" uJpevmeinen stauro;n aijscuvnh" katafronhvsa" ejn dexia'/ te tou' qrovnou tou' qeou' kekavqiken. looking to Jesus, the leader and perfecter of the faith, who for the sake of the joy that lay before him endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:2)

For our purposes, Jesus’ endurance of ajntilogiva in conjunction with the cross is important because u{dwr ajntilogiva" is a regular translation for “the waters of Meribah” in the Septuagint (Num 20:13; 27:14; Deut 32:51; 33:8; Ps 81 (80):8; 106 [105]:32), not least when the episode is linked to Moses’ death. It would appear then that using ajntilogiva in reference to Jesus’ endurance and death draws upon traditions in which the Meribah episode contributes to the formation of the memory of Jesus. Hebrews makes use of a variety of strategies to argue that God’s promise and the possibility of a covenant relationship, although lost by the wilderness generation, are still available for the community it addresses. Chief among these strategies is the development of the figure of the high priest Melchizedek as a type for Jesus (Heb 6:20–7:28). This move enables Hebrews to assert that a priesthood, not related to the descendants of Aaron, belongs to Jesus and that Jesus is thereby the “guarantee” and “mediator of a better covenant” (Heb 7:22; 8:6).18 In order to speak authoritatively of the covenant that is available to the community and to underline the imperfection of the Sinai covenant, Hebrews quotes Jer 31:31–34,

18

Attridge: Hebrews, 199.

138

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

eij ga;r hJ prwvth ejkeivnh h\n a[mempto", oujk a]n deutevra" ejzhtei'to tovpo". memfovmeno" ga;r aujtou;" levgei: ijdou; hJmevrai e[rcontai, levgei kuvrio", kai; suntelevsw ejpi; to;n oi\kon ∆Israh;l kai; ejpi; to;n oi\kon ∆Iouvda diaqhvkhn kainhvn, ouj kata; th;n diaqhvkhn, h}n ejpoivhsa toi'" patravsin aujtw'n ejn hJmevra/ ejpilabomevnou mou th'" ceiro;" aujtw'n ejxagagei'n aujtou;" ejk gh'" Aijguvptou, o{ti aujtoi; oujk ejnevmeinan ejn th'/ diaqhvkh/ mou, kajgw; hjmevlhsa aujtw'n, levgei kuvrio": o{ti au{th hJ diaqhvkh, h}n diaqhvsomai tw'/ oi[kw/ ∆Israh;l meta; ta;" hJmevra" ejkeivna", levgei kuvrio": didou;" novmou" mou eij" th;n diavnoian aujtw'n, kai; ejpi; kardiva" aujtw'n ejpigravyw aujtouv", kai; e[somai aujtoi'" eij" qeovn, kai; aujtoi; e[sontaiv moi eij" laovn: kai; ouj mh; didavxwsin e{kasto" to;n polivthn aujtou' kai; e{kasto" to;n ajdelfo;n aujtou' levgwn: gnw'qi to;n kuvrion, o{ti pavnte" eijdhvsousivn me ajpo; mikrou' e{w" megavlou aujtw'n, o{ti i{lew" e[somai tai'" ajdikivai" aujtw'n kai; tw'n aJmartiw'n aujtw'n ouj mh; mnhsqw' e[ti. ejn tw'/ levgein kainh;n pepalaivwken th;n prwvthn: to; de; palaiouvmenon kai; ghravskon ejggu;" ajfanismou'. For if that first one [covenant] had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. He finds fault with them when he says, “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And each one shall not teach his fellow-citizen or say to his brother, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” When he speaks of “a new one,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear. (Heb 8:7–13)

The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews

139

Although this lengthy quotation receives little immediate comment, it nevertheless becomes the programmatic statement for the remainder of Hebrews.19 It also occupies a central place in the overall scheme of Hebrews in that it directly addresses the failure of the wilderness generation to enter the land of promise. The quotation itself activates the cult legend in recalling the exodus and wilderness experience; in effect, this recollection becomes the antecedent history for the assertion of the new covenant through the summary statement, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The quotation of Jeremiah 31 here provides an allusion to the performative act of making and entering the new covenant. Within Hebrews, the quotation certainly functions as a piece of the extended argument, but, inasmuch as it brings to the foreground of the text an allusion to cultic experience and indeed quotes the special speech of making the covenant in that argument, it authorizes the new status of the community (as distinct from the wilderness generation under the Sinai covenant). It is likely that it would resonate with the cultic experience of the community; for the audience of Hebrews this passage from Jeremiah 31 may have been central to their incorporation into the “new covenant.”20 The quotation from Jeremiah 31 is essential to the unfolding of the cult legend in Hebrews. On the performative level of Hebrews, the articulation of Jeremiah 31 allows the possibility for the community to identify itself not with the generation that died in the wilderness, but with the people who stand poised to enter the land of promise, God’s “rest.” In other words, the possibility of being the people of the “new” covenant is announced as available to the audience. This suggests that within the practice of the community Jeremiah 31 provided an important means by which to actualize the covenant. There is, however, a further transformation of the cult legend necessary within Hebrews’s program, namely, one in which Jesus becomes the key to the reenactment. This dimension accounts for a number of features within Hebrews’s christology. Not only is Jesus the heavenly intercessor, mirroring Moses’ intercession for the people, but he is also ajrchgov" (“the one who leads the way,” Heb 2:10; 12:2) and provdromo" (“forerunner,” Heb 6:20).21 That is to say, Jesus is the one who goes before the people into God’s “rest,” opening the way through his death.22 Both of the instances in which ajrchgov" is used for Jesus in

19 20

Attridge: Hebrews, 226. In Heb 10:16–17, the remaking of the covenant from Jeremiah 31 is again quoted. The short parenetic section that follows contains two quotations from Deuteronomy 32, the Song of Moses, in Heb 10:30–31. In this context these quotations function as sanctions on the covenant and recall the similar cultic role of the Song of Moses. This also indicates that Hebrews may be drawing upon the active use of covenant practices. 21 On ajrchgov", see Müller: Hintergrund. 22 Käsemann: Wandering People, 227–228.

140

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

Hebrews also contain an explicit reference to his suffering.23 Heb 12:2 associates the ajrchgov" with the endurance of the cross and its shame. In Heb 2:10 the ajrchgov" is “perfected” through suffering, e[prepen ga;r aujtw'/, di∆ o}n ta; pavnta kai; di∆ ou| ta; pavnta, pollou;" uiJou;" eij" dovxan ajgagovnta to;n ajrchgo;n th'" swthriva" aujtw'n dia; paqhmavtwn teleiw'sai. It was fitting that he [God], for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons into glory, perfect through sufferings the one who leads the way to their salvation.

Heb 2:10–18 also develops the theme of kinship between Jesus and the community. The community has become mevtocoi tou' Cristou' (“partakers of Christ,” Heb 3:14) and part of the same flesh-and-blood family (Heb 2:11–13). Thus, they are able to join Christ in heaven; the quotation of Isa 8:18 in Heb 2:13, ijdou; ejgw; kai; ta; paidiva a{ moi e[dwken oJ qeov" (“Here am I and the children whom God has given to me”) appears as something like a formal statement for the presentation of the community in heaven.24 Most important for the cult legend in Hebrews, however, is the interpretation of various cultic actions relating Jesus to the sacrifices of establishing the covenant, Yom Kippur, and the red heifer. The contrast between shadow and reality is central to this process of interpretation. Hebrews understands the earthly sanctuary as “a sketch and shadow” (uJpodeivgmati kai; skia'/, Heb 8:5) of the heavenly sanctuary; the law, including its cultic prescriptions, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (skia;n … tw'n mellovntwn ajgaqw'n, Heb 10:1). Thus the typology25 of Hebrews permits speaking of Jesus’ actions as the heavenly reality corresponding to the cultic practices of Israel. The extended cultic reflection in Hebrews stems, moreover, from the conviction that the people of God are defined by cultic acts.26 The focus throughout this process is on Jesus’ shedding of blood in his death and its consequences for the people. As Jesus’ death becomes the prism through which the reenactment of the cult legend takes place, those aspects of 23 The instance of provdromo" in Heb 6:20 occurs with the formula uJpe;r hJmw'n (“for us”) that is elsewhere used of Jesus’ death. 24 ajrchgov" can also designate the ancestral founder of a family, the founder of a new community, and the founding hero or god of a city (see Attridge: Hebrews, 87); Josephus (Ap. 1.130) uses it of Noah as the “founder” of the Israelites. In the context of kinship relations and the establishment of a new covenant community, these senses of ajrchgov" are also appropriate for Jesus. 25 In regard to this interpretative process, Heb 8:5 speaks of the heavenly reality as oJ tuvpo" and cites Exod 25:40, o{ra gavr fhsin, poihvsei" pavnta kata; to;n tuvpon to;n deicqevnta soi ejn tw'/ o[rei: (“For he said, ‘See that you make everything according to the type shown to you on the mountain’”). The revelation of heaven that Moses receives on the mountain thus supplies the type for the design of the earthly sanctuary. 26 Käsemann: Wandering People, 48.

The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews

141

cult practice that relate to the shedding of blood and sacrifice come to the fore. At the same time, however, the reenactment of the cult legend includes certain difficulties that need to be resolved, namely, the breaking of the covenant and the need for its remaking, the sins of the community, and perhaps also the problem of contact with the corpses of those who fell in the wilderness. The reconstitution of the community is indispensable in terms of Hebrews’s conception of the people of God; thus Hebrews emphasizes throughout the common humanity of the community, in which Jesus also shares (Heb 2:10–18). The cult itself, as we saw in the examination of Barnabas, contains the means for overcoming the obstacles of sin and contagion from corpses in the rituals of Yom Kippur and the ceremony of the red heifer. We may observe, therefore, a process of interaction in which the event of Jesus’ death and the telling of the cult legend around it calls forth particular aspects of the cult legend and practice and in which the logic of the cult, according to the scriptures of Israel, itself shapes the construction of Jesus’ suffering and death. It is also a set of cult practices that, in the overall scheme of Hebrews, is enacted in the heavenly realm. That is, the ritual practices upon which Hebrews builds are scriptural and celestial practices. The renewal or remaking of the covenant, underscored by Jeremiah 31, is tied closely in Hebrews to the rites for the purification of sins. The idea that sacrifice is necessary for making a covenant is basic to Hebrews’s soteriological program. In establishing this principle, Heb 9:19–21 relates the making of the covenant at Sinai with the Israelites, lalhqeivsh" ga;r pavsh" ejntolh'" kata; to;n novmon uJpo; Mwu>sevw" panti; tw'/ law'/, labw;n to; ai|ma tw'n movscwn ªkai; tw'n travgwnº meta; u{dato" kai; ejrivou kokkivnou kai; uJsswvpou aujtov te to; biblivon kai; pavnta to;n lao;n ejrravntisen levgwn: tou'to to; ai|ma th'" diaqhvkh" h|" ejneteivlato pro;" uJma'" oJ qeov". kai; th;n skhnh;n de; kai; pavnta ta; skeuvh th'" leitourgiva" tw'/ ai{mati oJmoivw" ejrravntisen. For when every commandment had been told by Moses to all the people in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves [and goats], with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.

This description is somewhat curious in that the account of making the covenant in Exodus 24 makes no mention of water, scarlet wool, or hyssop. These details belong rather to the ceremonies of the red heifer (Numbers 19) and the healing of leprosy (Leviticus 14). A few verses earlier, the purification given by Jesus’ offering of his own blood is contrasted with the purification that comes from “the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer” (to; ai|ma travgwn kai; tauvrwn kai; spodo;" damavlew" rJantivzousa, Heb 9:13). This statement explicitly links the ceremony of the red heifer, along with the

142

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

Yom Kippur sacrifice, to Jesus. I would suggest, then, that it is not merely a matter of conflation or a desire to emphasize “that the ancient cultic system is aimed only at an outward purification.”27 Rather, on the narrative level of the cult legend, the community’s need for purification from sins and contagion from corpses drives details of these rituals into association with the memory of Jesus. Moreover, in Hebrews, if one is to speak of the renewal of the covenant one must include the purification of the people; thus details from the purification rites also become incorporated into the telling of the making of the original covenant at Sinai. This logic also lies behind the prominence of the sacrifice of Yom Kippur in Hebrews’s portrayal of Jesus’ actions (see especially Heb 9:6–9, 23–28). In order for the covenant to be renewed, there must be forgiveness of the sins of the wilderness, if not for the wilderness generation, then for the community who will enter God’s “rest”; hence an appeal to the rites of forgiveness is necessary to the portrayal of Jesus. Considering this typology of sacrifice in terms of Hebrews’s cosmological geography reveals further dimensions of the cult legend. Hebrews speaks of Jesus’ sacrifice or of his making purification for sins before he enters the heavenly realm and takes his seat at God’s right hand (Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2). Likening Jesus to the high priest who enters the holy of holies with the blood of the Yom Kippur sacrifice, Hebrews also speaks of Jesus entering the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood (Heb 9:12). In other words, Jesus’ sacrifice is not part of the heavenly liturgy; it belongs outside the heavenly sanctuary. As we shall see below, Hebrews emphasizes that Jesus “suffered outside the [city] gate” (Heb 13:12). This observation has two important consequences so far. First, it reinforces the conviction in Hebrews that the sacrificial cult has ended and that Jesus’ sacrifice was different from the sacrifices of the cult of Israel in that it was “perfect,” not needing yearly or daily repetition (Heb 9:24–25; 10:11–12). The heavenly cult contains different practices. Second, it locates the community on the verge of entering into the promise, able to do so because the way has been opened by Jesus’ death. In terms of the reenactment of the cult legend, the narrative is transferred from a geographical dimension into a cosmological dimension. The promised land is now the heavenly realm, and the journey is now one into the heavenly temple where Jesus is seated at God’s right hand and where true worship is offered (see in particular the contrast between Sinai and Zion in Heb 12:18–24). In addition to the centrality of Jesus and his offering of himself within the larger program of Hebrews, there are also short pericopes that make reference to Jesus’ suffering and death. I turn now to an investigation of some of these passages in terms of how they are informed by the scriptures of Israel and whether it is possible to discern a ritual framework or context to their use of scripture. 27

Attridge: Hebrews, 257.

The People of the Wilderness: The Cult Legend in Hebrews

143

As we pursue the question of how the community appropriates the cult legend told in terms of Jesus’ suffering and death, it is important to attend to indications of community practice that accompany references to such a memory of Jesus. 3. Jesus’ Death in Hebrews Heb 5:7–10: “In the Days of His Flesh” Little in Hebrews bears any resemblance to a narrative about Jesus’ earthly life, aside from the account of Jesus’ prayer in Heb 5:7–10. o}" ejn tai'" hJmevrai" th'" sarko;" aujtou' dehvsei" te kai; iJkethriva" pro;" to;n dunavmenon swvz/ ein aujto;n ejk qanavtou meta; kraugh'" ijscura'" kai; dakruvwn prosenevgka" kai; eijsakousqei;" ajpo; th'" eujlabeiva", kaivper w]n uiJov", e[maqen ajf∆ w|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn, kai; teleiwqei;" ejgevneto pa'sin toi'" uJpakouvousin aujtw'/ ai[tio" swthriva" aijwnivou, prosagoreuqei;" uJpo; tou' qeou' ajrciereu;" kata; th;n tavxin Melcisevdek. who, in the days of his flesh, having offered, with a loud cry and with tears, prayers and supplications to the one who was able to save him from death, and having been heard28 because of his reverence, although he was a son, learned obedience through what he suffered, and, having been perfected, became for all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, having been addressed by God as “high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Much of the scholarly discussion around this section has focused on four issues: first, whether the passage derives from the Gethsemane pericope in the synoptic passion narratives; second, whether it reflects an early Christian memory of a historical event in Jesus’ life; third, whether an early Christian hymn can be discerned here; and fourth, whether certain psalms underlie the composition of the passage. In establishing the independence of this passage from the story of Gethsemane in the synoptic gospels, it is sufficient to note that the vocabulary of this passage differs so significantly from the wording in the synoptic gospels that it cannot have been composed out of the Gethsemane scene.29 There are no “loud cries and tears” in the synoptic gospels or John, and as Attridge puts it, it is not easy “to conceive of how Jesus’ prayer that ‘the cup pass’ from him was 28 It is not necessary to accept Adolf von Harnack’s emendation, oujk eijsakousqeiv" (“not having been heard”), which attempts to resolve the discrepancy between this passage and the apparent failure of God to hear Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. See Harnack: Korrekturen, 62–72; and Attridge’s discussion of the emendation (Hebrews, 137). Such a reading appears unlikely, in my opinion, because of the degree to which the passage is informed by the diction of Psalm 116 (LXX 114–115) in which the sufferer is heard by God (see below). 29 Brown: Death, 227.

144

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

‘heard,’” as Hebrews asserts.30 That the passage might reflect any alternative Gethsemane tradition or some other narrative about Jesus’ prayer close to the time of his death is, of course, possible.31 Simply to posit such a narrative, however, does not bring us any closer to understanding how it would be formed in relation to the practice of a given early Christian community. Second, the question of the historicity of any piece of the passion tradition, including the Gethsemane episode, is not one that this study seeks to address. Moreover, in my opinion, it is a question for which we have no certain evidence. The possibility that an early Christian hymn played a role in the formation of this passage, however, bears directly on the exploration of the formation of passion traditions. The indications that some part of Heb 5:7–10 reflects a hymn include the presence of the relative pronoun o{" (“who”) with which the passage begins and which is a characteristic of many hymns contained in epistles and other documents (see, for example, Heb 1:3; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15). Heb 5:7 also includes sets of parallel nouns, dehvsei" te kai; iJkethriva" (“prayers and supplications”) and meta; kraugh'" ijscura'" kai; dakruvwn (“with a loud cry and with tears”), another characteristic of poetic style. These nouns occur in Hebrews only in this verse, which may also indicate that Hebrews is here making use of a source. The pairing of e[maqen … e[paqen in Heb 5:8 is evidence similar to the pairs of nouns.32 Moreover, this passage shares another feature of hymns, namely, the frequent use of participles (prosenevgka", eijsakousqeiv", teleiwqeiv", prosagoreuqeiv") to modify the subject of the hymn. Attridge, however, deems the attempts to find a hymn here unsuccessful, even though he acknowledges that the pericope relies on early Christian traditions and the portrayal of the Jewish ideal of the righteous person’s prayer.33 He objects that, although the style is distinctive, the proposed hymn is not as clearly formulated as in comparable hymnic material.34 He concludes that “a poetic analysis can only be sustained on the assumption that the ‘hymn’ has been substantially modified by our author.”35 I would eschew an attempt to reconstruct the hymn and agree with Attridge that if there is a hymn it has been considerably modified. The cumulative effect of the various hymnic features discernible here, however, convinces me either that a hymn influenced the composition of the passage or that the wording and style of the passage would recall for the audience a hymn familiar to them. I propose, therefore, that Heb 5:7–10 provides

30 31 32 33

Attridge: Hebrews, 148. Attridge: Hebrews, 148. See, for example, Spicq: Hébreux, vol. 2, 113. On these features, see Deichgräber: Gotteshymnus, 174–176; and Brown: Death, 228. Attridge: Hebrews, 147–148. As Attridge: Reverence, 91–93, discusses, Philo’s depiction of the prayer of Abraham and Moses in Quis heres 1–29 corresponds in many ways to the picture of reverence in this passage. 34 Attridge: Hebrews, 148. 35 Attridge: Hebrews, 148.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

145

evidence of a hymn or cultic performance that spoke of Jesus’ prayer at the time of his suffering. There have been a number of attempts to find a psalm underlying the composition of this passage or the hymn discerned in it. Paul Andriessen observed a significant overlap of vocabulary with Ps 22 (21):24(25), namely, the use of kravzw/ kraughv and eijsakouvw.36 Earlier Martin Dibelius had proposed that Heb 5:7 drew upon Pss 31 (30):23 and 39 (38):13. ejgw; de; ei\pa ejn th'/ ejkstavsei mou ajpevrrimmai a[ra ajpo; proswvpou tw'n ojfqalmw'n sou. dia; tou'to eijshvkousa" th'" fwnh'" th'" dehvsewv" mou ejn tw'/ kekragevnai me pro;" sev. And I said in my terror, I am cast off from before your eyes, therefore you heard the voice of my prayer while I cried out to you. (Ps 31 [30]:23) eijsavkouson th'" proseuch'" mou, kuvrie, kai; th'" dehvsewv" mou ejnwvtisai: tw'n dakruvwn mou mh; parasiwphvsh/" Hear my prayer, Lord, and give ear to my entreaty, do not pass over my tears in silence. (Ps 39 [38]:13)

Some words from these verses occur in Heb 5:7 — dehvsi", kravzw/ kraughv, and eijsakouvw. In other instances, Dibelius assumed an equivalence: proseuchv corresponds to iJkethriva and e[kstasi" to eujlabeiva.37 Most thoroughgoing and convincing, however, is August Strobel’s demonstration that Heb 5:7–10 and Psalm 116 (LXX 114 and 115) share a number of features. It is worthwhile to reproduce his table of parallels.38 Heb 5:7 o}" ejn tai'" hJmevrai" th'" sarko;" aujtou' dehvsei" te kai; iJkethriva" pro;" to;n dunavmenon swvz/ ein aujto;n

Ps 114:2b kai; ejn tai'" hJmevrai" mou ejpikalevsomai 114:1a o{ti eijsakouvsetai kuvrio" th'" fwnh'" th'" dehvsewv" mou 114:6b ejtapeinwvqhn kai; e[swsevn me

36 Andriessen: Angoisse, 2986–2991. Attridge: Hebrews, 148, points out that Justin Martyr (Dial. 99) interprets this psalm in connection with the prayer at Gethsemane. 37 Dibelius: Gethsemane, 261. In equating e[kstasi" and eujlabeiva, Dibelius was choosing a meaning of “anxiety” for eujlabeiva, rather than “reverent fear”; see Attridge: Reverence, 290. 38 Strobel: Psalmengrundlage, 256. The italics indicate phrases of equivalent meaning but without previous verbal correspondence. Note that the numbering of the Septuagint is used for all the references in this chart.

146

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

ejk qanavtou meta; kraugh'" ijscura'" kai; dakruvwn prosenevgka" kai; eijsakousqei;" ajpo; th'" eujlabeiva", 5:8 kaivper w]n uiJov", e[maqen ajf∆ w|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn, 5:9 kai; teleiwqei;" ejgevneto pa'sin toi'" uJpakouvousin aujtw'/ ai[tio" swthriva" aijwnivou, 5:10 prosagoreuqei;" uJpo; tou' qeou' ajrciereu;" kata; th;n tavxin Melcisevdek. Heb 5:7 who, in the days of his flesh prayers and supplications to the one who was able to save him from death with a loud cry having offered with tears and having been heard because of his reverence 5:8 although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, 5:9 and having been perfected became for all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation, 5:10 having been addressed by God as “high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”

114:8a ejxeivlato th;n yuchvn mou ejk qanavtou See Pss 16:6a; 26:7; 33:7, 18; 54:17; 85:7; etc. 114:8b tou;" ojfqalmouv" mou ajpo; dakruvwn 114:1a o{ti eijsakouvsetai kuvrio" th'" fwnh'" th'" dehvsewv" mou 115:2a ejgw; ei\pa ejn th'/ ejkstavsei mou 115:7b ejgw; dou'lo" so;" kai; uiJo;" th'" paidivskh" sou 115:1b ejgw; de; ejtapeinwvqhn sfovdra 115:4a pothvrion swthrivou lhvmyomai see Ps 109:4 Ps 114:2b and in my days I will call upon 114:1a because the Lord has heard the voice of my supplication 114:6b I was humiliated and he saved me 114:8a he has taken up my soul from death See Pss 16:6a; 26:7; 33:7, 18; 54:17; 85:7, etc. 114:8b my eyes from tears 114:1a because the Lord has heard the voice of my supplication 115:2a I said in my terror 115:7b I am your servant and the son of your maidservant 115:1b I was exceedingly humiliated 115:4a I shall lift up the cup of salvation see Ps 109:4

Many of the words and phrases contained in Heb 5:7–10 and Psalm 116 (114–115) are words that Dibelius and Andriessen had identified in other psalms. Strobel’s approach, however, shows how a single psalm sequence would be activated by much of Heb 5:7–10. It does not exclude the possibility that other psalms of vindication would be brought to life through the hearing of this passage. Below, moreover, I shall show that Psalm 116 (114–115) contributes to the diction of Jesus’ suffering elsewhere in Hebrews. The prominence of

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

147

this psalm in relation to passion traditions lends support to its relationship with Heb 5:7–10.39 Thus, in Heb 5:7–10 I would argue that there exists an early Christian hymn that draws upon the psalms of the suffering faithful whom God vindicates, most particularly on Psalm 116 (114–115). Although it is not possible to reconstruct the hymn, on the basis of the psalm it is reasonable to suppose that the hymn spoke of Jesus’ crying out to God in the midst of his suffering. Furthermore, both the psalm and the hymn were in the first place liturgical texts; that is, they belonged to a community and their appearance in Hebrews is mediated through ritual. Heb 5:7–10 itself, however, provides no specific indication of what that cultic setting was.40 The central statement of the hymn, that Jesus “learned obedience through what he suffered” (e[maqen ajf∆ w|n e[paqen th;n uJpakohvn, Heb 5:8), takes on further significance within the larger program of Hebrews.41 Hebrews 4 presents “disobedience” (ajpeivqeia) as the reason why the wilderness generation did not enter into God’s “rest” (Heb 4:6) and highlights it within the exhortation, spoudavswmen ou\n eijselqei'n eij" ejkeivnhn th;n katavpausin, i{na mh; ejn tw'/ aujtw'/ ti" uJpodeivgmati pevsh/ th'" ajpeiqeiva". Let us therefore hasten to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by that same pattern of disobedience. (Heb 4:11)

This disobedience stands in contrast to the obedience of Jesus, which therefore may be seen as contributing to Jesus’ ability to enter into God’s “rest.” Moreover, if we regard Hebrews as aimed at providing further instruction or deeper knowledge, then Jesus’ learning of obedience is striking. This statement about Jesus then connects immediately with the statement about his relationship to the community, namely, that “he became for all who obey him the cause of eternal salvation” (ejgevneto pa'sin toi'" uJpakouvousin aujtw'/ ai[tio" swthriva" aijwnivou, Heb 5:9). The parenesis of Hebrews focuses on “holding fast to the confession,” as well as on the development of endurance and solidarity in suffering (see, for example, Heb 10:22–25; 13:1–9).42 Such exhortation pertains, in 39 Brown: Death, 229, points out that the conclusion of Psalm 116 (114–115) would be particularly appropriate within Hebrews’s christology: “I will sacrifice to you a sacrifice of praise, I will repay my vows to the Lord before all his people in the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of you, O Jerusalem” (Ps 116:17–19 [= 115:8–10]). 40 The occurrence of gavla (“milk”) and stereov" (“solid”) a few verses later in Heb 5:12 may be hints of a baptismal setting, given the association of these words with baptism in both Barnabas and 1 Peter. 41 The obedience of Jesus is a motif connected with Jesus’ death in another early Christian hymn, namely, the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6–11; in Phil 2:8b, Jesus “became obedient unto death” (genovmeno" uJphvkoo" mevcri qanavtou). 42 On the role of imitating Christ in this parenesis, see Schulz: Nachfolgen, 293–298.

148

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

my view, to the Christian maturity that Hebrews seeks to develop. This sort of obedience, therefore, after the model of Jesus, is part of what enables the community also to enter into God’s “rest.” We may observe an interactive process: disobedience is a key problem for the community in the cult legend and therefore contributes inversely to this construction of Jesus, which in turn becomes paradigmatic for the community, so that the goal of their life — God’s “rest” — as defined in the terms of the cult legend, may be reached. Heb 6:4–8: “Crucifying the Son of God” The warning against “falling away” in Hebrews 6 contains traditions about Jesus’ death, as well as references to the ritual of the community. ajduvnaton ga;r tou;" a{pax fwtisqevnta", geusamevnou" te th'" dwrea'" th'" ejpouranivou kai; metovcou" genhqevnta" pneuvmato" aJgivou kai; kalo;n geusamevnou" qeou' rJh'ma dunavmei" te mevllonto" aijw'no" kai; parapesovnta", pavlin ajnakainivzein eij" metavnoian, ajnastaurou'nta" eJautoi'" to;n uiJo;n tou' qeou' kai; paradeigmativzonta". For it is impossible to renew with the goal of repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the holy spirit, and who have tasted the fair word of God and the powers of the age to come, once they have fallen away, as they crucify for themselves the son of God and put him on ignominious display. (Heb 6:4–6)

The parenetic intent of this passage is to warn members of the community against apostasy. For our purposes, the passage is significant for the occurrence of the verb ajnastaurovw (“I crucify”)43 in conjunction with the terminology employed to denote membership in the community, as well as with the extended metaphors that contrast constancy and apostasy. The verb ajnastaurovw alerts us to the possible presence of passion traditions and to clues about the context in which those traditions developed. The four participles in Heb 6:4–5 (fwtisqevnta", geusamevnou" [twice], and metovcou" genhqevnta") are indications of incorporation into the Christian community. Attridge comments that an allusion to baptism is widely assumed in the usage of fwtisqevnta" (“enlightened”), particularly since both fwtismov" and fwtivzein in the second century C.E. became common designations for the ritual of baptism.44 The second phrase, geusamevnou" te th'" dwrea'" th'" ejpouranivou (“having tasted the heavenly gift”), may be understood simply as a metaphor for the experience of salvation, and Attridge rejects any allusion to a 43 ajnastaurovw is often translated “I crucify again,” but Attridge: Hebrews, 171, argues on the basis of the verb’s ordinary usage that the prefix ajna- should be taken as “up”; hence the verb means “I hoist up on a cross.” The word is a hapax legomenon in the New Testament. 44 Attridge: Hebrews, 169, cites Justin 1 Apol. 61.12; 65.1; Dial. 122.5; Clement Alex. Paed. 1.6.26, 2.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

149

sacramental meal here.45 This question should be held open, however, since it is not yet clear whether for Hebrews incorporation into the community included participation in a communal meal and what the significance of such a meal was. The third phrase, metovcou" genhqevnta" pneuvmato" aJgivou (“having become partakers of the holy spirit”) makes use of terminology found elsewhere in Hebrews. The members of the community are partakers of “a heavenly calling” (Heb 3:1) and of “Christ” (Heb 3:14); mevtocoi (“partakers”) expresses an important characteristic of the community, through which they are able to share in the promises of the cult legend. We may understand the final phrase, kalo;n geusamevnou" qeou' rJhm ' a dunavmei" te mevllonto" aijw'no" (“having tasted the fair word of God and the powers of the age to come”) as indicating an experience of the community’s story as found in scripture and its interpretation. The “powers of the age to come” may refer to miracles as they manifest the fulfillment of God’s promise contained in scripture.46 Thus, these four participial phrases express the experience of entry and incorporation into the Christian community.47 We may note, with varying degrees of certainty, that they contain references to a rite of entry, possibly accompanied by a communal meal, a familiar term for community identity, and the scriptures of the community. In other words, each refers to the identity of the community, as defined by its cultic life. If these members of the community fall away, then, according to Hebrews, they cannot be reincorporated into the community. Here the terminology is again significant. ajnakainivzein (“to renew, to restore”) occurs only here in the New Testament, but Barnabas uses it in a discussion of entrance into the promised land — a land flowing with milk and honey. ejpei; ou\n ajnakainivsa" hJma'" ejn th/' ajfevsei tw'n aJmartiw'n ejpoivhsen hJma'" a[llon tuvpon, wJ" paidivwn e[cein th;n yuchvn, wJ" a]n dh; ajnaplavssonto" aujtou' hJma'". Since then he renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us to be another type (of creation), so that we should have the soul of children, as though he were fashioning us anew. (Barn. 6.11)

The larger argument of this passage is that the members of the community are the heirs of the covenant, mediated for Barnabas through baptism interpreted in covenantal terms. In Barnabas the mention of milk and honey sets the “renewal” within a baptismal context. I would argue that in both Barnabas and Hebrews ajnakainivzw denotes the process of inclusion into the people of the covenant, a 45 Attridge: Hebrews, 170; but we should note that in Acts 20:11 geusamevno" clearly refers to participation in a communal meal. 46 Attridge: Hebrews, 170, sees in rJh'ma (“word”) both promise and fulfillment and notes that at Heb 2:4 the salvific message is attested by miracles (dunavmei"). 47 Attridge: Hebrews, 167.

150

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

process that includes forgiveness of sins through the death of Jesus (see Hebrews 8–10). Paul uses a related synonym, ajnakainovw, in reference to the change effected by incorporation into the Christian life. For example, in 2 Cor 4:16, dio; oujk ejgkakou'men, ajll∆ eij kai; oJ e[xw hJmw'n a[nqrwpo" diafqeivretai, ajll∆ oJ e[sw hJmw'n ajnakainou'tai hJmevra/ kai; hJmevra (“therefore we do not lose heart, but even if our outer nature is perishing, our inner nature is being renewed day by day”), the verb characterizes the new life in Christ.48 A similar sense is found also with the use of the noun, ajnakainwvsi" (“renewal”), in Rom 12:2, kai; mh; suschmativzesqe tw'/ aijw'ni touvtw/, ajlla; metamorfou'sqe th'/ ajnakainwvsei tou' noov" (“and do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of the mind”). Later usage associates ajnakainovw with baptism, as in Col 3:10, kai; ejndusavmenoi to;n nevon to;n ajnakainouvmenon eij" ejpivgnwsin kat∆ eijkovna tou' ktivsanto" aujtovn (“and clothing yourselves with the new self which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator”). Here the metaphor of putting off one garment (Col 3:9) and putting on another may well reflect baptismal practice. The association of the passage with baptism is secured, however, by the following verse (Col 3:11) which quotes a version of the baptismal formula found also at Gal 3:28, o{pou oujk e[ni ”Ellhn kai; ∆Ioudai'o", peritomh; kai; ajkrobustiva, bavrbaro", Skuvqh", dou'lo", ejleuvqero", ajlla; ªta;º pavnta kai; ejn pa'sin Cristov" (“where there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and free, but Christ is all and in all”).49 Thus, the presence of ajnakainivzw in Heb 6:6 is another indication that this passage concerns the process of incorporation and reincorporation into the Christian community. Hebrews characterizes those who fall away from their incorporation into the community as ajnastaurou'nta" eJautoi'" to;n uiJon; tou' qeou' kai; paradeigmativzonta" (“crucifying for themselves the son of God and putting him on ignominious display,” Heb 6:6). This is a peculiar expression, since ajnastaurovw is not used elsewhere for those who fall away from the community. Attridge proposes that “apostates, by their rejection of Christ in effect assume for themselves the shameful repudiation of Christ that the cross implied.”50 This phrase is one indication that Hebrews presumes familiarity with a story of Jesus’ crucifixion. The parenetic argument here depends in part upon the reference to this story as authoritative in order to succeed. I would propose the following reading of the phrase. Hebrews has already warned its 48 We should also note that this verse is followed closely in 2 Cor 5:1–4 by a contrast between the earthly tent (skh'no") and the heavenly dwelling in which the believers are clothed (ejpenduvsasqai). This scheme is similar to that underlying Hebrews. 49 A baptismal context is also certain for the usage of ajnakainwvsi" in a baptismal hymn in Titus 3:5, e[swsen hJma'" dia; loutrou' paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew" pneuvmato" aJgivou (“he saved us through a washing of rebirth and renewal by the holy spirit”). 50 Attridge: Hebrews, 167.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

151

audience against the dangers of falling away and has done so by means of the interpretation of the Meribah story in chapters 3 and 4. It is likely that this particular episode from the cult legend has contributed to the formation of ways of speaking of Jesus’ death, that is, to the reenactment of the cult legend around Jesus. In the wilderness story, those who have “fallen away” have become corpses in the wilderness; they are implicitly identified with those who test Moses. In light of the cult legend, therefore, the fact that the passage now before us is able to say that those who have fallen away “crucify for themselves the son of God” points to an identification between Moses and Jesus within the process of reenactment. Jesus’ sufferings are told in terms of the abuse Moses endured, as also in 1 Pet 2:22–25. Because those who have fallen away are equated with those who became corpses in the wilderness and were unable to enter the land of promise, Hebrews is able to say that it is impossible to restore them again into the community. In this passage, therefore, ajnastaurovw signals the presence of passion traditions developed in terms of the cult legend of Israel and with reference to the cultic actions of the community. An exploration of the use of ajnakainivzw particularly in the Psalms and other hymnic material points toward a connection between “renewal” and the vindication of the suffering righteous. Psalm 103 (102), a song of blessing for God, lists a number of epithets for God, to;n eujilateuvonta pavsai" tai'" ajnomivai" sou, to;n ijwvmenon pavsa" ta;" novsou" sou: to;n lutrouvmenon ejk fqora'" th;n zwhvn sou, to;n stefanou'ntav se ejn ejlevei kai; oijktirmoi'": to;n ejmpiplw'nta ejn ajgaqoi'" th;n ejpiqumivan sou the one who atones for all your iniquities, the one who heals all your diseases, the one who ransoms your life from destruction, the one who crowns you in mercy and graciousness, the one who satisfies your desire with good things (Ps 103 [102]:3–5a)

This catalogue is culminates in a final phrase, ajnakainisqhvsetai wJ" ajetou' hJ neovth" sou (“your youth will be renewed like an eagle’s,” Ps 103 [102]:5b). Here renewal is linked to the notion of God as redeemer, healer, and ransomer. Because of the importance of the iJlasthvrion (“mercy seat” or “place of atonement”) in the use of the Yom Kippur rituals in Heb 9:5, we should notice the relationship between this noun and the participle eujilateuvonta (“the one who ransoms, atones”). Ransoming the life of the chosen, moreover, is a frequent motif in psalms of vindication. The psalm goes on to express covenant themes: ejgnwvrisen ta;" oJdou;" aujtou' tw'/ Mwu>sh'/ (“he made his ways known to Moses”; verse 7) and toi'" fulavssousin th;n diaqhvkhn aujtou' kai; memnhmevnoi" tw'n ejntolw'n aujtou' tou' poih'sai aujtav" ([God’s mercy and justice are]

152

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

“upon those who keep his covenant and remember his commandments so that they do them”; verse 18). These themes of the covenant with God, redemption, and renewal belong in the first place to the cultic narrative and practice of Israel and play an important role in the establishment of the community’s identity through Jesus’ death, as we have seen particularly in Barnabas and in the overarching program of Hebrews. If it is possible to understand “renewal” in Hebrews as referring to baptism, as it does in Barnabas and other texts, then it is likely that such baptism was shaped by motifs and practices related to the covenant. Barnabas associates this renewal first with the land flowing with milk and honey, as we saw above, and then with creation and recreation (Barn. 6.11–13). These motifs come together already in Ps 104 (103):30, ejxapostelei'" to; pneu'mav sou, kai; ktisqhvsontai, kai; ajnakainiei'" to; provswpon th'" gh'" (“you send forth your spirit and they are created, and you renew the face of the earth”). In Psalm 39 (38), a song of complaint, the context is different; here pain is renewed, ejkwfwvqhn kai; ejtapeinwvqhn kai; ejsivghsa ejx ajgaqw'n, kai; to; a[lghmav mou ajnekainivsqh (“I was made silent and was humiliated and I kept silent from good things and my pain was renewed”; Ps 39 [38]:2 [3]). The language of silence and humiliation in this verse, however, parallels themes found in the songs of the suffering servant in deutero-Isaiah (see, for example, Isaiah 53), themes that are adopted in Barn. 5.2. I would propose, therefore, that the use of ajnakainivzw in Heb 6:6, immediately followed by ajnastaurovw, activates certain traditions and practices. These would include a ritual of renewal, which we may be able to call baptism,51 understood as incorporation into a covenant, the singing of psalms about the suffering one whom God protects and vindicates, and the liturgical use of scriptural passages about the land as the land of promise and rest. The use of ajnastaurovw would bring into this complex of traditions and practices the story of Jesus’ death as a reenactment of the wilderness narrative of Israel. An agricultural metaphor about the land immediately follows the warning against falling away. gh' ga;r hJ piou'sa to;n ejp∆ aujth'" ejrcovmenon pollavki" uJetovn kai; tivktousa botavnhn eu[qeton ejkeivnoi" di∆ ou}" kai; gewrgei'tai, metalambavnei eujlogiva" ajpo; tou' qeou': ejkfevrousa de; ajkavnqa" kai; tribovlou", ajdovkimo" kai; katavra" ejgguv", h|" to; tevlo" eij" kau'sin.

51 Note that Hebrews seems to know some kind of baptism; see, for example, Heb 6:2, baptismw'n didach'" (“teaching about baptisms”); and Heb 10:22, prosercwvmeqa meta; ajlhqinh'" kardiva" ejn plhroforiva/ pivstew" rJerantismevnoi ta;" kardiva" ajpo; suneidhvsew" ponhra'" kai; lelousmevnoi to; sw'ma u{dati kaqarw'/: (“let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having been sprinkled in our hearts from an evil conscience and having had our body washed with pure water”).

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

153

For land that drinks the rain which often comes upon it and produces vegetation beneficial to those for whom it is cultivated partakes of blessing from God, but if land brings forth thorns and thistles, it is worthless and well-nigh accursed. Its destiny is the fire. (Heb 6:7–8)

Attridge regards this passage as an image common in “Greek synagogue homiletics”; similar contrasts between fertile and barren land are found in Philo, as well as in classical and rabbinic sources and in the parables of Jesus.52 Certainly likening justice to a well-cultivated garden and injustice to an overgrown or barren land is frequent in Greek literature from Homer onwards,53 but because the motifs we have noticed in Heb 6:4–6 already include the land of promise, the metaphor requires closer examination. Attridge notes furthermore that the positive image of the land in Heb 6:7 may recall descriptions of the promised land.54 If this is the case, then it is likely to relate to the motif of God’s “rest,” since this is the way in which Hebrews names the land of promise toward which the people of God are journeying. Indeed, this verse shares vocabulary (gh', uJetov", pivnw) with the description of the promised land in Deut 11:11, hJ de; gh', eij" h}n eijsporeuvh/ ejkei' klhronomh'sai aujthvn, gh' ojreinh; kai; pedinhv, ejk tou' uJetou' tou' oujranou' pivetai u{dwr (“and the land, into which you are entering there to inherit it, a land of hills and plains, will drink water from the rain of heaven”). The larger context of this verse from Deuteronomy is also important, however. The rain will come for the land, if the people keep the commandments of God (Deut 11:13) — a claim that marks the description of the land as part of the blessings and curses dependent on covenant observance. In Deut 11:26, moreover, the choice between blessing and curse is set before the people, ijdou; ejgw; divdwmi ejnwvpion uJmw'n shvmeron eujlogivan kai; katavran, th;n eujlogivan, ejan; ajkouvshte ta;" ejntola;" kurivou tou' qeou' uJmw'n, a}" ejgj w; ejntevllomai uJmi'n shvmeron, kai; ta;" katavra", ejan; mh; ajkouvshte ta;" ejntola;" kurivou tou' qeou' uJmw'n, o{sa" ejgw; ejntevllomai uJmi'n shvmeron, kai; planhqh'te ajpo; th'" oJdou', h|" ejneteilavmhn uJmi'n, porouqevnte" latreuvein qeoi'" eJtevroi", ou}" oujk oi[date. kai; e[stai o{tan eijsagavgh/ se kuvrio" oJ qeov" sou eij" th;n gh'n, eij" h}n diabaivnei" ejkei' klhronomh'sai aujthvn, kai; dwvsei" th;n eujlogivan ejp’ o[ro" Garizi;n kai; th;n katavran ejp’ o[ro" Gaibavl. See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, as many as I am commanding you today, but stray from the way that I am commanding you, to follow other gods that you have not known. When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that you are entering to in52 53 54

Attridge: Hebrews, 172. See, for example, Hesiod Works and Days 225–247; Nagy: Pindar's Homer, 312. Attridge: Hebrews, 172.

154

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

herit, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal.55 (Deut 11:26–29)

The curse (katavra) here contrasts with the blessing (eujlogiva), which is the inheritance of the promised land, granted to the covenant community. Similarly in Hebrews, the well-watered land is a metaphor for inclusion in the community, and it is contrasted with the land of thorns and thistles which is “well-nigh accursed” (katavra" ejgguv").56 Thorns (a[kanqai) and sometimes thistles (trivboloi) appear in descriptions of the curse. For example, in Gen 3:17–18, the curse of the land is depicted in the following terms. ejpikatavrato" hJ gh' ejn toi'" e[rgoi" sou: ejn luvpai" favgh/ aujth;n pavsa" ta;" hJmevra" th'" zwh'" sou: ajkavnqa" kai; tribovlou" ajnatelei' soi, kai; favgh/ to;n covrton tou' ajgrou'. Cursed is the land in your deeds; in sufferings you will eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles it will bring forth for you, and you will eat of the grass of the field.

Likewise in Hosea’s prophecy of the destruction of the cult (Hos 10:1–8), thorns and thistles grow up on the altars (ta; qusiasthvria) of Israel. This prophecy is linked to a critique of the covenants the people make, lalw'n rJhvmata profavsei" yeudei'" diaqhvsetai diaqhvkhn (“speaking words, false pretexts, [Israel] makes a covenant,” Hos 10:4). Thus, thorns and thistles characterize the curse, the failure to fulfill the covenant. a[kanqa also appears in the song text which in 2 Kgdms 23:1–7 is introduced as the “last words of David.” w{sper a[kanqa ejxwsmevnh pavnte" aujtoiv, o{ti ouj ceiri; lhmfqhvsontai, kai; ajnh;r ouj kopiavsei ejn aujtoi;", kai; plh're" sidhvrou kai; xu'lon dovrato", kai; ejn puri; kauvsei kauqhvsontai aijscuvnh/ aujtw'n. But they [the ungodly] are all like a thorn that is thrown away, because they cannot be taken with the hand, and a man will not work among them, and they are full of iron and the wood of a spear, and in the fire they will be burnt completely by their shame. (2 Kgdms 23:6–7) 55 Note that this instruction regarding the two mountains corresponds to the role of these mountains in the rituals of blessing and curse narrated in Deuteronomy 27; see esp. Deut 27:11–13. 56 It may not be coincidental that two of the psalms in which we observed the use of ajnakainivzw begin eujlovgei, hJ yuchv mou, to;n kuvrion (“Bless the Lord, O my soul,” Ps 103 [102]:1; 104 [103]:1). Is “blessing God” the liturgical response to being included in the community of blessing?

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

155

Not only does this passage associate thorns with those who are outside of God’s favor, who might be said to be cursed, but it also speaks of their fiery end, just as in Heb 6:8 the destiny of the land of thorns and thistles is to be burnt (h|" to; tevlo" eij" kau'sin). In addition, there are other parallels between this song and Heb 6:4–8. Most notably, 2 Kgdms 23:4 mentions the rain that brings forth growth from the earth, kai; wJ" ejx uJetou' clovh" ajpo; gh'" (“and as out of the rain of the blade of grass from the earth”).57 In 2 Kgdms 23:5, moreover, David asks, ouj ga;r ou{tw" oJ oi\kov" mou meta; ijscurou'… diaqhvkhn ga;r aijwvnion e[qetov moi For is not my house thus with the strong one [MT: God]? For he has made an everlasting covenant with me.

Thus, in this song we see once again the contrast between the well-watered land and the thorns set in the context of a covenant. Given the thoroughgoing concern of Hebrews with the covenant and our earlier observations about Heb 6:4–8, it is reasonable to suppose that Heb 6:4–8 is a direct reflection upon cultic incorporation into the covenant, with attendant concern with the consequences of keeping or breaking the covenant. In this way, the idea of “crucifying the son of God” is shaped directly by covenantal motifs. In Barnabas, the strong rock as a term for God activates covenantal traditions associated with both the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) and the use of “rock” in the suffering servant songs of deutero-Isaiah. It is worthy of note, therefore, that in the Hebrew of the song that comprises the “last words of David” God is called “the Rock of Israel” (2 Sam 23:3). Just as in Deuteronomy 32, however, here too the Septuagint appears uneasy with this name for God, substituting here fuvlax (“protector”). levgei oJ qeo;" ∆Israhvl, ejmoi; ejlavlhsen fuvlax ∆Israhvl. The God of Israel speaks, the protector of Israel has spoken to me. (2 Kgdms 23:3)

57 The Greek version of this song differs considerably from the Hebrew. In the Hebrew the just ruler is directly compared to the sun “rising on a cloudless morning, gleaming from the rain on the grassy land” (2 Sam 23:4). This may be an instance in which it is better to call the Greek and the Hebrew multiforms that derive from the liturgical use of the song.

156

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

God is also named as the Rock in the long song of thanksgiving that precedes David’s last words (see 2 Sam 22:2–3, 32, 47).58 The fact that a doublet of this song also exists as Psalm 18 (17) points toward its cultic use. In the song, David gives thanks for deliverance from the hand of his enemies; David is also named as God’s “anointed,” cristov" (2 Kgdms 22:51). I would suggest, therefore, that it is reasonable to locate these songs among a group of cultic songs concerned with the covenant and the vindication of God’s chosen and anointed. These songs would have been mediated through their use in the communities to which Hebrews and Barnabas belong.59 That the song of David’s last words is one of the texts alluded to in Heb 6:4–8 seems likely based on the significant vocabulary and motifs they share. It is important, moreover, that the shared language is that of blessing and curse. In general, the genre of last words or testaments has much in common with the genre of the covenant formulary.60 Unfortunately with David’s last words, there is little evidence for the genre, but it is possible to speculate that this song belonged in some way or another within the liturgical enactment of covenant renewal. Two other psalms belong to this group of texts mediated through their use in cultic performance. The first is Psalm 32 (31), in the Greek version of which a[kanqa (“thorn”) again appears. o{ti ejsivghsa, ejpalaiwvqh ta; ojsta' mou ajpo; tou' kravzein me o{lhn th;n hJmevran: o{ti hJmevra" kai; nukto;" ejbaruvnqh ejp∆ ejme; hJ ceivr sou, ejstravfhn eij" talaipwrivan ejn tw'/ ejmpagh'nai a[kanqan. Because I kept silent, my bones grew old from my crying all day long; because your hand was heavy upon me day and night, I was turned to hardship while a thorn was stuck [in me]. (Ps 32 [31]:3–4)

A number of features of this psalm are noteworthy. First, it is a penitential psalm that rejoices in God’s forgiveness. Since Hebrews is concerned with the atonement for sin wrought by Jesus’ sacrifice on behalf of the people, this psalm would fit appropriately within this theological framework. Second, the description of suffering quoted above shares certain features with Psalm 22

58 As in the other instances, “rock” stands only in the Hebrew, and various Greek words replace it in the Septuagint: bohqov", fuvlax, qeov". See Bertram: Sprachschatz, 85–101; Knowles: Rock, 307–322; and Olofsson: God. 2 Kgdms 22:2 does, however, employ pevtra. 59 We should note that Hebrews seems to place more importance on the covenant with David than is evident in Barnabas. See, in particular, the frequent quotation of the enthronement psalms (Psalm 2 and 110 [109]) in Hebrews as authorization of Jesus as God’s chosen servant. 60 Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 137–163.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

157

(21): the condition of one’s bones;61 and crying out day and night.62 These features may draw the psalm into the realm of songs of the rescued and vindicated, particularly when forgiveness is related to that suffering. Moreover, the motif of “crying out” (kravzw) is not only shared by these two psalms but also appears prominently in Heb 5:7, as we saw above. Third, Ps 32 (31):3 speaks of “keeping silent” (sigavw), which was also observed above in Ps 39 (38):2 (3) as possibly connected with the suffering servant songs of deutero-Isaiah and passion traditions about Jesus. The psalm is anchored more securely within the circle of psalms drawn upon by passion traditions by the use of kuklovw (“I encircle”) in Ps 32 (31):7a, to; ajgallivamav mou, luvtrwsaiv me ajpo; tw'n kuklwsavntwn me (“my gladness, ransom me from those who encircle me”). We should notice first that the Greek differs significantly from the Hebrew here, “you surround me with glad cries of deliverance.” The investigation of Barn. 6.6 above showed that the verb ejkuvklwsan functioned to bring together Pss 22 (21) and 118 (117), two psalms about deliverance from enemies, into a new hymnic composition.63 In my view, the same verb draws Psalm 32 (31) into the same repertoire of songs. Toward the end of Psalm 32 (31) we find another resonance with passion traditions. pollai; aiJ mavstige" tou' aJmartwlou', to;n de; ejlpivzonta ejpi; kuvrion e[leo" kuklwvsei. Many are the scourges of the sinner, but mercy will encircle the one who hopes in the Lord. (Ps 32 [31]:10)

Not only does the positive sense of kuklwvsei here contrast with the negative use earlier in the psalm and elsewhere, but a key word for the story of Jesus’ sufferings, mavstige" (“scourges”), also occurs. This noun or the verb mastigovw appears in some of the predictions of the passion (Matt 20:19; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33), in descriptions of the fate of the emissaries of Jesus (Matt 10:17; 23:34), in Hebrews’s catalogue of the faithful who suffered (Heb 11:36), and in 61 See Ps 22 (21):14 (15), wJsei; u{dwr ejxecuvqhn, kai; dieskorpivsqh pavnta ta; ojsta' mou (“I was poured out like water, and all my bones were scattered abroad”); Ps 22 (21):17 (18), ejxhrivqmhsa pavnta ta; ojsta' mou (“I have counted out all my bones”). 62 See Ps 22 (21):2 (3), kekravxomai hJmevra", kai; oujk eijsakouvsh/, kai; nuktov", kai; oujk eij" a[noian ejmoiv (“I cry by day, and you will not hear me, by night also, and it is not for my folly”). 63 Ps 118 (117):12 speaks of both “encircling” and “thorns”: ejkuvklwsavn me wJsei; mevlissai khrivon kai; ejxekauvqhsan wJsei; pu'r ejn ajkavnqai" (“they encircled me as bees around honeycomb, and they burn me up a fire in thorns”). We have noted above the prominence of ejkuvklwsan in psalms that are drawn into the construction of Jesus’ suffering. The fiery destiny of the land of thorns in Heb 6:8 might well recall this verse and be shaped by it. The fact that both encircling and thorns also appear in Psalm 32 (31) makes the associations more probable.

158

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

John’s passion narrative tovte ou\n e[laben oJ Pila'to" to;n ∆Ihsou'n kai; ejmastivgwsen (“then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him,” John 19:1). The occurrence of mastigovw in John 19:1 is the most interesting for our present purposes, since the next verse speaks of the crown of thorns, kai; oiJ stratiw'tai plevxante" stevfanon ejx ajkanqw'n ejpevqhkan aujtou' th'/ kefalh'/ kai; iJmavtion porfurou'n perievbalon aujtovn (“and the soldiers plaited a crown out of thorns and placed it upon his head, and they clothed him with a purple cloak”). In my view, this narrative detail about thorns derives in part from the importance of thorns in covenantal curses and in the psalms of suffering. Our investigation of Psalm 32 (31) began with the occurrence of “thorn” in verse 4, ejstravfhn eij" talaipwrivan ejn tw'/ ejmpagh'nai a[kanqan (“I was turned to hardship while a thorn was stuck [in me]”). It is reasonable to suspect that this verse may have contributed, along with covenantal traditions and in connection with other motifs found both in Psalm 32 (31) and other songs of suffering and vindication, to the construction of the narrative element about the crown of thorns.64 In conclusion, therefore, it is possible to understand Heb 6:7–8 as much more than simply a parenetic contrast that makes use of common vegetal images. Rather, the opposition between the well-watered land and the land of thorns and thistles corresponds to the land of blessing or promise and the land of curse. Contained in the descriptions of the two lands are many words and motifs that connect the passage with both the covenant and the songs of the chosen and suffering whom God rescues, protects, and vindicates. The specific vocabulary of the preceding verses, Heb 6:4–6, I would argue, makes it very likely that the contrast between the two lands was mediated through a ritual of renewal, understood in covenantal terms, whereby members were also incorporated into the community. That this cultic performance was the location for the telling of a story of Jesus’ suffering and death is suggested not only by the phrase ajnastaurou'nta" eJautoi'" to;n uiJon; tou' qeou' in Heb 6:6, but also by the numerous songs of the suffering and vindicated that would have been brought into active memory by the contrast between the two lands. Heb 13:10–16: Jesus “Outside the Camp” The concluding chapter of Hebrews is devoted primarily to exhortation. Within this parenesis, an explicit reference to Jesus’ suffering occurs within the context of a christological argument against certain false doctrines. didacai'" poikivlai" kai; xevnai" mh; parafevresqe: kalo;n ga;r cavriti bebaiou'sqai th;n kardivan, ouj brwvmasin ejn oi|" oujk wjfelhvqhsan oiJ peripa64 Given Hebrews’s use of the Yom Kippur liturgy in chapters 8–10, we may also note the role of the thorn bush in the Yom Kippur liturgy as described in the Mishnah (m. Yoma 4.2; 6.6) and employed in Barnabas 7.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

159

tou'nte". e[comen qusiasthvrion ejx ou| fagei'n oujk e[cousin ejxousivan oiJ th'/ skhnh'/ latreuvonte". w|n ga;r eijsfevretai zwv/wn to; ai|ma peri; aJmartiva" eij" ta; a{gia dia; tou' ajrcierevw", touvtwn ta; swvmata katakaivetai e[xw th'" parembolh'". dio; kai; ∆Ihsou'", i{na aJgiavsh/ dia; tou' ijdivou ai{mato" to;n laovn, e[xw th'" puvlh" e[paqen. toivnun ejxercwvmeqa pro;" aujto;n e[xw th'" parembolh'" to;n ojneidismo;n aujtou' fevronte": Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be established by grace, not by foods, from which those who walk in them have not derived benefit. We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no authority to eat, for the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought by the priest into the sanctuary as an offering for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore also Jesus, in order that he might sanctify the people through his blood, suffered outside the gate. So let us now go out t o him outside the camp, bearing his reproach. (Heb 13:9–13)

The argument here assumes familiarity with a story about Jesus’ suffering in order to develop the particular detail that he suffered “outside the gate.” This location is interpreted by means of the distinction between sacred and profane areas within the cult of Israel; the area outside the camp served to render or mark people as ritually impure. It was, nonetheless, the location of certain cultic actions, for example, the burning of the bodies of the Yom Kippur sacrifices (see Lev 16:27) and the sacrifice of the red heifer, together with the ceremonies for the purification from contact with a corpse (Numbers 19). That the burning of the Yom Kippur sacrifices lies behind the cultic description in Heb 13:11 is generally accepted.65 In an extended analysis of this passage, Helmut Koester has argued that Heb 13:12–13 is formulated in contrast to Lev 16:28.66 Whereas in Leviticus, Aaron or the one who burns the sacrifices washes and then goes back inside the camp, the exhortation in Hebrews calls upon the people to “go outside the camp” where Jesus is. The point of Hebrews’s argument is then that the Christian community is sanctified by a sacrifice outside the camp, and so the proper area of Christian activity is “in the uncleanness of the world.”67 According to this argument, Jesus’ suffering outside the camp also signals that the Christian community no longer needs holy places for sanctification. Since Hebrews develops this christology and ecclesiology in a polemical situation, Koester is thus able to describe the “foreign doctrines” of Heb 13:9 as advocating an unworldli-

65 The phrase peri; aJmartiva" (“for sin”) marks these as the Yom Kippur sacrifices since this designation occurs repeatedly in the cultic prescriptions in Leviticus 16. Given the role that the ceremony of the red heifer plays in speaking of Jesus’ suffering elsewhere, I would not completely exclude it from the cultic contexts that are activated in this passage. See, for example, Schmauch: Ölberg, 392–394. 66 Koester: Camp, 300. 67 Koester: Camp, 301. See also Käsemann: Wandering People, 58.

160

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

ness and direct communication with God through sacral actions related to the practices that Hebrews views as related to the “first tent.”68 In this view, the statement, e[comen qusiasthvrion ejx ou| fagei'n oujk e[cousin ejxousivan oiJ th'/ skhnh'/ latreuvonte" (“we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no authority to eat,” Heb 13:10) speaks of the event of Jesus’ suffering as the qusiasthvrion (“altar”) of the Christian community, in contrast with the sacrificial altar of the cult of Israel.69 The worship then associated with this altar is described in Heb 13:15–16, di∆ aujtou' ªou\nº ajnafevrwmen qusivan aijnevsew" dia; panto;" tw'/ qew'/, tou't∆ e[stin karpo;n ceilevwn oJmologouvntwn tw'/ ojnovmati aujtou'. th'" de; eujpoii?a" kai; koinwniva" mh; ejpilanqavnesqe: toiauvtai" ga;r qusivai" eujarestei'tai oJ qeov". Through him [Jesus] then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise t o God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not neglect beneficence and fellowship, for God is well pleased with such sacrifices.

The characterization of Christian activity in terms of oJmologiva, eujpoii?a, and koinwniva (“confession, beneficence, and fellowship”) is consistent with the rest of Hebrews (see, for example, Heb 4:14; 6:10; 10:23–25). As also throughout Hebrews, the parenesis here includes endurance and solidarity in suffering, since the Christian community is told to go out to where Jesus is so that it may “bear his reproach” (to;n ojneidismo;n aujtou' fevronte", Heb 13:13). We may observe here the process of actualization and reenactment. The arguments and parenesis in this passage depend upon a detail of Jesus’ death, namely, that “he suffered outside the gate.”70 This narrative detail is then situated with relation to the cult practices of Israel, as prescribed within the cult legend. This enables the location “outside of the camp” to inform not only the particular way in which Jesus’ death becomes the new pole of the reenactment (here not so much in terms of narrative as in terms of theological polemic) but also the activities proper to the Christian community. In other words, “cultic performance” for this community actualizes the narrative dimension “outside the camp.” The fate of the individual and in particular the location of that fate — informed by the cult legend of Israel — is determinative of the character 68 Koester: Camp, 315. It is important to note that Koester’s argument situates Hebrews’s polemic not against the practices of Israel, but rather against the beliefs and actions of certain Christian “heretical” groups, which may have derived from the cult of Israel (see also p. 302). 69 Koester: Camp, 313–314. 70 This discussion does not depend on any estimation concerning the facticity of Jesus’ death “outside the gate.” Rather, in my view, it is important only to recognize that this detail is a given of the narrative that Hebrews knows. It may well be that some aspect of the cult legend of Israel (for example, Moses’ tent outside the camp in Exodus 33) or of cultic practices has informed the construction of Jesus’ death at this point.

Jesus’ Death in Hebrews

161

and practice of the community. It seems likely that Hebrews, in making this argument and in constructing persuasive parenesis relies upon a context in which Jesus’ suffering and death are told in terms of the cult legend of Israel. Moreover, the presence of various indications of community ritual practice close to signs of that process both here and elsewhere in Hebrews suggests that the ritual practice of the community provided the context for that narrative reenactment. A distinction is important here. Heb 13:9–14 demonstrates the concern in this text for the abolition of the cult of the “first tent,” at least in terms of the earthly practice of the Christian community. If we adopt the perspective of the text itself, we may characterize Hebrews as “anticultic” in its prescriptions for its community on earth. The heavenly, future activity of the community, however, is profoundly cultic, that is, having to do with the heavenly liturgy.71 Both of these descriptions have to do with the internal perspective of the text and need to be distinguished from an external analysis of the process of reenactment. When I speak of the way in which the cultic narrative and actions are reenacted in Hebrews around the memory of Jesus, I am concerned with narratives and practices that define and give authority to a community’s identity. In Hebrews, the practices of oJmologiva, good works, gathering in community, and enduring suffering in solidarity with one another, together with a narrative about Jesus’ sufferings and death, become the authoritative performances of the community. In this sense, they are “cultic.” The performance of the cult of Israel is, however, according to Hebrews’s supersessionist argument, transferred into the celestial realm and enacted in Jesus’ death outside the heavenly sanctuary. The cult practices of “the first tent” are thus reinterpreted through Jesus’ death and abolished as earthly practices; as such they exist only as spiritualized practices available for metaphorical use in the parenetic and allegorical argument. The cult legend is likewise reshaped through Jesus’ death in such a way as to open up a window of opportunity for the audience to enter into covenantal life. 4. Ritual Practice in Hebrews Hebrews provides very few indications of the ritual practice of its community, perhaps because by its own characterization it moves beyond speaking of the foundations of Christian life, including baptismw'n didach'" ejpiqevsewv" te ceirw'n, ajnastavsewv" te nekrw'n kai; krivmato" aijwnivou (“teaching about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment,” Heb 6:2). This statement points to some ritual activities, known to the audience as baptism and laying on of hands, but it is not possible to ascertain the relation of these activities to those with similar names in other communities. We have al71

On this dimension, see especially Dibelius: Kultus, 160–176.

162

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

ready noted the various marks of incorporation into the covenant community that are found in Heb 6:4–6. These argue for a ritual of incorporation expressed in terms of entry into the covenant and possibly corresponding to “baptism” as in Barnabas. Heb 10:19–25 directly addresses issues of community practices in its parenesis, e[conte" ou\n, ajdelfoiv, parrhsivan eij" th;n ei[sodon tw'n aJgivwn ejn tw'/ ai{mati ∆Ihsou', h}n ejnekaivnisen hJmi'n oJdo;n provsfaton kai; zw'san dia; tou' katapetavsmato", tou't∆ e[stin th'" sarko;" aujtou', kai; iJereva mevgan ejpi; to;n oi\kon tou' qeou', prosercwvmeqa meta; ajlhqinh'" kardiva" ejn plhroforiva/ pivstew" rJerantismevnoi ta;" kardiva" ajpo; suneidhvsew" ponhra'" kai; lelousmevnoi to; sw'ma u{dati kaqarw'/: katevcwmen th;n oJmologivan th'" ejlpivdo" ajklinh', pisto;" ga;r oJ ejpaggeilavmeno", kai; katanow'men ajllhvlou" eij" paroxusmo;n ajgavph" kai; kalw'n e[rgwn, mh; ejgkataleivponte" th;n ejpisunagwgh;n eJautw'n, kaqw;" e[qo" tisivn, ajlla; parakalou'nte", kai; tosouvtw/ ma'llon o{sw/ blevpete ejggivzousan th;n hJmevran. Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary in the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the veil that is, his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having been sprinkled in our hearts from an evil conscience and having had our body washed with pure water; let us hold fast the confession of hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful, and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the custom with some, but exhorting one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

Reference to a baptismal rite of incorporation has been seen frequently in the phrase, “having been sprinkled in our hearts from an evil conscience and having had our body washed with pure water.”72 We may note the covenantal terms of this reference; it recalls the sprinkling of the people at the making of the Sinai covenant (Exod 24:8) as well as the sprinkling and washing for the purifications and covenant renewal within the cult of Israel. These expressions lend further support to the idea that entrance into the community was, for Hebrews, seen in terms of the covenant. This passage also underscores the centrality of “meeting together” as part of the practice of the community, although the need for exhortation on this point suggests that the author at least perceives some “falling away” in this area. I would propose, further, that hJ ejpisunagwghv (“meeting together”) corresponds to koinwniva (“common life”) in a similar exhortation in Heb 13:16, where it is also linked to oJmologiva (“confession”) and good works. These are the principal means through which the community establishes its identity. We 72

See, for example, Dibelius: Kultus, 174; Koester: Camp, 314.

Ritual Practice in Hebrews

163

may note that there is no indication here or elsewhere of a ritual and communal meal within the practice of Hebrews’s community.73 The use of the verb prosevrcomai (“draw near”) in the exhortation, “let us draw near,” both here and at Heb 4:16 carries cultic connotations in that it characterizes the addressees in terms of the attitude of worshippers (see, for example, Exod 16:9; 34:32) or of Israelite priests (e.g., Lev 9:7; 21:17, 21). Attridge argues that in this address Hebrews makes metaphorical use of a cultic reference, but that it is unlikely that the verb corresponds to any particular activity within Christian practice. He does, however, see in the verb an image for engaging in the covenantal relationship with God.74 This parenetic passage also speaks of the oJmologiva (“confession”) of the community (Heb 10:23). Heb 13:15 describes the worship of the community as being “the fruit of lips that confess his name” (karpo;n ceilevwn oJmologouvntwn tw'/ ojnovmati aujtou').75 Without doubt, these refer to some sort of marked, authoritative speech within the community’s practice. There have been attempts to understand oJmologiva as denoting a fixed creedal statement76 or a commitment made in a ritual context.77 Käsemann points out the proclamatory quality and proposes that oJmologiva refers to the “primitive Christian liturgy of the community.”78 On the basis of the evidence within the text, though, it is not possible to say more than that oJmologiva indicates a verbal performance that stood at the center of the community’s cultic identity. Through oJmologiva the community was constituted. From all that we have observed about Hebrews, however, we may speculate that oJmologiva may refer to the practice of the reenactment of the cult legend around Jesus and his death. Insofar as that is the authoritative speech act for the community, such a narrative process corresponds to oJmologiva. 5. Conclusion The purpose of undertaking this exploration of Hebrews has been to identify morphological components of the process of telling a story of Jesus’ suffering 73 See Dibelius: Kultus, 174. Koester: Camp, 305–309, argues that brwvmata (“meals”) in Heb 9:10 and 13:9 refers to meals of the wilderness cult, not to the practice of Hebrews’s community, although the polemic in Heb 13:9 may be directed against those who understood the “Lord’s Supper” as giving direct communication with God (see p. 314). 74 Attridge: Hebrews, 141; Attridge actually speaks here of “entering into a covenantal relationship with God,” but seems not to refer to a process of incorporation into the covenant. Since prosevrcomai in both Heb 4:16 and 10:22 occurs in contexts that presuppose inclusion in the covenant, in my view, it is better to speak of “engagement” in the covenant relationship. 75 See also Heb 3:1 and 4:14. 76 Seeberg: Katechismus, 142–151; Käsemann: Wandering People, 167. 77 Attridge: Hebrews, 140. 78 Käsemann: Wandering People, 171.

164

The Epistle to the Hebrews: “They Shall Not Enter My Rest”

and death to the extent that it is possible to discern traces of them in this text. The building blocks of the passion tradition are to a large degree submerged within Hebrews’s allegorical manner of treating scripture and its parenetic strategies toward a further stage of Christian insight and practice. As a document with affinities to homiletic, Hebrews assumes certain experiences and authoritative performances on the part of the community it addresses. On the level of narrative, Hebrews is able to presuppose familiarity with a story of Jesus’ suffering and death. On the level of ritual or cultic action, it is able to presuppose a rite of incorporation into the community, which is understood in terms of the covenant. Moreover, Hebrews appears to rely upon psalmic traditions of suffering and vindication, other songs of anguish, and hymns about Jesus, which were in cultic use and contributed to the reenactment of the cult legend in terms of Jesus. At a minimum, we may say that Hebrews presupposes a community gathered in the covenant, with a rite of incorporation and with the performance of psalms, hymns, and other song traditions around the memory of Jesus. This text provides further indications about a context for the reenactment of such a story about Jesus. It suggests that the context included the telling of the central cult legend of Israel, with focus on the wilderness and the entry into the land of promise, particularly as these become problematic in the episode at Meribah. Furthermore, because the telling of Jesus’ suffering and death as a reenactment of the cult legend appears to place the events at Meribah and the sins of the wilderness generation in the foreground, through typology Hebrews draws in the cultic prescriptions regarding Yom Kippur and the ceremony of the red heifer in order to speak of the differences between the wilderness generation and the community it addresses. Because the descriptions of these cultic actions function in other texts, notably Barnabas, to contribute key elements of the story of Jesus’ death, we may suspect that Hebrews is here employing them because they are already linked with the reenactment of the cult legend in terms of Jesus and perhaps because that association is familiar to its audience. It is likely, in my opinion, that Hebrews is familiar with a practice of telling the cult legend of Israel that is similar to the practice and interpretative traditions evident in Barnabas. In Hebrews, the morphological components of the poetics of the passion combine within teaching and parenesis about mature Christian community. The deeper insight that the text seeks to advance centers upon the development of endurance and solidarity in suffering as a participation in Jesus’ suffering. This sort of ethic is itself a performance of cult legend as it turns around Jesus. For Hebrews, the community’s inclusion in Jesus, the ajrchgov" (“the one who leads the way”) and provdromo" (“forerunner”), gives not only entry into the land of promise, God’s “rest,” but also (and first) a share in his sufferings and abuse. The telling of the cult legend in terms of Jesus’ death, therefore, relates to the constitution, authorization, and encouragement of community.

Conclusion Writing to the emperor Trajan around 112 C.E., the governor of Bithynia and Pontus, Pliny the Younger, reported that certain people who had ceased to be Christians described the worship of the Christian community in the following way. Adfirmabant autem hanc fuisse summan vel culpae suae vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta ne latrocinia ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum adpellati abnegarent. Quibus peractis morem sibi discendendi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium; quod ipsum facere desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tu hetaerias esse vetueram. They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to sing alternately among themselves a hymn to Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind; but they had in fact given up this practice since my edict, issued on your instructions, which banned all political societies. (Pliny Epistulae 10.96.7)1

This portrayal of the ritual practice of the Christian community in one region and time contains certain features that correspond well with what we have observed about the cultic situation for telling the story of Jesus’ death. To sing a carmen (“song”) “to Christ as if to a god” accords well with the ritual use of psalms and other songs of suffering and vindication, especially when those come to speak of Jesus. The formation of hymns about Jesus’ suffering and death in the words of the scriptures of Israel and as tropes upon such songs as Isaiah 53 appears as a central part of the process of reenacting the memory of Jesus. Pliny speaks further of the community’s action of binding itself by an oath to a certain ethic; on the basis of the prominence of the covenant as defining community identity in the texts that we have examined, I would propose that what Pliny mentions here can be understood as the making or reaffirming of 1 This translation is a slightly altered version of the translation found in Pliny: Letters, vol. 2, 289.

166

Conclusion

a covenant with particular ethical stipulations.2 The juxtaposition of the hymn and the oath suggests the possibility that the oath is a response to the cultic narrative expressed in the hymn and was the way in which the community enacted its identity as defined by the cult legend. The third ritual practice of which Pliny speaks is the reassembling for a meal, an action that is indicated in some of the texts we have considered (most clearly in 1 Corinthians), but which appears also to have been a widespread practice among early Christians.3 Next to Pliny’s account of Christian worship, we may juxtapose Luke’s story about the two disciples who, after the death of Jesus, meet a stranger on the Emmaus road, whom they do not recognize as the risen Jesus. Jesus replies to their bafflement over the crucifixion and the empty tomb, w\ ajnovhtoi kai; bradei'" th'/ kardiva/ tou' pisteuvein ejpi; pa'sin oi|" ejlavlhsan oiJ profh'tai: oujci; tau'ta e[dei paqei'n to;n Cristo;n kai; eijselqei'n eij" th;n dovxan aujtou'… kai; ajrxavmeno" ajpo; Mwu>sevw" kai; ajpo; pavntwn tw'n profhtw'n diermhvneusen aujtoi'" ejn pavsai" tai'" grafai'" ta; peri; eJautou'. “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! Was it not necessary that the Christ suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets he interpreted to them the things concerning himself in all the scriptures. (Luke 24:25–27)

At the end of their journey, the disciples share a meal with this stranger, a meal in which they come to recognize him as the risen Jesus. kai; ejgevneto ejn tw'/ katakliqh'nai aujto;n met∆ aujtw'n labw;n to;n a[rton eujlovghsen kai; klavsa" ejpedivdou aujtoi'", aujtw'n de; dihnoivcqhsan oiJ ojfqalmoi; kai; ejpevgnwsan aujtovn: kai; aujto;" a[fanto" ejgevneto ajp∆ aujtw'n. kai; ei\pan pro;" ajllhvlou": oujci; hJ kardiva hJmw'n kaiomevnh h\n ªejn hJmi'nº wJ" ejlavlei hJmi'n ejn th'/ oJdw'/, wJ" dihvnoigen hJmi'n ta;" grafav"… When he was at table with them, he took the bread, blessed, and broke it, gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him; he vanished from their sight. And they said to one another, “Were not hearts burning [within us] as he was talking to us on the road, while he opening the scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:30–32)

and and our was

This story shows every sign of the careful narrative crafting of Luke’s literary style, but it nonetheless suggests the same process of telling of Jesus’ death that 2 Pliny’s enumeration of the behaviors entailed in this oath is similar to the ethical stipulations in such texts as the Didache, the “two ways” section of Barnabas, or the so-called inaugural sermon in Q 6:20–49, which arguably correspond to the section of covenantal stipulations in the covenant formulary. See Baltzer: Covenant Formulary, 123–132. Cullmann: Worship, 22, links this oath to the “confession” (oJmologiva) of the community. 3 The meal need not be an occasion for the reenactment of the death of Jesus, but, as in the case of the Didache, may be connected with other actualizations of scripture.

Conclusion

167

we have observed in the texts examined here. The Emmaus story speaks of “recognition” — the moment of saying “this is that” — through scriptural interpretation and cultic action. It thus narrates the instant of mimesis — the reenactment of the words of the scriptures and the ritual meal in terms of Jesus. Moreover, Luke’s story presents the risen Jesus as the one who first, for these disciples, engages in this action; Jesus is the one who interprets his suffering and death out of the scriptures and the one who performs the ritual of the meal in such a way that it reveals Jesus. Thus, Jesus is portrayed here as the authoritative initiator and interpreter of the cultic reenactment, just as the tradition quoted in 1 Cor 11:23–26 shows the earthly Jesus, before his death, as the interpreter of the cult legend of Israel and the initiator of the eucharistic cult. We have through the course of this study identified a number of the components in the morphology of the passion narrative. From the scriptures of Israel come the diction, patterns, and motifs of the cult legend of Israel, with particular emphasis on the trials in the wilderness and the death of Moses, the psalms expressing divine vindication of the suffering righteous, the songs and prophecies about the suffering of the “servant of the Lord,” and, as Nickelsburg has argued earlier, the genre of stories about the suffering and vindication of pious individuals. Throughout many of these elements we find a concern with the covenant as determinative of the identity of the community. The stories and practices that have to do with the making, breaking, and renewing of the covenant recur repeatedly within the construction of the memory of Jesus’ death. To these scriptural components of the morphology we must add the cultic practices of the community, particularly ritual meals and the rites of initiation. These practices not only provide the context for the reenactment of scripture in terms of Jesus, but are themselves refracted and interpreted through the cult legend and the practices associated with the covenant. They are, furthermore, in themselves reenactments of the cult legend that has come to be told in terms of the death of Jesus. If these are the morphological building blocks — the morphemes — of the poetics of the passion, then the poetics must also encompass the very process of reenactment, as the driving force of this narrative and ritual language. In this regard, the attempts in 1 Corinthians 11 and Luke 24 to locate the origin of this process in the actions and words of Jesus are especially striking. The authority for the process is found in the pivotal figure of the reenactment. The poetics of the passion also include certain patterns of association and mimetic movement. One is that the fate of the individual is constitutive of the identity and status of the community. This pattern is basic to the cult legend of Israel wherein the death of Moses is associated with the future of the people (Deuteronomy 31; Josh 1:2). Thus, as Barnabas and Hebrews show clearly, Jesus’ death results in the authorization and constitution of a new community. The hymn in 1 Pet 2:22–25 likewise moves easily from telling of Jesus’ sufferings to the new status of the community. We see there in the hymn’s transfor-

168

Conclusion

mation of Isaiah 53 how this pattern, moreover, supplies an essential narrative movement. Another pattern of mimetic movement results from the association of deutero-Isaiah, with its emphasis on the forgiveness and healing brought by the servant, and the figure of Moses in the cult legend. In Barnabas and Hebrews, this association entails a focus on the events of the wilderness as problems that need forgiveness, purification, and healing, which then draws the cultic rituals of Yom Kippur, the red heifer, and the healing of leprosy into the morphology. In this way, these rituals contribute important details and motives to the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. Each of the texts examined here derives from its own tradition of speaking of Jesus’ death; what they share is a process whereby scripture is actualized in narrative about Jesus, narrative that is inextricably bound to ritual. Not every text makes use of all of the constituent elements of the morphology, although for each the cult legend of Israel is the essential story that defines the community. Each text offers us a view of a particular reenactment or set of reenactments of this central story in terms of Jesus and its own experiment in forming community. This is a situation that gives rise to the multiformity within the traditions of Jesus’ suffering and death. We may review briefly the particular ways in which this process comes to light in various texts. 1 Corinthians provides a number of self-referential statements about the process, not only in establishing Jesus as the cultic authority, but also in the summary kerygmatic formula that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). The eucharistic traditions locate the community as the people with whom, by Jesus’ death, God makes the authentic covenant; they thus have an obligation toward the proper performance of this cult in terms of the mutual love of the community. The baptismal hymn in 1 Peter clearly understands the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 in terms of Moses and speaks of Jesus in terms of these combined traditions. The hymn also constitutes the community as the vindication of Jesus’ sufferings. This hymn suggests, moreover, that the story of Jesus’ passion arises at an early stage as a song tradition, perhaps alongside prose narratives. The traditions in 1 Corinthians and the hymn in 1 Peter belong together as early manifestations of this narrative process, probably not long after the time of Jesus’ death. Barnabas and Hebrews also reflect the poetics of the passion in the ways they speak of Jesus’ suffering and death. They have access to interpretive traditions about Jesus’ death that derive from cultic experience. Both texts stand not far from the rituals of their communities. In Barnabas, the community is constituted as the heirs of the covenantal promise and the inhabitants of the promised land. Its status has been brought about by Jesus’ death, an event that is expressed through the songs of suffering and vindication, as well as through the rituals of healing and forgiveness. In Hebrews, the community is situated at the boundary of the wilderness, ready to enter the promised land through its sharing in Jesus’ death. In each, Moses’ death as related to the sins of the people in the

Conclusion

169

wilderness is an implicit, but central, element in speaking of Jesus’ death. One surprising result is the prominence of the episode at Meribah (Numbers 20) in traditions about Jesus’ passion. Each of these four texts, moreover, draws upon the dynamic process of narrating Jesus’ sufferings for particular rhetorical aims, for the needs and occasions of its audience. The poetics of the passion themselves, as a living tradition, carry within them the capacity, indeed the necessity, for actualization in the here and now of the audience. I have not in this volume explored the historical and social dimensions of this actualization; this investigation remains for the future. The study of performative traditions, however, cautions against arranging the various manifestations of the narrative and ritual process in a strictly chronological or genealogical fashion.4 That is, a younger text may reveal aspects of the tradition and uses of myth, metaphor, and ritual not apparent in an older text, because those aspects are precisely those that are actualized in the here and now of the audience. Thus although 1 Corinthians may exhibit early manifestations of the narrative process, it is not necessary to view 1 Corinthians’ use of these poetics as establishing an early stage in their development or as conditioning their availability to later communities, authors, and performances. The path from such processes of constructing the memory of Jesus’ death to the gospel passion narratives has yet to be traced. Yet it is clear that this process of the actualization of scripture in narrative bound in ritual is capable of giving rise to three independent but similar stories. Moreover, it suggests a means by which a large-scale, cohesive narrative develops and is transmitted in community practice. The cult legend of Israel is just such a narrative and possesses numerous reenactments both before the time of Jesus and after. I would propose, therefore, that the cult legend of Israel serves as the fundamental form or occasion of the passion narrative. This process of the reenactment of scripture in narrative and ritual ought to be distinguished from the apologetic motives and strategies that arise at a somewhat later time. Thus, in the passion narrative in Matthew and in Justin Martyr’s reflections on Jesus’ death we may observe the use of scripture to speak of particular aspects of Jesus’ death. Their interests, however, lie in showing that Jesus’ death is the fulfillment of the scriptures of Israel, and thus they use specific passages of scripture to demonstrate that the events of Jesus’ death were indicated by the authoritative texts. This apologetic method takes as established the circumstances of Jesus’ death; it is not using scripture to construct that memory. Scripture becomes rather the evidence for reliability. Those passages of scripture that Matthew and Justin cite to illumine the necessity of Jesus’ death may well have been available to them out of the process of scrip4

See Alexiou: Antiquity, 8–16, 317–348.

170

Conclusion

tural reenactment in narrative within the community ritual, but their method is different from the process we have observed. The fragments of the Kerygma Petrou preserved in Clement of Alexandria show a similar apologetic interest, although this text stands closer to the early stages of the reenactment of scripture and may provide a way of understanding the development from one manner in which scripture was alive in the community to another in which it was used as the guarantee of truth. A word remains to be said about the traditions concerning the empty tomb, since this story belongs properly with the passion narrative and not with the traditions of resurrection appearances. In the texts considered here there has been no explicit reference to the empty tomb; we see rather the outcome of the story as the vindication of Jesus in terms of the future life of the community. Identifying the centrality of the cult legend of Israel and particularly the death of Moses to the passion narrative, however, suggests why the story of the empty tomb tradition belongs with the story of Jesus’ death. At the end of Deuteronomy, we find this notice, kai; ejteleuvthsen Mwu>sh'" oijkevth" kurivou ejn gh'/ Mwa;b dia; rJhvmato" kurivou. kai; e[qayan aujto;n ejn Gai' ejn gh'/ Mwa;b ejggu;" oi[kou Fogwvr: kai; oujk oi\den oujdei;" th;n tafh;n aujtou' e{w" th'" hJmevra" tauvth". And Moses, the servant of the Lord, died in the land of Moab through the word of the Lord. And they buried him in Gai in the land of Moab near the house of Phogor. And no one knows his tomb to this day. (Deut 34:5–6)5

This ignorance about the place of Moses’ burial leaves a cult without a tomb for its hero. This, together with the death of Moses, may have presented difficulties for the cult, particularly within a hellenistic environment.6 Similarly, early Christians lacked the body of the hero in their cult. Although this relationship requires further development, it may suggest a role of the cult legend in this aspect of the story of Jesus. It is impossible to locate the first generative moment for the reenactment of the cult legend of Israel and the traditions of suffering and vindication in terms of Jesus. We can only say that at some early point followers of Jesus began to take the well-established ritual use of these stories and songs as speaking of Jesus’ death and to tell these stories and sing these songs anew in terms of Jesus, in such a way that informed their own community. We may speculate that the first generative moment of this reenactment happened in the course of 5 The Septuagint is indeed more specific about the place of Moses’ burial than is the Masoretic text, which reads “He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Bethpeor, but no one knows his burial place to this day.” The divergence here suggests speculation about the location of the tomb. See also Dogniez/ Harl: Deutéronome, 355–356. 6 On the burial of Moses and that of the servant of God (Isa 53:9), see Baltzer: DeuteroIsaiah, 417–418; and Bartelmus: Heroentum.

Conclusion

171

ritual meals, perhaps in response to an appearance of the risen Jesus. To perform these stories, songs, and practices as telling of Jesus is, however, to remain within a long and varied tradition of performance of the cultic identity of the people of God.

Abstract Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht die Entstehung der Überlieferung vom Leiden und Tode Jesu, die sich abgesehen von der Passionsgeschichten der Evangelien entwickelte. Anhand einer Untersuchung des 1. Korintherbriefes, des 1. Petrusbriefes, des Hebräerbriefes, und des Barnabasbriefes, wird die Ansicht vertreten, daß Geschichten und Lieder über die Leiden Jesu im Kontext der Ritualien der frühen christlichen Gemeinden entstanden. In diesem Zusammenhang wurden die Schriften Israels, besonders die Geschichten der Wüstenwanderung und Moses Tod — zusammen mit den Psalmen und anderen Liedern der leidenden Gerechten — immer wieder erzählt und ausgelegt, um einerseits vom Leiden und Tod Jesu andererseits aber auch von der Identität der versammelten Gemeinden zu sprechen. Es wird behauptet, daß die Praxis der Taufe und der Eucharistie von diesem Prozeß der Erinnerung an den Tod Jesu geformt wurde. Aus der Perspektive von Ritual- und Performanztheorie wird untersucht, wie Ritual und Erzählung sich gegenseitig bedingen. Das erste Kapitel analysiert Zitate von Überlieferungen in 1Kor 11 und 15, zusammen mit der typologischen Homilie über den Exodus in 1Kor 10. Das zweite Kapitel konzentriert sich auf den Taufhymnus in 1Petr 2,22–25 und demonstriert die Wechselbeziehung von Num 20 und Jes 53. Im dritten Kapitel wird der Barnabasbrief besprochen, wo die Identität der Gemeinde in der Erzählung vom Einzug in das Land Israels verortet wird. Diese Identität wird durch die Taufe verwirklicht, die durch den Tod Jesu, den Bund, und die Lieder des Leidens wie der Rechtfertigung interpretiert wird. Im vierten Kapitel wird die Ansicht vertreten, daß dem Hebräerbrief, der sich auf theologische Lehrstücke und Paränese konzentriert, ein ähnlicher Prozeß des Erzählens vom Tode Jesu zugrunde liegt. Es wird gezeigt, daß der Tod Mose, mittels der Figur des Gottesknechts in Deuterojesaja, zentral für die Erzählung vom Leiden Jesu ist. Im Zusammenhang mit diesem Erzählprozeß werden die Ritualien der verschiedenen Gemeinden von den traditionellen Formen der Gestaltung und Erneuerung des Bundes stark beeinflußt.

Bibliography Short titles, for those works that are cited in the footnotes, are indicated in the bibliographic entry with italics. The bibliographic abbreviations accord with those listed in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 4th edition (RGG4), xxxi–l. In addition, the following abbreviations are used. In referring to the Septuagint, I use the numbering of the Göttingen edition, but for the Psalms, I also include first the Psalm number from the Masoretic text, followed by that in the Septuagint where they differ. AGJU ALBO AnBib ASNU EstBib HDR HSCP HUT LSJ OtSt SBL.DS SNTS.MS STDJ StUNT TDNT

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Analecta lovaniensia biblica et orientalia Analecta biblica Acta Seminarii neotestamentici Upsaliensis Estudios Biblicos Harvard Dissertations in Religion Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie Liddell, H.G./ Scott, R./ Jones, H.S. (eds.): A Greek-English Lexicon, with revised supplement, Oxford 91996. Oudtestamentische Studiën Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments G. Kittel/ G. Friedrich (eds.): Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Translated by G.W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, 1964–1976.

1. Texts and Translations The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, LCL 24–25, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass./ London 1977. Aristotle: The “Art” of Rhetoric, translated by J.H. Freese, LCL 193, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1982. Aristotle: The Poetics, translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe, LCL 199, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1973. Bernard, J.H. (ed.): The Odes of Solomon, Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature 8.3, Cambridge 1912. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 21984. Charlesworth, James H.: The Odes of Solomon, in: OTP vol. 2, 725–779. Charlesworth, James H.: The Odes of Solomon. The Syriac Texts, revised edition, Texts and Translations 13, Pseudepigrapha Series 7, Missoula, Mon. 1977.

174

Bibliography

Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., Garden City, NY 11983. Deuteronium, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 3.2, edited by John William Wevers, Göttingen 1977. Dobschütz, Ernst von: Das Kerygma Petri, TU 11.1, Leipzig 1893. Dogniez, Cécile/ Harl, Marguerite (eds./ trans.): La Bible d’Alexandrie. (5) Le Deutéronome. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Paris 1992. Dorival, Gilles (ed./ trans.): La Bible d’Alexandrie. (4) Les Nombres. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Paris 1994. Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, translated by Kirsopp Lake, LCL 153/ 265, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass./ London 1980. Ezechiel, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 16.1, edited by Joseph Ziegler, Göttingen 1952. Harlé, Paul/ Pralon, Didier (eds./ trans.): La Bible d’Alexandrie. (3) Le Lévitique. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Paris 1988. The HarperCollins Study Bible. New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books, edited by Wayne Meeks et al., New York 1993. Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica, translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White, LCL 57, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1977. Ieremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Ieremiae, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15, edited by Joseph Ziegler, Göttingen 1957. Isaias, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 14, edited by Joseph Ziegler, Göttingen 1939. Josephus: Jewish Antiquities, translated by H. St. Thackeray/ Ralph Marcus/ Allen Wikgren, LCL 242/ 490/ 281/ 326/ 365/ 489/ 410/ 433/ 456, 9 vols., Cambridge, Mass./ London 1958–1965. Kraft, Robert A.: The Apostolic Fathers. Vol. 3: Barnabas and the Didache, (ed.) Robert M. Grant, New York 1965. Le Boulluec, Alain/ Sandevoir, Pierre (eds./ trans.): La Bible d’Alexandrie. (2) L’Exode. Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Paris 1989. The Mishnah, translated by Herbert Danby, London 1949. Niederwimmer, Kurt: Die Didache, KAV 1, Göttingen 1989. Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Kurt Aland, et al., Stuttgart 271987. Numeri, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 3.1, edited by John William Wevers, Göttingen 1982. Philo: De Vita Mosis 1–11, edited/ translated by Roger Arnaldex et al., Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 22, Paris 1967. Philo: On the Decalogue; On the Special Laws, translated by F.H. Colson, LCL 320, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1937. Philo: Supplement II. Questions and Answers on Exodus, translated by Ralph Marcus, LCL 401, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1953. Pierre, Marie-Joseph/ Martin, Jean-Marie: Les Odes de Salomon, Apocryphes 4, Turnhout 1994. Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus, translated by Betty Radice, LCL 55/ 59, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass./ London 1969. Prigent, Pierre/ Kraft, Robert A. (eds.): Épître de Barnabé, SC 172, Paris 1971. Prostmeier, Ferdinand R.: Das Barnabasbrief, KAV 8, Göttingen 1999.

Texts and Translations

175

Psalmi cum Odis, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum 10, edited by Alfred Rahlfs, Göttingen 1931. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm (ed.): New Testament Apocrypha. Translated by R.McL.Wilson, 2 vols., Cambridge/ Louisville 21991. Septuaginta, (ed.) Alfred Rahlfs, Stuttgart 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay (ed.): The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, London 1893. The Talmud of the Land of Israel. A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Vol 14: Tractate Yoma, translated by Jacob Neusner, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism, Chicago 1982. Vaganay, Léon: L’Evangile de Pierre, EtB, Paris 1930. Vermes, Geza (ed.): The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, London/ New York 31990.

2. Secondary Literature Achtemeier, Paul J.: 1 Peter, edited by Eldon J. Epp, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 1996. Aitken, Ellen: ta; drwvmena kai; ta; legovmena. The Eucharistic Memory of Jesus’ Words in First Corinthians, HThR 90 (1997) 359–370. — : Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews, in: Jacob Neusner/ James F. Strange (eds.), Religious Texts and Material Contexts, Studies in Ancient Judaism Series, Lanham, Md., 2001, 73–88. Reprinted in Sewanee Theological Review 45 (2002) 135–151. Alexiou, Margaret: After Antiquity. Greek Language, Myth, and Metaphor, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca/ London 2002. Allen, L.C.: Isaiah LIII.11 and its Echoes, in: Ralph P. Martin (ed.), Vox Evangelica I, London 1962, 24–42. Allison, Dale C.: The New Moses. A Matthean Typology, Minneapolis 1993. — : Scriptural Allusions in the New Testament. Light from the Dead Sea Scrolls, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Christian Origins Library 5, North Richland Hills, Tex. 2000. Andriessen, Paul: Angoisse de la mort dans l’Épître aux Hébreux, NRTh 96 (1974) 282–292. Arvedson, Tomas: Das Mysterium Christi. Eine Studie zu Mt 11.25–30, Arbeiten und Mitteilungen aus dem neutestamentlichen Seminar zu Uppsala 7, Leipzig/ Uppsala 1937. Attridge, Harold W.: “Heard Because of His Reverence” (Heb 5:7), JBL 98 (1979) 90–93. — : The Epistle to the Hebrews, edited by Helmut Koester, Hermeneia, Philadelphia 1989. Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words, The William James Lectures. 1960. Cambridge, Mass. 21975. Edited by J.O. Urmson/ Marina Sbisà. Avemarie, Friedrich/ Lichtenberger, Hermann: Bund und Tora. Zur theologischen Begriffsgeschichte in alttestamentlicher, frühjüdischer und urchristlicher Tradition, WUNT2 92, Tübingen 1996. Bachmann, Philipp: Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 7, Leipzig 21910.

176

Bibliography

Backhaus, Knut: Der Neue Bund und das Werden der Kirchen. Die DiathekeDeutung des Hebräerbriefs im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte, NTA 29, Münster 1996. Bakker, Egbert J.: Poetry in Speech. Orality and Homeric Discourse, Ithaca/ London 1997. Baltzer, Klaus: Considerations regarding the Office and Calling of the Prophet, HThR 61 (1968) 567–581. — : The Covenant Formulary in Old Testament, Jewish, and Early Christian Writings. Translated by David E. Green, Philadelphia 1971. — : Die Biographie der Propheten, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1975. — : Moses Servant of God and the Servants. Text and Tradition in the Prayer of Nehemiah (Neh 1:5–11), in: Birger A. Pearson et al. (eds.), The Future of Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, Minneapolis 1991, 121–130. — : Jes 52,13. Die “Erhöhung” des “Gottes-Knechtes,” in: Lukas Bormann/ Kelly del Tredici/ Angela Standhartinger (eds.), Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World. Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, NT.S 74, Leiden/ New York 1994, 45–56. — : Deutero-Isaiah. A Commentary on Isaiah 40–55, edited by Peter Machinist, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 2001. Barbaglio, Giuseppe: La prima lettera ai Corinzi. Introduzione, versione, commento, Scritti delle Origini Cristiane 7, Bologna 1995. Barnard, Leslie W.: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some Observations, Scottish Journal of Theology 13 (1960) 45–59. — : The Epistle of Barnabas — a Paschal Homily? VigChr 15 (1961) 8–22. — : A Note on Barnabas 6, 8–17, StPatr 4 (1961) 263–267. — : The Testimonium concerning the Stone in the New Testament and in the Epistle of Barnabas, Studia Evangelica 3 (1961) 306–313. — : Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background, New York 1967. — : The “Epistle of Barnabas” and its Contemporary Setting, ANRW 2.27.1 (1993) 159–207. Barrett, C.K.: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, New York 11968. Bartelmus, Rüdiger: Heroentum in Israel und seiner Umwelt. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Gen 6,1–4 und verwandten Texten im Alten Testament und der altorientalischen Literatur, AThANT 65, Zurich 1979. Basser, Herbert W. (trans.): Midrashic Interpretations of the Song of Moses, American University Studies, series 7, Theology and Religion 2, New York 1984. — : In the Margins of the Midrash. Sifre Ha’azinu Texts, Commentaries, and Reflections, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 11, Atlanta 1990. Beare, Francis W.: The First Epistle of Peter. The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, Oxford 31970. Ben-Amos, Dan: The Concept of Genre in Folklore, Studia Fennica 20 (1976) 30–43. Bertram, Georg: Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und der Christuskult. Eine formgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 15. Göttingen 1922. — : Der Sprachschatz der Septuaginta und der des hebraïschen Alten Testaments, ZAW 57 (1939) 85–101. Best, Ernest: I Peter II 4–10 — A Reconsideration, NT 11 (1969) 270–293.

Secondary Literature

177

— : 1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition, NTS 16 (1969/ 70) 95–113. Betz, Hans Dieter/ Mitchell, Margaret: Art. “Corinthians, First Epistle to the,” ABD 1 (1992) 1139–1148. Black, C. Clifton: The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills [77:277–299 1984], HThR 81 (1988) 1–18. Boismard, M.-E.: Une liturgie baptismale dans la Prima Petri. I. Son influence sur Tit., 1 Jo et Col, RB 63 (1956) 182–208. — : Une liturgie baptismale dans la Prima Petri. II. Son influence sur l’Épître de Jacques, RB 64 (1957) 161–182. — : Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la première Épître de Pierre, LeDiv 30, Paris 1961. Boman, Thorlief: Der Gebetskampf Jesu, NTS 10 (1963–1964) 261–273. Bonnard, Pierre: Anamnesis. Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament, Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie 3, Geneva 1980. Bornemann, W.: Der erste Petrusbrief — eine Taufrede des Silvanus? ZNW 19 (1919) 143–165. Bornkamm, Günther: Herrenmahl und Kirche bei Paulus, ZThK 53 (1956) 312–349. — : Early Christian Experience, New York 1969. Botha, J. Eugene: Jesus and the Samaritan Woman. A Speech Act Reading of John 4:1–42, NT.S 65, Leiden/ New York 1991. Bovon, François: Hermann Gunkel, historien de la religion et exégète des genres littéraires, in: François Bovon/ Grégoire Rouiller (eds.), Exegesis: Problèmes de méthode et exercises de lecture (Genèse 22 et Luc 15), Neuchâtel/ Paris 1975, 86–94. — : Foi chrétienne et religion populaire dans la première épître de Pierre, EThL 53 (1978) 25–41. — : Le baptême dans l’église ancienne, Les Cahiers Protestants n.s. 5 (1973) 33–49; = Baptism in the Ancient Church, Sewanee Theological Review 42 (1999) 429–438. — : Luke 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50, edited by Christine M. Thomas, Hermeneia, Minneapolis 2002. Bradshaw, Paul: The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy, London 1992. Brakke, David: Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt. Athanasius of Alexandria’s Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter, HThR 87 (1994) 395–419. Brandenburger, Egon: Text und Vorlagen von Hebr. V, 7–10. Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefs, NT 11 (1969) 191–224. Braumann, G.: Hebr. 5:7–10, ZNW 51 (1960) 278–280. Brodie, Thomas L.: The Systematic Use of the Pentateuch in 1 Corinthians, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, BEThL 125, Leuven 1996, 441–457. Brown, Alexandra R.: The Cross and Human Transformation. Paul’s Apocalyptic Word in 1 Corinthians, Minneapolis 1995. Brown, Raymond: The Gospel of Peter and Canonical Gospel Priority, NTS 33 (1987) 321–343.

178

Bibliography

— : The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave, A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library, New York 11994. Brox, Norbert: Der Erste Petrusbrief, EKK 21, Zürich/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1979. Bruce, F.F.: “To the Hebrews.” A Document of Roman Christianity? ANRW 2.25.4 (1987) 3496–3521. Büchsel, Friedrich: Art. “givnomai,” TDNT 1 (1964) 681–689. Bultmann, Rudolf: The History of the Synoptic Tradition. German edition, 1931. Translated by John Marsh, Oxford 1963. — : Art. “eujlabhv", eujlabeivsqai, eujlavbeia,” TDNT 2 (1964) 751–754. — : Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief, Coniectanea Neotestamentica 11. In honorem Anton Fridrichsen, Lund, 1947. Reprinted in: Rudolf Bultmann, Exegetica: Aufsätze zur Erforschung des Neuen Testaments, edited by Erich Dinkler, Tübingen 1967, 285–297. Burckhardt, Jacob: Force and Freedom. Reflections on History, edited by James Hastings Nichols, New York 1943. Burkert, Walter: Mythisches Denken, in: Hans Poser (ed.) Philosophie und Mythos. Ein Kolloquium, Berlin/ New York 1979, 16–39. — : Greek Religion. German edition, 1977. Cambridge, Mass. 1985. Callan, Terrance: Paul and the Golden Calf, Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 10 (1990) 1–17. Cambe, Michel: Les récits de la Passion en relation avec différents textes du IIe siècle, FV 81 (1982) 12–24. Carleton Paget, J.N.B.: Barnabas 9:4. A Peculiar Verse on Circumcision, VigChr 45 (1991) 242–254. — : The Epistle of Barnabas. Outlook and Background, WUNT 2 64, Tübingen 1994. Carmignac, Jean: Les citations de l’ancien testament, et spécialement des poèmes du serviteur, dans les hymnes de Qumran, RdQ 2 (1960) 357–394. Carrington, Philip: The Primitive Christian Catechism. A Study in the Epistles, Cambridge 1940. Carson, D.A./ Williamson, H.G.M.: It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF, Cambridge/ New York 1988. Carter, Warren: Matthew. Storyteller. Interpreter. Evangelist, Peabody, Mass. 1996. Chenderlin, Fritz: “Do This as My Memorial.” The Semantic and Conceptual Background and Value of Anamnesis in 1 Corinthians 11:24–25, AnBib 99, Rome 1982. Chester, Andrew/ Martin, Ralph P.: The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude, New Testament Theology, Cambridge/ New York 1994. Chilton, Bruce: A Feast of Meanings. Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, NTSup 72, Leiden/ New York 1994. Christiansen, Ellen J.: The Covenant in Judaism and Paul. A Study of Ritual Boundaries as Identity Markers, AGJU 27, Leiden 1995. Cody, Aelred: Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews, St. Meinrad, Ind. 1960. Compagnon, Antoine: La seconde main ou le travail de la citation, Paris 1979. Conzelmann, Hans: First Corinthians. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, edited by George W. MacRae, Hermeneia, Philadelphia 1975.

Secondary Literature

179

Cook, Erwin F.: The Odyssey in Athens. Myths of Cultural Origins. Myth and Poetics, Ithaca/ London, 1995. Coppens, Joseph: Les affinités qumrâniennes de l’Épître aux Hébreux, ALBO4 1, Bruges 1962. Corley, Kathleen E.: 1 Peter, in: Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures. 2 vols., New York: Crossroad, 1994, vol. 2, 349–361. Cothenet, Édouard: Liturgie et vie chrétienne d’après 1 Pierre, in: Édouard Cothenet (ed.), Exégèse et liturgie, LeDiv 133, Paris 1988. — : La Première de Pierre. Bilan de 35 ans de recherches, ANRW 2.25.5 (1988) 3685–3712. Cranfield, C.E.B.: The Interpretation of I Peter iii.19 and iv.6, ExpTim 69 (1957–1958) 369–372. Cremer, Franz G.: Der “Heilstod” Jesu im paulinischen Verständnis von Taufe und Eucharistie, BZ 14 (1970) 227–239. Cross, F.L.: I. Peter. A Paschal Liturgy, London 1954. Cross, Frank M.: The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah, JNES 12 (1953) 274–277. Crossan, John Dominic: The Cross that Spoke. The Origins of the Passion Narrative, San Francisco 11988. — : Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, San Francisco 11995. — : The Gospel of Peter and the Canonical Gospels, an unpublished paper delivered at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 1995. Cullmann, Oscar: Baptism in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 1, London 1950. Translated by J.K.S. Reid. — : Early Christian Worship, Studies in Biblical Theology 10, London 1953. Translated by A. Stewart Todd/ James B. Torrance. — : Art. “pevtra,” TDNT 6 (1968) 95–99. — : Das Gebet im Neuen Testament. Zugleich Versuch einer vom Neuen Testament aus zu erteilenden Antwort auf heutige Fragen, Tübingen 1994. Dahl, Nils A.: La terre où coulent le lait et le miel, selon Barnabé 6.8–19, in: Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne: mélanges offerts à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, Bibliothèque théologique, Neuchâtel/ Paris 1950, 62–70. — : Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Essays, Minneapolis 1976. D’Angelo, Mary Rose: Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, SBL.DS 42, Missoula, Mont. 1979. Davidson, Olga M.: The Crown-Bestower in the Iranian Book of Kings, in: Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin/ Pierre Lecoq (eds.), Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, 2 vols., Acta Iranica 24–25, Hommages et Opera Minora 10–11, Leiden 1985, vol. 1, 61–148. Deichgräber, Reinhard: Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit. Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache, und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen, StUNT 5, Göttingen 1967. Denker, Jürgen: Die theologiegeschichtliche Stellung des Petrusevangeliums. Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte des Doketismus, EHS.T 36, Bern/ Frankfurt 1975. deSilva, David A.: Perseverance in Gratitude. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews,” Grand Rapids/ Cambridge 2000. Dewey, Arthur J.: “Time to Murder and Create.” Visions and Revisions in the Gospel of Peter, Semeia 49 (1990) 101–127.

180

Bibliography

Dey, Lela K.K.: The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBL.DS 25, Missoula, Mont. 1975. Dibelius, Martin: Herodes und Pilatus, ZNW 16 (1915) 113–126. Reprinted in Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1: Zur Evangelienfor-schung, edited by Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen 1953, 78–92. — : Die alttestamentlichen Motive in der Leidensgeschichte des Petrus- und des Johannes-Evangeliums, in: Wilhelm Frankenberg (ed.), Abhandlungen zur semitischen Religionskunde und Sprachwissenschaft, BZAW 33, Giessen, 1918, 125–150. Reprinted in Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1: Zur Evangelienforschung, edited by Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen 1953, 221–247. — : From Tradition to Gospel. German edition, 1919. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf, New York 1965. — : Das historische Problem der Leidensgeschichte, ZNW 30 (1931) 193–201. Reprinted in Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1: Zur Evangelienforschung, edited by Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen 1953, 248–257. — : Gethsemane, The Crozer Quarterly 12 (1935) 254–265. Reprinted in Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1: Zur Evangelienforschung, edited by Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen 1953, 258–271. — : Der himmlische Kultus nach dem Hebräerbrief, Theologische Blätter 21 (1942) 1–11. Reprinted in Martin Dibelius, Botschaft und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 2: Zum Urchristentum und zur hellenistischen Religionsgeschichte, edited by Heinz Kraft and Günther Bornkamm, Tübingen 1956, 160–176. Dickson, Keith: Nestor. Poetic Memory in Greek Epic, Albert Bates Lord Studies in Oral Tradition, New York/ London 1995. Dieterich, Albrecht: Abraxas. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte des späteren Altertums, Leipzig 1905. Reprinted Aalen 1973. — : Eine Mithrasliturgie, Leipzig/ Berlin 21910. — : Nekyia. Beiträge zur Erklarung der neuendeckten Petrusapokalypse, Leipzig 2 1913. Dinkler, Erich (ed.): Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, Tübingen 1964. Dodd, C.H.: According to the Scriptures. The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology, New York 1953. Dölger, Franz: Sphragis. Eine altchristliche Taufbezeichnung in ihren Beziehungen zur profanen und religiösen Kultur des Altertums, Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums 5.3/ 4, Paderborn 1911. Dormeyer, Detlev: Die Passion Jesu als Verhaltensmodell. Literarische und theologische Analyse der Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte der Markuspassion, NTA n.s. 11, Münster 1974. Draper, Jonathan A. (ed.): The Didache in Modern Research, AGJU 37. Leiden/ New York 1996. Dunnill, John: Covenant and Sacrifice in the Letter to the Hebrews, JSNT.S 75, Cambridge/ New York 1992. Efird, James M. (ed.): The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, Durham, N.C. 1972. Elliott, John H.: The Elect and the Holy. An Exegetical Examination of I Peter 2:4–10 and the Phrase Basivleion iJeravteuma, NT.S 12, Leiden 1966.

Secondary Literature

181

— : A Home for the Homeless. A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy, Philadelphia 1981. Ellis, E.E.: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 51991. — : The Old Testament in Early Christianity. Canon and Interpretation in Light of Modern Research, WUNT 54, Tübingen 1991. Feuillet, André: L’évocation de l’agonie de Gethsemani dans l’Épître aux Hébreux, Esprit et vie 86 (1976) 49–53. — : L’agonie de Gethsemani. Enquête exégétique et théologique, suivie d’une étude du “Mystère de Jésus” de Pascal, Paris 1977. Field, John E.: The Apostolic Liturgy and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Being a Commentary on the Epistle in its Relation to the Holy Eucharist with Appendices on the Liturgy of the Primitive Church, London 1882. Fitzer, Gottfried: Art. “sfragiv", sfragivzw, katasfragivzw,” TDNT 7 (1971) 939–953. Foley, John M.: Oral Register and Written Libretto, an unpublished paper delivered at the New England Regional Meeting of the SBL, March 1994. Franzmann, Majella: The Odes of Solomon. An Analysis of the Poetical Structure and Form, NTOA 20, Freiburg/ Göttingen 1991. Friedrich, Gerhard: Das Lied vom Hohenpriester im Zusammenhang von Hebr 4,14–5,10, ThZ 18 (1962) 95–115. Fuchs, Albert: Das Petrusevangelium, Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, series B 2, Freistadt 1978. Furnish, Victor P.: On Putting Paul in his Place, JBL 113 (1994) 3–17. Gabarrón, José Cervantes: La Pasión de Jesucristo en la Primera Carta de Pedro. Centro Literario y Teológico de la Carta, Estella 1991. Gebhardt, Oskar/ Harnack, Adolf: Barnabae Epistula. Graece et latine, Patrum apostolicorum opera 1. part 2, Leipzig 1878. Gentili, Bruno: Poetry and Its Public in Ancient Greece. From Homer to the Fifth Century. Translated by A. Thomas Cole, Baltimore/ London 1988. Gibert, Pierre: Les premiers chrétiens decouvrent Pierre: comment ils inventent l’Église. Une lecture du Nouveau Testament. La vie, l’esprit, le texte. Croire aujourd’hui, Paris 1976. Goppelt, Leonhardt: A Commentary on I Peter. German edition, 1978. Edited by Ferdinand Hahn. Translated by John E. Alsup, Grand Rapids 11993. Gourgues, Michel: La foi chrétienne primitive face à la croix. Le témoignage des formulaires pré-pauliniens, Science et Esprit 41 (1989) 49–69. Grabbe, Lester L.: The Scapegoat Tradition. A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation, JSJ 18 (1987) 152–167. Grässer, Erich: An die Hebräer, EKK 17, 3 vols, Zürich/ Braunschweig/ NeukirchenVluyn 1990–1997. Green, Joel B.: The Gospel of Peter. Source for a Pre-Canonical Passion Narrative? ZNW 78 (1987) 293–301. Grelot, Pierre: Les poèmes du serviteur. De la lecture critique à l’herméneutique, LeDiv 103, Paris 1981. Grimes, Ronald L.: Symbol and Conquest: Public Ritual and Drama in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Symbol, Myth, and Ritual Series, Ithaca 1976. Gundry, Robert H.: “Verba Christi” in 1 Peter. Their Implication Concerning the Authorship of I Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition, NTS 13 (1967) 336–350.

182

Bibliography

Gunkel, Hermann: Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen. 1 und Ap. Joh. 12, Göttingen 1895. — : Das Märchen im Alten Testament, Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die deutsche christliche Gegenwart2 23/26, Tübingen 1921. Gunther, J.J.: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Final Rebuilding of the Temple, JSJ 7 (1976) 143–151. Harnack, Adolf von: Zur Revision der Prinzipien der neutestamentlichen Textkritik. Die Bedeutung der Vulgata für den Text der katholischen Briefe und der Anteil des Hieronymus an dem Übersetzungswerk, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament 7, Leipzig 1916. — : Zwei alte dogmatische Korrekturen im Hebräerbrief, SPAW.PH 5 (1929) 62–72. Harrisville, Roy: Paul and the Psalms. A Formal Study, Word and World 5 (1985) 168–179. Hays, Richard B.: Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, New Haven 1989. Heinemann, Joseph: Prayer in the Talmud. Forms and Patterns, Studia Judaica, Berlin/ New York 1977. Heitmüller, Wilhelm: “In Namen Jesu.” Eine sprach- und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe, FRLANT 1.2, Göttingen 1903. — : Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. Darstellung und religionsgeschichtliche Beleuchtung, Göttingen 1903. — : Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus, ZNW 13 (1922) 320–337. Herder, Johann G.: Werke. Vol. 19, Christliche Schriften, (ed.) Bernard Suphan, Berlin 1880. — : Leaves of Antiquity. The Poetry of Hebrew Tradition. Translated by Caroline M. Sawyer, Boston 31893. Héring, Jean: The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A.W. Heathcote/ P.J. Allcock, London 21962. Hickling, C.J.A.: Paul’s Use of Exodus in the Corinthian Correspondence, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, BEThL 125, Leuven 1996, 367–376. Hicks, F.C.N.: The Fullness of Sacrifice, An Essay in Reconciliation, London 2 1938. Hill, David: On Suffering and Baptism in I Peter, NT 18 (1976) 181–189. Hofius, Otfried: Herrenmahl und Herrenmahlsparadosis. Erwägungen zu 1Kor 11,23b–25, ZThK 85 (1988) 371–408. — : To; sw'ma to; uJpe;r uJmw'n 1Kor 11.24, ZNW 80 (1989) 80–88. Holm-Nielsen, Svend: Hodayot. Psalms from Qumran, Acta theologica Danica 2, Aarhus 1960. Hooker, Morna D.: Jesus the Servant. The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament, London 1959. Hort, F.J.A.: The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1–II.17. The Greek Text, with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes, London/ New York 1898. Howard, George: Hebrews and the Old Testament Quotations, NT 10 (1968) 208–216. Huffmon, Herbert B.: The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets, JBL 78 (1959) 285–295.

Secondary Literature

183

Humphreys, W. Lee: A Lifestyle for Diaspora. A Study of the Tales of Esther and Daniel, JBL 92 (1973) 211–223. Hvalvik, Reider: Barnabas 9.7–9 and the Author’s Supposed Use of Gematria, NTS 33 (1987) 276–282. — : The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant. The Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish Christian Competition in the Second Century, Oslo 1994. Instone Brewer, David: Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis before 70 C .E., TSAJ 30, Tübingen 1992. Jaffee, Martin S.: Torah in the Mouth. Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 B.C.E. — 400 C.E., Oxford 2001. Jakobson, Roman: Selected Writings. Vol. 2: Word and Language, The Hague 2 1971. — : Linguistics and Poetics, in: Roman Jakobson, Language in Literature, edited by Krystyna Pomorska/ Stephen Rudy, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1987, 62–94. — : Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbance, in: Roman Jakobson, Language in Literature, edited by Krystyna Pomorska/ Stephen Rudy, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1987, 95–114. — / Pomorska, Krystyna: The Concept of Mark, in: Roman Jakobson, On Language, edited by Linda R. Waugh/ Monique Monville-Burston, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1990, 134–140. Jefford, Clayton N. (ed.): The Didache in Context. Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission, NT.S 77, Leiden/ New York 1995. Jeremias, Joachim: Hbr. 5.7–10, ZNW 44 (1952–1953) 107–111. — : The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Translated by Norman Perrin, London/ New York 1966. Jeske, Richard: The Rock was Christ. The Ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians 10, in: Dieter Lührmann/ Georg Strecker (eds.), Kirche. Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75.Geburtstag, Tübingen 1980, 245–255. Johnson, Barbara: The Critical Difference. Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading, Baltimore 1980. Johnson, Benjamin A.: Empty Tomb Tradition in the Gospel of Peter, Th.D. dissertation, Harvard Divinity School 1965 (unpublished). Johnson, Richard W.: Going outside the Camp. The Sociological Function of the Levitical Critique in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNT.S 209, London/ New York 2001. Jonge, Marinus de: Jewish Eschatology, Early Christian Christology, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Collected Essays of Marinus de Jonge, NT.S 63, Leiden/ New York 1991. Juel, Donald: Review of Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville 1992), JBL 114 (1995) 147–150. Karrer, Martin: Der Kelch des neuen Bundes. Erwägungen zum Verständnis des Herrenmahls nach 1 Kor 11,23b–25, BZ 34 (1990) 198–221. Käsemann, Ernst: The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, in Ernst Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes, Studies in Biblical Theology 41, Translated by W.J. Montague, London 1964, 105–135. — : The Wandering People of God. An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Translated by Roy A. Harrisville, Minneapolis 1984.

184

Bibliography

Kelber, Werner H.: The Oral and the Written Gospel. The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q, Philadelphia 1983. Kiley, Mark: “Lord, Save My Life” (Ps 116:4) as Generative Text for Jesus’ Gethsemane Prayer (Mark 14:36a), CBQ 48 (1986) 655–659. Kirkpatrick, Patricia G: The Old Testament and Folklore Study, JSOT.S 62, Sheffield 1988. Kistemaker, Simon: The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Amsterdam 1961. Kister, Menahem: Barnabas 12:1, 4:3 and 4QSecond Ezekiel, RB 97 (1990) 63–67. Klauck, Hans-Josef: Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief, NTA.NF 15, Münster 21986. Klijn, A.F.J.: Jewish Christianity in Egypt, in: Birger Pearson/ James E. Goehring (eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity, Philadelphia 1986, 161–177. Knowles, Michael R.: “The Rock, His Work is Perfect.” Unusual Imagery for God in Deuteronomy xxxii, VT 39 (1989) 307–322. Koester, Craig R.: Hebrews. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 36, New York 12001. Koester, Helmut: Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostolischen Vätern, TU 65, Berlin 1957. — : “Outside the Camp.” Hebrews 13.9–14, HThR 55 (1962) 299–315. — : Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels, HThR 73 (1980) 105–130. — : Art. “Formgeschichte/ Formenkritik II: Neues Testament,” TRE 11 (1983) 286–299. — : Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2: History and Literature of Early Christianity, New York/ Berlin 1987. — : Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development, London/ Philadelphia 1990. — : The Story of the Johannine Tradition, Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992) 17–32. — : Jesu Leiden und Tod als Erzählung, in: Rüdiger Bartelmus/ Thomas Krüger/ Helmut Utzschneider (eds.), Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte. Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65.Geburtstag, OBO 126, Freiburg/ Göttingen 1993, 199–204. — : Jesus’ Presence in the Early Church, Cristianesimo nella Storia 15 (1994) 541–557. — : The Historical Jesus and the Historical Situation of the Quest. An Epilogue, in: Bruce Chilton/ Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus. Evaluations of the State of Current Research, New Testament Tools and Studies 19, Leiden/ New York 1994, 535–545. — : The Origin of the Passion Narrative, an unpublished paper delivered at the SBL Annual Meeting, November 1995. — : The Historical Jesus and the Cult of the Kyrios Christos, Harvard Divinity Bulletin 24.3 (1995) 13–18. — : Response to John S. Kloppenborg, HThR 89 (1996) 345–349. Koet, Bart: The Old Testament Background to 1 Cor 10,7–8, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, BEThL 125, Leuven 1996, 607–615. Kosmala, Hans: “Das Tut zu Meinem Gedächtnis,” NT 4 (1960) 81–94.

Secondary Literature

185

Kraft, Robert A.: Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and the “Testimony Book” Hypothesis, JBL 79 (1960) 336–350. — : Barnabas’ Isaiah Text and Melito’s Paschal Homily, JBL 80 (1961) 336–360. — : The Epistle of Barnabas. Its Quotations and their Sources, Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University 1961 (unpublished). — : An Unnoticed Papyrus Fragment of Barnabas, VigChr 21 (1967) 15–63. Kugel, James L.: Early Interpretation. The Common Background of Late Forms of Biblical Exegesis, in: James L. Kugel/ Rowan A. Greer (eds.), Early Biblical Interpretation. Two Studies of Exegetical Origins, Library of Early Christianity 3, Philadelphia 11986, 13–102. Kuhn, H.-W.: Enderwartung und gegenwärtiges Heil, StUNT 4, Göttingen 1966. Kurianal, James: Jesus, Our High Priest. Ps. 110,4 as the Substructure of Heb. 5,1–7,28, EHS.T 693, New York 2000. Lamau, Marie-Louise: Exhortation aux esclaves et hymne au Christ souffrant dans la “Première Épître de Pierre,” MSR 43 (1986) 121–141. — : Les chrétiens dans la monde. Communautés pétriniennes au 1er siècle, LeDiv 134, Paris 1988. Lampe, G.W.H.: The Seal of the Spirit. A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and the Fathers, London/ New York 1951. Lattke, Michael: Die Oden Salomos in ihrer Bedeutung für Neues Testament und Gnosis, OBO 25, 3 vols., Göttingen 1979–1986. Lehmann, M.R.: “Yom Kippur” at Qumran, RdQ 3 (1961) 120–121. Lehne, Susanne: The New Covenant in Hebrews, JSNT.S 44, Sheffield 1990. Lescow, Theodor: Jesus in Gethsemane bei Lukas und in Hebräerbrief, ZNW 58 (1967) 215–239. Levenson, Jon D.: The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity, New Haven/ London 1993. Lietzmann, Hans: An die Korinther I–II, edited by Werner Georg Kümmel, HNT 9, Tübingen 41949. Lindars, Barnabas: New Testament Apologetic. The Doctrinal Significance of the Old Testament Quotations, Philadelphia 1961. Linton, O.: Interpretation of the Psalms in the Early Church, StPatr 4 (1961) 143–156. Lohse, Eduard: History of the Suffering and Death of Jesus Christ. Translated by Martin O. Dietrich, Philadelphia 1967; = Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens Jesu Christi, Gütersloh 1964. Lord, Albert B.: The Singer of Tales, Studies in Comparative Literature 24, Cambridge, Mass. 1960. — : Epic Singers and Oral Tradition, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca/ London 1991. — : The Singer Resumes the Tale, (ed.) Mary Louise Lord, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca 1995. Lowy, S.: The Confutation of Judaism in the Epistle of Barnabas, JSJ 11 (1960) 1–33. Luz, Ulrich: Das Geschichtsverständnis des Paulus, BEvTh 49, Munich 1968. Mack, Burton L.: A Myth of Innocence. Mark and Christian Origins, Philadelphia 1988. MacRae, George W.: Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews, Semeia 12 (1978) 179–199.

186

Bibliography

Maillot, Alphonse: L’Église au present. Commentaire de la première épître de St. Paul aux Corinthiens, Tournon 1978. Malina, Bruce: The Palestinian Manna Tradition. The Manna Tradition in the Palestinian Targums and its Relationship to the New Testament Writings. AGJU 7, Leiden 1968. Marguerat, Daniel/ Zumstein, Jean (eds.): La memoire et le temps. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard, Monde de la Bible 23, Geneva 1991. Martin, Richard P.: The Language of Heroes. Speech and Performance in the Iliad, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca 1989. Martin, Troy W.: Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter, SBL.DS 131, Atlanta 1992. McArthur, Harvey C.: “On the Third Day,” NTS 18 (1971) 81–86. Meeks, Wayne: “And Rose up to Play.” Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1–22, JSNT 16 (1982) 64–78. — : The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul, New Haven 1983. Menn, Esther M.: No Ordinary Lament. Relecture and the Identity of the Distressed in Psalm 22, HThR 93 (2000) 301–341. Metzner, Rainer: Die Rezeption des Matthäusevangelium im 1.Petrusbrief Studien zum traditionsgeschichtlichen und theologischen Einfluß des 1.Evangeliums auf den 1.Petrusbrief, WUNT2 74, Tübingen 1995. Meyer, Werner: Der erste Korintherbrief, Prophezei, Schweizerisches Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde, 2 vols., Zurich 1947. Michaels, J. Ramsey: Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Letters. 1 Peter, Revelation, and 2 Baruch, SBL.SP (1987) 268–275. — : 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary 49, Waco, Tex. 1988. Mitchell, Margaret M.: Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, HUT 28, Tübingen 1991. Moo, Douglas: The Old Testament in the Gospel Passion Narratives, Sheffield 1983. Morawski, Stefan: The Basic Function of Quotations, in: A.J. Greimas et al. (eds.), Sign, Language, Culture, Janua linguarum. Series minor 1, The Hague/ Paris 1970, 690–703. Moule, C.F.D.: The Nature and Purpose of I Peter, NTS 3 (1956–1957) 1–11. Muilenburg, James: The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations, VT 9 (1959) 347–365. Mulder, Martin Jan: Mikra. Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, CRI 2.1, Assen/ Maastricht/ Minneapolis 1990. Müller, Paul-Gerhard: CRISTOS ARCHGOS. Der religionsgeschichtliche und theologische Hintergrund einer neutestamentlichen Christusprädikation, EHS.T 28. Frankfurt/ Bern 1973. Nagy, Gregory: The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore/ London 1979. — : Pindar’s Homer. The Lyric Possession of an Epic Past, Baltimore/ London 1990. — : Poetry as Performance. Homer and Beyond. Cambridge 1996. Neirynck, F.: The Sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, BEThL 125, Leuven 1996, 141–176.

Secondary Literature

187

Neuenzeit, Paul: Das Herrenmahl. Studien zur paulinischen Eucharistieauffassung, StANT 1, Munich 1960. Neufeld, Dietmar: Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts. An Analysis of I John, Biblical Interpretation Series 7, Leiden 1994. Neusner, Jacob: The Study of Ancient Judaism, 2 vols., New York 1981. Nickelsburg, George W.E.: Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. HThS 26, Cambridge, Mass./ London 1972. — : The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative, HThR 73 (1980) 153–184. — : Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction, Philadelphia 1981. Niditch, Susan: Folklore and the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis 1993. — : Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel, Presidential Address to the New England Regional SBL Meeting, March 1994. — / Doran, Robert: The Success Story of the Wise Courtier. A Formal Approach, JBL 96 (1977) 179–193. Nissilä, Keijo: Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief. Eine Exegetische Untersuchung, SESJ 33, Helsinki 1979. Nitzan, Bilha: Qumran Prayer and Religious Poetry, STDJ 12, Leiden/ New York 1994. Translated by Jonathan Chipman. Norden, Eduard: Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede, Darmstadt 61974. Nuwe-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika: Essays on the General Epistles of the New Testament. Proceedings of the 11th Meeting, Neotestamentica 9, Pretoria 1975. Olofsson, Staffan: God is My Rock. A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint, CB.OT 31, Stockholm 1990. Ong, Walter: Orality and Literacy, New Accents, New York/ London 1982. Orlinsky, Harry M.: The So-Called “Servant of the Lord” and “Suffering Servant” in Second Isaiah, in: Studies on the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah, VT.S 14, Leiden 1967, 1–133. Parry, Adam (ed.): The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Milman Parry, 1971. Reprinted New York/ Oxford 1987. Parry, Milman: Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making. I: Homer and Homeric Style, HSCP 41 (1930) 73–147. Passoni dell’Acqua, A.: La metaphora biblica di Dio come roccia e la sua soppressione nelle antiche versioni, EL 91 (1977) 417–453. Patsch, Hermann: Zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund von Römer 4.25 und I.Petrus 2.24, ZNW 60 (1969) 273–279. Paulsen, Henning: Das Kerygma Petri und die urchristliche Apologetik, ZKG 88 (1977) 1–37. Perdelwitz, Richard: Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des I.Petrusbrief. Ein literarischer und religionsgeschichtlicher Versuch, RGVV 9.3, Giessen 1911. Perkins, Judith: The Suffering Self. Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era, London/ New York 1995. Perrot, C.: Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979, LeDiv 102, Paris 1980. Petuchowski, Jakob/ Brocke, Michael: The Lord’s Prayer and Jewish Liturgy, London 1978. Translated by Elizabeth R. Petuchowski.

188

Bibliography

Prigent, Pierre: Les testimonia dans le christianisme primitif. L’épître de Barnabé I–XVI et ses sources, EtB, Paris 1961. — : 1 Pierre 2,4–10, RHPhR 72 (1992) 53–60. Propp, Vladimir: The Morphology of the Folktale, 1928. Translated by Laurence Scott, Austin, Tex. 21968. Pursiful, Darrell J.: The Cultic Motif in the Spirituality of the Book of Hebrews, Lewiston 1993. Quispel, G./ Grant, R.M.: Note on the Petrine Apocrypha, VigChr 6 (1952) 31–32. Reicke, Bo Ivar: The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism. A Study of 1 Pet. III.19 and its Context, ASNU 13, Copenhagen 1946. Reinbold, Wolfgang: Der älteste Bericht über den Tod Jesu. Literarische Analyse und historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen der Evangelien, BZNW 69, Berlin/ New York 1994. Richardson, Peter/ Shukster, Martin B. Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis, JThS 34 (1983) 31–55. Robinson, J.A.T.: Redating the New Testament, London 1976. Robinson, J. Armitage: The Gospel According to Peter, and the Revelation of Peter. Two Lectures on the Newly Recovered Fragments, together with the Greek Texts, London/ New York 21892. Ruiz, Miguel R.: El Evangelio de Pedro. ¿Un desafío a los evangelios canónicos? EstBib 46 (1988) 497–526. Ruppert, Lothar: Jesus als der leidende Gerechte? Der Weg Jesu im Lichte eines altund zwischentestamentlichen Motivs, SBS 59, Stuttgart 1972. — : Der leidende Gerechte, Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten Testament und zwischentestamentlichen Judentum, Forschung zur Bibel 5, Stuttgart 1972. Sabatier, Auguste: L’Évangile de Pierre et les évangiles canoniques, Paris 1893. Sanders, Paul: The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, OtSt 37, Leiden/ New York 1996. Sawyer, John F.A.: The Fifth Gospel. Isaiah in the History of Christianity, Cambridge/ New York 1996. Schaeffer, Susan E.: The “Gospel of Peter,” the Canonical Gospels, and Oral Tradition, Ph.D. dissertation, Union Theological Seminary 1991 (unpublished). Schenke, Ludger: Auferstehungsverkündigung und leeres Grab. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 16,1–8, SBS 33, Stuttgart 1968. Schille, Gottfried: Das Leiden des Herrn. Die evangelische Passionstradition und ihr “Sitz im Leben,” ZThK 52 (1955) 161–205. — : Zur urchristlichen Tauflehre. Stilistische Beobachtungen am Barnabasbrief, ZNW 49 (1958) 31–52. Schmauch, W.: Der Ölberg. Exegese zu einer Ortsangabe besonders bei Matthäus und Markus, ThLZ 77 (1952) 391–396. Schmidt, Karl Ludwig: Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu. Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesusüberlieferung, Berlin 1919. Schniewind, Julius: Art., “ajggeliva, ktl.,” TDNT 1 (1964) 56–73. Scholer, John M.: Proleptic Priests. Priesthood in the Epistle to the Hebrews, JSNT.S 49, Sheffield 1991. Schrage, Wolfgang: “Israel nach dem Fleisch” (1Kor 10,18), in: Hans Georg Geyer et al. (eds.), “Wenn nicht jetzt, wann denn?” Aufsätze für Hans-Joachim Kraus zum 65.Geburtstag, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983, 143–151.

Secondary Literature

189

— : Der erste Brief an die Korinther, EKK 7; 4 vols., Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991–1999. — : Coherence and Relevance of 1 Cor 8–10, in: R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence, BEThL 125, Leuven 1996, 177–198. Schubert, Hans von: Die Composition des pseudopetrinischen EvangelienFragments, Berlin 1893. Schulz, Anselm: Nachfolgen und Nachahmen. Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik, StANT 6, Munich 1962. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth: The Rhetoricity of Historical Knowledge. Pauline Discourse and its Contextualizations, in: Lukas Bormann, Kelly del Tredici, and Angela Standhartinger (eds.), Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World. Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi, NT.S 74, Leiden 1994, 479–493. Seaford, Richard: Reciprocity and Ritual. Homer and Tragedy in the Developing City-State, Oxford 1994. Seeberg, Alfred: Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit, Leipzig 1903. Reprinted TB 26, Munich 1966. Seeley, David: The Noble Death. Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept of Salvation, JSNT.S 28, Sheffield 1990. Seidensticker, P.: Das Antiochenische Glaubensbekenntnis 1 Kor. 15:3–7, ThGl 57 (1967) 286–323. Sellin, Ernst: Mose und seine Bedeutung für die israelitisch-jüdische Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig/ Erlangen 1922. — : Die Lösung des deuterojesajanischen Gottesknechtsrätsels, ZAW 55 (1937) 177–217. Selwyn, E.G.: The First Epistle of St. Peter, London 1946. Senft, Christophe: La première épître de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens, Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, Geneva 21990. Sibinga, Joost Smit: 1 Cor. 15:8/9 and Other Divisions in 1 Cor. 15:1–11, NT 39 (1997) 54–59. Singer, Milton (ed.): Traditional India. Structure and Change, Philadelphia 1959. Skarsaune, Oskar: Baptismal Typology in Barnabas 8 and the Jewish Background, StPatr 18.3 (1989) 221–228. Smit, J.: “Do Not Be Idolaters.” Paul’s Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1–22, N T 39 (1997) 40–53. Smith, D. Moody: John Among the Gospels. The Relationship in TwentiethCentury Research, Minneapolis 1992. Smolar, Leivy/ Aberbach, Moshe: The Golden Calf in Postbiblical Literature, HUCA 39 (1968) 91–116. Snaith, Norman H.: Isaiah 40–66. A Study of the Teaching of Second Isaiah and its Consequences, in: Studies in the Second Part of the Book of Isaiah, VT.S 14, Leiden 1967, 135–264. Soards, Marion L.: 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School, ANRW 2.25.5 (1988) 3827–3849. Spicq, Ceslas: L’Épître aux Hébreux, EtB, 2 vols., Paris 1952–1953. — : Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre, Sources bibliques, Paris 1966. Stanley, Christopher D.: Paul and the Language of Scripture. Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTS.MS 69, Cambridge 1992.

190

Bibliography

—. : The Social Environment of “Free” Biblical Quotation in the New Testament, in: Craig A. Evans/ James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Investigations and Proposals, JSNT.S 148, Sheffield 1997, 18–27. —. : The Rhetoric of Quotations. An Essay on Method, in: Craig A. Evans/ James A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel. Investigations and Proposals, JSNT.S 148, Sheffield 1997, 44–58. Stendahl, Krister: The New Testament Background for the Doctrine of the Sacraments, in: Günther Gassmann and Vilmos Vajta (eds.), Évangile et Sacrament, Oecumenica, Paris 1973, 41–60. Stone, Michael E.: Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, CRI 2.2, Assen/ Philadelphia 1984. Strobel, August: Die Psalmengrundlage der Gethsemane-Parallele. Hebr 5:7ff, ZNW 45 (1954) 252–266. — : Der erste Brief an die Korinther, ZBK 6.1, Zurich 1989. Sullivan, Lawrence E.: Sound and Senses. Toward a Hermeneutic of Performance, HR 26 (1986) 1–33. Surkau, Hans-Werner: Martyrien in jüdischer und frühchristlicher Zeit, FRLANT 54, Göttingen 1938. Svenbro, Jesper: Phrasikleia. An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece. French edition, 1988. Translated by Janet Lloyd, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca/ London 1993. Swancutt, Diana M.: Christian “Rock” Music at Corinth? in: Harold W. Attridge/ Margot Fassler (eds.), Up With A Shout! Atlanta 2003. Swetnam, James: Jesus and Isaac. A Study of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Light of the Aqedah, AnBib 94, Roma 1981. Syrén, Roger: The Blessings in the Targums. A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Acta Academiae Aboensis, series A, Humaniora 64.1, Åbo 1986. Talbert, Charles H.: Perspectives on First Peter, NABPR Special Studies Series 9, Macon, Ga. 1986. Theissen, Gerd: Nachwort, in: Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, FRLANT n.s. 12, Göttingen 101995, 409–452. Theissen, Gerd/ Merz, Annette: The Historical Jesus. A Comprehensive Guide. Translated by John Bowden, Minneapolis 1998; = Der historische Jesus. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen 1996. Thomas, Rosalind: Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece, Key Themes in Ancient History, Cambridge 1992. Thurén, Lauri: Argument and Theology in 1 Peter. The Origins of Christian Paraenesis, JSNT.S 114, Sheffield 1995. Triacca, A./ Pistoia A. (eds.): La liturgie, expression de la foi, Bibliotheca ephemerides liturgicae 16, Rome 1979. Trocmé, Etienne: The Passion as Liturgy. A Study in the Origin of the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, London 1983. van den Hoek, Annewies: Clement and Origen as Sources on “Noncanonical” Scriptural Traditions During the Late Second and Earlier Third Centuries, in: Gilles Dorival/ Alain Le Boulluec (eds.), Origeniana Sexta. Origène et la Bible, Origen and the Bible, BEThL 118, Louvain 1995, 93–113.

Secondary Literature

191

van Unnik, W.C.: hJ kainh; diaqhvkh — a Problem in the Early History of the Canon, StPatr 4 (1961) 212–227. Vanhoye, A.: Les indices de la structure littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux, TU 87 (1964) 493–507. Vesco, Jean-Luc: La lecture du psautier selon l’épître de Barnabé, RB 93 (1986) 5–37. Vööbus, Arthur: Liturgical Traditions in the Didache, Papers from the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 16, Stockholm 1968. Wegenast, Klaus: Die Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, WMANT 8, Neukirchen 1962. Weiser, Artur: The Psalms. A Commentary, Philadelphia 1962. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Weiss, Johannes: Der erste Korintherbrief, KEK 5, Göttingen 91910. Welborn, Laurence L.: Art. “Clement, First Epistle of,” ABD 1 (1992) 1055–1060. Wengst, Klaus: Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes, AKG 42, Berlin/ New York 1971. — : Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums, StNT 7, Gütersloh 1972. Wetter, Gillis P.: Altchristliche Liturgien. Das christliche Mysterium; Studie zur Geschichte des Abendmahles, FRLANT, Göttingen 1921. Wevers, John W.: Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy, AAWG.PH 3 106. Göttingen 1978. White, Hugh C. (ed.): Speech Act Theory and Biblical Criticism, Semeia 41 (1988). Wiebe, John M.: The Form, Setting, and Meaning of the Song of Moses, Studia Biblica et Theologica 17 (1989), 119–163. Wiegand, A.: Der Gottesname rwx und seine Deutung in den Sinne Bildner oder Schöpfer in der alten jüdischen Literatur, ZAW 10 (1890) 85–96. Wilder, Amos N.: Form-history and the Oldest Tradition, in: Neotestamentica et Patristica: Eine Freundegabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinem 60.Geburtstage überreicht, NT.S 6, Leiden 1962, 3–13. Williams, Sam K.: Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept, HDR 2, Missoula, Mont. 1973. Wills, Lawrence M.: The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity, HThR 77 (1984) 277–299. — : The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King, HDR 26, Minneapolis 1990. Windisch, Hans: Die Katholische Briefe, HNT 15, Tübingen 11911. — : Die Apostolischen Väter. Vol. 3: Der Barnabasbrief, HNT, Tübingen 1920. — : Die Katholische Briefe, (ed.) Herbert Preisker, HNT 15, Tübingen 31951. Yarbro Collins, Adela: The Origin of Christian Baptism, StLi 19 (1989) 28–46. Zahn, Theodor: Das Evangelium des Petrus. Das kürzlich gefundene Fragment seines Textes, Erlangen 1893. Zwettler, Michael: A Mantic Manifesto. The Sura of the Poets and the Qur’anic Foundations of Prophetic Authority, in: James L. Kugel (ed.), Poetry and Prophecy: The Beginnings of a Literary Tradition, Myth and Poetics, Ithaca/ London 1990, 95–119.

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 1. The Scriptures of Israel and the Apocrypha Genesis 1:26 1:28 3:17–18 14:14 17:27 Exodus 12:8 13:21 14:19–20 15 16:9 17 17:1–7 17:2 17:7 19:5–6 24 24:5 24:8 24:9–11 24:15 25:40 32 32:1–6 32:20–35 32:32 32:32–33 32:4–6 32:6 33 34:1–4 34:32 Leviticus 3:1–17 7:11–18 9:7 10 13:51 14

98–99, 104 99 154 121 121

116n.72 40–41 41 87 163 70–73 46 70 70 100 39, 42, 50, 72, 141 39 39, 162 39–40 40 140n.25 38, 42, 97 37 53n.67 46n.53, 47 46 38–39 37–39 160n.70 97 163

39n.34 39n.34 163 119 48n.55 118, 119, 141

14:4–7 14:6 14:44 16 16:1 16:27 16:28 19 19:1 21:17 21:21 26:15 26:30 Numbers 11 11:4–6 11:33–34 12 12:7 12:10 14 14:15–16 14:16 14:20–35 14:27 14:27–35 14:29 14:32 14:33 19 19:6 20 20:1 20:1–13 20:3 20:12 20:13 20:24 21:18

119n.80 119 48n.55 117n.76, 159n.65 119 159 159 119n.80 100 163 163 111n.62 136n.15

44n.45 45 45 119 136 119 43–44, 136 43 44n.45 44 47 47, 136 136 136 136 117, 119, 141, 159 117–118, 119 70–74, 119, 135, 169 119 46 70 73 71n.45, 137 71 41n.39

21:4–9 23:19 25 25:1–2 25:9 27:14 Deuteronomy 1:12 4:13–14 6:3 6:25 9 9:19–20 10:1–5 10:16 11:11 11:13 11:26 11:26–29 21:23 27 27:11–13 31 31:19 31:19–22 31:28 32

32:13 32:15 32:17a 32:18 32:21 32:26 32:51 33 33:5 33:8

46 79 45, 46n.51 45 45 71n.45, 137

71n.46 99 99 111n.62 97 53n.67 97 121 153 153 153 153–154 83n.69 154n.55 154n.55 167 43 43 110 42, 43n.44, 73, 87, 109–110, 128, 139n.20, 155 109 128 42 109 42 110 71n.45, 73, 137 128 128 71n.45

193

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 33:8 33:12 33:26 34:5 34:5–6 Joshua 1:1 1:2

137 128n.101 128 47 170

1:7 2:28 (3:1) 9:24 12:6 13:8 18:7 22 22:2 22:5

112 112n.64, 167 112n.63 123 112n.63 112 112 112 112 112 112

Judges 5

87

1 Kingdoms 17:46 136n.15 2 Samuel 22:2–3 22:32 22:47 23:3 23:4

156 156 156 155 155n.57

2 Kingdoms 22:2 22:51 23:1–7 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6–7

156n.58 156 154 155 155 155 154

1 Chronicles 6:49 112n.63 2 Chronicles 1:3 112n.63 20:7 128n.101 24:9 112n.63 Nehemiah 1:5–11

112n.63

Psalms 1 1:3–6 2 10:14 (9:35) 16:6a 19 (18):11b 19 (18):14 22 (21)

125–126 124 156n.59 80n.63 146 107n.55 107 67, 107, 114, 156–157 22 (21):2 (3) 157n.62 22 (21):3–5 (4–6) 106n.45 22 (21):14 (15) 157n.61 22 (21):15 67 22 (21):17 113–114, 157n.61 22 (21):17–18 67 22 (21):17b 107, 108 22 (21):18 (19) 106 22 (21):19 114 22 (21):21a 107 22 (21):24 (25) 144 26:7 146 27 (26):12 80n.63 29 (28):6 128n.101 31 (30):23 144 32 (31) 69, 156–158 32 (31):1–2 66–67 32 (31):3 157 32 (31):3–4 156 32 (31):3a 67 32 (31):7a 157 32 (31):10 67, 157 33:18 146 33:7 146 34 (33) 68, 69 34 (33):13–14 68 34 (33):13–17 69 34 (33):14 69 34 (33):21 68 38 (37):18 (19) 31n.14 39 (38) 152 39 (38):2 (3) 152, 157 39 (38):11(12) 31n.14 39 (38):13 144 41(40):3 80n.63 54:17 146 55 (54) 69 55 (54):11–12 68 55 (54):19 68 63 (62):10 (11) 80n.63 69 (68):22 116, 117

74 (73):19 80n.63 78 (77) 35, 42n.43 78 (77):17 48n.55 78 (77):48 80n.63 78 (77):57 (58) 42n.43 78 (77):61 80n.63 81 (80):8 71n.45, 137 85:7 146 86 (85):14 107–108 88 (87):9 80n.63 95 (94) 35, 135–136 95 (94):7–11 72, 134 95 (94):11 135 103 (102):1 154n.56 103 (102):3–5 151 103 (102):7 151 103 (102):18 151–152 104 (103):1 154n.56 104 (103):30 152 105 (104) 35 105 (104):39a 40 106 (105) 73 106 (105):23 53n.67 106 (105):32 71n.45, 73, 81, 137 106 (105):41 80 109:4 146 110 (109) 156n.59 110 (109):1 133 114 (113a) 35 116 (114–115) 143n.28, 145–147 116:17–19 (115:8–10) 147n.39 118 (117) 67, 113–114, 157 118 (117):10–12 113 118 (117):12 113, 157n.63 118 (117):18 81 118 (117):22 81, 113 118 (117):24 113–114 119 (118):116 108 119 (118):120a 107 119 (118):120b 108 140 (139):9 80n.63 Proverbs 13:7–8 17:10–11 20:2–3

78n.54 78n.54 78

194 Isaiah 3:9–10 5:1–7 8:12–13 8:18 28 28:16 38:12–13 41:8 41:9 42:6–7 42:1 42:1–9 43:10 44:1–2 44:2 48:19 48:21 49:6–7 49:25 50 50:2 50:4–11 50:6 50:6–7 50:7

115 128n.101 55 140 33n.22 55n.2 80n.63 111 111 96 111 99n.37 111 128 128 46n.51, 47 71n.46 97 82n.66 74–75 74–75 71n.46, 75 67, 116 109 75, 109–110 50:7c–8a 111 50:8 71n.46, 82n.66, 111 50:8b–9 111 50:9a 111 50:10 111 51:1 109–110 51:22 82n.66 52 75n.49 52:13–53:12 82n.67, 115 53 31–32, 50, 64, 65–67, 71, 73, 74, 82, 83–87, 118, 152, 167–168 53:4 31, 103n.44 53:4–6 85–87 53:4a 82n.64, 83 53:5 31, 64, 65–68, 120 53:5–7 102–105 53:5d 84 53:6 31, 50n.59, 76, 80, 81, 87 53:7 83 53:8 82n.66

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 53:9 53:10 53:12 53:12 53:12c 53:12e 54:10 61:1–2 66:24 Jeremiah 4:4 11 11:15 11:19

31n.15, 65, 69, 170 53n.67 66, 80 81, 103n.44 82 83 76n.50 97 136n.15

11:19–20 12:7 31 31:31 31:31–34

121 82 128n.101 82n.68, 83n.69 82–83 128n.101 141 50n.62 137–139

Ezekiel 3:7 11:19 11:19–20 11:20 16:59–63 34:24 34:25–30 34:4–16 36:25 36:26 36:26–28 37:24–28 37:27 44:6

48n.55 98, 99 99 100 100 77n.53 77n.53 77n.53 100 98, 99 100 100 100 48n.55

Hosea 1:9 2:25 6:1–2 6:1–3 6:2 10:1–8 10:4

33 33, 33n.22 33 33 32–33 154 154

Joel 2:17

108

Zechariah 9 9–13

74 76–78

9:9 9:14 10:1 10:2 10:2–3 10–11 11:12–14 11:16 12:10 13 13:6–7 13:7 13:9

76 76, 78 76 76n.51 77n.53 76, 77n.53 77 77n.53 77, 116 77 77, 106 103 77

Judith 8:11–27 8:12 8:15 8:16 8:30–31

79 79 79 79 79

Wisdom of Solomon 2:12 115 2:12–20 115 2:13 115 10:17 40n.38 19:7 40n.38 Sirach 4:6 45:1 46:13 51:12 suppl.

108n.55 128n.101 128n.101 108n.55

Baruch 3:37

128n.101

Susanna 28

79n.57

195

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts

2. The New Testament Matthew 3:17 10:17 17:5 20:19 23:34 26:15 26:31 27:9 Mark 1:11 8:31 9:7 9:31

128 157 128 157 157 77 106 77

10:34 11:7 12:6 14:10 14:18 14:27 14:41 14:42 14:51 15:1 15:10 15:15 15:20 15:31

128 12n.9 128 12n.9, 80n.60 12n.9, 80n.60 157 77 128 80 80 106 80 80 12 80 80 80 38n.33 38n.33

Luke 3:22 18:33 20:13 22–23 24 24:25–27 24:26 24:30–32

128 157 128 11n.1 166–167 166 107 166

John 12:15 18:2 19:1 19:16 19:29 19:30 19:36

77 80 158 80 118 80 68n.43

10:33

19:37

77

Acts 2:17 3:24 4:2 13:38 13:5 15:36 17:3 17:13 26:23

123 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64 51n.64

Romans 1:13 4:7 4:11 4:25 6 6:3 6:11 6:18 9:25 9:25–33 11:25 12:2

36n.29 29n.4 122 31n.16 63 41 84n.72 84n.72 33n.22 33n.22 36n.29 150

1 Corinthians 1:10 27 1:13 41 2:1 51n.64 4:12 70 5:11 70 6:9 70 6:10 70 9:14 51n.64 10 31, 50, 71 10:1 36 10:1–10 35n.27 10:1–11 36n.30 10:1–13 35–48, 49, 53 10:1–17 36n.30 10:1–4 35n.27, 36, 40n.36, 40–42 10:4b 40 10:4c 40n.39 10:5 43, 44n.45 10:5–6 44n.45 10:5–10 37

10:6 10:6–10 10:6–11 10:6–13 10:7 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:14–22 10:16–18 10:16–21 10:16–22 10:19–21 10:20 10:22 10:28 10–11 11 11:2–16 11:16 11:17–22 11:17–26 11:17–34 11:23 11:23–25 11:23–26 11:24 11:24–25 11:25 11:26 12:2 12–14 15:1 15:1–5 15:3

15:3–5 15:4

37, 44, 44n.45 44 40n.36 47 37 45 38n.33, 46, 72 38n.33, 47 37 43 49 34 40n.37 42 42 42 45 28, 33, 34–53, 72, 73 167 48n.55 48n.55 49 52n.65 47 29, 34, 48, 49–50, 82n.65 27 17, 29, 34, 48–53, 54, 167 50, 51 117n.77 39, 51 51, 52, 72 36n.29 54n.68 29 28 31n.13, 31n.15, 32, 50n.60, 117, 168 12n.9, 17, 27, 28–33, 53–54 33

196 15:12 15:17 16:8

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 28 29n.4 27n.1

2 Corinthians 1:8 36n.29 4:16 150 5:1–4 150n.48 5:15 84 Galatians 1:3–4 1:4 3 3:13 3:27 3:28

31n.16 29n.4 83n.69 83n.69, 118 41 150

Ephesians 1:5–7 1:6

128 127–128

Philippians 2:6 2:6–11 2:8b

144 147n.41 147n.41

Colossians 1:15 3:9 3:10 3:11

144 150 150 150

1 Thessalonians 4:13 36n.29 5:9–10 31n.16

2:13 2:18 3 3–4 3:1 3:1–6 3:5–6 3:7–11 3:7–4:11 3:8–11 3:14 3:16–19 3:17 4 4:1–3 4:11 4:14 4:14 4:15 4:16 4:6 5:3 5:7 5:7–10 5:8 5:9 5:12 6:1 6:1–2 6:2 6:10 6:20 6:20:7–28 6:4–5 6:4–6

1 Timothy 3:16

29n.4

6:4–8 6:6

Titus 3:5 3:5–6

150n.49 123

6:7 6:7–8

Hebrews 1:3 1:13 1:21–2 2:4 2:10 2:10–18 2:11–13

6:8 133, 142, 144 133 133 149n.47 139–140 140–141 140

7:22 8–10 8:1 8:5 8:6 8:7–13 9

140 135n.14 72 134 149, 163n.75 136 136 134 136 135 140, 149 135 135 147 134 147 160 163n.73 135n.14 163n.74 147 32n.16 144, 157 143–148 144, 147 147 147n.40 133 132 152n.51, 161 160 139, 140n.23 137 148 148, 153, 158, 162 148–158 150–152, 158 153 152–153, 158 155, 157n.63 137 150, 158n.64 133 140 137 138–139 117

9:5 9:6–9 9:10 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:19–21 9:23–28 9:24–25 10:1 10:6 10:8 10:11–12 10:12 10:16–17 10:18 10:19–25 10:22

13:9–13 13:9–14 13:10 13:10–16 13:11 13:12 13:12–13 13:13 13:15 13:15–16 13:16 13:22 13:24

151 142 163n.73 142 141 74 141 142 142 140 32n.16 32n.16 142 133, 142 139n.20 32n.16 162 152n.51, 163n.74 147 163 160 32n.16 139n.20 157 142 137, 139–140, 142 137 147 159, 163n.73 158–159 161 160 158–161 32n.16, 159 142 159 160 163 160 162 131 131

1 Peter 1:1 1:1–2 1:3 1:3–4:11 1:16 1:23 2:1–3

57 60 56, 58 60–61 55n.2 58 58

10:22–25 10:23 10:23–25 10:26 10:30–31 11:36 12:18–24 12:2 12:3 13:1–9 13:9

197

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 2:2 2:2–24 2:3 2:6 2:7 2:18–21 2:21 2:21–24 2:21–25 2:21–25 2:21a 2:22 2:22–24 2:22–25 2:23 2:23a 2:23b

58 63 68 55n.2 81 63 63–64, 71 50n.59 17, 55 57 63 65–69 64 62–87, 151, 167 50n.59, 119 69–74 74–80

2:23c 2:23c–25a 2:24 2:24–25 2:24a 2:24c–d 2:24e 2:24e–25a 2:25 2:25 2:25b–c 2:25f–3:9 3:1 3:1–9 3:8–9 3:9

80–83 85–87 63, 83–87, 107, 118 102–103 82n.64 86–87 64n.31, 64n.32 64 64, 76 81, 86 64, 77n.53 63 64n.32 69 69 70, 74

3:10–11 3:10–12 3:13–17 3:14–15 3:18–22 3:18a 3:20 3:20–21 3:21 4:11 4:12 4:12–19 4:12–5:14 5:13

68 68, 69 60, 63 56 59–60, 63 63 59 76n.50 59 60 60 57 60 57

3. Early Christian, Early Jewish, and Classical Literature 1 Clement 4.11 46.6 59.2

119n.81 123 128n.100

2 Baruch 86.1

57n.9

2 Esdras 22:22

108

3 Maccabees 2:24 5:18 5:30 5:33 5:37

79n.57 79n.57 79n.57 79n.57 79n.57

4 Maccabees 7:2 8:19 9:5 9:32 13:6 14:9

78n.56 78n.56 78n.56 78n.56 78n.56 78n.56

Aristotle Poetics 1448b17 26, 35 Rhetoric1.137a21 26 Dead Sea Scrolls CD 6:3–4 41n.39

1QH 9.28 1QH 11.15 1QpHab 5.1 1QS10

108n.55 108n.55 108n.55 123n.91

Epistle of Barnabas 1–4 121 1–17 91 1.1 90 1.2 100 1.3a 123 2–17 90 3.6 127 4 100 4.3 127 4.3–5 93 4.6–8 97 4.7–8 96 4.8 97, 122 4.8c 127 5 83, 101–110 5–8 101 5.1–2 101–102, 104 5.1–7.2 90 5.2 102–103, 106, 114, 120, 152 5.5 104 5.5–9 105 5.6–7 104–105, 106

5.6b–7 5.7 5.8–9 5.11 5.12 5.12–14 5.13 5.13a 5.13b 5.14 6 6–9 6.1 6.1–2 6.3 6.6 6.6–7 6.6a 6.6b–7 6.7–8 6.8–17 6.8–19 6.10–19 6.11 6.11–13 6.11–19

105–106 106 105 106 77, 103, 106 106–107 83, 107–108, 118 107 107 67, 108, 110, 111 98, 101, 111–115 91 111, 112 111 109 67, 106, 107, 108, 114, 157 113–115 113 115 98 126 113 114 98, 149 152 100, 104

198 6.12 6.13–17 6.14 6:14a 6.19 7 7–8 7.2 7.3 7.3a 7.4b 7.5 7.6–8.7 7.6a 7.7–1 7.8 7.8–9 7.9b 8 8.1 8.2 8.6 9 9.1 9.1–3 9.2c 9.3 9.4–9 9.4b 9.6 10.1–12 10.2 11 11–19 11.2 11.6–8 11.10b 11.6–8 12.8–9 12.8–12 13 13.1 13.4–7 14 14.1–4 14.3–4 14.4 14.5 14.5b 14.6–9 14.7

Index of Passages from Ancient Texts 98 88, 98 100 99 98, 126 115–117, 158n.64 115–120, 125n.94 118 118 116 116 117–118 115 117 77 110, 116 110 116 115, 117–120 117–118 117 117, 120 121–124 121 121 111 121 121 121 101, 122 93 101 124–127 98 124, 127n.99 124–125 125 124 72n.47 113n.66 91, 101 95 101 97, 100 96 96 97 96 98 97 96

14:7–9 16 16.1–4 18–20 18–21 21

97 91 93 90 125 90

Clement of Alexandria Paed. 1.6.26 148n.44 Strom. 1.11.2 93 Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.13.6 91n.9 Hist. eccl. 6.14.1 91n.9 Hist. eccl. 6.14.4 131 Gospel of the Hebrews frag. 2 123n.91 Gospel of Peter 2.5 80n.61 5.16 116n.71 8.30–31 80n.61 9.25 77 Hesiod Works and Days 225–247 153n.53 Hippolytus Apostolic Tradition 23.2 58 Ignatius of Antioch Smyrn. intro. 128n.100 Josephus Ap. 1.130

140n.24

Justin Martyr 1 Apol. 52.12 77n.52 1 Apol. 61.12 148n.44 1 Apol. 65.1 148n.44 Dial. 99 145n.36 Dial. 122.5 148n.44 Dial. 137.2 128n.100 Mishnah m. Menah. 11.7 116n.72 m. Yoma 4.2 116, 158n.64 m. Yoma 6.6 116, 158n.64

Odes of Solomon 3.5–7 128n.100 4.6–7 122 4.10 122, 126n.97 8.21 128n.100 9.11 95 11 110n.59, 122–124, 126 11.2–3 123 11.5 110n.59 11.6 123 11.11–13 126 11.16 123–124 19.1–4 126n.97 19.6–8 126n.97 28 113, 114, 126n.96 28.5 107n.53 28.18 106 31 103, 105–106, 110n.59, 126n.96 31.4 106 31.9 114 31.10 103, 106 31.11 110n.59 31.13 106 38.11 128n.100 40.1 126n.97 Origen Hom. in Lev. 9

91n.9

Philo Leg. all. 2.96 41n.39 Quis heres1–19 144 Spec. leg. 1.190 116n.72 Vit. Mos. 2.162 38 Pliny the Younger Epistulae 10.96.7 57–58, 59, 165 Q 6:20–49

166n.2

Shepherd of Hermas Sim. 9.12.5 128n.100 Tertullian De pudic. 20 131n.4

Subject Index Aaron 118–119, 136, 137 Abraham 121 abuse 44, 47, 53, 69–74, 78, 151, 164 Acts of the Apostles 131 actualization, reactualization 22–23, 26, 55, 88–89, 101, 107, 134, 139, 158, 160, 168–169 Aesop 48 Akedah 128n.101 allegory 132, 164 allusion 18–19, 19n.30, 64 apologetic 12, 14, 169–170 Aristotle 26, 34–35 ashes 116, 118, 119, 141 Athanasius 66n.36 atonement 32, 156 Austin, J. L. 23 authoritative speech 34, 49–50, 61, 117, 125, 139; see also marked speech, speech act authority 30, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56–57, 96 Balaam 79 baptism 13–14, 33, 35, 41,58–61, 63, 72, 73, 74, 75, 84n.71, 86, 87, 90, 92, 100, 110n.60, 122–123, 125–127, 129, 147n.40, 148–150, 152, 161–162, 168; see also initiation, water Barnabas, Epistle of 17, 26, 33, 35, 51, 67, 72, 75, 81, 82, 88–129, 131, 132, 141, 152, 156, 167–168 beloved 97, 127–128 blessing 57, 58, 101, 125–126, 151, 153–156, 158 blood 39, 50, 140–141, 142 bones 67, 68, 157 bread 50–51 bruise 84–86 Bultmann, Rudolf 11, 62 catechesis 56, 70–71, 90, 92 circumcision 101, 121–124, 127 Clement, First Epistle of 57–58, 66n.36, 130–131 Clement of Alexandria 80, 92, 93, 131, 170 cloud 40–41 common life 49, 52, 160

community formation 16, 20, 24, 27, 33, 52, 54, 55, 78, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 130, 152, 160–162 complaint, murmuring 38n.33, 44–45, 47 composition in performance 24n.55 confession 161–163, 166n.2 Corinthians, First Epistle to the 17, 26, 27–54, 119–120, 166 corpse contamination 74, 117, 119, 141, 159 covenant 33, 35, 38, 41, 43,, 50–52, 53, 54, 72, 82, 88, 89–91, 95–98, 99–101, 105, 108, 110, 112, 121–122, 126–127, 129, 130, 135, 137–139, 140–141, 149–150, 151–152, 154–155, 156, 158, 161–162, 164, 165–166, 167–168 covenant formulary 90–91, 99–100, 104–105, 121, 156 covenant lawsuit 111 creation 99, 104, 152 creed 59–60, 92 crimson 117–118, 119 crimson wool 116; see also scarlet wool cross 125–126 Cross Gospel 11n.2, 22n.46 crucifixion 67, 68n.43, 148, 150–151, 155, 166 cry 144, 147, 157 cult 13–14, 91, 120, 130, 139, 147, 159 cult legend 13, 25, 28, 32, 34–35, 42, 43, 45, 47–48, 52, 53–54, 55, 70–74, 76, 77n.53, 79, 83, 87, 88–89, 97–98, 104, 106, 109–110, 115, 118, 119, 126, 127, 129, 130, 133, 134–135, 139–140, 142, 140–141, 142–143, 148, 149, 150, 161, 163, 164, 167–169, 170 cultic practice 16–17, 27, 34, 47, 50, 53, 56, 60, 89, 92, 94, 108, 120, 131–133, 140–141, 151, 161–164, 167–168; see also ritual, liturgy curse 83n.70, 125–126, 153–156, 158 Cyprian 80 Cyril of Alexandria 66n.36 Damascus Document 95 Daniel 93 David 155–156 Day of Atonement 115–120, 125n.94

200

Subject Index

Dead Sea Scrolls 93 desire 44 deutero-Isaiah 31–32, 35, 46, 50, 57n.9, 65–67, 71–73, 75, 82, 83–84, 97–98, 109–110, 112, 115, 118, 128, 155 Deuteronomy 100 Dibelius, Martin 11, 145–146 diction 14, 15, 18–19, 29, 42, 49, 56, 64, 67, 69, 73, 78, 82–84, 87, 89, 104, 110, 111–112, 116–117, 167 Didache 166n.2, 166n.3 disobedience 147–148 Domitian 58, 94 drinking 40–41, 46, 71–72 Easter 14, 92 endurance 103, 106, 147 entry into the land 16, 25, 46, 53, 55, 73, 88–89, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 112, 114, 119–120, 134, 151–152, 164, 168 Esther 107n.50 eucharist 13–14, 39, 42, 92, 117n.77, 167–168; see also meal eucharistic traditions 27–28, 34, 49 Eusebius 66n.36 exegetical tradition 115–117, 118 exodus 16, 25, 35, 36n.30, 40, 52, 53, 55, 88, 92, 134, 139 folklore 15–16, 20–21 food laws 101 forgiveness 89, 98, 100–101, 108, 118–119, 120, 124, 149–150, 156–157, 168 form criticism 11–13, 15 gematria 121 genre 12–13, 17–18, 52n.66, 61, 64, 90–91, 156, 167 Gethsemane 12, 143–145 golden calf 37–38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 52n.67 Good Friday 13–14, 92 gospel traditions 11, 29 gospels, canonical 55, 106–107, 143–144 Hadrian 94 hand over, to 29–30, 50n.59, 80–83, 85–86 healing 84–86, 89, 103–104, 118, 119–120, 168 hearts of flesh 98–99 hearts of stone 98–99 Hebrews, Epistle to the 17, 26, 35, 51, 67, 81, 82, 130–164, 167–168

Herder, Johann Gottfried 15n.22 hero 13 hero cult 13, 170 Hesiod 48 history 22 Hodayot 64, 95, 107 Homer 15, 20n.31, 24n.52, 48 homily 35–36, 47, 60–61, 90–92, 131–132, 153, 164; see also preaching honey 58, 88, 92, 98–99, 107, 109, 113–114, 122, 126, 152 household code 56, 69 hymn 31, 55, 56–57, 62–65, 69, 71, 77, 84, 85, 87, 103, 107, 113, 131–132, 143–145, 164, 165–166, 168; see also song hyssop 74, 117–118, 119, 120, 141 idolatry 42, 45, 47, 53n.67, 77n.53, 89, 96–98, 106, 136 Ignatius 57–58 initiation 84n.71, 86, 149–150, 167 John, Gospel of 11, 17, 23, 78 Joshua 44, 47, 113n.66, 136 joy 61, 114, 123, 127 Judas 68, 77, 80 Judith 35, 79 Justin Martyr 30, 93, 169 kergyma 27, 31–32, 53, 56, 168 Kerygma Petrou 170 Kibroth-hattaavah 44 kinship 140 land 47, 123–124, 126, 127, 153 Last Supper 13, 35n.26 lawlessness 97 leprosy 118, 119, 120 liturgy 25, 56–57, 63, 92, 131–133; see also cultic practice, ritual Lord, Albert 14, 19, 21 manna 40–41, 45 Manual of Discipline 95 Mark, Gospel of 11, 17, 23, 78 marked speech 48–50 martyr 12, 14, 57n.8, 78 Massah 46, 70–73, 135–136 Matthew, Gospel of 30, 169 meal 34, 36–38, 40–42, 45, 47, 48–53, 54, 126, 148–149, 163, 165–166, 167, 171; see also eucharist Melchizedek 137

Subject Index memory 15, 17, 22, 25, 34, 50, 51–52, 54, 65, 87, 120, 130, 165 Meribah 46, 70–74, 75, 79, 80, 119, 135–137, 164, 169 metaphor 24n.56, 169 midrash 35, 58, 88, 92, 98–99, 122, 126, 147n.40, 152 mimesis 26, 34–35, 54, 55, 86–87, 167–168 Miriam 119–120, 136 mock 38n.33 morphology 19–22, 54, 55, 89–90, 163–164, 167 Moses 32, 40–44, 46, 47, 53–54, 70–73, 75, 80–81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 97–98, 109–110, 112–113, 120, 128, 130, 136, 151, 160n.70, 167–168, 170 mouvance 66 multiformity 21n.42, 83, 107, 168, 132 mystery religions 84n.71 myth 24n.56, 25, 169 nails 108 narrative 15, 16, 17–20, 27, 30, 34, 47, 50, 53, 54, 85–87, 88–89, 91–92, 117, 120, 129, 158, 167, 168 Nero 57n.10 Nerva 94 Noah 59 oath 59n.14, 135, 165–166 obedience 147 Odes of Solomon 75, 93, 94–95, 107 oral tradition 14–15, 16n.24, 19 Origen 93n.19 parenesis 56, 63–64, 70, 130, 131, 133, 134, 147, 148, 158, 160–161 Parry, Milman 14, 21 passion narrative 11–12, 17–18, 21, 22, 23, 68, 76–78, 80, 93, 114n.67, 116, 118, 133 Passover 35n.26 Paul 27 performance 14–15, 17–25, 30–31, 33, 34–35, 49, 52, 54, 55, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 83, 84, 87, 89, 101, 104, 114, 115, 129, 130, 139, 158, 161, 168–169, 171 performative speech 59–60 persecution 57–58, 106, 114 pesher 93 Peter, First Epistle of 17, 26, 33n.22, 35, 51, 55–87 Peter, Gospel of 11, 17, 23, 55, 78, 116n.71

201

Philo 93, 132, 153 Pilate 80 plague 45 Pliny the Younger 57–58, 165 poetics 15, 16–17, 55, 89, 120, 129, 130, 164, 167–169 prayer 61, 108, 143 preaching 12, 90–91l; see also homily pre-Pauline tradition 29–31, 34, 36, 48 proclamation 51 purification 115, 141–142, 159, 162, 168 purity 89, 107, 119 Q 56 Qumran 64, 95, 107 quotation 18–19, 19n.30, 27–28, 30, 37–38, 55, 56n.6, 64, 111, 131 ransom 68, 96, 151–152; see also redemption reactualization see actualization rebirth 58 recreation 98–99, 104, 126–127, 152 red heifer 71, 74, 89, 115–120, 125n.94, 140, 141–142, 159, 164, 168 Red Sea 41 redemption 101, 118; see also ransom reenactment 20–21, 26, 34–35, 38n.33, 43, 47, 50–52, 53–54, 73, 86, 87, 88–89, 100, 110, 115, 118, 119, 129, 130, 133, 134, 151, 160–161, 164, 165, 167–170 renewal 149, 151, 152 rest 72, 134, 136, 139, 147–148, 153, 164 resurrection 28, 32–33, 106, 166–167 Revelation, Book of 58 rhetoricity 21n.41, 61, 131 righteousness 86 ritual 15, 16, 17–20, 22, 25, 33, 36, 49, 53, 55, 64, 73, 83, 87, 88–89, 91–92, 96–97114, 118–119, 121, 129, 131–133, 161–163, 165–166, 167–171; see also cultic practice, liturgy rock 40n.39, 43n.44, 71–72, 75, 107, 109–110, 155 sacrifice 38–39, 42, 115–116, 141, 142, 159–160 sanctuary 140, 161; see also temple scapegoat 89, 115–116, 118 scarlet wool 74, 141; see also crimson wool scourging 157–158 scribal practice 14, 17, 22, 56, 132 scriptural proof 30–31, 32 seal 97, 122, 127

202

Subject Index

sermon see homily, preaching serpents 46 servant (of the Lord) 111–112, 115, 136, 167 sexual immorality 45 sheep 76–77, 81, 85, 87, 103 shepherd 76–77 silence 103, 106, 157 sin 31, 46, 54, 65, 81–82,, 89, 97, 101, 104, 107, 117–118, 141 Sinai 39–41, 53, 72, 96, 137–139, 141–142, 162 Sitz im Leben 11, 13, 16n.23 slaves 63 song 16, 19–20, 25, 42–43, 64, 68, 83, 85, 87, 88–89, 94–95, 106, 108, 111, 114, 115, 118, 120, 130, 156–158, 164, 165; see also hymn Song of Moses 42–43, 73, 87, 109–110, 128, 139n.20, 155 speech act 23, 51, 59–60 spitting 110, 116 sprinkling 95, 100, 122, 162 suffering 18, 55, 61, 74, 82, 84, 86, 88, 98, 101–105, 108, 109, 112–114, 126, 127, 130, 140, 146, 147, 156–157, 159, 164, 165 suffering righteous 16, 32, 50, 54, 64, 65–66, 69, 78, 83, 84, 89, 106, 111, 118–119, 133, 151–152, 167 suffering servant 31–32, 46, 65–67, 73, 74–75, 83, 87, 89, 118; see also servant tablets of the Law 96–97 temple 94; see also sanctuary testimonia 102, 132

testing 46, 47, 53, 70, 135n.14 textuality 23 thorn 116, 154–155, 156–158 threat 74–76, 78, 79 Titus 94, 131 tomb 13–14, 119, 166, 170 Trajan 57–58, 94, 165 tree 83–84, 107, 124–127; see also wood trope 69, 165 two ways 125–127, 166n.2 type 37, 44, 140 Vespasian 94 vindication 16, 18, 55, 64–69, 73, 78–79, 83, 86, 87, 88–89, 98, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111–114, 115, 118–119, 130, 133, 146, 151–152, 156, 157, 158, 165 vinegar 116–117, 118 water 40–41, 59, 71–72, 75, 76, 79, 90, 100, 123–124, 125–127, 129, 141, 153 wilderness 16, 25, 32, 35, 41, 43, 46, 47, 52, 53–54, 55, 70, 71–73, 75, 79, 80, 86n.73, 88, 101, 106, 119–120, 130, 134, 135–137, 139, 141–142, 147, 152, 164, 167–169 wood 74, 83, 117–118, 119, 125; see also tree wound 77, 103 Yom Kippur 74, 110n.59, 140, 141–142, 151,158n.64, 159, 164, 168; see also Day of Atonement Zechariah 83

EIHE Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus / NEUE R Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (NTOA / StUNT)

!

Herausgegeben von Max Küchler (Fribourg), Peter Lampe (Heidelberg) und Gerd Theißen (Heidelberg) im Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz und bei Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Hervorgegangen aus den Monografienreihen Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments sowie Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, hat die neue international und überkonfessionell angelegte Reihe zum Ziel, die vielfältige Umwelt des Neuen Testaments mit wissenschaftlicher Prägnanz und interdisziplinärer Methodik aufzuarbeiten und für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments und des antiken Judentums auszuwerten. Es erscheinen monografische Einzelstudien sowie Symposiumsu.a. Sammelbände zu ausgewählten Themen. Bd. 51: Ursula Hackl / Hanna Jenni / Christoph Schneider

Quellen zur Geschichte der Nabatäer Textsammlung mit Übersetzung und Kommentar 2003. XVI, 732 Seiten mit 14 ganzseitigen Karten und 2 Bildtafeln, gebunden ISBN 3-525-53952-5

Das Buch enthält die in Griechisch, Lateinisch und Nabatäisch sowie in anderen semitischen Sprachen verfassten Schriftquellen mit Kommentaren sowie Bibliografie. Register und Karten dienen als ein umfassendes Nachschlagewerk und Arbeitsinstrument.

Bd. 52: Annette Merz

Die fiktive Selbstauslegung des Paulus Pseudepigraphie in den Pastoralbriefen und ihrer frühesten Rezeption 2003. XII, 465 Seiten, gebunden ISBN 3-525-53953-3

Die Verfasser der Pastoralbriefe möchten den Anschein erwecken, als ob diese von Paulus selbst stammten. In dieser Untersuchung wird erstmals die Methode literaturwissenschaftlicher IntertextualitätsForschung auf die paulinische Pseudepigraphie angewendet. Es handelt sich um fiktive Selbstauslegung durch fingierte Selbstreferenzen. Dies ermöglicht eine konkrete historische Verortung der Pastoralbriefe im Streit konkurrierender PaulusSchulen um dessen Erbe. Bereits Ignatius von Antiochien und Polykarp von Smyrna verdanken ihr Bild von Paulus eindeutig auch den Pastoralbriefen.

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Herausgegeben von Dietrich-Alex Koch und Matthias Köckert. Eine Auswahl.

205: Wolfgang Schrage

Kreuzestheologie und Ethik im Neuen Testament

201: Matthias Köckert / Martti Nissinen (Hg.)

Propheten in Mari, Assyrien und Israel

Gesammelte Studien. 2004. 304 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53889-8

2003. X, 175 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53885-5

204: Anselm C. Hagedorn

Der Sohn Gottes und seine Gemeinde

Between Moses and Plato

Studien zur Theologie der Johanneischen Schriften. 2003. 208 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53884-7

Individual and Society in Deuteronomy and Ancient Greek Law. 2003. X, 351 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53888-X

203: Esther Straub

Kritische Theologie ohne ein Wort vom Kreuz Zum Verhältnis von Joh 1-12 und 13-20. 2003. 249 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53887-1

Welchen Stellenwert hat die Kreuzestheologie im Johannesevangelium, dessen Passionsbericht die Kreuzigung so ausführlich beschreibt? Diese Untersuchung zeigt auf, dass für das Johannesevangelium nicht die Kreuzigungserzählung, sondern die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu in Reden und Zeichen den thematischen Mittelpunkt bildet: Im Ruf des Irdischen, der sich mitten unter den in Finsternis und Tod Gefangenen als das Licht der Welt, die Auferstehung und das Leben offenbart, entdeckt das vierte Evangelium den kritischen hermeneutischen Schlüssel, der die Wahrheit über Gott und die Welt erschließt. 202: Gerd Theißen

Jesus als historische Gestalt Beiträge zur Jesusforschung. Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gerd Theißen herausgegeben von Annette Merz. 2003. VIII, 373 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53886-3

200: Ulrich Wilckens

199: Florian Voss

Das Wort vom Kreuz und die menschliche Vernunft Eine Untersuchung zur Soteriologie des 1. Korintherbriefes. 2002. 320 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-53883-9

Wie bestimmt Paulus im 1. Korintherbrief des Verhältnis der menschlichen Vernunft zu dem allein auf das Wort vom Kreuz gegründeten Glauben? Eine Untersuchung von 8,1-6 und Kap. 13 zeigt, dass der verstehende Mensch das Problem ist: Er sucht sich auch als Verstehender selbst und ist daher zu einem wirklichen Verstehen gar nicht in der Lage. Dazu bedarf er der Befreiung eben durch das Wort vom Kreuz. So zeigt diese hermeneutisch orientierte Untersuchung, dass die Vernunft, sofern sie mit soteriologischem Anspruch auftritt, von Paulus einer radikalen Kritik unterzogen wird, dass sie aber gerade dadurch zu einem wirklich "vernünftigen" Gebrauch befreit wird.