Troubling Texts in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of Rob Van Houwelingen (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 113) 9789042948488, 9789042948495, 9042948485

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

113

Myriam Klinker-De Klerck, Arco den Heijer, Jermo van Nes (eds.)

Troubling Texts in the New Testament

PEETERS

TROUBLING TEXTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. Van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Myriam KLINKER-DE KLERCK, Arco DEN HEIJER, Jermo VAN NES (eds.)

TROUBLING TEXTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Essays in Honour of Rob van Houwelingen

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2022

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2022 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-4848-8 eISBN 978-90-429-4849-5 D/2022/0602/42 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Myriam KLINKER-DE KLERCK, Arco DEN HEIJER, Jermo VAN NES Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

Myriam KLINKER-DE KLERCK, Arco DEN HEIJER, Jermo VAN NES Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

GOSPELS AND ACTS Henk BAKKER Thunderbolt From the Open Sky: Jesus’ Claim on Revelation . .

3

Francois VILJOEN A Troubling Instruction from Jesus in Matthew 23:3?. . . . . . .

23

Bart J. KOET An Uncomfortable Story from the New Testament: About Making Friends with the Mammon (Luke 16:1–13) . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

Roelof ALKEMA Thinking Twice: Reconsidering the Johannine Presentation of the Temple Incident (John 2:13–15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Jermo VAN NES Hapax Legomena in the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): A Linear Regression Analysis of Johannine Vocabulary . . . . . . .

83

Jacobus KOK Was John’s Jesus anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic? Fresh Perspectives on John 8:44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Erik A. DE BOER The Outpouring of the Spirit “On All People”: Acts 2:17–18 as Key to Explicating Inclusive Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Arco DEN HEIJER An Unbearable Yoke? The View of the Law in the Last Words of Peter in Acts (Acts 15:7–11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Stanley E. PORTER Acts 23:27 and Acts 16:6: Two Problem Passages that Require Better Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 EPISTLES Myriam KLINKER-DE KLERCK How to Inherit the Kingdom of God? First Corinthians 6:1–11 and Kenotic Suffering Through the Lens of Honour Discourse . . . . 181 Riemer ROUKEMA Unavoidable haireseis in the Church: 1 Corinthians 11:19 in Patristic Reception between 350 and 450 AD . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Mark GRUNDEKEN God’s Election of the ἐκκλησία in Ephesians 1:4 . . . . . . . . . 217 Peter-Ben SMIT Gender Trouble in 1 Timothy 2:8–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Armin D. BAUM Saving Wealthy Ephesian Women from a Self-centered Way of Life (1 Tim 2:15): Salvation by Childbearing in the Context of Ancient Arguments against Sexual Intercourse, Pregnancy, and Child-rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Michael MULDER Paul’s Plea to Philemon: The Societal and Rhetorical Context of an Unstated Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 William DEN HOLLANDER “About to Disappear”: Hebrews 8:13 and the Destruction of the Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 Albert J. COETSEE “Through the Eternal Spirit” (Heb 9:14): The Arguments for and Implications of Interpreting the Phrase as a Reference to the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Riemer A. FABER Imagery, Intratextuality and Sexual Impurity in Jude 22–23 . . . . 345

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

REVELATION Jan Willem VAN HENTEN Coping with Revelation 2:20–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 Pieter J. LALLEMAN Who can this be? Reconsidering the Rider on the White Horse (Revelation 6:2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 Pieter G.R. DE VILLIERS Death as the Ultimate Enemy of God and Creation: The Key to the Interpretation of the Four Horsemen in Revelation 6:1–8 . . . . . 409 Arie W. ZWIEP Identity Matters in the Book of Revelation: The Rhetorical Device of σύγκρισις as a Key to its Structure and Message . . . . . . . . 427 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Tabula gratulatoria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 Personalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479

PREFACE This book is presented to our Doktorvater, Rob van Houwelingen, on the occasion of his retirement. It is a token of appreciation for his skilful and personally committed supervision, for which he is known among his students. The various contributions to this Festschrift come from the full breadth of the Greek New Testament. We consider it to be a fine tribute to Rob, who has taught and published widely in the field of New Testament Studies. In 2003, Rob became Professor of New Testament at the Theological University in Kampen. In line with that of his predecessor, Jakob van Bruggen, Rob’s scholarship was characterized by a focus on the historical aspects of New Testament research. From this perspective, it was no coincidence that he chose the authenticity of Second Peter as the subject of his dissertation, a subject that has always remained dear to him. Among his other areas of interest are the Catholic Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation, the development of Christianity from the perspective of Jerusalem, and the Gospel of John. On the synoptic question, he is a notorious supporter of the tradition hypothesis. Rob’s broad interest in different documents of the New Testament also led to no less than six volumes for the commentary series Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, edited by Jakob van Bruggen. He has also published in the field of hermeneutics, and, together with Armin Baum, he edited a thematic Theology of the New Testament. Rob was also committed to popular publications and did not shy away from themes that may be uncomfortable in church circles or in western society. His recent book on angels attracted a broad audience. The title of the present volume refers to a topic on which, together with Reinier Sonneveld, Rob published a popular series between 2011 and 2013, under the title “Ongemakkelijke teksten,” published by Buijten & Schipperheijn in Amsterdam. In three volumes, all kinds of inconvenient texts from the Gospels, the Corpus Paulinum and the Catholic Letters and Revelation were studied. Rob worked on the project with great enthusiasm as this topic is close to his heart. It combined two of Rob’s strong drives in his own research. First, he loves to puzzle over the details of a text with meticulous attention. Second, as an academic at heart, he

X

PREFACE

remains the pastor who wants to bring God’s Word close to people. So, it seemed appropriate for us to honour our Doktorvater with an academic tribute from his colleagues that would be in line with that project of his: Troubling Texts in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of Rob van Houwelingen. For the publication of this Festschrift, we owe thanks to a number of people and organizations. First of all, we thank all the authors of this volume for their worthy and stimulating contributions. Second, we thank Peeters Publishers for printing the volume, in particular Kristin De Troyer and Geert Van Oyen as the editors who accepted it for the Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology series and Elisabeth Hernitscheck for her careful work on the manuscript. Third, we thank Kay Caldwell and Ludger Houtman for editing the English text and preparing the indices respectively. Finally, we thank Stichting Afbouw for their financial support for this project. We are sure that many of the contributions will stimulate Rob to discuss alternative hypotheses. Fortunately so, since, as the French writer (and also theologian!) Nicolas Boileau once put it: “Du choc des idées jaillit la lumière” (“From the clash of ideas comes light”). And that, too, is what fully characterizes Rob: the collegial and persistent discussion of issues that go to the heart of the matter. From this point of view, it is certainly no coincidence that so many colleagues were willing to contribute to this Festschrift. We are sure Rob will enjoy reading through the chapters, because enjoyment is well spent with him. Together with Truus, Rob enjoys travelling, he enjoys art, the music of Bach, a beautiful organ concert, time with his children and grandchildren, with friends, and yes, he also enjoys reading books. Now that the pressure of academic life has disappeared, there is time for relaxation. Rob, we wish you and your loved ones God’s blessing and lots of occasions for enjoyment. Kampen, June 24, 2022 Myriam Klinker-De Klerck, Arco den Heijer, Jermo van Nes

INTRODUCTION Myriam KLINKER-DE KLERCK, Arco DEN HEIJER, and Jermo VAN NES

The Bible is a book that touches many hearts, can be incomprehensible at times, and can provoke resistance. However, it is meant to address hearers and readers in very different contexts, while at the same time these contexts themselves often form a barrier to immediately understanding or accepting what is written. This Festschrift contains a collection of twenty-two essays on “troubling texts” in the New Testament. The phrase “troubling texts” echoes the well-known series of “Hard Sayings” dating from the 1980s and 1990s, of which F.F. Bruce wrote the first volume: The Hard Sayings of Jesus. The term “hard saying” referred to John 6:60, where many disciples take offence at Jesus’ words about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. “When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This is a hard saying (σκληρός ἐστιν ὁ λόγος οὗτος); who can listen to it?’” (KJV). In his book, Bruce discussed 70 hard sayings of Jesus for a wider audience of interested readers. Other authors of the series were Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (Old Testament), Manfred T. Brauch (Paul), and Peter H. Davids (gospels, Acts, non-Pauline letters, and Revelation). Some ten years ago, Rob van Houwelingen and Reinier Sonneveld initiated a similar series for the broader public in the Low Countries. Three volumes appeared with Buijten & Schipperheijn in rapid succession, Ongemakkelijke teksten van Jezus (2011), van Paulus (2012), van de apostelen (2013), followed by a fourth volume on the Old Testament, edited by Hetty Lalleman (2014). The idea behind it was to illuminate each text by paying close attention to factors such as sociohistorical setting, linguistic features, reception history, and also to incorporate major innovations in New Testament scholarship since the publication of the Hard Sayings series, in a format that would appeal to a broad audience. The texts discussed in the present volume are troubling for several reasons, ranging from linguistic problems to a clash of worldviews.

XII

INTRODUCTION

Bruce distinguished two categories of “hard sayings” in Jesus’ teachings.1 Some of Jesus’ sayings are “hard” in the sense of “difficult to understand” because of linguistic or socio-cultural barriers, for example. Other statements, however, are crystal clear, yet “hard” because of their shocking character. They create alienation, incomprehension, or even irritation because they are at odds with existing traditions and beliefs. Extrapolating this to the entire New Testament in view of this volume, there can be various reasons behind the designation of a New Testament text as “hard” or “troubling.” Some of the texts even fall under different categories at the same time. Troubling Because Difficult to Understand Some chapters in this book highlight a text that is “troubling” for the first reason marked by Bruce: “difficult to understand.” One cause of this difficulty is our incomplete knowledge of specific linguistic features of first century Koinē Greek. Stanley Porter, for example, examines two passages (Acts 23:27 and 16:6) where the difficulty lies in the common interpretation of the use of the aorist participle, which brings the resulting interpretation into apparent conflict with the context. Jermo van Nes analyzes the hapax legomena in John 7:53–8:11, also known as the Pericope adulterae. To many scholars they suggest the inauthenticity of this pericope. Erik de Boer investigates Acts 2:17–18 as key to explicating inclusive language, a troubling aspect of biblical Greek. Another factor causing interpretive problems is our limited knowledge of the exact reference of certain imagery. Riemer Faber focuses on the expression “the garment spotted by the flesh” in Jude 22–23. Also, the book of Revelation naturally contains a great deal of imagery. Pieter Lalleman and Pieter de Villiers both investigate the imagery of the horsemen in Revelation 6:1–8, while Arie Zwiep studies 7:1–17, in particular the precise reference of the mysterious “144,000 sealed of Israel” and its connection with the “great multitude that no one could count.” Aspects of the socio-cultural reality of the first century AD are yet another reason that texts are sometimes difficult to understand. Scholars wonder what exactly Paul is pleading for in his letter to Philemon. Michael Mulder refers to patterns in an honour-shame culture that explain why 1

F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus. The Jesus Library (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983) 16-17.

INTRODUCTION

XIII

Paul does not articulate a clear request. Riemer Roukema investigates 1 Corinthians 11:19, where Paul says that there have to be dissensions (“heresies”) among the Corinthian Christians so that the genuine may stand out. Roukema explores how these dissensions were interpreted between 350 and 450 AD in relation to the belief in the unity of the Church. Troubling Because Shocking in Character Some chapters of this volume address texts that are “shocking in character,” Bruce’s second category to classify hard sayings. Some texts are “troubling” because they are at odds with ingrained beliefs in western society. After the Holocaust, New Testament studies have shown an increasing sensitivity to negative power dynamics towards Jewish identity and the way New Testament texts may be entangled in these dynamics. Kobus Kok provides some fresh perspectives on John 8:44, a text that has actually been misused for anti-Semitic purposes. William den Hollander investigates the specific reference of the expression “about to disappear” in Hebrews 8:13, a text which, according to some, suggests an anti-Semitic or Judeophobic character in Hebrews. In the same way, Armin Baum and Peter-Ben Smit study 1 Timothy 2:8–15, which is much debated because of its misogynistic potential. Investigating the dynamic of the stress on female virtue, Smit indicates an inner tension in the pericope itself. Baum focuses on the notions of childbearing and salvation in the literary and historical context of the letter. Linked to these troubling aspects of certain New Testament texts, there is the overarching question of how to cope with violence in the Bible. Jan Willem van Henten explores Revelation 2:20–23, focusing on the stereotypical and misogynistic characterization of the prophetess Jezebel and on the violent punishment announced by Jesus. He establishes a plausible historical context and proposes three reading strategies which may help to cope with the violence in this text. Some texts can be experienced as troubling because they are at odds with existing traditions, sometimes theological traditions. Myriam Klinker-De Klerck explores 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, a text that some consider to be at odds with the traditional protestant adagium of sola gratia. Albert Coetsee investigates the enigmatic description of Christ offering himself “through the eternal Spirit” in Hebrews 9:14, providing an overview of the arguments for the Holy Spirit as its reference and indicating its theological implications. Mark Grundeken examines the meaning of

XIV

INTRODUCTION

Ephesians 1:4 and argues that an interpretation in the sense of double predestination, which has been a divisive issue in church history, cannot be substantiated. Troubling Because of Inconsistency Problems In addition to the categories described by Bruce, we distinguish a third category of troubling texts: texts that cause inconsistency problems. The frequent occurrence of this type of problem in this volume is partly due to the fact that the texts studied are not limited to Jesus’ sayings. They are, for example, firmly embedded in the vocabulary and theological thinking of the different authors. A text may raise an inconsistency problem when placed against the background of how the author normally views the topic, or against the presentation of the same data by most other authors. Arco den Heijer investigates Acts 15:7–11, more especially Peter’s statement about the law of Moses, as a yoke that is too heavy to bear. This seems inconsistent with a more positive view of the law that is found both in the Old Testament and early Jewish literature, and elsewhere in the book of Acts itself. Likewise, Francois Viljoen studies Matthew 23:3, where Jesus instructs the crowds to obey and do everything the teachers of the law and the Pharisees tell them, as the only case in Matthew where these leaders are seemingly portrayed in a positive light. Henk Bakker investigates Jesus’ exuberant prayer to the Father in Matthew 11:25–27 and its parallel in Luke 10:21–22, which seem to have a very Johannine character. Bart Koet examines the parable of the Unjust/Shrewd Steward in Luke 16:1-13. The saying about making friends with the Mammon is especially troubling and seems inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching in general. Roelof Alkema concentrates on the placement of the Temple Incident in John 2:13–15, an odd feature of John’s vis-à-vis the Synoptic storyline. Contemporary Significance All chapters in this book have a similar outline. Each author has selected one troubling text from a New Testament document that is close to their own area of scholarly expertise. They explain why they regard the chosen text as troubling, deal with possible textual problems, and highlight relevant historical and theological contexts. Each essay concludes with a fresh interpretation of the text and a reflection on its contemporary significance. That this interpretation is not the final word on the matter

INTRODUCTION

XV

is clear from the two contributions on Revelation 6:1–8 where De Villiers and Lalleman arrive at very different conclusions with regard to the identity of the rider on the white horse in 6:2. We consider this a reminder of the genuine troubling character of these texts and, at the same time, of the provisional nature of human knowledge. Reflecting on the contemporary significance of New Testament texts is a process dear to Rob. For him it yields the ultimate significance of being an academic. Sometimes this “exercise” has something uncomfortable in itself because until recently it was not common to make this explicit in academic contributions. Times are changing, however, since valorization of scientific knowledge is being put ever higher on the agenda. In a secularized context, this turns out to be a real challenge for Christian theologians. At the same time, coping with this challenge offers great opportunities to show that biblical research matters. It is the wish of the editors that in this respect also, this collection of essays may be a fine tribute to Rob.

GOSPELS AND ACTS

THUNDERBOLT FROM THE OPEN SKY: JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION Henk BAKKER

Abstract In this chapter, I venture to analyze and understand Jesus’ thanksgiving to the Father in Matthew 11:25–27 and Luke 10:21–22 within the boundaries of their differing narrative scopes, particularly that of Luke. Matthew builds his story into a dramatic scene, especially with regard to the Galilean cities and makes Jesus’ prayer more or less seal the Galilean tour with an anathema regarding Capernaum. Luke, however, designs his storyline so that Jesus’ prayer marks the success of the disciple’s missionary tour from Galilea to Jerusalem and beyond. Jesus signals the beginning of the royal pilgrimage with his outburst of gratitude and joy and shows himself to be the only one who really knows the secrets of the Father, and who is able to inform his chosen ones. Introduction Both Q-informed gospels, Matthew and Luke, make mention of Jesus’ exuberant prayer to the Father, in which he rejoices in the Spirit and praises the Father for the mystery of wisdom and revelation.1 Matthew 11:25–27 and Luke 10:21–22 form a rather enigmatic Q-logion; however, the puzzling element is neither in the search for its Jewish background, nor in its proper translation, or even in the interrelatedness of Matthew and Luke, but in its very content and meaning within the given structure itself. Since the passage “has nothing comparable to it elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels,” the extraordinary claim Jesus makes seems out of order, and if the subject matter could after all be traced,

1

Frans Neirynck, Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek, SNTA 13 (Leuven: Peeters, 1988), 28–29. For a different approach to the synoptic problem see P.H.R. van Houwelingen, “Vierstemmig evangelie. De traditiehypothese als oplossingsrichting in de synoptische kwestie,” Theologia Reformata 55 (2012): 30–51.

4

HENK BAKKER

according to a variety of specialists it should be deemed rather a “meteorite from the Johannine heaven,”2 yes, a “thunderbolt fallen from the Johannine sky,”3 and if not, the saying must be composed by the hand of an unknown early Christian mystic whose conception of God was close to incipient Gnosticism. Nevertheless, in this contribution I explore the possibility of understanding the saying within the narrative structure as it stands, and within the limitations of a range of well-considered Q-premises.4 On account of a series of observations on structural and textual divergences between the three synoptic gospels, in particular between Luke and Matthew, I make a critical distinction between Luke’s missionary frame and Matthew’s missionary frame. From there, I investigate some of the details of Jesus’ missionary instruction, and additionally the parable of the children’s game, Jesus’ reproach of the Galilean cities, his words of praise to the Father, and finally how these words point in the direction of the Jewish wisdom tradition. Finally, I wrap up the findings of my analyses and come up with a tentative conclusion. Divergent Missionary Frames In Matthew’s gospel Jesus’ praise of the Father marks the epilogue of his missionary address to the Twelve and their first visitation to the towns of Israel, specifically the towns of Galilee. “At that time” (Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ), he assesses the mission briefly by saying: I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son [οὐδεὶς ἐπιγινώσκει τὸν υἱόν] except the Father, and no one knows the Father [οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα τις ἐπιγινώσκει] except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matt 11:25–27 NIV)

2

3

4

Francis W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew. Translation, Introduction and Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1981), 265–66. The wording is from K.A. von Hase’s Geschichte Jesu (1891). Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, vol. 1, 7th ed. (London: SCM Press, 1984), 56–61 at 56. Cf. Mathew E. Sousa, “The ‘Johannine Thunderbolt’ in Luke 10:22: Toward an Appreciation of Luke’s Narrative Sequence,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7 (2013): 97–113.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

5

To be sure, in Luke’s gospel, Jesus’ prayer is situated more as an overture to the mission than as a conclusion. The evangelist clearly distinguishes between the mission of the “twelve” and the mission of the “seventytwo” (Luke 9:1; 10:1, 175), a distinction which Matthew and Mark do not make. According to Luke, after the return of the seventy-two and their joyful reporting of their mission to Jesus, the latter dismisses their rather superficial enthusiasm by pointing to a deeper joy, a spiritual disclosure that marks the beginning of their long walk to Jerusalem, starting in 9:51 and continuing up to 19:28. Indeed, from 9:51 on Luke diverges from Mark’s order of events (or some proto-gospel’s) and starts the epic journey with a sort of “inclusio.” Moreover, the opening scene of the journey is marked by the burdened relationship between Jews and Samaritans, and refers twice to the uneasiness: with an incident (9:52–54) and a parable (10:33–35).6 So, for Luke, Jesus’ praise of the Father is at the fulcrum of the controversiality of a rather painful inconvenience. Moreover, “At that time” (Ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ) Jesus spoke: full of joy through the Holy Spirit (ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύματι) the words: ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do. All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is [οὐδεὶς γινώσκει τίς ἐστιν ὁ υἱός] except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is [καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ] except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Luke 10:21–22).

Within the fabric of its attuned structure, the praise of the Father in both gospels tells different stories. It cannot go unnoticed that Matthew, within the frame of his composition, describes the return of the disciples as a dramatic ending to the story of Jesus’ mission to the Galilean cities. Nevertheless, for Luke the return was more of a climactic start then a reflective ending.7 In order to sort out how Matthew builds his case, 5

6

7

I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 400–16. The variant reading 72 (p75 B D 0181 lat sys sa bopt) instead of 70 (p45 ‫ א‬A W Θ λ φ pl) seems the best reading, see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London: United Bible Society, Corrected Edition 1975), 150–51 [in particular p. 151, Kurt Aland’s long remark between brackets]. Cf. Morton Scott Enslin, “The Samaritan Ministry and Mission,” HUCA 51 (1980): 29–38, and Jakob van Bruggen, Lukas. Het evangelie als voorgeschiedenis, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament 3 (Utrecht: Kok, 2013) 206 (‘De grote reis begint zo met de toenemende spanning tussen Samaritanen en Jezus’). See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (10–24): Introduction, Translation, and Notes (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 865–66: “Jesus’ praise of the Father is

6

HENK BAKKER

and likewise how Luke does it, I will elaborate in detail on some further observations. The conundrum of Jesus’ praise of the Father may at least be met with a close reading of (1) Jesus’ missionary instructions in Matthew and in Luke, (2) the parable of the children’s game, and (3) Jesus’ reprimand of the Galilean cities. Missionary Instructions Looking closely at the missionary instructions Jesus gives, Luke’s instruction catches attention, because of the details he provides. The lack in uniformity between Luke 10:4–10 and Matthew 10:9–15 is quite evident, and we must assume that a variety of Q-versions of the discourse was already in existence in Jesus’ day. In Luke 10:1 Jesus sends seventytwo disciples “two by two” ahead of him, to every town and place where he was about to go (ἀπέστειλεν αὐτοὺς ἀνὰ δύο δύο πρὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ). In Mark 6:7 the pairs are established from the Twelve, making six pairs, not thirty-six. Mark does not mention the seventy-two, and neither does Matthew.8 Moreover, Matthew does not make mention of any pair at all. He merely refers to the Twelve as a group, as if the group, as a group, would be travelling around visiting the towns of Israel. Undoubtedly, Matthew makes Jesus’ instructions focus on the Twelve as a unity. Hence, they should not contact gentiles or enter any Samaritan town but restrict themselves to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 10:5, S [“Sondergut”]). For that reason, it seems obvious to take the Twelve as a representation of the unified, restored, and for that matter new Israel in God’s dawning Kingdom. Indeed, the Twelve symbolize the nucleus, the holy “remnant” of the Jewish people (‫)שׁ ֵא ִרית‬, ְ scattered through the Mediterranean countries and beyond.

8

a sequel in Matthew to the woes of the Galilean cities (…) Luke … picks up the sequel and applies it to Jesus’ comments on the mission-success of the seventy (two),” and Darrell L. Bock, Luke, vol. 2: 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 986: “Now he will send out the Disciples, not with a mood of gloom, but of excitement, authority, revelation, and opportunity,” and 989: “to contrast the success of the mission with the previous somber accounts of failure.” Cf. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC 33A (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 313, 315 on the “failure” of Jesus’ mission to Israel, and 316: “Thus in Luke the passage focuses on belief and success, whereas in Matthew it focuses on unbelief and failure.” The Twelve is to be distinguished from the seventy-two (as a “literary doublet”), compare Luke 22:35 to 10:4 and 9:3 (instructions differ slightly), also Fitzmyer, Luke, 843. Also, Bock, Luke, 987. Cf. Van Bruggen, Lukas, 211–12.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

7

As indicated above, Luke’s perspective on the role and mission of the thirty-six pairs is introduced with a sort of “inclusio” (Samaritan incident 9:52–54, and a parable of the good Samaritan 10:33–35), a literary device which operates in Luke’s narrative as a gamechanger. While in Matthew’s account Jesus orders his disciples not to enter any gentile or Samaritan town, in Luke’s account any Samaritan village (κώμη Σαμαριτῶν) could become a launch platform for Jesus’ end-time pilgrimage. Jesus’ instructions as to how these clusters of itinerary delegates should approach Galilean settlements must be taken as indicators of the rationale for these sayings being remembered and treasured after all.9 If there actually existed an oral source of logia of Jesus (Q), it would have been preserved primarily for halachic causes. To be sure, the halachic intent of Deuteronomy 19:15,10 which is clearly present in the synoptic gospels, has become almost a preoccupation within the Lukan version. In Luke’s gospel the duos testify and certify quite thoroughly as to which houses deserve the denominator “promotors of peace,” and which do not (Luke 10:6). The declaration of testimony has been prioritized by Luke, so the disciples are not allowed to greet anyone on their way. They are under time pressure, because the Kingdom of God has come near (twice: Ἤγγικεν … ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ … ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, Luke 10:9, 11). Luke’s second preoccupation is with the housing and lodging of the witnesses in the cities they visit. Workers deserve their wages (Luke 10:7). On account of this rule, they are allowed to enter a house, to remain there, and to eat and drink whatever might be offered to them. Luke underscores the mandate by referring to it twice. Jesus explicitly states: “When you enter a house (…) stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you (…) When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is offered to you” (Luke 10:5, 7, 8). Since the implied logic of the occurrences seems to be twisted – first entering a house and then entering a town seems rather awkward – Luke’s orientation is obviously directed to the prerequisite of having a stable base. This logistical 9

10

At any rate, Jesus’ mission follows the pattern of an ancient Galilean prophetic tradition starting with the Galilean pair Elijah and Elisha. Their prophetic school (see also in the final paragraph) executed short term missions and lived soberly, see Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 315–19. Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke, 847, assuming that Jesus’ words “do not greet anyone on the road” in Luke 10:4 should remind of the story of Elisha and Gehazi. “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15). So Fitzmyer, Luke, 846 (“because of the testimony of two witnesses in judicial cases”).

8

HENK BAKKER

concern is underscored by the chiastic position of the verses appertaining to housing and lodging. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρ’ αὐτῶν ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν

A B B’ A’

By itself, the positive verb “stay” (A) neatly balances the negative “do not move around” (A’). However, the positive and the negative here raise the question of their most natural sequence. It seems that Luke deliberately ends the paragraph with the negative. Starting with the negative automatically calls for the positive, whilst the other way around does not. If “stay” is supplemented by the negative “do not move around,” these final words are surely reflective of heightened concern. So, why did Luke wish to accentuate this negative halachic wording? Evidently the disciples were very much inclined to move around, since they were Jews, and were taught not to be contaminated by anything unclean or with anything under suspicion of becoming a cause of uncleanness. Entering a house, and eating and drinking without reservation, would automatically fit into the first category or into the second. Nevertheless, Jesus requires of his disciples to genuinely accept the generosity of every home ready to receive his delegates. Despite the fact that Jewish communities were in constant debate regarding intricacies relating to assimilation issues, Jesus sends his messengers to every Jewish-Hellenistic town with the admonition to “eat and drink whatever they give you,” indeed, to “eat what is offered to you” (Luke 10:7–8).11 The controversial nature of these instructions becomes all the plainer if aligned with Herod’s Hellenizing enterprises forced upon the Galilean population. With his residence built in the city of Sepphoris in the geographical heart of Galilee, the king’s conduct was all the more resisted by conservative Galilean Jews, in particular by those who were party to resistance. Besides this, Luke concentrates on “what if”-matters, for example: What should the response be if the township does not welcome Jesus’ emissaries? Here, too, the Lukan attitude is more of the halachic kind. The witnesses, two by two, should distance themselves from the houses, pull back into the streets, and openly declare out loud: “Even the dust of 11

Cf. John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC 35B; (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), suggesting that staying in the house prevented “seeking to improve” one’s lot, and henceforth instigate rivalry, pp. 553-54, 558–60. Cf. Van Bruggen, Lukas, 214.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

9

your town we wipe from our feet as a warning to you.” Thus, the public warning should be performed prophetically, as an “acted parable,”12 because the Kingdom of God is at hand, and so is judgement day. Judgement acted out prophetically by visitation is a biblical motif already addressed in Genesis 18, with three heavenly beings who are about to affirm the wickedness of Sodom, and continues to be applied in other judicial situations throughout Scripture.13 God in Person visits places and situations of condemnation to ascertain for Himself whether intended judgement is fair. Moreover, the diagnosis may be done by delegates too, such as angels or even human beings sent in His name. Therefore, every disciple is considered an authorized representative (‫)שׁ ִל ַיח‬ ָ of Jesus, who, quite proleptically, embodies God’s final coming to His people.14 It should be taken into account that the witness of Luke’s thirty-six pairs (and Mark’s six), which serves to confirm Jesus’ witness, has ultimate consequences. In his second book, Luke vividly demonstrates its repetitive and decisive character, by pointing out that the “acted parable” crosses the borders of Israel and seemingly accompanies the mission into the gentile world.15 In Pisidian Antioch, Paul’s gospel was initially received very well, but when the preachers were ejected by the elites of the city, he and Barnabas expressly acted out the halachic parable, for they “shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium.”16 In the Achaean city Corinth, just a couple of years later, Paul repeated the prophetic gesture. Luke says: “But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, ‘Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles’.”17 Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ code of conduct within the gentile environment is clearly advanced and extended here. The Parable of the Children’s Game In Luke’s narrative flow of thought, the parable of the children’s game (a Q-parable) is introduced as an interpretive story prompted by reactions 12 13

14

15

16 17

Marshall, Commentary, 423. Cf. Henk Bakker, Jezus. Reconstructie en revisie (Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum, 2020), 185–87. Cf. m. Ber. 5,5. Nedarim 72B; Kiddushim 41b. Cf. Israel Herbert Levinthal, “The Jewish Law of Agency,” JQR, New Series 13 (1922): 117–91, at 153, 157, 158, 191. Cf. Harvie M. Conn, “Lucan Perspectives and the City,” Missiology 13 (1985): 409–28. Acts 13:51. Acts 18:6.

10

HENK BAKKER

of opponents of John the Baptist. The parable is destined to illustrate and clarify the negative responses to the Baptist and to Jesus. On that account, Luke inserts the parable rather early in his gospel (Luke 7:18–35). Matthew’s design subtly focuses attention on the Galilean cities (Matt 11:20–24). The short digression on the Baptist preceding the parable prepares for the negative responses in Galilee. Jesus positively identifies John the Baptist as the Elias redivivus, as “the Elijah who was to come” (verse 14). However, the ominous words “and if you are willing to accept it” (καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι) and “whoever has ears, let them hear” (verses 14, 15) anticipate the verdict that is enveloped in the parable. Apparently, the Galilean cities were not ready to accept the new Elijah (the very prophet who had lived there), and ever since, the Kingdom of God “has been subjected to violence,” because “violent people have been raiding it” (verse 12, S). Without a doubt these violent people held sway during John’s and Jesus’ public ministries in Galilee and close to the Jordan River. The assumption that Matthew’s focus is on the reproach of the Galilean cities is corroborated by observations in Luke’s and Matthew’s version of the parable (Matt 11:16–19; Luke 7:31–35). Divergencies between the two texts show minor, yet not to be overlooked, differences of orientation: ἐν ἀγορᾷ … ἀλλήλοις (Luke), ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς … τοῖς ἑτέροις (Matthew); οὐκ ἐκλαύσατε (Luke), οὐκ ἐκόψασθε (Matthew); ἐλήλυθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς μὴ ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον, καὶ λέγετε (Luke), ἦλθεν γὰρ Ἰωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, καὶ λέγουσιν (Matthew); ἐλήλυθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου … καὶ λέγετε (Luke), ἦλθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου … καὶ λέγουσιν (Matthew); καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς (Luke), καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς (Matthew).18 Apparently, Luke envisages children playing the flute at a single market-place, calling other children to participate and to play out weddings and funerals, whereas Matthew may be thinking of several market-places, with different groups of children playing different games. On top of that, Matthew displays the Jewish custom of the beating of the breast, then refers to John without mentioning the bread and the wine, omitting John’s title “Baptist,” which defines him as the aforementioned Elijah. After all, Elijah was not a baptizer. Furthermore, Matthew uses generalizations like 18

See Olof Linton, “The Parable of the Children’s Game. Baptist and Son of Man (Matt. 11:16–19 = Luke 7:31–35): A Synoptic Text-Critical, Structural and Exegetical Investigation,” NTS 22 (1976): 159–79. Cf. Marshall, Commentary, 297–304.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

11

“they say” (λέγουσιν), and “wisdom is justified by her works” (ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς), whereas Luke’s use of “children” as wisdom’s offspring conveys a particularized way of saying (ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς). Children have names, deeds do not. So, in a rather playful way Jesus expresses himself critically with regard to his generation (τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην//τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης). However, it seems senseless to speculate on details as to “who exactly are the flute-playing children?” or “what are the exact differences between the two performances and performers?”, because the overall intent of the story is relatively clear, namely the accusation of spoilsport. John and Jesus are being accused of non-compliance with the tunes played by dominant Galilean people. On that account people address them as “Spielverderber”, as children commonly taunt each other.19 Evidently, John was compelled to dance, and Jesus was compelled to mourn, but neither one complied. Consequently, public reactions were hostile. This hostility was fostered by a culture of excuse-making, which is prominent throughout the gospel, in particular in Matthew’s and Luke’s (Q).20 People think, or pretend, they have more urgent duties to fulfill than giving heed to the invitation of God’s messengers. Therefore, those initially called will enter last or will not enter at all. Now Jesus portrays the evasive attitude of his Galilean contemporaries as childish grumpiness. This is how children behave, they have their tantrums, their moodswings (“kindliche Launenhaftigkeit”21) and play it out on others. However, whereas children cannot help thinking and talking like children, adults can (cf. 1 Cor 13:11). Accordingly, the parable of the children’s game is not about innocence, but about people who do not know what they want, and who let themselves be carried away into a state of numbness and apathy that turns a hostile face to anything arousing them out of their lethargy.22 19

20

21

22

Joachim Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 6th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962), 160–63. Cf. Keener, Matthew, 341: “spoiled children.” Cf. Matthew 8:19–22; Luke 9:57–62, and the parable of the great supper Matthew 22:2–10; Luke 14:16–24. Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, vol. 2: Mt 8–17, EKKNT 1/2 (Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1990), 183–90, at 186. Cf. Hagner, Matthew, p. 311. Those who oppose God will always find reasons to resist, “John is too holy, Jesus is not holy enough,” and Jakob van Bruggen, Matteüs. Het evangelie voor Israël, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament 3 (Utrecht: Kok, 2013), 197–99.

12

HENK BAKKER

Reprimanding the Galilean Cities The rebuke of the Galilean cities, notably by name, is an indication of how great the gaps in our information regarding the career of Jesus actually are. Much can be postulated regarding the provincial tour, but almost nothing is sure.23 Matthew just briefly touches upon the fact that Jesus, after instructing his disciples, went on to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee (11:1). Subsequently he began “to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed” (11:20, S). The Galilean tour, possibly by virtue of omission, was exceptionally powerful according to early followers of Jesus. However, accounts of Jesus and/or his disciples visiting Chorazin and Bethsaida are not existent, although an itinerary of Jesus through the district of Galilee can be presumed.24 As for Capernaum, only three accounts are of note.25 On top of that, the issue of whether Capernaum can be considered as Jesus’ home during his Galilean itineraries, is not settled yet.26 Interestingly though, Luke has the rebuke of the cities attached to the grand mission in 10:12–15, not to the restricted one in 9:1–6. Jesus’ warning that “it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom” than for these cities (10:12) motivates the resolve to move beyond Galilean borders. Matthew has the rebuke fixed to the restricted mission and mentions Sodom twice. Firstly in 10:15, together with the city of Gomorrah (see Gen 19:20), and then, secondly, structured into the rebuke. Whereas Luke does so once, at the beginning of Jesus’ woe to the cities, Matthew does so twice, and finishes the rebuke with it.27 The comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah in Matthew 10:15 (S), in Jesus’ missionary discourse, is critically exemplified in 11:24, within the briefing after the return of the disciples. As a consequence, these paragraphs highlight the rejection Jesus and his comrades experienced in the province of Galilea during their time of mission.

23 24

25

26

27

Beare, Matthew, 263. Cf. A.L. Vail, “The Itinerary of Jesus Soon After His Baptism,” RevExp 14 (1917): 40–62. Eric F.F. Bishop, “Jesus and Capernaum,” CBQ 15 (1953): 427–37. Capernaum is referred to 11 times in the gospels. Peter Richardson, “What Has Cana to Do With Capernaum?” NTS 48 (2002): 314–31, at 331: “Cana will begin to assume substantial importance (1) as a rival setting to Capernaum as a ‘place’ for the historical Jesus.” Luz, Matthäus, 191–96.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

13

At a closer look, Matthew seems to have deliberately worked his way to a structure in which Jesus’ soliloquy on the Galilean cities closes with a prognosis of sheer doom for the city of Capernaum. Luke addresses the Galilean cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum with “you,” and compares them to Sodom, Tyre and Sidon.28 Matthew, after concurring with Luke in the order of places, deals with the city of Capernaum quite differently. Sodom is deliberately mentioned here, in combination with Capernaum, and is estimated as the better of the two. Twice Jesus addresses the city of Capernaum as a corporate identity: “If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day,” and “I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgement than for you.” The personal pronoun at the ending of the paragraph echoes pure threat (σοί). According to Jewish tradition the men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come. They will certainly stand to be judged.29 So, if according to Jesus the Sodomites would have welcomed and obeyed the gospel, should Jesus’ miracles have been wrought in their times, the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, who actually witnessed the signs and yet rejected the gospel, will surely have no place in God’s Kingdom. The comparison with Sodom serves to substantiate the destiny of utter doom. The city’s condition is beyond hope.30 Moreover, the phrase “you will go down to Hades” (verse 23) plainly alludes to the king of Babylon, a type of Lucifer, who was condemned to Hades.31 Again, Matthew seems to structure his storyline in order to clarify, and justify, the debacle of Jesus’ mission to Galilee, whereas in Luke’s scope the rebuke of the cities sounds more like an encouragement to cross borders and to expect new things to happen.

28 29

30

31

Cf. Marshall, Commentary, 426. mSanhedrin 10:3, in Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, vol. 4 (New York: The Judaica Press, 1977), 287. Cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 468: “where does this leave Capernaum?” Cf. Van Bruggen, Matteüs, 201. See Isaiah 14:12 (‫הילל‬, “morning star,” Lat. «Quomodo cecidisti de cælo Lucifer»), 13, 15. Metzger’s remarks on textual modifications of the Greek text in Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15 seem altogether right, however it is hard to see why any copyist would want to change καταβήσῃ, which matches LXX, into καταβιβασθήςῃ. See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 30, 31, 151, 152.

14

HENK BAKKER

Jesus’ Praise of the Father Just as the declaration of doom, together with Jesus’ prayer to the Father, marks a closure in Matthew’s structure (an “Abschluß”32), so does the latter indicate a climactic overture in Luke’s. In this paragraph, and in the final one, I will concentrate on Luke’s text. The pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which accelerated in Luke 9:51, seems to achieve a moment of surprising culmination when Jesus is taken up in a spirit of euphoria.33 The cluster of sayings carves its way into the narrative like a meteorite from another galaxy, or like a “thunderbolt from Johannine sky.” Indeed, there are Johannine hallmarks identifiable in the projectile, for the assertion “all things have been committed to me” by the Father (Luke 10:22, πάντα μοι παρεδόθη) undoubtedly sounds Johannine (cf. John 3:35, πάντα δέδωκεν ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, and 13:3 πάντα ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ πατὴρ εἰς τὰς χεῖρας).34 By making five observations, I aim to situate the cluster of sayings within Luke’s gospel as it stands, without the necessity of borrowing from Johannine background.35 1. The paragraph of Jesus’ praise to the Father consists of two sayings (Luke 10:21 and 22), carefully joined together. From the outset it seems obvious that the first line is a prayer of thanksgiving (‫)תּוֹדה‬, ָ and that the second one is an elucidation (“Kommentarwort”) of the former. The prayer is directed toward God, and the comment to the disciples, as various manuscripts have the clause inserted here (evidently copied from 10:23) that Jesus “turned to the disciples.”36 Both sayings belong together, and accurately reflect Jesus’ personal conviction (the content is “jesuanisch”).37 32

33 34 35

36 37

Luz, Matthäus, 193; verses 23–24 have “grundsätzliche Bedeutung als Abschluß eines ganzen Hauptteils des Evangeliums.” According to François Bovon these verses form the “Kern des Evangeliums,” Das Evangelium nach Lukas, II. Teilband: Lk 9:51– 14:35, EKKNT 3/2 (Zürich: Patmos, 2019), 66. Cf. Van Bruggen, Matteüs, 202, who does not restrict the saying to merely a conclusion. Marshall, Commentary, 430: “culmination.” Compare also John 3:35 and 5:20. Cf. Maurits Sabbe, “Can Mt 11:25–27 and Lc 10:22 be called a Johannine logion?” in Logia: les paroles de Jésus – the sayings of Jesus. Memorial Joseph Coppens, ed. Joël Delobel and Tjitze Baarda, Journées bibliques de Louvain 32 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982): 363–71. Cf. Van Bruggen, Matteüs, 202–210, at 202: “dat Matteüs 11,25–30 een Johanneïsch in-sluipsel in Matteüs zou zijn.” C*AWΘ: Καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπεν. Luz, Matthäus, 198–216, at 99–200. See also Fitzmyer, Luke, 866–74, who values the substance of the saying as authentic, and based on traditional teaching (cf. E. Norden’s comparison to Sirach 51). The logion displays rather fixed wording.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

15

2. Luke interprets Jesus’ joy in an explicatory note at the beginning of the paragraph as Spirit-filled joy (ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ). Possibly the editor was inspired by Jesus’ remark in 10:20 (μὴ χαίρετε … χαίρετε δὲ), but it seems more plausible to take Luke’s comment as an idiosyncrasy designed to reveal Jesus’ special connection to the Spirit. On several occasions he makes mention of Jesus’ Spiritendowed capacities (Luke 4:1, 18–19).38 3. The whole of the paragraph is focused on Jesus’ exceptional faculty to reveal: ἀπέκρυψας … ἀπεκάλυψας … παρεδόθη … γινώσκει … ἀποκαλύψαι. Quite naturally the opening words of the second saying πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου should be understood accordingly, as referring to Jesus’ capacity to reveal the (will of the) Father, not to unlimited authority to complete the course of history.39 If interpreted this way, the saying underlines Jesus’ halachic orientation, and his claim on having unique understanding of the Father regarding the rules of God’s imminent Kingdom.40 As a matter of fact, he demonstrates his monopolistic position on revelation immediately after expressing his praise of the Father. The story line develops from the pronouncement of a blessing, because the disciples saw and heard what prophets and kings had not (10:23–24), to a series of three incidents, starting with an expert in the law who stood up to test Jesus (10:25), followed by the conflict between Mary and Martha. Mary sat at Jesus’ feet listening to what he said and affirms his role as unique teacher of the Jewish law and life (10:39). Finally, at the disciples’ request to learn how to pray (11:1), Jesus teaches them to pray for food, for protection, forgiveness, and for the coming of the Kingdom. In so doing, Jesus is being portrayed by Luke as a revealer of wisdom, as a teacher who teaches directly from the heart of God the Father. In Matthew, too, Jesus proves his revelatory position straight away. In 11:28–12:8 he shows himself to be a teacher who is meek and tender of heart, and who explains and applies the rules of the Sabbath in a new and merciful way (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”). The halachic context is 38

39

40

Cf. Acts 13:52 (οἵ τε μαθηταὶ ἐπληροῦντο χαρᾶς καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου), and 1 Thess 1:6 (δεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον ἐν θλίψει πολλῇ μετὰ χαρᾶς πνεύματος ἁγίου). Cf. 1 Cor 15:24 and Eph 1:23. See Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (ChicagoLondon: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 762–63, contra Friedrich Büchsel, “paradidōmi,” in TDNT, vol. II, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 169–72, at 171. Contra Van Bruggen, Matteüs, 205: “Het kosmologische aspect blijft aanwezig in 11,27.” Cf. Luz, Matthäus, 211.

16

HENK BAKKER

obvious (“come to me, and take a different yoke!”) and verifies the wisdom saying preceding the praise of the Father, namely that “wisdom is proved right by her deeds” (11:19). So, the enigmatic clause πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου may properly be interpreted as Joachim Jeremias did: “my Father has given me a full revelation.”41 Hence, by listening to Jesus’ revelations, halachic and apocalyptic messages, the secrets of the kingdom of God were granted to the disciples, as Luke 8:10 affirms: Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ. 4. Looking at word statistics, the data bruta regarding the saying seem to advocate some amount of interdependence in Q, but not so between a postulated Johannine ‘Vorlage’ and the synoptic authors.42 5. My final observation regarding Jesus’ praise of the Father is its possible connection to Jewish wisdom traditions, in particular to Proverbs 8:30–31: “Then I was constantly [or: was the artisan; or: was a little child/nursling] at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”43 Understood within this particular Jewish context, the prayer and the “Kommentarwort” become less thunderbolt-like than a mere Johannine angle would suggest. They reflect Jesus’ selfunderstanding expressed within the dynamics of situations and occasions presented by the gospel itself.44 At an intertextual level, compared with Proverbs 8–9, significant similarities are apparent, such as multiple associations with wisdom, child/ children, joy/delight (in Luke), and the invitation to come. In spite of the mere allusive character of these comparisons, the emphasis in both narratives is evidently on the ecstatic joy that wisdom, and Jesus, delight in before God.45 In this regard Cohen and Rosenberg intimate that the 41 42

43

44 45

Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 59. Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, 3rd ed. (Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1982): ἐξομολογοῦμαί in Matt 2 ×, Luke 2 ×, not in John; κρύπτειν Matt 7 ×, Luke 3 ×, John 3 ×; σοφός/σοφία Matt 2 ×, Luke 3 ×, not in John Matt; εὐδοκία Matt 1 ×, Luke 2 ×; εὐδοκεῖν Matt 3 ×, Luke 2 ×; ἀποκαλύπτειν Matt 4 ×, Luke 5 ×, John 1 ×; παραδιδόναι Matt 31 ×, Mark 21 ×, Luke 17 ×, John 15 ×; πατήρ Matt 64 ×, Luke 56 ×, Mark 18 ×, John 137 ×. LXX: καθ’ ἡμέραν δὲ εὐφραινόμην ἐν προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ, in Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1935, 1979), ad loc. Marshall, Commentary, 432. Cf. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015 second edition; first publ.1994), 143–78, at 156–58. Schüssler Fiorenza traces the Q-saying back to

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

17

emotion of exultation of Wisdom, as it were, “impelled wisdom to exhibit that delight in movement, jumping about in excited pleasure.”46 During the days of creation, wisdom was in a disposition of utter joy, thereby expressing not only her deep involvement in the formation of the world as such, but also that of God (“das Entzücken Jahwes”) and humanity.47 Jesus’ prayer, too, addresses God both as Father and as Lord of creation. In the final paragraph I will explore, and fathom, more closely the role of wisdom and exultation in Jesus’ prayer. Wisdom and the Ecstatic There is an ecstatic element in wisdom as it emerges in close relation with a father and a son. Luke narrates how Jesus rejoices in God in the way that a son deeply appreciates and cherishes the heart-felt connection with a father. The intimacy of father and son is about the deep resonance of a shared identity and history in which secrets have their own place. The son rejoices, because his father opens himself up to him, and initiates him into the mysteries of life, in particular into the secrets of the Torah. Jesus’ comment “no-one knows the son, but the father,” and vice versa, was a truism, and should be taken generically, meaning any son and any father. If understood generically, it must have more to it than mere familiarity. The focus of the intimacy is plausibly on account of the privileged position the son enjoys in being entrusted to the “the deep things” of the Father (cf. τὰ βάθη, 1 Cor 2:10).48 By consequence, the father-son relationship in Luke 10:21–22 (and Matt 11:25–27) may also be understood as the bond of a “son of a prophet”

46

47

48

Jewish Wisdom tradition. It “emphatically identifies him as the son of the father who mediates exclusive revelation,” and “it could be concluded that here Jesus replaces Sophia.” A. Cohen and A.J Rosenberg, Proverbs: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, Soncino Books of the Bible, rev. ed. (London: The Soncino Press, 1985), 50. Cf. Nolland, Matthew, 370–73 (“unique mutual knowledge correlated with apocalyptic sense”); Keener, Matthew, 347 (“blend of mystic and apocalyptic thought”); and Bovon, Lukas, 69 on the apocalyptic tradition (“Der Visionär, der glückselig eine Offenbarung erhalten hat, bricht explosionsartig in Dankbarkeit aus”). See Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 422, and Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), BKAT 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 95–96. See Nolland, Luke, 574–77, who rejects the Son/Wisdom correspondence, but acknowledges Jesus’ “distinctive insider’s perspective,” which “nobody else is party to.”

18

HENK BAKKER

(‫)בּן–נַ ִביא‬ ֵ and a so-called interpretive “father” (‫)אב‬. ָ This bond is not established by flesh, but by spiritual ties. For example, the prophets Elijah and Elisha were called “father,” because they were considered spiritual leaders of prophetic schools (‫יאים‬ ִ ‫י־הנְּ ִב‬ ַ ֵ‫)בּנ‬. ְ Within these schools, where trainers and trainees probably lived together for extended periods of time,49 the “father” possessed “supernatural gifts enabling him to have access to information not available to others.”50 For that reason he was required to interpret the babble talk of the prophets, who expressed themselves in extasi. At least, this is the impression 1 Samuel 10:10–12 gives (“And who is their father?”), as do other texts.51 The interpretive “father” not only organizes and supervises the prophetic group, but also renders intelligible what participants express among themselves or in private. He passes on the wisdom hidden to others and outsiders, but entrusted to him by dreams, visions, or ecstatic utterances. This longstanding tradition may have molded and cultivated the prophetic school of Jesus (in particular within Elijan districts), in which the hidden wisdom of the Father was taught and revealed (Ὑμῖν δέδοται γνῶναι τὰ μυστήρια). Luke 10 provides a narrative in which Jesus tests his disciples by confronting them with secret knowledge and leading them prophetically (and mystagogically) into a deeper state of joy. When the thirty-six pairs return from their mission in Galilee, they share their joy about exorcisms they successfully accomplished. But Jesus corrects them. He first testifies to the fact that he saw “Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18), affirms their powers, yet turns their eyes not to their authority, but to the certainty of their names written in heaven (verses 19–20). In doing so, he not only shifts their attention from earth to heaven, but even more so relocates the source of their inner joy: “do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

49 50

51

Cf. 2 Kings 9:1. Anthony Phillips, “The Ecstatics’ Father,” in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, ed. Peter Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 183–94, at 184. 1 Samuel 10:10–12: “the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him [Saul], and he joined in their prophesying (…) they asked each other (…) ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ A man who lived there answered, ‘And who is their father?’” Cf. Jeremiah 29:26; Genesis 41:25–45; 45:8 (“He [God] made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt”); 1 Kings 22:10–12 (possibly Zedekiah, son of Kenaanah, was the “father” of the group of prophets). See also 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13 (on interpreting glossolalia).

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

19

At that very moment Jesus rejoices “through the Holy Spirit” and praises the Father. Consequentially, Jesus fulfills the role of spiritual “father” to the disciples, his so-called “little children” (ἀπεκάλυψας αὐτὰ νηπίοις),52 and explains to them the true meaning of their missionary experiences. He deepens their joy and authority by appealing to Satan’s fall from heaven, their names written in heaven, and by appealing to the genuine source of their joy. As their interpretive leader he conducts his corrective measures on the spot, while they are preaching, casting out demons, and overcoming powers of the enemy. Subsequently, he notices in visio that the devil was about to be defeated (Ἐθεώρουν, the imperfect, 10:18), an interpretation emerging simultaneously with the triumphant discoveries of the disciples, as if he were saying: “While you were expelling the subordinates, I was seeing the master fall.”53 The heart of the matter is the demonstration of his ecstatic wisdom, his “lächelndes Wissen,” which is the uncovering of two mysteries in heaven, namely that Satan fell “from heaven,” and that the names of his trainees are written “in heaven” (Luke 10:18, 20). Looking into heaven, and ascertaining what went “from” heaven, and what came “into” heaven, arouses a cry of jubilation in Jesus.54 Conclusion As has been demonstrated in the exegetical survey above, the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke frame the missionary journey of Jesus and his disciples quite differently. Matthew describes the return of the disciples from the Galilean tour as having a rather painful conclusion, whereas Luke reports this incident as an overture to the start of the Jerusalem pilgrimage. Matthew’s focus is primarily on the reproach of the 52 53

54

Little children are unskilled but are about to be taught (cf. Rom 2:20 and 1 Cor 3:1). Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981, orig. 1887), 297. Cf. Van Bruggen, Lukas, 216: “Jezus sloeg dit gade … maar zij past goed bij het voortdurend waarnemen van iets dat aan de gang is.” Cf. Rob van Houwelingen, ‘Wat zag Jezus dat wij niet zien?’, in Rob van Houwelingen and Reinier Sonneveld (eds.), Ongemakkelijke teksten van Jezus (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn Motief, 2011): 164–67, at 165–66. Van Houwelingen refers to Test.Sal. 20,17 to corroborate his thesis that Jesus’ vision explains the heightened activity of the devil on earth. See J. Neville Birdsall, “The Marcosians’ Text of Jesus’ Cry of Jubilation (Matt 11:26; Luke 10:21) in Irenaeus, Adv haer I.20.2,” in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and NonCanonical. Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda, ed. William L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. De Jonge, NovTSup 89 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1–6. Cf. Bock, Luke, 1000–1001 (linking the fall of Satan with the inauguration of the Kingdom).

20

HENK BAKKER

Galilean cities. Luke concentrates on the journey to Jerusalem, and, from there on, the mission to the gentile world, as the details of Jesus’ missionary instructions envisage. The disappointing results of the Galilean mission, in particular the grim prospects for the city of Capernaum, were clarified by Jesus in terms of excuse-making. Moreover, those who excused themselves for declining the invitation of the gospel, accused him of being a “spoilsport” (being “Spielverderber”). Right in the heart of these interpretive narratives, which evolve from the entrance of the Kingdom of God, Jesus makes his profound statement on revelation. His teachings reach a high point in the Q-saying of Luke 10:21–22 and Matthew 11:25–27, the praise of the Father, in which he “full of joy through the Holy Spirit” confirms his superior role as interpretive leader of Israel. He not merely verifies this role by sharing his perspective on halachic issues, he does so by revelation. His claim is that he has full access to the wisdom of the Father in heaven. He considers himself the son of the Father, the one who exerts the absolute monopoly on revelation.55 Here the address “son” denotes the relation of a prophetson to his interpretive “father,” which classifies Jesus as the sole confident to whom the Father explains himself without restraint or restriction. Anyhow, the designation “son” is not far from the title “Son,” for apart from him, there is no true access to the Father.56 In consequence, the praise of the Father in Luke and Matthew should not be mystified as a foreign meteorite, or as a thunderbolt from Johannine sky. The only thunderbolt really present in the text is the one Jesus saw in visio raging from the air. Looking for a tenable appraisal for our time of Luke 10:21–22 par. Matthew 11:25–27, valid indications may be found in Jesus’ claim on revelation. The wisdom he displayed, which he derived from his Father, was a source of joy to him and to his followers, because it revealed God’s works and thoughts as they pertain to mission and the coming of the Kingdom. The way of Jesus’ wisdom in this regard should be studied and observed more closely for the benefit of the church, I would suggest.

55

56

Cf. Van Bruggen, Lukas, 218: “het alleenrecht van de zoon om de Vader bekend te maken.” See Marshall, Commentary, 437; and Luz, Matthäus, 214–15. Cf. William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 146.

JESUS’ CLAIM ON REVELATION

21

Bibliography Albright, William F., and C.S. Mann. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971. Bakker, Henk. Jezus. Reconstructie en revisie. Utrecht: KokBoekencentrum, 2020. Beare, Francis W. The Gospel According to Matthew. Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1981. Birdsall, J. Neville. “The Marcosians’ Text of Jesus’ Cry of Jubilation (Matt 11:26; Luke 10:21) in Irenaeus Adv haer I.20.2.” Pages 1–6 in Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical. Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda. Edited by W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, H.J. De Jonge. NovTSup 89. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Bishop, Eric F.F. “Jesus and Capernaum.” CBQ 15 (1953): 427–37. Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth. Vol. 4. New York: Judaica Press, 1977. Bock, Darrell L. Luke, Vol.2: 9:51–24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas, II. Teilband: Lk 9:51-14:35. EKKNT 3/2. Zürich: Patmos Verlag, 2019. Büchsel, Friedrich. “Paradidōmi.” Pages 169–72 in TDNT. Vol. II. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Cohen, A., and A.J Rosenberg. Proverbs: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary. Soncino Books of the Bible. Rev. ed. London: The Soncino Press, 1985. Conn, Harvie M. “Lucan Perspectives and the City.” Missiology 13 (1985): 409–28. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Enslin, Morton Scott. “The Samaritan Ministry and Mission.” HUCA 51 (1980): 29–38. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (10–24): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on Luke. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981, orig. 1887. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1–13. WBC 33A. Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van. “Vierstemmig evangelie. De traditiehypothese als oplossingsrichting in de synoptische kwestie.” Theologica Reformata 55 (2012): 30–51. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van, ‘Wat zag Jezus dat wij niet zien?’, in Rob van Houwelingen and Reinier Sonneveld (eds.), Ongemakkelijke teksten van Jezus (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn Motief, 2011): 164–67. Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology. Vol. 1. 7th ed. London: SCM Press, 1984. Jeremias, Joachim. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. 6th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

22

HENK BAKKER

Levinthal, Israel Herbert. “The Jewish Law of Agency.” JQR. New Series 13 (1922): 117–91. Linton, Olof. “The Parable of the Children’s Game. Baptist and Son of Man (Matt. 11:16–19 = Luke 7:31–35): A Synoptic Text-Critical, Structural and Exegetical Investigation.” NTS 22 (1976): 159–79. Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, Vol. 2: Mt 8–17. EKKNT 1/2; Zürich: Benziger Verlag, 1990. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Corrected Edition. London: United Bible Society, 1975. Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes. 3. Auflage. Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1982. Neirynck, Frans. Q-Synopsis. The Double Tradition Passages in Greek. SNTA 13. Leuven: Peeters, 1988. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Nolland, John. Luke 9:21–18:34. WBC 35B. Dallas: Word Books, 1993. Phillips, Anthony. “The Ecstatics’ Father.” Pages 183–94 in Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter Ackroyd and Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Plöger, Otto. Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia). BKAT 17. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979. Richardson, Peter. “What has Cana to do with Capernaum?” NTS 48 (2002): 314–31. Sabbe, Maurits. “Can Mt 11:25–27 and Lc 10:22 be called a Johannine logion?” Pages 363–71 in Logia: les paroles de Jésus – the sayings of Jesus. Memorial Joseph Coppens. Edited by Joël Delobel and Tjitze Baarda. Journées bibliques de Louvain 32; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet. Critical Issues in Feminist Christology. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Sousa, Mathew E. “The ‘Johannine Thunderbolt’ in Luke 10:22: Toward an Appreciation of Luke’s Narrative Sequence.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 7 (2013): 97–113. Vail, A.L. “The Itinerary of Jesus Soon After His Baptism.” RevExp 14 (1917): 40–62. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3? Francois P. VILJOEN

Abstract Matthew 23:3, a text in which Jesus instructs the crowds to obey and do everything the teachers of the law and the Pharisees tell them, appears to be problematic. This is the only case in Matthew where these leaders are seemingly portrayed in a positive light. This chapter investigates this intriguing statement within its intra-textual setting. While the sentiment towards these leaders is negative throughout the gospel, this chapter demonstrates how the conflict intensifies during the week of the Passion, reaching its climax in Matthew 23. It might be that Jesus, by this instruction, only refers positively to their precise citing of the written Torah, while criticizing their interpretation (halakha) of it. However, it is also possible that Jesus makes this instruction in an ironic way to sternly expose their hypocrisy, as saying the one, but paradoxically doing the other. Either way, the overall sentiment towards them remains negative. Introduction Jesus’ instruction to the crowds in Matthew 23:3 to obey and do everything the teachers of the law and the Pharisees tell them (πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε) is the only case in Matthew where the words of the Jewish leaders are seemingly portrayed in a positive light. If this portrayal is indeed positive, it seems to stand at odds with how Matthew construes these leaders and their teachings in the rest of the gospel (e.g. Matt 5:20; 15:3–6, 15:14; 16:11–12). Jesus’ positive remark furthermore seemingly stands in contrast to Matthew 28:20, where Jesus claims all authority for himself and instructs his disciples to teach all nations to do everything he has commanded them to do. The wording in Matthew 23:3 and Matthew 28:20 is so similar that some kind of relationship between these verses seems probable. Furthermore, the Jewish leaders receive very harsh criticism in the verses that follow Matthew 23:3. How is it then possible that Jesus encourages the crowds and his disciples to adhere to their teaching and do everything they tell them?

24

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

Does Jesus at this stage endorse their teaching of the Torah and their halakha, and in so doing contradict himself? Should this statement in the gospel be regarded as a remnant of the pre-Matthean tradition that the author inattentively incorporated into the text, though it is out of keeping with the rest of the gospel? Does it belong to a pre-Easter sentiment within the Jesus-movement before the development of their critical view on Pharisaic Judaism? Is the phrase, “all their teachings” an exaggeration, so that Jesus is actually only referring to part of their teachings? Does Jesus make an ironic pronouncement? Does Jesus insinuate that the Jewish teachers of the Law are inconsistent in their teachings, that their teachings are confusing? Does it demonstrate that the Jewish teachers are ignorant of their own teachings, which are indeed correct? Do the teachers teach the correct content, though their conduct contradicts their teachings? Does Jesus illustrate that their own teachings condemn them? Does Jesus differentiate between their words directly from the Torah and from their halakha? Or should we accept that the halakhic traditions laid down by the Pharisees remained valid and provided the Matthean community with practical ways to obey the Torah, and that Jesus only criticizes their neglect of the “weightier matters” of the Law? Choosing between these possible interpretations is not simple, and there may even be more possible interpretations of these words of Jesus. I dedicate this contribution on the troubling text of Matthew 23:3 in honour of Rob van Houwelingen who worked with great enthusiasm on the publication of “Ongemakkelijke teksten” from the Gospels, the Corpus Paulinum and the Catholic Letters / Revelation. This investigation follows an intra-textual approach to reach an informed conclusion on the interpretation of this statement. The intratextual approach implies that this statement would be read within the development of the plot of this gospel. In order to do so, the broader context is first examined (Matt 21–25), after which the context is narrowed down to the immediate (Matt 23). Increasing Confrontation During the First Four Days of the Passion Week (Matt 21:1–25:46) Intensifying Confrontation It is significant that this pronouncement is embedded in a narrative where Jesus is in constant confrontation with the religious leaders in Jerusalem. Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem is described in Matthew 19–20, and the beginning of Matthew 21 describes how he enters the place of his destiny. The

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

25

powers of darkness are set to erupt as the passion narrative commences.1 Matthew 21:1–25:46 describes the intense disputes during the first four days of the Passion week followed by the description of the final period of Jesus’ Passion in Matthew 26:1–27:56. The central message seems to be that the Pharisees, who see themselves as occupying a legal and moral high ground and who constantly challenge the authority of Jesus as teacher, are on trial themselves. Their hypocrisy and unrighteousness will be exposed and they will be judged for it. This major literary unit is composed of two rhetorical units.2 The first unit comprises Matthew 21:1−23:39, with the Messianic greeting as its inclusio (Matt 21:9; 23:39). The second unit comprises Matthew 24:1−25:46, with its inclusio being Jesus exiting from the temple and subsequently sitting on the Mount of Olives, juxtaposed with his return to the Mount of Olives and his sitting on the throne of his glory as King and Judge (Matt 24:1−3; 25:31−46; cf. Zech 14:4; Acts 1:9−12). Matthew 21:1−23:39 describes the judgement of the religious leaders and “this generation” in Israel who rejected the Messiahship of Jesus at his first coming. In Matthew 24:1−25:46 the scope moves to a worldwide judgement of all nations who reject the coming King at the end of the age.3 The current investigation is limited to the first of these two rhetorical units. The sections of this unit can broadly be identified as follows: – Commencement of the Passion week (Matt 21:1–22) – Controversies in the temple court (Matt 21:23–22:46) – Guilt and judgement of Israel (Matt 23:1–23:39)4 Commencement of the Passion Week (Matt 21:1–22) The description of the week of Jesus’ Passion begins with Jesus’ humble entry into Jerusalem, where he is met with enthusiastic acclaim (Matt 1

2

3

4

Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 751. Jaco J. Scholtz, “Behold the Glory of the King: The Chiastic Structures of Matthew 21−25,” IDS 49(1) (2015): Art. #1856, 8 pages. doi: https://doi.org/10.4102/ids. v49i1.1856. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, NAC 22 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 351; Alistair I. Wilson, When Will these Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21−25 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004), 254–55. This essay does not deal with this section in full, but only with Jesus’ confrontation with Israel’s leaders in Matt 23.

26

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

21:1–11). This entry highlights his lowliness, but also his authority.5 Jesus’ entry parodies the Roman triumphal entries6 and echoes the entry of Solomon as Jewish royal figure and all wise king, riding into town on a donkey to be anointed as David’s successor (1 Kgs 1:32–40). Jesus’ entry is immediately followed by his cleansing of the temple (Matt 21:12–17). Jesus is depicted as the righteous and mighty judge who attacks the practices of the religious leadership in the temple court. Obviously this cleansing was a public insult to the religious elite who exercised control over the temple. Jesus challenged their honour, which obviously would provoke revenge. The scene that follows is that of the cursing of the fig tree (Matt 21:18–22), the only negative miracle in the gospel, which pictures the coming judgement of Israel. The link between the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree makes the incidents most dramatic symbols of God’s rejection of the Jewish religious leaders. The cursed fig tree represents “this wicked and adulterous generation” in Israel7 on whom “all these things” of Matthew 23:34−36 come because they have rejected the true Christ. The suddenness of the withering of the fig tree leaves the disciples amazed. Jesus’ actions set the scene for the controversy dialogues to follow. Jesus is the wise prophet and teacher. He is offended by temple practices and announces the end of the corrupt temple and its religious leaders. Controversies in the Temple Court (Matt 21:23–22:46) Following Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, the events of the next two days are narrated with Jesus entering and leaving the temple (Matt 21:12–22 and 21:23–24:2). As Jesus is about to exit the temple, he no longer refers to it as “my house” as in Matthew 21:13, but as “your house”, which will be left desolate. Every time Jesus leaves the temple, he pronounces a severe judgement (Matt 21:19 and 24:1, 2). The theme of judgement then continues in the following passages that deal with the final judgement (Matt 24:3–25:46). Matthew 23 forms the conclusion to Jesus’ 5

6 7

Frederick D. Bruner, The Churchbook Matthew 13–28, vol.2 of Matthew. A Commentary, ed. Frederick D. Bruner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 353; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew. A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 409. Warren Carter, “Matthew 23:37–39,” Int (2000b): 67. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980), 245.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

27

second day at the temple (Matt 21:23–24:2), but like a Janus-like hinge, also forms the introduction to the Olivet discourse on the end time judgement (Matt 24–25).8 The theme of judgement on the religious establishment (Matt 23:12–33) and the demise of the temple (Matt 23:35–38) continues in Matthew 24:24–25:30 and 24:1–3, 15 respectively. The religious leaders who were publically dishonoured attempted to recover their honour by publicly challenging Jesus.9 As was typical of debate in antiquity, challenging questions are met with clever responses.10 Matthew 21:23–22:46 deals with the various challenges by the religious leaders to dishonour Jesus and their unsuccessful attempts to expose Jesus as an unworthy teacher. The rival groups Jesus battled against become progressively more skilled, beginning with the chief priests and elders (Matt 21:23), then the disciples of the Pharisees and Herodians (Matt 22:15), the Sadducees (Matt 22:23), and ultimately an expert in the Law (Matt 22:35).11 The challenge to Jesus’ authority opens with the question from the chief priests and elders of the people about the basis of Jesus’ authority to teach, that is to act as a rabbi (Matt 21:23). Jesus responds by arguing that his authority has the same origin as that of John, namely from God (Matt 21:24–25). The chief priests and elders of the people are unable to respond, and in such a way Matthew emphasizes the superior authority and knowledge of Jesus. Jesus proceeds by telling three judgement parables; of the two sons (Matt 21:28–32), the wicked tenants (Matt 21:33–46) and of the wedding banquet (Matt 22:1–14). All three of these parables deal with the way Jesus is rejected. By arranging these parables consecutively, Matthew emphasizes the controversy and rejection that took place. The Jewish religious leaders respond to these three parables by posing three hostile questions to Jesus: on paying taxes to Caesar (Matt 22:15– 22), on marriage after the resurrection (Matt 22:23–33), and on the greatest commandment (Matt 22:34–40). All three of these scenes portray the negative character of these leaders.

8

9

10 11

Benedict T. Viviano, “Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23:1–12, 34,” JSNT 39 (1990): 8. Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 99. Francois P. Viljoen, “The Double Love Commandment”, IdS 49(1) (2015): 4. Andrew R. Simmonds, “‘Woe to you … hypocrites!’ Re-reading Matthew 23:13–36,” BSac 166 (2009): 338.

28

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

Concluding these three challenges, Jesus ends his defensive approach in which he shows that he can answer the most difficult questions by posing a question to his opponents about his identity, David’s Son or David’s Lord (Matt 22:41–46). The opponents are speechless as they are unable to answer Jesus, and this forms a climax to the crescendo of the previous challenges. The result is that the debate with presumed learned opponents is over and the scene is set for the series of woe-sayings that will follow. The teaching authority of Jesus is clearly contrasted with the impotence of his opponents, who regard themselves as learned. Matthew’s narrative confirms the authority and trustworthiness of Jesus in contrast to the lack of authority and deceitfulness of the Jewish religious leaders. The challenging Sadducees are silenced (Matt 22:34) and no one can say a word in reply or dares to ask him any more questions (Matt 22:46). These disputes where Jesus emerge as the honourable victor set the scene for Jesus’ teaching in the temple about the Pharisees’ bad teaching, hypocrisy and lack of righteousness, which will lead to the judgement of the Pharisees and of Jerusalem (Matt 23:1–24:2). Criticism on the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees (Matt 23) Jesus’ pronouncement on the teachings of the religious leaders opens the last of Matthew’s five great discourses in the gospel.12 The symmetry between the first and last discourses is noteworthy and they frame Jesus’ public ministry. While the first great discourse opens with blessings (Matt 5:3–12), the last contains a series of seven woes (Matt 23:13–32). These two discourses are of similar length. Both of these sermons are associated with a mountain and Jesus takes the seated position of a teacher (Matt 5:2 and 24:3).13 As Moses came down the mountain to present the Law, Jesus went up the mountain to teach the Law authoritatively (Sermon on the Mount), and, on the Mount of Olives, to expose false and hypocritical practices regarding the Law (Matt 23–25).

12

13

The five great discourses in the gospel are: the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5–7), the missionary charge (Matt 10:5–42), the parables discourse (Matt 13:3–52), instructions to the community (Matt 18:3–35), and the woes and eschatological discourse (Matt 23–25), see Rainer Riesner, “Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthäus-Evangelium,” Theologische Beiträge 9 (1978): 177–78. Gundry, Matthew, 453; Osborne, Matthew, 831.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

29

While conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is central throughout Matthew’s plot,14 the conflict intensifies significantly in the final discourse.15 In this way Matthew 23 prepares the reader for the Passion narrative where Jesus is cruelly rejected by the Jewish leaders.16 Luz goes as far as to remark: “With its woes and its unjust wholesale judgement about scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 23 is the unloveliest chapter in the gospel,”17 a sentiment Viviano18 shares. Carter19 describes it as “the bleakest spot” in Matthew’s gospel. Esler is of the opinion that this challenging text is best understood in terms of intergroup conflict between a branch of the Christ-movement and a Judean outsider group.20 He regards this passage as one of the most extreme forms of intergroup conflict. He opines that this passage is the product of the evangelist and not of the historical Jesus, as he regards the polemic as untypical of the historical Jesus.21 Kümmel remarks that the zealous polemic in Matthew 23 distorts the reality and spirit of Jesus.22 In honour and shame societies, as in New Testament times, it was a common phenomenon to challenge the honour of an opponent and to respond with an equal challenge in return.23 Such a challenge had to be played in public to be effective in gaining honour or imposing shame. In the Matthean text the religious leaders’ public challenges to Jesus’

14

15

16 17 18 19 20

21 22

23

Kingsbury regards the religious leaders as more central to Matthew’s plot than the disciples, as this conflict forms the focus of the plot. Jack D. Kingsbury, “The Developing Conflict Between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A LiteraryCritical Study,” in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton (Edinburgh; London; New York: T & T Clark, 1995), 179–97, on page 169. Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 536; Boris Repschinski, The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Davies and Allison, Matthew, 262. Ulrich Luz, The Synoptic Gospels (New York: Ktav, 1968), 96. Viviano, Social World, 3. Carter, “Matthew 23:37–39,” 66. Philip F. Esler, “Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible Historical Interpretation of a Challenging Text,” BTB 45(1) (2015): 39–59. Esler, “Intergroup Conflict,” 56. Werner G. Kümmel, “Die Weherufe über die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäer (Matthäus 23,13–36),” in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? ed. W.P. Eckert (Munich: Kaiser, 1967), 135–47 on pages 146–47. David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament. Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 128–30; B.J. Malina and R.L. Rohrbauch, Social-science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003), 42; Ben Witherington, Invitation to the New Testament. First things (Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 47.

30

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

authority to teach (Matt 21:23–22:46) are balanced by Jesus’ public response with his pronouncements of judgement on the Pharisees and Jerusalem (Matt 23:1–24:2). The intensity of the Matthean controversy becomes apparent when comparing similar traditions found in Mark 12:38–40. Matthew has a lengthy polemic of thirty-nine verses in comparison with a mere three verses in Mark. Jesus’ criticism in Matthew (Matt 23:1–24:2)24 is much more extensive and intense than in Mark. Jesus’ seemingly positive pronouncement on the words of the religious leaders (Matt 23:3) falls in the first of three sections of Matthew 23, each addressing a different audience: – in Matthew 23:1–12, Jesus warns the crowds and the disciples against the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees; – in Matthew 23:13–36, he addresses the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees directly in his criticism; and – in Matthew 23:37–39, he addresses Jerusalem with sorrow lamenting its immanent judgement. 6–7 The section is concluded with the pronouncement of a distressing judgement over the temple (Matt 24:1–2). Addressing the Crowds on the Hypocrisy of the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees (Matt 23:1–12) In his criticism of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in Matthew 23:1–12, Jesus addresses the crowds who have heard how these Jewish religious leaders had challenged Jesus, and how time and again he refuted these challenges and emerged as the wise victor (Matt 22:22, 33, 34, 46). Jesus’ profile is that of a wise and superior teacher. Jesus tells the crowds what the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees do (Matt 23:1–7) and then proceeds to talk about what his disciples should do instead (Matt 23:8–12). It seems that the main idea is to contrast the pride and hypocrisy of the religious leaders with the humility and servanthood required of Jesus’ followers.

24

This extended polemical discourse is unique to Matthew, with only a few parallels: Matt 23:4 // Luke 11:46; Matt 23: 6–7a // Mark 12:38–39 and Luke 20:46–47) and Matt 23:12 // Luke 14:11 and 19:14.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

31

The Hypocritical Conduct of the Teachers of the Law and Pharisees (Matt 23:1–7) In the first part of his criticism of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, Jesus addresses the crowds and his disciples (Matt 23:1), as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1–2). In contrast to the Sermon on the Mount where these words open the blessings and wise instruction of Jesus, the opening words in Matthew 23 form the introduction of the woes and stern polemic to follow. The criticism is twofold. Firstly, Jesus depicts the hypocritical teaching and conduct of the religious leaders (Matt 23:2–4) and secondly, their desire for public acclaim (Matt 23:5–7). Jesus remarks that the teachers of the law and the Pharisees are sitting “on Moses’ seat.” Though Moses’ seat may refer to a physical chair, it is most probably used metaphorically to refer to persons who are considered to have teaching authority.25 Powell lists ten possibilities for what the phrase might refer to, and concludes that it most probably refers to the authority of those who controlled access to the Torah scrolls and who could read and interpret them for the people.26 They occupied a powerful social and religious position in a world where most people were illiterate and copies of the Torah were limited. The verb, ἐκάθισαν (they sat), is used in the aorist, which most probably should be read as gnomic, referring to the general claim for authority as made by the religious leaders.27 The Pharisees claimed to be Moses’ successors and therefore had the presumption that they were the official interpreters of the Torah who could speak with ultimate authority.28 Yet it can also simply mean that they were the only ones who had access to the written Torah, as they were sitting on the seat of Moses.29 It seems obvious that this remark should be read against the previous set of challenges set by these religious leaders who were trying to expose Jesus’ lack of authority to teach (Matt 21:23–22:46). The religious leaders presume to have the ultimate authority to read and interpret the Torah. 25

26

27 28

29

Not all Pharisees were authoritative teachers of the Law. Matthew frequently lumps them together. It seems that in Matthew’s experience they formed a unified Jewish front of confrontation, see Davies and Allison, Matthew, 267. Mark A. Powell, “Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew 23:2–7),” JBL (1995): 419–35. Osborne, Matthew, 835. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 268; Gundry, Matthew, 453; Keener, Background Commentary, 103; Viviano, Social World, 11. Powell, “Do and Keep,” 435.

32

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

Jesus’ instruction to obey the words of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, can be interpreted in two differing ways. One way might be that Jesus is refering ironically to their own presumption that they are the authoritative instructors of the Law.30 Accepting their presumption, Jesus then proceeds to criticize them. If they are as authoritative as they presume to be, the crowds and his disciples should take care to do whatever the religious leaders tell them to do (Matt 23:3a)31. However, Jesus then immediately continues by warning the crowds and disciples not to do what the religious leaders do, because they do not practice what they preach (Matt 23:3b). This could imply that Jesus is being sternly ironic. This verse exhibits Matthew’s love for parallelisms and his emphasis on the fact that there should be consistency between words and actions,32 which is lacking in the case of these Jewish leaders. In parallel form, Matthean Jesus states the paradox between their presumed positive teachings and their negative conduct. The words κατὰ δὲ emphasizes the paradox and irony. Presumed positive teaching: πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε, Negative conduct: κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε, λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν. 30

31

32

Josephus mentioned that the general populace regarded the Pharisees as the most skilful in interpreting the Jewish laws (Ant. 17.41; J.W. 1.110; 2.162; Life 191). However, he lamented this fact, as he accused them of not always doing this with pure motives. See Steve Mason, “Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2–3),” HTR 83 (1990): 363–81; and Talbert, Matthew, 257. Although the text of Matthew 23:3 is firm, some variants do occur. The Byzantine Majority Text (2005), the Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894) and Stephanus’ Textus Receptus (1550) insert τηρεῖν after ὑμῖν (for you to keep). The Codex Tischendorfianus inserts ποιεῖν after ὑμῖν (for you to do). While Nestle (1904), Westcott and Hort 1881, UBS4, Tischendorf 8th Edition, have ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε (do and keep), do RP Byzantine Majority Text (2005), the Greek New Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, Scrivener’s Textus Receptus (1894) and Stephanus’ Textus Receptus (1550) have these words in reverse order τηρεῖτε καὶ ποιεῖτε (keep and do). However, these variations are not significant and do not seem to have an impact on the interpretation of the text. This command of Jesus echoes the wording of Deuteronomy 17:11 where Moses instructs the Jewish people to adhere to the legal rulings of the priests of the judges of their generations. See Nancy S. Rabbinowitz, “Matthew 23:2–4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse their Halakhah?” JETS 46(3) (2003): 423–47, 432. Gundry, Matthew, 454.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

33

This parallel seems to be a reflection on the parable of the disobedient son in Matthew 21:28–32. Therefore, it seems as if the imperative of Matthew 23:3a is meant ironically. Though the religious leaders claim to have the authority to interpret the Torah accurately, their lives testify to the opposite. Their teachings are insincere and untrustworthy. This results in a harsh accusation of inconsistency on the part of these teachers. The Matthean Jesus continues to criticize the distorted teachings of the teachers of the Law and their inability to observe the Law correctly, as they neglect the Law for the sake of their traditions (e.g. Matt 15:3). Jesus criticizes their claim to be the most skilful interpreters of the Law by pointing out that their conduct reveals the opposite. However, Gundry and Powell offer an alternative interpretation of the verse, which should be considered. Gundry argues that Jesus’ pronouncement means that as long as the teachers of the Law are sitting on the seat of Moses, they are purely reading the Law of Moses (the written Torah) and not their interpretive traditions (halakha). In such circumstances people should obey them. However, one should not follow their conduct, as their conduct does not correlate with their reading33. Powell proposes a similar argument.34 He argues that when Jesus mentions that the Pharisees speak (εἴπωσιν, and λέγουσιν), he refers to their reading of the Torah only. This action of the Pharisees Jesus commends. However, when Jesus mentions what they do (ποιοῦσιν), he refers to their interpretation of the Torah as revealed in their halakha. Their interpretations reveal a skewed understanding of the Torah. They do not understand the Torah they so correctly cite. Jesus therefore warns his disciples not to follow their halakha. This thread of thinking continues in the next verse which, in a sense, supports the argument of Gundry and Powell. The Matthean Jesus continues his argument by illustrating verses 2–3. In Matthew 23:4 Jesus criticizes the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees for compiling multiple obligations under the Law with all their interpretations, making it extremely difficult to accept the weight of the law. Jesus accuses them of not adhering to their own obligations, by bundling up heavy, cumbersome moral loads and putting them on other people’s shoulders, while they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. The image

33 34

Gundry, Matthew, 455. Powell, “Do and Keep,” 433.

34

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

implies a heavy and burdensome yoke35 being laid on the shoulders of the people they teach. This imagery recalls the light yoke and the easy commandments of Jesus in Matthew 11:30, in stark contrast with the burden implied by the teachings of the Jewish teachers of the Law. The Jewish teachers are guilty of making the Law a crushing and unbearable burden. In Matthew 23:5–7, Jesus proceeds to depict the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees as people who do things for the wrong motives.36 In this depiction Jesus does not only refer to their interpretation of the Torah, but indeed to their insincere overall conduct. Matthew’s Jesus starts off with a general indictment, followed by a series of examples. The general indictment is similar to what the Jewish leaders are accused of in Matthew 6:1–6. It also echoes what is written in b. Sotah 22b in a section labelled “The Plagues of the Pharisees.” In the rubric “There are seven types of Pharisees,” one of the types is described as people who perform religious duties with unworthy and pretentious motives. Within their honour and shame society, they seek honour through society’s affirmation.37 Jesus radically rejects this prevailing mode of conduct. Jesus’ accusation is followed by a series of examples of what they do (Matt 23:5–7): – they make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; – they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; and – they love to be greeted in the market-places and to have men call them ‘Rabbi’. From this text it seems that much of the conflict was about the conduct of the religious leaders in seeking honour along with public recognition, and was not just about their teaching (halakha). Matthew 23:1–7 provides a vigorous polemical portrait of the vanity of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law. Yet, criticism of their teaching role is pertinent, as

35

36 37

In the First Testament, “yoke” is often used as a symbol for foreign and harsh rule (e.g. Gen 27:40; 1 Kings 12:4–14). During the Second Temple Period, the term yoke was commonly used for the instruction of the Torah (e.g. 2 En. 34:1–2; 2 Apoc. Bar. 4:13; cf. Acts 15:10 and Gal 5:1). In Sirach 6:18–31 and 51:23–27 the terms “wisdom,” “law,” and “yoke” are linked together. The yoke of wisdom is the instruction of the law. Charles H. Talbert, Matthew, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 257. DeSilva, An Introduction, 125; Keener, Background Commentary, 104.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

35

Jesus accuses them of being fixated on attracting honour in their teaching roles as they strive to be called “Rabbi.” What the Disciples Should Do Instead (Matt 23:8–12) In contrast to the vanity of these Jewish leaders in Matthew 23:1–7, Jesus proceeds to set out the antithetical behaviour required of discipleship, with an emphasis on “but you” (ὑμεῖς δέ) in Matthew 23:8–12, which reads as a “kleine Gemeinderegel” on humility.38 This rule signifies a contrast in between the community values of the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, and those of the followers of Jesus. These guidelines remind one of Matthew 18:1–4 and 20:25–28, where humility is mentioned as the basic premise for being a disciple. The contrast between εἷς (one) and πάντες (all) is striking. The Matthean Jesus emphasizes equality of “all” and subjection to “one,” meaning Jesus with his teaching authority. The disciples are warned not to claim the title of “Rabbi,” “father” or “teacher,” which would signify superior ranking among inferiors.39 All are equal ἀδελφοί (brothers). This warning is summed up in the saying: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself, will be exalted” (Matt 23:12). The passive voice implies divine action and the future, probably the last judgement.40 Clearly, the Matthean Jesus is challenging the teachings, positions and conduct of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees and is prescribing alternative community values. The injunction in verse 8 not to be called “Rabbi,” which would imply holding an authoritative teaching role, follows directly after the accusation of the teachers of the Law and Pharisees who do desire to be called “Rabbis.” Again Jesus denounces their self-proclaimed teaching postures. The Matthean Jesus then states that in his community, members should not strive to be called καθηγηταί (instructors) as they have but one καθηγητής (instructor) (Matt 23:10), which is Christ. Matthew’s use of καθηγητής is noteworthy. These two instances of the word are unique to the New Testament and they do not occur in the Septuagint. France41 and

38

39 40 41

Wolfgang Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, THKNT I (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998), 397. Keener, Background Commentary, 104. Gundry, Matthew, 459. Dick R.T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 864.

36

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

Viviano42 demonstrate that this word is used for teachers in the sense of showing the way intellectually and spiritually. A καθηγητής (instructor) was regarded as of a higher rank than an ordinary διδάσκαλος (teacher). With his final commission in Matthew 28:18–20, Jesus instructs the eleven to teach his commandments, strongly emphasizing that he is their καθηγητής with ultimate authority. Addressing the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees (Matt 23:13–36) In Matthew 23:13–36 Jesus addresses the teachers of the Law and Pharisees, and this forms the second part of Matthew 23. This address consists of a series of seven “woe–sayings” (οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν) against the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees and serve as a reverse of the blessings (μακάριοι) uttered to his disciples in Matthew 5:3–12. This contrast between judgements and blessings resembles the similar contrast found in the repetitive recital of the Levites in Deuteronomy 27–28. Jesus’ addressees most likely would interpret Jesus’ cursing of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in terms of the curses in Deuteronomy. The conduct and teachings of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law would be understood as being unfaithful to the commands and decrees of the Lord. The outcry, οὐαί (woe), combines the ideas of wrath and pain, and anger and sorrow.43 While Jesus communicates salvation to his disciples with his blessing-utterances, he is communicating judgement to the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. As in Matthew 11:21 these woesayings express proleptic condemnation, anticipating the downfall of the Jewish religious leaders. Some parallels can be recognized between the seven woe-sayings of Matthew 23:13–36 and the six of Luke 11: 42–52.44 The woe-sayings are composed of two parts: the addressees and their wrongs, while the judgements are heaped up at the end of the address (Matthew 23:32–39).

42 43 44

Viviano, “Social World,” 12. Bruner, Matthew, 443; Esler, “Intergroup Conflict,” 50. Luke’s second and fourth woe-sayings to the Pharisees (Luke 11:43 and 46) respectively run parallel to Jesus’ address to the crowds (Matt 23:6–7 and Matt 23:4). Luke’s third ‘woe-saying’ (Luke 11:44) has no direct parallel in Matthew.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

37

Addressees of the Woe-sayings Jesus’ rejection of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees is expressed in the manner he addresses them. The accusations in the Matthean version are much sharper and more extensive than in Luke. In six of the sayings, the Matthean Jesus repeatedly charges them with being hypocrites (ὑποκριταί) (Matt 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27 and 29), and three times in the third saying (Matt 23:16) of being blind guides (ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί) , a charge that is repeated in the fourth (Matt 23:24) and fifth saying (Matt 23:26). In quite a number of instances, the Matthean Jesus does not hesitate to call the teachers of the Law and Pharisees hypocrites (e.g. Matt 6:2, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 15, 25, 29). In his address to the crowds, Jesus had already exposed the hypocritical conduct of these religious leaders. He criticized them for being hypocritical in their boasts about their righteous accomplishments (cf. Matt 6:1−2). They act with ethical pretence, turning people into spectators and trying to impress them with a view to sustaining their own status. In Matthew 23:5–7, Jesus warns of this with respect to them parading their pious acts in public to elicit praise. Such conduct was typical of the honour and shame society in which Jesus and his disciples lived, as one’s good reputation was sustained by the esteem of others.45 Jesus opposes this fundamental societal pattern in which they participated. As in Matthew 15:14, Jesus labels the teachers of the Law and Pharisees as blind guides. Jesus’ fulmination against blindness refers to their inability to distinguish between the important and unimportant emphases of the Scriptures (cf. Matt 23:17, 19).46 He therefore accuses them of false interpretation of the Law, their halakha: they are blind guides who mislead their followers (Matt 23:24). Wrongs of the Addressees The second part of each woe-saying expresses the wrongs of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. The extent of Matthew’s woe-sayings expresses the strong disapproval of the Matthean Jesus, not only of the conduct of the teachers of the Law and Pharisees, but also of their 45

46

Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins. A Socio-political Reading, JSNTSup 204 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000a), 158; deSilva, An Introduction, 125; Malina & Rohrbauch, Social-science commentary, 370; Witherington, Invitation, 49. Bruner, Matthew, 446.

38

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

teachings. The first three woe-sayings focus on the false teaching of the leaders (Matt 23:13–22), the next three mainly on their false practice (Matt 23:23–28), while the last saying attacks their false sense of security, as if they were not guilty of killing the prophets (Matt 23:29–36). Woes for Wrong Teaching The first three woe-sayings mainly denounce the wrong teachings (halakha) of the religious leaders. The first saying (Matt 23:13–14) accuses them of shutting the door of the kingdom in people’s faces. How they shut it is not explicitly mentioned, but it probably refers to the laying of heavy burdens on people’s shoulders (Matt 23:4). Earlier in the text, Jesus reflected on the heavy yoke of complicated halakhic teachings and traditions (Matt 11:28–30). The parallel in Luke 11:52 mentions that they have taken away the keys of knowledge. This interpretation correlates with the assumed authority of the teachers of the Law and Pharisees, who sit upon the seat of Moses (Matt 23:2). They were regarded as the custodians of the Torah, of God’s will. In contrast with this accusation, Jesus has given the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:18) to Peter, the one who has confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matt 16:16). The second saying (Matt 23:15), which does not have a parallel in Luke, continues the accusation of the first by describing the devastating effect of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees on others. Those who shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces (Matt 23:13), are those who travel around proselytizing47, but by doing so they prepare people for hell (Matt 23:15). The proselytes were convinced by the teachings of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees, and thus became strong opponents of the teachings of Jesus.48 The third saying (Matt 23:16–22), which also lacks a parallel in Luke, attacks the complicated teachings of the Jewish religious leaders on swearing. This woe resembles Matthew 5:33–37 with its critique on halakha,

47

48

Rabbi Eleazar of Modiim says: “God scattered Israel among the nations for the sole purpose that proselytes would be numerous among them” (b. Pesahim 87b). Though Pharisees did not have missionaries as such, Jewish people outside Palestine were eager to make converts of the Gentiles. It was said that Hillel was especially open to converting non-Jews to Judaism (see Keener, Background Commentary, 104). Nevertheless, the emphasis does not lie in the missionary activity of the Pharisees, but on the irony of the fact that their efforts result in disastrous outcomes. Bruner, Matthew, 444.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

39

which proposes a distinction between binding and non-binding oaths. The Matthean Jesus lists a series of variant forms of swearing as proposed by the Pharisees in parallel statements. By replacing the divine name with lesser and ranking substitutes, they regard the oaths as less serious. Woes for Wrong Conduct The next three woes mainly focus on the wrong conduct of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. The third (Matt 23:16–22), fourth (Matt 23:23–24) and the fifth woes (Matt 23:25–26) are bound together with reference to ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί (“blind guides”), which forms an inclusio in (Matt 23:16 and 24). In the fourth woe, Jesus accuses his addressees of meticulous attention to ceremonial cleanliness and the external devotions of piety, but then neglecting more important issues. Though Jesus primarily refers to their wrong conduct, he accuses them of misleading others with their halakha as they are ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί. France remarks: “The basis of Jesus’ criticism is that the scribal approach is superficial, and fails to think through the principles underlying the details on which their debate is focussed.”49 Once again, Jesus criticizes their presumed teaching authority. Jesus uses the humorous hyperbole of “straining at a gnat, but then swallowing a camel” (Matt 23:24) to drive home the point. While the tithing of mint, dill and cumin was not required by the Law, they neglected justice, mercy and faithfulness. The Matthean Jesus more than once emphasizes the importance of justice, mercy and covenantal faithfulness (Matt 9:13; 12:7). This accusation against the Pharisees and teachers of the Law continues Jesus’ argument in Matthew 15:3–9. The fifth saying (Matt 23:25–26) adds to the charge made by the fourth of doing the less important things, while neglecting the more important ones. The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees clean the outside of their cups and dishes, but not their insides. Jesus uses this as a figurative statement about the inside of their hearts. On the outside, the addressees purport to be righteous, but inside they are full of greed and indulgence. Jesus carries forward the theme of the Sermon on the Mount where he states that one’s inner attitude determines one’s external behaviour (Matt 5:8 and 6:22–23). The focus of morality should be one’s heart, which is not the case with his addressees.

49

France, Matthew, 870.

40

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

In the sixth saying (Matt 23:27–28), the topic continues. The fifth and sixth woes are bound together by the common contrast between inside and outside (Matt 23:25–28). Jesus figuratively refers to white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. Nothing could spread ritual impurity as severely as a corpse, and one who touched a corpse was unclean for a week (Num 19:11). Matthew’s emphasis lies on the concealment of inward corruption, as the washing symbolizes the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. While teachers of the Law and Pharisees are pretentiously preoccupied with matters of external purity and outer appearance, their inner beings are accused of being sources of great impurity. Woe for False Security In the seventh saying (Matt 23:29–32), the Matthean Jesus exposes the contrast between their confession and conduct, providing a clear illustration of their hypocrisy. Jesus accuses them of putting a gulf between their words and deeds. While they are descendants of those forefathers who abhorred the prophets, they now honour the same prophets by erecting tombs and elaborate monuments for them. Jeremiah 26:20–23 and 2 Chronicles 36:15–16 describe how Israel had martyred its prophets and Jesus argues that corporate guilt continued in its descendants. Jesus closes with an ironic challenge to continue sinning, “fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers” (Matt 23:32), but God will judge them. Filling up the measure of the sin probably not only refers to the building of the tombs, but like their forefathers, they were about to murder yet another prophet, this time Jesus, along with his followers.50 Judgement (Matt 23:33–36) The sinful conduct of the addressees leads to eschatological judgement. The teachers of the Law and Pharisees are labelled as snakes and the charge is doubled – they are also labelled as “offspring of vipers” (Matt 23:33).51

50 51

Gundry, Matthew, 468. According to Keener, Background Commentary, 105, to be labelled a venomous snake is bad, but it is even worse to be labelled offspring of vipers, as vipers presumably were notorious for eating its way out of their pregnant mother’s bellies.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

41

According to the Matthean Jesus, the conduct of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees resembles the rejection of the prophets in the days of Zechariah. This passage seems to be based on 2 Chronicles 24:17–22, 25, using the historical language of the Chronicles and applying it to the time of Jesus. The analogy lies in the implication that what had happened in the days of Zechariah would again happen in Jesus’ day. As the prophets were rejected at the time of Zechariah, so again will Jesus and his disciples be rejected as prophets of God (Matt 23:34). The result would be that all the righteous blood that had been shed on earth would come upon them (Matt 23:35), and they would be punished for all their wrongdoings (Matt 23:36). The shedding of the blood of Abel, whom the Jews regarded as the first martyr (Gen 4:8), and of Zechariah, whom the Jews regarded as the last martyr (2 Chron 24:22) is mentioned.52 Zechariah prayed explicitly for judgement. According to Jesus, all the judgement from the first to the last martyr is saved for this wicked generation. Addressing Jerusalem with Sorrow and Lament (Matt 23:37–39) The chapter concludes with a lament for Jerusalem. Jesus uses the wellknown image of God’s love for his people, of protecting them under his wings (Ps 17:8; 46:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). Converted gentiles were also brought under the protective wings of God’s presence (Ruth 2:12). Jesus applies this image to demonstrate his effort to take care of Jerusalem. However, Jerusalem rejected his loving care (Matt 23:17). In the past, Jerusalem forsook the Lord, and he therefore forsook the city. He withdrew his divine presence. Now Jerusalem forsakes Jesus, and the city and the temple will therefore be forsaken. Conclusion Considering the intra-textual setting of Matthew 23:3, it is clear that the Matthean Jesus is critical of the conduct and the teaching of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees. While the sentiment towards these leaders is negative throughout the gospel, the conflict clearly intensifies during the week of the Passion, forming a crescendo to this conflict. Following Jesus’ humble entry into Jerusalem, he cleanses and judges the temple. 52

Gundry, Matthew, 471; Keener, Background Commentary, 106; Simmonds, “Hypocrites!,” 346.

42

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

This judgement is symbolized by his cursing of the fig tree. Jesus’ conduct incites the antagonism of the Jewish religious leaders, who challenge Jesus’ authority. The Matthean Jesus proceeds by telling three parables in which the unreliability of these leaders is exposed. A series of three challenges follows in which Jesus takes on increasingly skilled teachers of his day, but he emerges victorious. The challenges are brought to a halt by Jesus’ question about his own authority, which leaves his opponents dumbstruck and lacking any answer. This culminates in Jesus’ extensive criticism delivered in Matthew 23. First, Jesus addresses the crowds, warning them of the insincerity of these Jewish leaders. Their conduct is hypocritical and their teachings are misleading. He pronounces a series of woes in which ḥe accuses them of being hypocritical and spiritually blind. ḥe bemoans the destiny of Jerusalem, which as in the days of Zechariah, will be desolate as this city has opposed and murdered the true prophets of God. When Jesus instructs the crowds to obey the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees in everything they tell them (Matt 23:3a), ḥe does so in a context where they are accused of doing something wrong. The suggestion by Gundry and Powell makes sense, that Jesus only refers positively to their precise citing of the written Torah, but criticizes their interpretation (halakha) of it. When Jesus later proceeds to illustrate his statement, it is clear that he is accusing the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees of both false teachings and hypocritical conduct. However, it is also possible that Jesus issues this instruction ironically to expose the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders: they say one thing, but paradoxically do another. Either way, the overall sentiment towards them remains negative. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees, this verse teaches us to be humble in the interpretative process. This relates to teaching drawn from a biblical text, as well as to the practical application of it. Furthermore, this passage guides us towards introspection: Do we actually behave in the way we are telling others to behave, and what is our motive and attitude when challenging the teaching and conduct of others? Bibliography Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. NAC 22. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992. Bruner, Frederick D. The Churchbook Matthew 13-28. Vol. 2 of Matthew. A Commentary. Edited by Frederick D. Bruner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

A TROUBLING INSTRUCTION FROM JESUS IN MATTHEW 23:3?

43

Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins. A Socio-political Reading. JSNTSup 204. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000a. Carter, Warren. “Matthew 23:37-39.” Int (2000b): 66-68. Davies, William D., and Dale C. Allison. Matthew 19-28. ICC. Edinburgh; London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004. deSilva, David A. An Introduction to the New Testament. Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Esler, Philip F. “Intergroup Conflict and Matthew 23: Towards Responsible Historical Interpretation of a Challenging Text.” BTB 45(1) (2015): 38-95. France, Dick R.T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Gundry, Robert H. Matthew. A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Kingsbury, Jack D. “The Developing Conflict Between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Study.” Pages 179-97 in The Interpretation of Matthew. Edited by G. Stanton. Edinburgh; London; New York: T & T Clark, 1995. Kümmel, Werner G. “Die Weherufe über die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisäer (Matthäus 23,13-36).” Pages 135–47 in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Edited by W.P. Eckert. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. Luz, Ulrich. The Synoptic Gospels. New York: Ktav, 1968. Malina, B.J., and R.L. Rohrbauch. Social-science commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 2003. Mason, Steve. “Pharisaic Dominance Before 70 CE and the Gospels’ Hypocrisy Charge (Matt 23:2-3).” HTR 83 (1990): 363-81. Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Powell, Mark A. “Do and Keep What Moses Says (Matthew 23:2-7).” JBL (1995): 419–35. Rabbinowitz, Nancy S. “Matthew 23:2-4: Does Jesus Recognize the Authority of the Pharisees and Does He Endorse their Halakhah?” JETS 46(3) (2003): 423–47. Repschinski, Boris. The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form and Relevance for the Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Riesner, Rainer. “Der Aufbau der Reden im Matthäus-Evangelium.” Theologische Beiträge 9 (1978): 177–78. Scholtz, Jaco J. “Behold the Glory of the King: The Chiastic Structures of Matthew 21−25.” IDS 49(1) (2015): Art. #1856, 8 pages. doi: https://doi. org/10.4102/ids.v49i1.1856. Simmonds, Andrew R. “‘Woe to you … hypocrites!’ Re-reading Matthew 23:13-36.” BSac 166 (2009): 336–49. Talbert, Charles H. Matthew. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

44

FRANÇOIS P. VILJOEN

Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1980. Viljoen, Francois P. “The Double Love Commandment”, IdS 49(1), Art. #1869, (2015): 1–11, http:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids. v49i1.1869. Viviano, Benedict T. “Social World and Community Leadership: The Case of Matthew 23:1–12, 34.” JSNT 39 (1990): 3–21. Wiefel, Wolfgang. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. THKNT I. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998. Wilson, Alistair I. When Will these Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21−25. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004. Witherington, Ben. Invitation to the New Testament. First Things. Oxford; London; NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2013.

AN UNCOMFORTABLE STORY FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT: ABOUT MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1–13) Bart J. KOET

Abstract The parable in Luke 16:1-13 is one of the most difficult in the New Testament. Both the meaning of 16:9a (“Make yourselves friends of the Mammon of iniquity, so that, when a shortage arises, they will receive you in the eternal tents”) and its context are problematic. In this chapter, I will focus on the role of 16:8b–9 in Luke 16:1–31. Is it possible that these verses are not statements but questions? Combining questions and parables is not unknown in Luke, and it could be part of his strategy to present Jesus as a teacher who encourages his audience to think. When we encounter questions in 16:8–9, we will see that the argument of the parable of Luke 16:1–8a is more in line with the parable about poor Lazarus (16:19–31). Introduction It is a great pleasure and an honour for me to write in this Festschrift for Rob van Houwelingen. Although the Catholic tradition from which I originate is still struggling with the place of Scripture in ecclesiastical life, his and my common love for Scripture connects us. However, the theme of this collection, “troubling texts” indicates that some of the texts of Scripture are difficult to love. Because in Jewish, and also often in Catholic traditions, an anecdote is often recounted as an introduction to a speech, an article or a sermon, I would like to introduce the choice of my problematic text in such a way. For many years, I did my exegetical academic work alongside a pastoral task. When I was working on my dissertation, I was also a pastoral worker in a parish in Wateringen in the Westland region of the province of Zuid-Holland. There, I was given every opportunity to give shape to my role and that is why I started Bible courses, a phenomenon that was

46

BART J. KOET

relatively unknown in such a Catholic context. They were a great success, and soon I had three large groups. Because I was working at the same time for my dissertation on Luke-Acts, in those groups we also engaged in dialogue with Luke’s Gospel. I always prepared the sessions thoroughly some days before and the meetings were stimulating and fruitful. Until we came to Luke 16:1–13: The Parable of the Unjust/Shrewd Steward. During my preparation of this passage, I could not figure out what to make of that story at all. I remember almost panicking and calling Ben Hemelsoet, the then flamboyant and inspiring New Testament exegete of the Catholic Theological University Amsterdam, for advice. However, on that occasion even he was not helpful. Not only the novice pastor I was then, but great scholars, too, have expressed their embarrassment with this passage. For example, Bultmann suggests that in the course of time the original meaning of this parable has become unrecognizable.1 In this contribution, I will focus on the role of 16:8b–9 in Luke 16:1–31. My research question is: Is it possible that these verses are not statements but questions? The combination of questions and parables is not unknown in Luke and it could be part of the Lukan strategy to present Jesus as a teacher who makes his audience think.2 When we encounter questions in 16:8–9, we will see that the argument of the parable of Luke 16:1–8a is more in line with the next parable, the one about poor Lazarus (16:19–31). I will start with a translation of Luke 16:1–13, and then provide some comments on the translation and common (but often contradictory) interpretations of the parable. I will then present arguments for the view that what are commonly seen as statements in 16:8b–9 can equally be understood as questions. This may make the parable less exciting, but it does make the unity with the context clearer. Luke 16:1–133 16:1

1

2 3 4

He spoke to the disciples4: A certain human being was rich, who had a manager

He holds that Luke 16:1–8 is an example of the fact that several parables have lost their original meaning in the course of tradition; see Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 6th ed., FRLANT 29 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 216. In this way, the implicit author gets his audience thinking. Luke 16:1–12 is Lukan Sondergut. In some manuscripts: “his” disciples.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

16:2

16:3

16:4

16:5

16:6

16:7

16:8

16:9

16:10 16:11 16:12 16:13

47

and this one was accused in front of him of wasting his property.5 and after calling him, he said to him: “What is this that I hear about you?6 Submit the account of your management, because you cannot further manage.” The manager said in himself: “What shall I do, now that my lord is taking my management away from me? I have no strength to dig, I am ashamed of begging. I have known that I will do so that, when I am removed from my management they will receive me in their homes.” And after he had called each of his lord’s debtors he spoke to the first: “How much do you owe my lord?” This one said: “A hundred barrels of olive oil.” He said to him: “Get your papers and after sitting down write quickly fifty.” Then he said to another: “But you, how much do you owe?” And that one said: “A hundred measures of corn.” He said to him: “Get your papers and write eighty. And the lord praised the unjust manager, because he had done it prudently.7 Are the children of this world more prudent than the children of the light towards their own kind?8 And I 9 say to you, “Do you make yourselves friends of the unjust Mammon, so that, when a shortage arises, they will receive you in the eternal tents? He who is faithful in the smallest is also faithful in much and whosoever is unjust in the slightest shall be unjust in much. If therefore you have not been faithful in the unjust Mammon, who will entrust that what is true to you? and when you have not been faithful to another man, who will give you what is yours? No domestic can serve two lords10 Either he will despise one and love the other. Or he will hold on to one and look down on the other. You cannot serve God and the Mammon!

For διεβλήθη, see LSJ s.v. διαβάλλω V.1. A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, 5th ed., ICC 28 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1942), 382, argues that the question can be taken in three ways. Here I choose one of them. I refer to that commentary for the other two possibilities. 7 There are not so many crucial text-critical issues in this text, except here. Codex Bezae adds: διὸ λέγω ὑμῖν, and thus this manuscript interprets 16:8b as direct speech. 8 For this translation, see LSJ s.v. γενεά. 9 Plummer, Luke, 385, rightly stresses that is an emphatic ἐγώ! 10 I cannot assess here whether οἰκέτης was a slave or a free servant. Cf. footnote 17 below. 5 6

48

BART J. KOET

This story is one of the most difficult in the New Testament, and I do not imagine I can give a definitive explanation of it. In fact, I do not think that this text allows for a clear explanation. This is in line with the very nature of parables in the New Testament and in rabbinic Judaism. In these traditions, the purpose of parables is to stimulate listeners to think, sometimes even by shocking them. This leads to the fact that different interpretations of parables are possible and necessary. Nevertheless, I think that this parable might be less opaque than it seems at present. What about the οἰκονόμος? Jesus tells his disciples a story about a rich person, who had an employee. But what exactly is the function of that employee? There are different translation traditions, not only in English, but also in many other languages. In English translation, for example, we find as translation: 1) “steward” (Tyndale, King James Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version et alii); 2) “servant” (The Bible in Basic English); 3) “household manager” (Common English Bible) 4) “general manager” (Complete Jewish Bible); and 5) “manager,” (among others English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible). Wycliffe translated it as “bailiff.” Luther translated as “Haushalter.” In his interesting translation from a Jewish perspective, Chouraqui translates it as “un gérant.” It might seem that the Louis Segonde translation (1910) does not really translate the Greek word but transcribes it when it uses “un économe.” In several Italian translations, we find ”amministratore.” In the Vulgate, we find the word vil(l)icus. This word and the verb vil(l)icare and the word vil(l)icatio can only be found in Luke 16:1–8 and nowhere else in the Vulgate. These various translations show that the image of the employee of the man from Luke 16:1 is rather ambiguous: is he a slave, an ordinary servant, or a powerful manager? The different characterizations even seem contradictory. Even more contradictory are the different titles given to this parable in commentaries or Bible translations: The Parable of the Shrewd Manager” (NIV translation), “The Parable of the Dishonest Manager,”11 “The Prudent Steward.”12 Is the employee “unjust” or is he “clever”? Both characterizations can be traced back to those found in the text itself. In 16:8 the lord says that the manager has acted φρονίμως, 11

12

J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV), AB 28A (Garden City, NY; New York: Doubleday, 1985), 1094. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 615.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

49

hence the epithet “prudently.” However, he is also called “the unjust manager” (τὸν οἰκονόμον τῆς ἀδικίας). Because of the repetition of the root ἀδικία in 16:9, 10, 11, there is emphasis on that element. The fact that both characterizations are based on those in the text itself makes it difficult to choose which one is the best. In order to try to do so, it is necessary to read these characterizations in the context of the parable and perhaps also of the broader context. What Questions Does This Text Raise? I have made my own “working translation” of this text for this contribution. This translation does not pretend to be a nice translation. One of its peculiarities is that I use words related to managing or management to translate the Greek words with the element: οἰκονομ-.13 The Greek dictionary gives different meanings. The first meaning of the verb is “manage as a house-steward, order, regulate.”14 In ancient Greek the οἰκονόμος is “someone who rules the house,” but already, in the oldest phase, it is also being used for someone who rules the state.15 This very striking repetition of words related to οἰκονομ- (16:1, 2 [2 ×], 3 [2 x], 4, 8) in Greek evokes in the reader the sense that this text is about something important: about the way in which the house is managed. Thus, the focus lies in the parable on the man called “manager” (my translation; 16:1) and on his management activities. When this text was “performed” in the earliest stages of the creation of the gospels, this repetition naturally made something clear to audiences. But what? Is this man at the center of the story? However, listening to or reading this text usually leaves one with some questions about the man and also with questions about quite a few other details in this parable.16 Here, I can only mention some of them. For example, as we have already seen in connection with 13

14 15

16

For the importance of the root οἰκονομ-, see for example: François Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 15,1–19,27), EKK III/3, (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 75. The concept of injustice (ἄδικος and ἀδικία; see 16,8 [2 ×] and 16,10.11) is also repeated several times as a sign that that concept is relevant in the whole parable. LSJ, s.v. οἰκονόμος. See John K. Goodrich, Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians, SNTSMS 152 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012) and my critical review in International Journal of Philosophy & Theology (formerly Bijdragen) 75 (2014): 467–471. For an overview, see for example the commentary on Luke by Rob’s Doktorvater J. van Bruggen: Lucas. Het evangelie als voorgeschiedenis, Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie (Kampen: Kok, 1993), 296–303.

50

BART J. KOET

the first two verses, there is the question: what is the function of the employee and what are his tasks? Is he a slave or a free man?17 We can also ask: What happens to him? Is he rightly or wrongly accused of wasting the possessions of his lord?18 And what about those debts? Was it really possible to have debts in Jewish circles of the Second Temple Period?19 What kind of lord is the lord of the parable?20 What does the lord actually hear about his manager and from whom (16:1)? And does he just believe it? It is striking that the manager is not given any chance to defend himself. However, even though the first two verses raise many questions, the following seems certain: the manager is in danger of losing his livelihood (Luke 16:2). This is confirmed in 16:3. As often happens in the Sondergut of Luke’s Gospel, an inner monologue follows (16:3).21 Our manager 17

18

19

20

21

Mary Ann Beavis (“Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward [Luke 16:1–8],” JBL 111 (1992): 37–54) accuses other scholars of assuming too obviously that a δοῦλος or an οἰκονόμος is perceived as a free person (translated by “servant” or “steward”). However, she assumes too easily that these words (almost) always refer to slaves. That may be true in the Greco-Roman world, but it is less obvious in the language field of the LXX. K.H. Rengstorf writes about the word group to which δοῦλος belongs in TDNT, II, 261–279, here 265: “When we turn to the Gk Bible, and investigate its use of the word group, we are struck at once by the degree to which it has crowded out the various synon. (διακονέω, ὑπητερέω, etc.). Whenever there is reference to service, it is usually expressed by a word from this group. The group is thus freed from the restriction to the service of slaves which marks its use in non-biblical Gk. The reason for this is that it is almost always used for the root ‫ ָע ַבד‬and its denominatives.” Beavis attempts to explain 16:1–8 with comic anecdotes about slaves in classic literature. In doing so, she assumes a little too easily that readers of Luke should know those stories. Actually, each time δοῦλος or οἰκονόμος occurs in the LXX or the NT, it is necessary to look at which aspect of the word field predominates. There is no space here to elaborate further on this point. However, the fact that the man does not want to go digging or to go begging seems to indicate that he should go and provide for himself and thus is not a slave. See F. Udoh, “The Tale of an Unrighteous Slave (Luke 16:1–8 [13]),” JBL 128 (2009): 311–335; cf. E. Reinmuth, “Der beschuldigte Verwalter (Vom ungetreuen Haushalter) Lk 16,1–8,” in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, ed. Ruben Zimmermann (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 634–646. Key for this is the verb διαβάλλω (16:1): “slander,” “break up,” “denounce,” “accuse.” See the translation in the Vulgate: hic diffimatus est apud illium (and he came in bad reputation before him). It can be helpful to contextualize parables within the framework of the agrarian and urban Jewish/Greco-Roman society in the first century CE. See for Luke 16: Kenneth Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 332–342. In the New Testament ὁ κύριος often conjures up the Lord as a reference to God, and that could be possible here as well. However, if I translate “Lord” here with a capital letter then any – perhaps intended – ambiguity is immediately gone. Bovon, Lukas, 72.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

51

thinks about what he has to do. Because he is not able to dig and he does not want to beg, he is going to do something so that “they” will receive him into their houses later (16:4). While he does not say what he is going to do (Cheating? Correcting his former mistakes?) he mentions the aim: he says that he is going to do it because he is counting on them to receive him into their houses (in that uncertain future!). Then he calls his lord’s debtors to him. We hear about two of them; one of them has a debt of a hundred barrels of olive oil and is allowed to write fifty of them and the other is allowed to write eighty instead of a hundred bars (measures) of corn (16:5–7). The fact that it has to be done quickly (ταχέως, 16:6) could contribute to the atmosphere of conspiracy or fraudulent behaviour. What follows is quite unexpected. The lord praises the unjust manager because he acted prudently (16:8). While the qualification “unjust manager” is the characterization that the narrator (in this case Jesus) gives the manager, it is quite remarkable that the lord now suddenly praises this man, after having first announcing that he will dismiss him. This again raises the question: Is he rightly or wrongly accused of wasting the possessions of his lord? The ὅτι that connects Luke 16:8c with 16:8ab is usually interpreted as a causal adverb: “For the children of the world are more prudent than the children of light.”22 Wouldn’t one expect “the children of the light” to be smarter? This statement is followed by verses where it is Jesus, who pronounces a series of logia: 16:9–13. Like the parable itself, the logia also raise a number of questions. Although there seem to be all kinds of connections between these logia the coherence is not obvious. Who, for example, is speaking in 16:8c? What is the relationship between 16:1–8a with the several logia in 16:8c–13?

22

The word ὅτι is normally here considered to be a ὅτι causale. However, it can be a ὅτι recitativum, indicating the beginning of direct speech: see A. Aejmelaeus, “ὅτι recitativum in Septuagintal Greek,” in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays, rev. and enl. ed., ed. A. Aejmelaeus (Leuven: Peeters 2007), 31–42. Luke quite often uses ὅτι to introduce direct speech or a quotation; see only 1:25, 61; 2:23; 3:8; and 4:4, 41. Fitzmyer, [Luke X–XXIV, 1107] notes that the second ὅτι creates a problem, because it comes so closely after another ὅτι. However, Fitzmyer does not discuss the examples of ὅτι recitativum mentioned above. It is striking that codex Bezae is an old witness who (or: that?) does read a ὅτι recitativum here. The word ὅτι introduces a question in the GNT around 8 or 9 times. Regarding ὅτι as introducing a question in Mark 2:15, see my “‘Leidt veel leerlingen op’; Avot de-R. Natan A 3 vergeleken met Mar. 2,13–17,” in Tora met hart en ziel: FS Y. Aschkenasy, ed. L.A.R. Bakker et al. (Hilversum: Gooi en Sticht, 1989), 211–224.

52

BART J. KOET

A key problem is the explanation in 16:9a (And I say to you: “Make yourselves friends of the Mammon of iniquity, so that, when a shortage arises, they will receive you in the eternal tents”) and the relationship of this verse to the context.23 Is this a positive statement about the οἰκονόμος?24 And are 16:9b–16:13 more negative statements? Or does 16:9 mean something more general, for example, that by using the Mammon (for instance by giving alms) you can acquire eternal life?25 There are other questions such as: What is the relationship of this parable to the next parable? Why is this parable addressed to the disciples (16:1)? Are they more likely to be confronted with a clear choice between two “lords” than others? Or is it more directed towards the Pharisees, to whom Jesus told the parables of chapter 15, and who will be on stage again in 16:14? Some Explanations of the Parable Perhaps one of the most important questions is: What does this parable actually want to say?26 To explain the contradictions in the text, exegetes have come up with different solutions. The historical-critical exegesis, the scientific method which for a long time was the most important exegetical method and which was mainly looking for the genesis of texts, has often pointed to the fact that the story and the different logia have different origins and are glued together here.27 In a final editing, the author of Luke’s Gospel has linked independent sayings on the basis of, for example, word agreements. This explains the difficulty and incoherence of the passage and thus there is no need for further explanation. 23

24

25 26

27

The pattern of a parable followed by a statement of Jesus, which is introduced by “and I say to you” is not only found in Luke but also in Matthew (see 18:13). Note that in Codex Bezae, it can be found in 16:8b. See for example, C.S. Mann, “Unjust Steward or Prudent Manager,” ExpT 102 (1991): 234–235. The idea would then be that you could use a negative means in a positive way. There is a great deal of literature on this passage, see only the commentary by Bovon, Lukas, 66–70, and the as yet unpublished dissertation by Johannes Kirfel, “Offene Tür – Einladung zu klugem Handeln in der Gegenwart der Basileia Gottes. Eine Untersuchung zu Struktur, Komposition und Intention von Lukas 16” (PhD diss., Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2020). Bovon, Lukas, 72–74. F.W. Horn, Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas, GTA (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 72–73, argues that in Luke 16:1–8 at least an editorial treatment of a given motif or story by Luke can be assumed. See J. Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. Redaktion und Tradition im NichtMarkusstoff des dritten Evangeliums, KEK Sonderband (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 255–258.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

53

The historical-critical method has been succeeded by more literaryoriented methods. Scholars who use such methods look for the structure and coherence of a text and they try to give a (logical) interpretation. For such an interpretation it could be necessary to read a text in the social context of the time of its creation and thus it is important to assess what kind of a person an οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) could be in Jewish environments within the greater Greco-Roman world. As noted above, for most exegetes, the role of the manager is described as problematic. In fact, there are two main interpretations of his role and thus of this parable. They are nicely summed up by Marshall in his somewhat older commentary. Marshall sketches the traditional interpretation, that the manager acted corruptly through the entire parable: “having wasted his master’s goods during his stewardship, he finally proceeded to falsify the accounts of the master’s debtors by reducing the amounts owed in order to obtain their goodwill.”28 The problem with this interpretation is that the manager is praised for his “criminal” activities. An alternative interpretation – that the lord praises him for his reason (shrewdness!), not for his honesty – offers a solution to this moral dilemma. For many readers, however, the second possibility is so opportunistic that they can hardly believe that such a story would be told by Jesus. Marshall sketches a further interpretation, which is advocated by J. Duncan M. Derrett, for example.29 The actions described in 16:4, 5–7 are legal, and thus really praiseworthy! The manager released the debtors of what could have become the commission to which he was ‘entitled’.30 Thus the master/lord praises his employee/manager because he realizes that “the manager has eliminated his own commission from the original usurious bonds.”31 However, the fact that the employee is referred to as unjust in 16:8 remains a difficulty that this interpretation hardly solves.

28

29

30 31

Marshall, Luke, 614. Cf. Dennis J. Ireland, “A History of Recent Interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13),” WTJ 51 (1989): 293–318, on p. 295: “Until at least the middle of the twentieth century, the most common (hence ‘traditional’) interpretation of the parable of the unjust steward has been that which judges the steward’s actions toward the debtors fraudulent and dishonest, but nevertheless draws from those actions a positive lesson about prudence or wisdom in the use of material possessions.” Marshall, Luke, 614; see J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward,” NTS 7,3 (1961): 198–219. Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1097–1098, follows the interpretation of Derrett. Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1098.

54

BART J. KOET

The whole sequence of those sayings following the parable does not make understanding it any easier.32 Even though the logia may have been added later to the story of Jesus, they belong in the present text as an application to the preceding parable (and probably as a prelude to the next parable). One line of reasoning regarding 16:9 is that the disciples have to use their wealth (even though it is typified as the “unjust” Mammon) as wisely as possible in order to get places for themselves in heaven.33 Others stress the fact that the manager is an example for the disciples: they have to imitate only “the steward’s prudence in recognising the imminence of the catastrophe and acting appropriately.”34 The following verses seem to be easier to understand. Moxnes points out that 16:10–12 is mainly about being wise, also in dealing with injustice. He argues that in the last proverb (16:13) the perspective changes and that this is what it is all about: the ultimate choice of what is most important.35 When we look at the many interpretations of this parable, perhaps Marcel Poorthuis provides us with a striking summary: The parable causes a shock to those who are somehow addressed by this story.36 Parables certainly have their charm: indeed, a shock can make people think hard. Nonetheless, in the next paragraph, I am going to put forward a few arguments that may make this parable and its interpretation less insoluble and still give the “hearers,” then and now, food for thought.37 32

33 34 35

36 37

Marcel Poorthuis, “The Invasion of the King: The Virtual Mashal as Foundation of Storytelling,” in Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays in the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and Eric Ottenheijm (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 205–225, here 210, refers to the fact that a mashal as a rule does not contain any reference to a religious realm, but that it describes a scene of daily life. He argues that this may explain the striking rule and recurring feature of the immoral and bizarre mashal on the level of daily life, but as always applied to a moral (religious) nimshal. In the footnote to this statement Poorthuis refers to David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse, JudChr 4 (Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Las Vegas: Lang, 1981), 308, who mentions that both rabbinic and New Testament parables are amoral “im Wortlaut.” See for example Marshall, Luke, 615, and the literature mentioned there. Marshall, Luke, 615. Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel, OBT 16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 141–142. Poorthuis, “The Invasion of the King,” 210. In those logia the word “mammon” is a connecting word. In this context it is not possible to go into all kinds of narrative details, but it is good to mention that originally the word is not negative at all. Mammon seems to be related to the Hebrew word amen. It is a Jewish Palestinian Aramaic term for wealth and money. Actually “mammon” means “that which has been put in trust” (cf. P.W. van der Horst, “Mammon,” RGG 5:720–721). It does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. There are four places where it is

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

55

Parables in Context and the Relation Between Parables and Questions An important key to understanding Luke 16:1–8 and its context is, of course, that this is a parable. Telling parables is one of the ways in which Jesus shapes his teaching. Did he invent the genre himself? Did the early church make of Jesus a parable storyteller? And what, in any case, is the definition of a parable? An overview of the history of the last century’s research regarding parables can be found in Chapter Two of a book by Ruben Zimmermann.38 He shows how the different perspectives on interpreting parables have their own validity. Here I want to refer to one perspective, that from Sellin, who stresses that it is important to assess the parables within the context of the macro-narrative.39 Part of studying that context more closely could be to pay more attention to the relationship between questions in a text and the narration of told parables. In my opinion this relation has not yet been systematically investigated and, as I argued in a recent article, that fits a pattern whereby Jesus’ questioning mode of teaching in all Gospels has rarely been subjected to a systematic examination.40 An exception is Douglas Estes, who argues that “questions represent a numerical significant but largely overlooked feature of the Greek New Testament.”41 Questions are sometimes treated as

38

39

40

41

used in the New Testament, three in Luke 16. It is one of those cases where a Jewish term first appears in the New Testament but can also be found in later Jewish writings. Cf. M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Talmud (New York: Pandes, 1950), 794. Although in principle it is a neutral term, it gained more and more negative connotations, first as an indication of a negative form of wealth (stolen or commonly obtained), later the “Mammon” was even personified as a demonic figure. Even though the term eventually became very negative, in principle it doesn’t have to be so negative in the New Testament. Could it be that when Jesus used the word “mammon” it was still associated by the listeners at the time with something you can trust? That is difficult to prove, but it is clear that Jesus contrasts two kinds of trust: “trust in God” and “trust in the trusting means of money.” For mammon, see M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), 311. Ruben Zimmermann, Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 21–56. Cf. Ruben Zimmermann, ed., Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte, WUNT 231 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). See Gerhard Sellin, “Lukas als Gleichniserzähler: die Erzählung vom barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10,25–37),” ZNW 65 (1974): 166–189 (First Part); 66 (1975): 19–60 (Second Part). Bart J. Koet, “Counter-questions in the Gospel of Luke. A First Exploration,” in Asking Questions in Biblical Texts, ed. B.J. Koet and A. van Wieringen, CBET (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). See the literature mentioned there. Douglas Estes, Questions and Rhetoric in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 15.

56

BART J. KOET

assumptions, or even as statements and propositions. The dynamics of questions is frequently overlooked at the expense of understanding the dynamics of those texts in the New Testament in which questions play a (large) role. Could there be questions in 16:8–9? There are no question marks in the Greek text of NA-28, but that is not decisive, because question marks are later additions.42 One cannot find question marks in the papyri and the manuscripts. The fact that a sentence was a question could, of course, be seen first and foremost by the use of relevant words and particles. The New Testament writings emerged from written records aimed at oral tradition/preparation and were therefore in fact a kind of hybrid of oral and written tradition.43 The intonation of some sentences was then accompanied by a question modulation, a process which, for example, still happens with Turkish imams who learn the Koran by heart but do not understand Arabic. If there are no explicit indications in Luke 16:8b–9 that they are questions, can they still be questions? Indeed, the statements or propositions in 16:8b–9 can actually be interpreted as questions. At least, that is Reinhold Merkelbach’s idea. In a very concise article, he proposes reading 16:8b–9 as a question.44 He believes that it is unlikely that the lord would praise the manager. In fact, one would be expecting a sort of outburst of anger from him. Would that lord really have said that the children of this world are smarter than the children of light? Merkelbach argues that it is “unthinkable that Jesus seriously advises the disciples to make friends out of the mammon of injustice.”45 That is why Merkelbach proposes that in neither case is it an affirmation. They are probably questions to which a negative answer can be expected, or perhaps an indignant exclamation. The audience of the parable should be saying: What is proposed here is unthinkable.

42

43

44

45

Quite probably in the 8th/9th century, see Edward Maunde Thompson, An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography (Oxford: Clarendon), 1912, 60. See only the overview of the problem in the dissertation of my doctoral student Hans Lammers, “Have You not Read this Scripture?: Memory Variation and Context-Based Modification in the Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of Mark,” (PhD diss. Tilburg, 2021), 115–143. R. Merkelbach, “Über das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Haushalter (Lucas 16,1–3),” VigChr 33 (1979): 180–181. This is a scholarly journal that focuses more on the literature of the early church than on the writings of the New Testament, which is probably the reason that this article has not really been assessed. Merkelbach, “Über das Gleichnis,” 81: “Ganz undenkbar is schliesslich, dass Jesus den Jüngern im Ernst rät, sich Freunde aus dem Mammon der Ungerechtigkeit zu machen.”

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

57

Merkelbach rightly notes that in spite of the absence of question marks in Greek, it is quite possible that 16:8b and 16:9 are questions. Merkelbach’s interpretation is rarely discussed.46 Here, I want to discuss two elements which could corroborate his thesis: 1) The connection that exists between the eternal tents and the womb of Abraham. 2) The relation between parables and questions in Luke’s Gospel. The Relation Between the Eternal Tents and the Bosom of Abraham There is a certain logic in Merkelbach’s article. When 16:8b and 16:9 are read as including two questions, the difficulty involved in praising someone who is unjust disappears. In 16:8b the question becomes whether it is true that the children of this world are really more prudent than the children of light. The parable in 16:19–31 clearly teaches that this is not so. After all, in the end, the children of light are better off (see Luke 12:13–21). Thus, the expected answer to the question in 16:8b is that the children of this world are not more prudent than the children of light. Thus, someone who cheats on his master will not be praised, not even if he has shown shrewdness in doing so. The question in 16:9 is also a clear message: Do you have to make yourselves friends with a negative phenomenon like the Mammon (after all: unjust!) so that when a shortage arises they will receive you in the eternal tents?47 The answer is that of course you should not do that. If you find your money more important than putting the Torah into practice (by inviting poor people to your table, for example) then you won’t be safe in life after death. As I pointed out above, this message is in line with the conclusion of the following parable.48 46

47 48

Little attention has been paid to this interpretation. But see Bovon, Lukas, 78. He fiercely opposes it and calls it exegetical tricks (“exegetische Kniffe”). His argument is that the Lord only praises the cleverness of the economist and not his criminal behaviour. According to him, as a good loser, the lord bows to the class of his steward. Bovon shows very little sense of reality here. As a former prison chaplain in one of the larger prisons in Amsterdam, I have never heard of a judge, a public prosecutor or a victim praising a convicted person (typified negatively by Luke in 16:8!) for swindling people in a clearly intelligent way. For a discussion about the role of tents in biblical history, see Bovon, Lukas, 81. Bovon, Lukas, 71–72, sketches that the whole of chapter 16 has property as its theme (“Materielle Güter”).

58

BART J. KOET

Abraham’s answer from the second parable is, in the first place, an answer to the rich man. Shouldn’t this man have known from Moses and the Prophets that caring for the poor is part of God’s covenant with his people and the cement of relationships between people? Is it not written, for example in Deuteronomy 15:7–18, that the poor will always be there, but that those poor belong to everyone? A rich man not only has possessions, but also has his own “poor,” or so it should be. He does not have to give away all his possessions, but he has to make sure that “his” poor do not suffer from want (Deut 15:11). This answer, however, is also addressed to the Pharisees of 16:14. They also know about Moses and the Prophets! If you do not share your richness as the Torah and the Prophets teach (cf. Luke 16:31), you will not end up in the womb of Abraham after your death, but on the other side of the rift in the Hades (16:23, 26, 28). This is in line with 16:9. That the eternal tents (16:9) are an image that is interchangeable with the womb of Abraham (16:22–23) is shown, for example, in a text from the Testament of Abraham, a Jewish writing from the first or second century CE, about the death of Abraham. At the end of the longer version, Abraham is finally taken to paradise by the Archangel Michael (20:10–14). God says the following at the death of Abraham (T. Ab. 20:13–14): “Take therefore my friend Abraham to Paradise, where the tents (σκηναί) of my righteous are and the dwellings (μοναί) of my saints Isaac and Jakob are in his (i.e., Abraham’s) womb; where there is no trouble, no sorrow, no sighing, but peace and joy and life unending.”49 So, it is likely that an important association evoked by 16:9 is that it concerns the wages the righteous will receive after their death and that you cannot achieve those by choosing the unjust Mammon: Both the first and the second parable have at least one message in common: You cannot collect treasures on earth for heaven’s sake.50

49

50

Ἀρατε οὖν τὸν φίλον μου τὸν Ἁβραὰμ εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, ἔνθα εἰσὶν αἱ σκηναὶ τῶν δικαίων μου καὶ μοναὶ τῶν ἁγίων μου Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακὼβ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ αὐτοῦ, ἔνθα οὐκ ἔστιν πόνος, οὐ λύπη, οὐ στεναγμοὶ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγαλλίασις καὶ ζωὴ ἀτελεύτητος. M.R. James, The Testament of Abraham, TS 2.1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 1892. In Luke’s Gospel, it happens more often that parables explain each other: see for example Luke 14:1–24 (see my “Who Do you Invite to the Table? Connections between the Dropsical Guest and the Meal Parables in Luke 14:1–24,” in Parables, ed. Annette Merz and Eric Ottenheijm [Leiden: Brill, forthcoming]); 14:28–34; 15:3–32 and 18:1–14.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

59

The Relationships Between Parables and Questions That a parable ends with a question is not unique. Parables are often related to questions, but the relationship between the two has rarely been researched.51 In his thorough introduction to the parables, Zimmermann mentions sixteen passages of Luke’s Sondergut in which a form of parable occurs. Given the limitations of this contribution, we can take only a first step here, by focusing on the relationship between questions and those parables which belong to the Lucan Sondergut.52 Actually, in Luke’s Gospel, it is rare for a parable not to be somehow accompanied by a question.53 The first time Luke uses he Greek word παραβολή (parable) is in Luke 4:23.54 It is the Lucan Jesus himself who calls his pronouncement a parable. With this saying Jesus responds to a question from the audience in the synagogue.55 The first time we encounter a parable in the Lucan Sondergut that meets Bultmann’s definition of a parable is Luke 7:36–50. Here, Jesus concludes the parable (7:41–42a) with a question (7:42b). In Luke 10,25–38 we find a more extensive didactic meeting.56 In response to a question from a lawyer (νομικός) about what he has to do to receive eternal life, Jesus answers with two questions. After the 51

52

53

54 55

56

But see Estes, Questions and Rhetoric, 282–287, where he explains expository questions: questions asked so that a speaker may introduce a topic and then provide an exposition about the topic raised by the question. In the exegetical literature one sometimes finds short discussions of the use of questions in connection with parables or comparisons; for Zechariah, see Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 448–450; for the relation between parables and questions in the New Testament, see already T.W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), 71: “In several cases, the direct appeal to the conscience which this kind of parable makes is further emphasized by Jesus by means of a question appended to the story.” Manson mentions that the question may be prefixed to the parable. Just for comparison: In Matthew 13, one of his parable chapters, the word parable is used as many as twelve times (13:3, 10, 13, 18, 24, 31, 33, 34 [2x], 35, 36, 53). There are only two questions. After the first parable (13:3–9) the disciples ask why Jesus speaks in parables. At the very end Jesus finally asks whether his disciples have understood him. However, these questions are very general and do not explicitly address the parables themselves. In the fig tree parable (13:6–9) and the parable about the father with two sons, the last parable of Luke (15:8–32), there are no questions. I consider these verses as belonging to Luke 4:16–30 as Lukan Sondergut, We have to note that in the sermon on the plain, Luke mentions that Jesus tells a parable in the form of a question (Luke 6:39). In Matt 15:14 we find this “parable” as well, but not in the form of a question. For this passage and the role of questions in this passage, see my “Counter-questions.”

60

BART J. KOET

νομικός has answered by connecting two passages from the Scriptures (10:27), he gets a compliment and some advice from Jesus (10:28). This is not the end of the dialogue, for the νομικός asks a new question: “And who is my neighbour?” After Jesus has recounted the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30–36), he adds to this story another question. By answering Jesus’ last counter-question, the questioner has given an answer to his own question and now he knows how he can become a neighbour and fulfil the Law and thus inherit internal life. This passage shows how apt/proficient the Lucan Jesus is in asking counter-questions while telling stories in the form of parables. The link between parables and questions can be seen in a special way in Luke 11:5–8. There, the parable is told in the form of a question. In Luke 12:13, when someone asks Jesus (addressed as a teacher) to address his brother on inheritance, Jesus asks the person a question and then tells a parable (, 12:16–21). By the way, it is striking those two questions are asked in the parable itself. The last question is put in God’s mouth: “Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be (RSV)?” The parable of the servants becoming guests (12:36–39) is followed by a question from Peter who asks what the target group of the parable is. Jesus answers that question with a counter-question! A combination of several questions and parables is found in Luke 14:1–24. The parables in 14:7–11 and 14:16–24 are both told in response to questions from Jesus to his table-companions (14:3, 5).57 The double parables of building a tower and going to war (Luke 14:28–34) both begin with a question and these questions are quite comparable with those in Luke 15:4–32. There we find a series of three parables. The first two are introduced, as in 14:28, 31, with a question (15:4, 8). In Luke 17:7–10 we find a comparable pattern: this passage consists of a series of questions. That leaves us with two parables that are not very directly introduced or prefaced by questions. The first example is Luke 16:19–31, the parable that follows Luke 16:1–13. It seems, however, that this parable does relate to what precedes it inasmuch as the questions in Luke 16:11–12 can be considered an introduction to the parable in 16:19–31. In fact, the same reasoning can apply to Luke 18:9–14, where no question introduces or leads off the parable, but the whole parable has strong 57

For this passage and the role of questions in this passage, see my “Who Do You Invite to the Table?”

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

61

connections with 18:1–8 and thus with the question in 18:7. After the parable (18:2–6), there is a question in 18:7, which is followed by Jesus’ answer in 18:8. This limited assessment of the relationships between questions and parables in the Gospel of Luke shows that in Luke’s Sondergut there is a tendency to use the combination of question(s) and parables to give shape to Jesus’ way of teaching. This phenomenon also exists elsewhere in the Gospels, but it seems that in his Sondergut Luke uses this combination almost everywhere, although we do find different forms of that combination: the parable is told in response to a question, the parable ends with a question and sometimes a question is a bridge between two parables.58 We have to note that in all the Lucan parables there are connection between parables and questions, sometimes even in a quite complex pattern (see for example Luke 10:25–38).59 Although the pattern is not watertight, it is present in such a way that it would fit the pattern if 16:8b and 16:9 were questions as well. Those questions then connect with the questions of 16:11 and 16:12. The relationship between telling parables and asking questions is such a clear pattern that it is likely that this is also the case in Luke 16. Now, of course, in the current translation that connection is there because the questions in 16:11 and 16:12 are linked with the parable. However, these verses are a remove from the parable itself and it seems appropriate that there would also be questions in the immediate context of 16:1–8.60 If so, a nice pattern would emerge: Question: Are the children of this world wiser above the children of the light towards their own kind? Question: And I (ἐγώ) say to you: Do you make yourselves friends of the unjust Mammon, so that, when a shortage arises, they will receive you in the eternal tents? Statement: He who is faithful in the smallest is also faithful in much. And whosoever is unjust in the slightest shall be unjust in much. Question: If therefore you have not been faithful to the unjust Mammon, who will entrust it to you? Question: And he who has not been faithful to another man, who will give you what is yours? 58

59

60

When Jesus uses the verb ὁμοιόω (to compare) in Luke 7:31; 13:18, 20, it is in the form of a question! In the sermon on the plain, Luke mentions that Jesus tells a parable in the form of a question (Luke 6:39). In Matt 15:14 we find this statement as well, but not in the form of a question. It could be further investigated, how in Luke’s Gospel questions can often be the linking pin between two parables.

62

BART J. KOET

Statement: No domestic can serve two lords, either he will despise one and love the other, or he will hold on to one and look down on the other. Conclusion: You cannot serve God and the Mammon!

Conclusions Is the “manager” just a smart man? Is he someone who repents by undoing his former extortion (and benefits from it again) or is he above all a cunning villain? The original setting and possible first interpretation of the story is already framed in Luke’s Gospel itself by a series of, at first sight, contrasting sayings. Centuries of different interpretations and translations have “burdened” the story with ever-new interpretations. The manager became a steward, a housekeeper; he was characterized as unjust but also as wise. We can see from these different interpretations that the story has worked as a thought exercise throughout the centuries. One interpretation is that the disciples have to know that even injustice can be learned from it. The question asked in this chapter is whether reading 16:8b and 16:9 as questions makes the story clearer and more logical. That seems to be the case. In Luke’s Gospel, telling parables and asking questions are two ways of achieving the same goal: making people think. Therefore, it is quite possible that we find questions in 16:8b and 16:9. Seen this way, chapter 16 becomes more of a unity because the tenor of 16:9 and 16:23– 31 becomes the same: neither money nor riches will help you in the world to come.61 Bibliography Aejmelaeus, A. “ὅτι recitativum in Septuagintal Greek.” Pages 37–48 in On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators: Collected Essays. Edited by A. Aejmelaeus. Kampen: Kok, 1993. Bailey, Kenneth. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008. Beavis, Mary Ann. “Ancient Slavery as an Interpretive Context for the New Testament Servant Parables with Special Reference to the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–8),” JBL 111 (1992): 37–54. Bovon, François. Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 15,1–19,27). EKK III/3. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001. 61

I want to thank biblical scholars Douglas Estes, Wendy North and Leo van den Boogaard for their comments and corrections.

MAKING FRIENDS WITH THE MAMMON (LUKE 16:1-13)

63

Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 6th ed. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Fresh Light on St Luke xvi. I. The Parable of the Unjust Steward.” NTS 7,3 (1961): 198–219. Estes, Douglas. Questions and Rhetoric in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985. Fitzmyer, J.A. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). AB 28A. Garden City, NY; New York: Doubleday, 1985. Flusser, David. Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. 1. Teil: Das Wesen der Gleichnisse. JudChr 4. Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Las Vegas: Lang, 1981. Goodrich, John K. Paul as an Administrator of God in 1 Corinthians. SNTSMS 152. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Horn, F.W. Glaube und Handeln in der Theologie des Lukas. GTA. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Horst, P.W. van der. “Mammon.” RGG 5:720–721. Ireland, Dennis J. “A History of Recent Interpretation of the Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–13).” WTJ 51 (1989): 293–318, Jastrow, M. Dictionary of the Talmud. New York: Pandes, 1950. Jeremias, J. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums. KEK Sonderband. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Kirfel, Johannes. “Offene Tür – Einladung zu klugem Handeln in der Gegenwart der Basileia Gottes. Eine Untersuchung zu Struktur, Komposition und Intention von Lukas 16.” PhD diss., Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2020. Koet, Bart J. “Who Do You Invite to the Table? Connections Between the Dropsical Guest and the Meal Parables in Luke 14:1–24” (forthcoming). Koet, Bart J. “Counter-questions in the Gospel of Luke. A First Exploration.” (forthcoming). Lammers, Hans. “Have You not Read this Scripture? Memory Variation and Context-Based Modification in the Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of Mark.” PhD diss., Tilburg University, 2021. Mann, C.S. “Unjust Steward or Prudent Manager.” ExpT 102 (1991): 234–235. Manson, T.W. The Teaching of Jesus. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Merkelbach, R. “Über das Gleichnis vom ungerechten Haushalter (Lucas 16, 1–3).” VigChr 33 (1979): 180–181. Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel. OBT 16. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Plummer, A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke. 5th ed. ICC 28. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1942. Poorthuis, Marcel. “The Invasion of the King: The Virtual Mashal as Foundation of Storytelling.” Pages 205–225 in Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays in the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Edited by Marcel Poorthuis and Eric Ottenheijm. Leiden: Brill, 2020.

64

BART J. KOET

Reinmuth, E. “Der beschuldigte Verwalter (Vom ungetreuen Haushalter) Lk 16,1–8.” Pages 634–646 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Gütersloh: Gütersloher, 2007. Sellin, Gerhard. “Lukas als Gleichniserzähler: die Erzählung vom barmherzigen Samariter (Lk 10,25–37).” ZNW 65 (1974): 166–189 (First Part); 66 (1975): 19–60 (Second Part). Udoh, F. “The Tale of an Unrighteous Slave (Luke 16:1–8 [13]).” JBL 128 (2009): 311–335. Zimmermann, Ruben, ed. Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte. WUNT 231. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Zimmermann, Ruben. Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.

THINKING TWICE: RECONSIDERING THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT (JOHN 2:13–15) Roelof ALKEMA

Abstract The Fourth Gospel’s narrative placement of the cleansing of (aka ‘incident’ or ‘demonstration’ at) the temple is often considered an odd feature of John’s vis-à-vis the Synoptic storyline. Exegetes who have defended John’s historical reliability, over against those who one-sidedly prioritise the Markan timeline in their historical reconstructions, have often pointed to differences between the Johannine and the Synoptic accounts. Following this line of reasoning, some have argued the possibility of two separate incidents in the temple. However, the Markan and the Johannine accounts do seem to rely on identical source material, which would rather suggest a single event. This contribution suggests that the author of the Fourth Gospel deployed a literary technique (common to contemporary biographers such as Plutarch) called displacement, whereby a historical event is positioned at an alternative point in a narrative timeline, in order to give added meaning to the overall structure of the narrative. “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” (John 2:13–15) Καὶ ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, (John 2:13–15 NA28)

66

ROELOF ALKEMA

Introduction The narrative of the “cleansing” of the temple, as related in the canonical gospels,1 is broadly considered to be a focal point of Jesus’ ministry.2 However, as much as this is agreed upon today, the story has often evoked questions and dispute regarding historicity, meaning and interpretation. Early Christians, for instance, wrestled with the apparently violent portrayal of Jesus in this episode, but also with the difficulty of harmonising the Synoptical with the Johannine accounts. Both these elements brought some, Origen first and foremost, to question the historical nature of the event.3 Augustine on the other hand, harmonised the historically conflicting elements, by doubling down and stating Jesus must have cleansed the temple twice. Moreover, he introduced the notion (later picked up by Calvin) that Jesus’ violent behaviour can be used as a model for just war and the persecution of heretics.4 Even though Rob van Houwelingen has made appreciative use of Origen (by naming his dissertation De Tweede Trompet, after a quote of his5), he is, in spite of his peaceful nature, in fact much more at ease with those other giants of church history: Augustine and Calvin. Much as these famed forebears did, Rob has, above all, sought to interpret the Biblical accounts of the New Testament as historically trustworthy.6 It is perhaps no wonder then, that in his own commentary on the Fourth Gospel he also adopts the viewpoint that there were two separate but similar 1 2

3

4

5

6

Cf. Matt 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–16; Luke 19:45–46; John 2:13–15. Cf. Jostein Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” in The Historical Jesus, vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, eds. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter, 2635–75. Ådna himself refers to it as the “temple act,” in the rest of this contribution I will refer to it as the temple “incident.” Cf. Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel According to John 10.22.130, where he opts for a spiritual rather than a historical reading. Cf. also Andy Alexis-Baker, “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13–15,” BibInt 20 (2012): 73–96: his article provides a historical overview of interpretation of the Johannine account. Alexis-Baker, “Violence,” esp. 79–81, points to Augustine’s use of the passage to defend the use of violence and force against heretics; on pages 85–86 he shows how Calvin and other reformers furthered this idea. Augustine’s viewpoint of two separate but similar incidents can be found in his De consensu euangelistarum 2.67. P.H.R. van Houwelingen, De tweede trompet. De authenticiteit van de tweede brief van Petrus, Kampen: Kok, 1988. Van Houwelingen as an exegete is firmly rooted in the Dutch reformed tradition, but not in a static or dogmatic way, cf. Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen and Eric Peels, “Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek,” in Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift, ed. Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen and Eric Peels, Tu Bezinningsreeks 13 (Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2013): 243–55.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

67

incidents in the temple precincts: one at the outset of Jesus’ ministry and one at its conclusion.7 His overall insistence on John’s value as a trustworthy source for Jesus’ life and teaching may have been somewhat of an outlier at the start of his career, but resonates more broadly now in Johannine studies.8 Van Houwelingen is not alone in his stated opinion regarding the “temple incidents”: his most notable allies in this regard are Carson and Köstenberger.9 However, it is clear that theirs is a minority standpoint. Most scholars in the recent past have operated on the assumption that both accounts refer to the same event and that the Synoptic timeline makes more sense and is, overall, the more historically trustworthy.10 Very often, scholarly books and articles do not even entertain the notion that the Johannine and Synoptic accounts may refer to different events. However, if it is agreed that the Fourth Evangelist wants to present a historically trustworthy narrative, more may be needed than a simple disregard of his narrative framework regarding the temple incident. Below, the likelihood of two separate incidents will be questioned and an alternative viewpoint will be presented. In doing so, the Johannine account will be compared to the Markan version of the temple incident.11 The focus will be on the (perceived) shared nucleus of tradition material.12 The Problem When we present the Markan and Johannine accounts of the temple incident side by side, a number of observations emerge. First, there are indeed differences regarding narrative details in both accounts: 7

8

9

10 11

12

P.H.R. van Houwelingen, Johannes. Het evangelie van het Woord, CNT3 (Kampen: Kok, 1997). For instance, in the three essay-collections of the SBL study group John, Jesus and History. Also: James H. Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” JSHJ 8 (2010): 3–46; James H. Charlesworth and Jolyon G. R. Pruszinski: Jesus Research: The Gospel of John in Historical Inquiry (London: T&T Clark, 2019). D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Quite recently Allan Chapple, “Jesus Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?” JETS 58/3 (2015): 545–69. Cf. Ådna, “Temple,” esp. 2638. Even though this is questioned by some, there is broad consensus regarding Markan priority, cf. Ådna, “Temple,” esp. 2643. Ådna, “Temple,” points to Mark 11:15–16 as the nucleus of the tradition.

68

ROELOF ALKEMA

1. John’s narrative speaks of a whip that Jesus made out of chords; Mark’s does not. 2. John’s story lays more emphasis on Jesus’ driving out of animals, whereas Mark’s only seems interested in humans.13 3. When the context of both accounts is allowed to speak more broadly, we find that Jesus’ logion of destroying and rebuilding the temple (John 2:19) is used quite differently in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 14:55–59), where it is presented as false testimony on the lips of Jesus’ accusers. 4. Also, the reasons Jesus presents for his actions differ slightly: in John he admonishes those present to “stop turning my Father’s house into a market” (2:16b), whereas in Mark he accuses them of having turned the temple into “a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17, quoting Jer 7:11).14 These are meaningful differences, but they are still quite subtle. None of these elements would exclude the possibility of harmonising the Markan with the Johannine account. Second, and more meaningful, there is explicit and notably different dating in both accounts. On the one hand, both accounts are placed mere days from Passover. On the other hand, in Mark it is clear that this is the Passover which is connected to Jesus’ death and resurrection. John also places the Passion Narrative at Passover, but he places his narrative of the temple incident at Passover of a different year. The Actual Problem The first four differences mentioned above would not have attracted a lot of attention were it not for the issue of different dating. Even among the three Synoptic Gospels, we have examples of stories that are widely accepted as referring to the same event that nevertheless have similar (or bigger) differences between them. In other words: when we take out the issue of dating, there would be less of a problem in conceiving both accounts as referring to the same event; the term ‘harmonising’ might not even be on anyone’s mind.

13

14

For the notion that Jesus used his whip only on animals cf. N. Clayton Croy, “The Messianic Whippersnapper. Did Jesus Use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?” JBL 128 (3) (2009): 555–68. His is the most elaborate recent study on the issue. His conclusions are still tentative. Cf. van Houwelingen, Johannes, 86; Chapple, “Intervention,” esp. 546–50.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

69

To illustrate this point, I have listed the similarities and differences between the Johannine and Markan accounts of another Gospel narrative, namely that of the feeding of the five thousand, in two tables below: Similarities in Mark’s and John’s versions of the feeding of the five thousand Mark 6:35–44 Setting the scene: “This is a remote place” – people are present The issue arises: they need to buy something to eat. Jesus suggests providing them with bread “That would take more than half a year’s wages” (δηναρίων διακοσίων ἄρτους ) Five loaves, two fish (ἄρτους … πέντε, καὶ δύο ἰχθύας) Jesus directs the people to sit down on the grass (συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ); takes the loaves (λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους); gives thanks (εὐλόγησεν) The bread is distributed (παρατιθῶσιν) among the people, five thousand men have eaten (οἱ φαγόντες [τοὺς ἄρτους] πεντακισχίλιοι ἄνδρες) Twelve baskets worth of leftovers (δώδεκα κοφίνων)

John 6:3–14 Setting the scene: a mountainside – a great crowd The issue arises: where can we buy bread for these people to eat? Jesus suggests providing them with bread “It would take more than half a year’s wages” (διακοσίων δηναρίων ἄρτοι) Five loaves, two fish (πέντε ἄρτους … δύο ὀψάρια) Jesus directs the people to sit down on the grass (ἀναπεσεῖν … χόρτος); takes the loaves (ἔλαβεν οὖν τοὺς ἄρτους); gives thanks (εὐχαριστήσας) The bread is distributed (διέδωκεν) among the people, five thousand men have eaten (οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡς πεντακισχίλιοι) Twelve baskets worth of leftovers (δώδεκα κοφίνους)

Apart from the fact that both pericopes are telling the same story, there are a number of striking similarities here. Of course, the numbers mentioned are identical: five loaves, two fish, five thousand men, two-hundred denarii worth of bread and twelve baskets. The conspicuous verbal similarities pretty much line up around these identical numbers: “loaves of bread”; “denarii”; “baskets.” In addition to these, there is also both accounts’ emphasis on the presence of lush “grass.” Apart from these elements, verbal agreement does not stand out. John calls the fish ὀψάρια (opsaria), instead of ἰχθύας (ichthyas), and he uses εὐχαριστήσας (eucharistēsas) instead of Mark’s εὐλόγησεν (eulogēsen) for the thanksgiving: two marked verbal differences where similarities might have been expected.

70

ROELOF ALKEMA

Differences in Mark’s and John’s versions of the feeding of the five thousand Mark 6:35–44 ἰχθύας εὐλόγησεν People are already present at the beginning of the story The disciples bring up the issue of food Jesus tells the disciples to provide Jesus tells the disciples to take stock

John 6:3–14 ὀψάρια εὐχαριστήσας A great crowd is approaching Jesus brings up the issue of food

Jesus tells Philip to provide Andrew presents a boy with bread and fish The disciples distribute the bread and Jesus distributes the bread and fish fish

However obvious the similarities may be, the differences between both accounts are still meaningful. The least problematic of these differences is that Jesus’ conversation with “the disciples” in Mark 6:36–37 is specified as a conversation with Philip in John 6:5–7. A rather substantial difference is that between either the presence or the arrival of a great crowd. A very minor difference is that of the agency of distribution. Andrew and the boy’s presence in the story present a narrative twist that is completely absent from Mark’s story.15 Exegetes could split hairs about these differences, but they hardly ever do.16 They might use these differences to infer redactional and theological differences or differences in style, idiom or provenance of sources.17 But, as far as I can tell, nobody would use the differences between John 6:3–14 and Mark 6:35–44 to argue that these pericopes refer to two separate but similar events: the differences simply are not meaningful enough, as is the case with the four “differences” between the temple incident, listed above. Therefore, we can tentatively assume that the reason for the different appreciations of the differences between the stories of the temple incident, on the one hand, and the feeding of the five thousand on the other, is the difference in the dating of the former.

15 16

17

Van Houwelingen, Johannes, 145, gives a concise overview of the differences. But cf. C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 199–211 for a source-critical analysis of the differences. Cf. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John. A Commentary, 2 vols. (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:663–69 for further discussion.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

71

A Closer Look at the Temple ‘Incidents’: Similarities Before concluding decisively that the only reason for arguing for separate but similar events in Mark 11:15–16 over against John 2:13–15 is the issue of dating, the actual similarities between both these pericopes should be looked at closer. If these similarities are comparable to (or stronger than) those that we find in both accounts of the feeding miracle, we can tentatively infer that both pericopes refer to the same event and/ or are dependent on the same strand of tradition material. That would mean that the trouble with this “troubling text” is that of dating or placement on either evangelist’s narrative timeline. Mark and John’s narratives of the temple incident side by side “On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.” (Mark 11:15–16 NIV) Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστερὰς κατέστρεψεν, καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. (Mark 11:15–16 NA28)

“When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.” (John 2:13–15 NIV) Καὶ ἐγγὺς ἦν τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ὁ Ἰησοῦς. Καὶ εὗρεν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τοὺς πωλοῦντας βόας καὶ πρόβατα καὶ περιστερὰς καὶ τοὺς κερματιστὰς καθημένους, καὶ ποιήσας φραγέλλιον ἐκ σχοινίων πάντας ἐξέβαλεν ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ τά τε Now the Passover and the Festival of πρόβατα καὶ τοὺς βόας, καὶ τῶν Unleavened Bread were only two κολλυβιστῶν ἐξέχεεν τὸ κέρμα καὶ days away τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν, (John Ἦν δὲ τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυμα μετὰ 2:13–15 NA28) δύο ἡμέρας. (Mark 14:1a)

72

ROELOF ALKEMA

Similarities in Mark’s and John’s versions of the temple incident Mark 11:15–16 [It is almost Passover (inferred from 14:1)] Jesus arrives in Jerusalem (καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα) Jesus enters the temple (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ) He overturns the money-changers’ tables (καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν … κατέστρεψεν) He drives [them] out from the temple (ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν) Dove-sellers are mentioned in this regard (τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστεράς)

John 2:13–15 It is almost Passover Jesus arrives in Jerusalem (Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα) Jesus enters the temple (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ) He overturns the money-changers’ tables (τῶν κολλυβιστῶν … καὶ τὰς τραπέζας ἀνέτρεψεν) He drives [all] out from the temple (ἐξέβαλεν (ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ)) Dove-sellers are mentioned in this regard (τοὺς πωλοῦντας … περιστεράς)

Of course, the similarities are striking. It seems logical to assume that the same event is implied here, because the shared narrative elements are meaningful: – Easter is near (not in so many words in Mark 11:15–16, yet Mark points it out in 14:1) – Jesus, arriving in Jerusalem – Is going into the temple – Where he responds to economic activity in the temple precincts (the implication in both narratives is that the economic activity there is somehow problematic) – He drives out (John possibly referring only to the actual cattle, Mark leaning towards the merchants) – He overturns the tables of the money-changers Exact verbal agreement between both passages is also quite impressive: they share a total of 13 identical words, on a total of 42 words in the Markan passage (almost 31%), to which we might add the meaningfully related words ἐκβάλλειν (ekballein) – ἐξέβαλεν (exeballen) (the same lexeme, but different grammatical form). This brings it to a total of 14 out of 42, indicating that exactly one-third of the exact and near exact words Mark has used to recount the episode of the temple cleansing are also found in John’s account. Given John’s strong preference for his own

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

73

idiom, this is an impressive number.18 This becomes even more obvious when we compare it to the verbal agreement between Mark and John’s versions of the feeding of the five thousand: there they shared 15 identical or near identical words on a total of 146 words in the Markan account (a little over 10%, admittedly in a much longer pericope). This evidence suggests quite forcefully that Mark and John made use of the same strand of Jesus Tradition,19 or that some form of literary dependence in either direction should be assumed. This observation seems to stand at odds with the notion that both accounts refer to two separate events. Köstenberger, however, tries to combine these two positions, suggesting that John apparently used (near) identical source material as Mark (or even Marks’ Gospel itself), applying it to another event that he knew of.20 This, of course, is a possible solution to the problem of the differing dates, but not a satisfactory one: it is hard to see how that line of reasoning would be the more logical possibility. The Displaced Incident The question, then, that remains is how and why John presents the temple incident at a different place on his narrative timeline. We have shown the possibility of both Mark and John presenting a historically correct dating for the temple event to be unlikely. In order to proceed from here, there are still four options we need to choose from:

18

19

20

Contra Chapple, “Intervention,” esp.547, where he repeats Leon Morris’ claim that “there are only five words in common between the accounts” (Cf. Leon Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Exeter: Paternoster, 1969), 26–27). However, ἱερῷ (hierō) and Ἱεροσόλυμα (hierosolyma) are not listed there, as if excluded precisely because of the virtue that should include them: that they are words belonging to accounts that are telling very similar stories. Another difference with my count is that in counting the words I have included, in addition to verbs and nouns, larger syntactical overlapping units, such as ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (en tō hierō). In the feeding miracle parallels, comparable syntactical units are virtually non-existent, hence they should not be taken for granted. Furthermore: “only five words” would in any case be unnecessarily dismissive, considering how meaningful these five words are: they stand out and control both narratives. If one did choose to focus merely on nouns and verbs, the number would be seven out of 20 (35%). Cf. my dissertation The Pillars and the Cornerstone. Jesus Tradition in the Catholic Epistles (Delft: Eburon, 2018) for a definition of Jesus Tradition (page 32) and a methodology for establishing the likelihood of two passages referring to the same piece of tradition (page 34). There, I have argued that apart from verbal and propositional agreement, both occurrences should be expected to work out a similar effect within either context, so called “conceptual analogy.” Köstenberger, Theology, 193.

74

ROELOF ALKEMA

1. Mark got it right and John unwittingly got it wrong.21 2. John got it right and Mark somehow got it wrong.22 3. Mark got it right and John knowingly got it wrong.23 4. Neither Mark nor John got it right.24 Being able to answer these questions is dependent on a large amount of supporting theory. Since space is limited here, I am going to assume two theoretical frameworks that have broad support, even though they are far from uncontested: – Mark is the oldest canonical Gospel.25 – John is literarily independent from Mark, but somehow familiar with Synoptic tradition material and its narrative outline.26 In theory, both authors could have got the “historical facts” of the matter completely wrong (option 4 above): we simply have no way of checking them against other or possibly “better” sources.27 The canonical Gospels are the best possible sources at hand and the consensus in historical Jesus 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Cf. esp. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 413–28; 490–92. Wright here follows the Synoptic timeline without even considering John’s different dating. He must feel he doesn’t have to, because none of those whom he is interacting with in these pages considers John’s different dating to be an issue. Cf. J.A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J.F. Coakley (London: SCM, 1985); James F. McGrath, “’Destroy this Temple’: Issues of History in John 2:13–22,” in John, Jesus and History, vol.2 of Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just S.J. and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL, 2009): 35–41. Charlesworth, “Paradigm,” makes a point of stating it is possible. Cf. Keener, John, 1:519; Michael R. Licona, Why Are there Differences in the Gospels? What We can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 195–96. Cf. Burton Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 292; Paula Fredriksen, “The Historical Jesus, The Scene in the Temple and the Gospel of John,” in John, Jesus and History, vol.1 of Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just S.J. (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 249–76. Consensus on this theory is one of the broadest possible in New Testament studies. Markan priority can also be assumed apart from the classical Two Document Hypothesis, cf. Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, The Synoptic Problem. Four Views (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016). Richard Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark,” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. R. Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998): 147–71; Paul N. Anderson, “John and Mark, the Bi-Optic Gospels,” in Jesus and the Johannine Tradition, ed. Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher (Philadelphia: Westminster/ John Knox, 2001): 175–88, esp. 181: “…while [the Fourth Gospel] does not depend on Mark for material, it appears that [the Fourth Evangelist] engages Mark in a supplemental sort of way.” Anderson calls the Gospels’ relationship “interfluential,” Michaels, John, speaks of “intertwined” traditions (page 29). Apart from Luke and Matthew, whose narrative structure I consider to be dependent on Mark’s.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

75

research in this moment is that we should rule out option 4.28 Markan priority would make the second option an almost impossible case to build. John’s supposed familiarity with the Markan narrative outline would make option 1 questionable, especially considering the overall impact of the temple incident. This leaves us with option 3: John knowingly got it wrong. This may, at face value, sit uneasily with an appreciation of the Fourth Gospel as historically trustworthy. However, the Fourth Evangelist was not trying to pass our modern day tests of history-writing. If there was any test, he was trying to pass that of First Century biography composition, which has its own rules regarding the (sometimes creative) use of a narrative timeline.29 Passing this test may have meant failing some of the tests of modern day academia, but in the end it could mean getting something else completely right: John chose to present the story of the temple incident in the way that he did in order to bring across the story that he needed to tell about Jesus. In 1991, Vernon Robbins wrote about the meaningful similarities between the Gospels’ handling of source material and Plutarch’s. In doing so, Robbins has pointed out that this takes place in a context which he calls “rhetorical culture” (as opposed to either “oral” or “scribal culture”, let alone “print culture”): a culture in which scribal artistry and certain liberties in reproducing source material are part and parcel of the act of writing, as becomes clear from reading the contemporary “basic instruction” books for composition, the so called Progymnasmata. 30 More recently, this line of thinking has been worked out in detail by Michael Licona.31 In his book he has studied the subtle or overt differences between Plutarch’s presentation of several recurring events that the biographer reports in different contexts in his Lives of Roman politicians. Licona lists several compositional devices that Plutarch uses in reproducing these events, such as Transferal, Displacement, Conflation, Compression, Spotlighting, Simplification, Expansion of Narrative Details and 28 29

30

31

Ådna, “Temple,” esp. 2653–54. For the Gospels as biography, cf. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009): 73–84. Vernon K. Robbins, “Writing as a Historical Act in Plutarch and the Gospels,” in Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, ed. Duane F. Watson, JSNTSupp 50 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991): 142–68. An accessible edition of late First and early Second Century Progymnasmata is the translation by George Kennedy: Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta: SBL, 2003). Licona, Differences.

76

ROELOF ALKEMA

Paraphrasing.32 For the present study Displacement is of specific interest. Licona defines and describes the process: When an author knowingly uproots an event from its original context and transplants it to another. (…) Plutarch displaces events and even occasionally informs us he has done so.33

Licona, towards the end of his book, considers John and Mark’s conflicting dates for the temple incident and states: Regardless of how one arrives at the conclusion that there was only one temple cleansing, if the conclusion is correct, Mark or John displaced the event from its original context and transplanted it in another.34 While certainty is not possible, the timing of the temple cleansing in John is a candidate for synthetic chronological placement.35

The rhetorical culture in which the Fourth Gospel came to be offered biographers a set of rules and/or expectations regarding chronology that is very different from what we are accustomed to today. For gospel writers, this means that they can be assumed to have felt a certain freedom to displace events without their readers considering them to be sloppy or loose with factual matters. The Quest for “Why” It is therefore conceivable, perhaps even likely, that John willingly displaced the narrative of the temple incident. Apparently the Fourth Evangelist had ample means for this displacement, but did he also have motive? Why would he displace a narrative that, in itself, seems to occupy such a meaningful place in the narrative timeline of the Gospel? For this motive to come to light, there must first be some clarity about the meaning of the temple incident itself. 32

33

34 35

Licona, Differences, 20. Cf. also Christopher Pelling, Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. ltd., 2002), 91–116. Cf. also Timothy E. Duff, “The Structure of the Plutarchan Book,” Classical Antiquity 30 (2) (2011): 213–78. Pelling also describes the broad range of compositional devices, Duff simply shows how temporal displacement is a recurring feature in Plutarch. Licona, Differences, 20. Pelling, Plutarch, 92–93, distinguishes three forms of displacement in Plutarch’s Lives: (1) to ensure smooth transitions; (2) grouping together by topic; (3) making or reinforcing causal/logical points. Licona, Differences, 195. Licona, Differences, 196, “synthetic chronological placement” is more specified technical terminology employed by Licona for displacement in the service of the overall flow of a narrative (185–86).

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

77

Since the temple incident has taken pride of place in many historical Jesus researchers’ reconstructions, the socio-religious, political, prophetic or economic rationales behind Jesus’ action have been researched and described in many ways. The most important of these perceived rationales are:36 – Idolatrous currency: the role of the money changers was primarily to supply the festival-goers with the Tyrian shekel that carried an image of the god Melqrt.37 – Economy: the corrupted transactional character of the sacred space and its corrupted leadership.38 – Temple-Tax: “…the revenues of the temple fiscal system would readily be seen (…) as benefiting the rulers rather than the ruled. (…) God was being misrepresented and his real relationship to his people obscured.”39 – Herod: the impressive structures of the new temple, along with some innovations (financially beneficial for the ruling class) were associated with the Herodian family and benefiting their status.40 – Demonstrative action: temporarily halting the sacrificial system.41 – Symbolic action: Jesus’ “violence” as a prophetic action foretelling the temple’s imminent destruction (and/or the eschatological temple’s swift arrival).42

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

For an overview of viewpoints, cf. William Domeris, “The Enigma of Jesus’ Temple Intervention. Four Essential Keys,” HTS 71(1), 2015, Art. 2954, 8 pages. http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/hts.v&!/1.2954.; Ådna, “Temple.” Peter Richardson, “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminal Papers, ed. E.H. Lavering (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 507–23. Craig E. Evans, “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action,” BBR 3 (1993): 93–110. Richard Bauckham, “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple,” in Law and Religion. Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity, ed. Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1988), 72–89. Adele Y. Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays in Ancient Religions and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on his 70th Birthday, ed. A.Y. Collins & M.M. Mitchell (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 45–61; Ådna, “Temple,” esp. 2640–41, points to the Royal Stoa as the probable location of the temple market. This was, according to Josephus, Ant. 15.410–420, the most impressive and richly decorated building of the entire temple complex. Van Houwelingen, Johannes, 85: “When commerce is temporarily halted and cattle is driven from the temple, only one sacrificial animal is left: the Lamb of God.” (my translation) Wright, Victory, 413–28; 490–92.

78

ROELOF ALKEMA

The last two of these rationales are probably more descriptive of how the incident worked out, whereas the other four actually try to provide examples of what was wrong with the situation in (or behind) the temple market. Although it seems very likely that Jesus’ action was intended as a prophetic gesture and therefore carried symbolic meaning, that does not exclude the possibility that Jesus responded to the social, religious and/ or economic situation at hand. In fact, both John and Mark’s account seem to assume that he did. It is hard to pinpoint the exact rationale behind Jesus’ action, yet it is telling that so many convincing efforts have been made: there was potentially a lot for Jesus to dislike about the way the temple was led, maintained, advertised or even exploited by Jerusalem’s ruling class.43 It is therefore a reasonable inference to view the temple incident as a way of intentionally critiquing and provoking the political and religious authorities in Jerusalem. In this regard, it may be meaningful that the probable location of the temple incident, the Royal Stoa (Josephus, Ant. 15.410– 420),44 was apparently also the location where the Sanhedrin usually convened.45 That Jesus sought to critique and provoke Jewish leadership corresponds with Markan chronology, where the temple action is swiftly followed by a number of exchanges between Jesus and various interlocutors, representing different Jewish sectarian strands and positions of authority (Mark 11:27–13:2): scribes, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians. A rather similar narrative function of opening up a series of dialogues and debates, mostly located in the temple precincts and with “the Jews,” can be read in John (John 2:18–19; 3:1–21; 5:18–47; 7:15–44; 8:1–11; 12–29; 37–59; 10:22–39). So, both in John, as in Mark, it appears to be Jesus’ action in the temple that actively provokes Jewish leaders into

43

44 45

For the prosperity and distribution of wealth in First Century Jerusalem in relation to the temple, cf. M. Goodman, “Chapter Five. The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period,” in Judaism in the Roman World. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, vol.6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 59–67. “It is clear that, despite social tensions engendered by the inequitable distribution of wealth, this was an exceptionally prosperous society.” (page 59); also Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 343: “Jerusalem’s economic prosperity in this period [First Century CE] was more directly correlated to its religious importance than before ….” Ådna, “Temple,” esp. 2640–41. Dan Bahat, “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount,” in Jesus and Archaeology, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 300–307; and note 40 above.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

79

a conversation with very high stakes. When Keener writes about John’s placement of the temple incident and notes that “[now] Jesus’ entire ministry is the Passion Week,”46 this is what he has in mind. Michaels hints at this as well, when he comments on John’s presentation of the temple incident: “Anyone familiar with the Synoptic chronology might conclude that we are already into the last week of Jesus’ life! (…) With this, [Jesus] begins a conversation with the Jewish authorities that will extend through the first half of John’s Gospel.”47 Neither Keener nor Michaels develops this observation systematically. It does seem to be a very meaningful observation, which shows John recognising the narrative prominence of the temple incident, especially in how it functions as a backdrop to dialogue and debate between Jesus and the Jews. It would seem that John, who wishes to present a multi-year ministry by Jesus,48 has displaced the temple incident, in order to add narrative tension and purpose to the ongoing debate between Jesus and “the Jews”. For those hearers and readers who were already familiar with the Markan chronology, the displacement would indeed lend a “Passion Week”tension to almost the entire first half of the Gospel. Every debate and individual conversation between Jesus and “the Jews” would gain urgency in this way. For those who were not that familiar with Markan chronology, the narrative timeline would still work; it would be clear from the outset why Jesus and “the Jews” are pitted against each other. The latter notion is also commensurate with John’s narrative approach to giving away all the information about who Jesus is from the outset, whereas in Mark, Jesus’ identity is slowly revealed. Concluding remarks In this essay it has been proposed that Mark’s and John’s respective narratives of the temple incident likely refer to the same event, since they tell the same story, using many identical or similar keywords. Furthermore, it has been deemed likely that John has knowingly displaced his version of the narrative. By placing it at the outset, instead of near the end of Jesus’ ministry, John has put a spotlight on the ensuing debates between Jesus and the Jews in his Gospel, lending his presentation of

46 47 48

Keener, John, 1:519. Michaels, John, 157. Which might very well be “more historical” than the single year-ministry that seems to be supposed by the Synoptic Gospels, cf. Charlesworth, “Paradigm.”

80

ROELOF ALKEMA

Jesus’ multi-year ministry some of the heightened dramatic tension of the Markan Passion Week debates. The scope of this study has been limited to a comparison between the Markan and the Johannine passages in their shared piece of Jesus Tradition. A broader study could also shed Lukan and Matthean light on the issue, perhaps including broader contextual issues as well. That would arguably create even clearer and more certain conclusions than the present study. The outcome of this study seems to be at odds with the findings of Professor van Houwelingen, who opted for the possibility of two similar but separate events, regarding the temple incident(s). A rather bold move on account of the junior researcher, to oppose his Doktorvater in an essay purporting to be written in his honour. That is, however, a very superficial impression. In the course of his career, Rob van Houwelingen has actively worked alongside his fellow researchers in Kampen and Apeldoorn to update reformed hermeneutics so that it remains faithful to its original purposes, but simultaneously more sensitive to academic assumptions. “The ways in which the Bible appropriates and writes history,” they write, “move beyond categories such as ‘physically perceivable’ and ‘literallyhistorical’.”49 This would make the exegetical endeavour in this tradition “perhaps a little less apologetic and more modest” than it had been in the past.50 In this spirit of unapologetic modesty I submit this thesis. Agreeing to disagree on the number of temple incidents, I am fully confident that this chapter nevertheless fits the hermeneutical style that Rob van Houwelingen has helped to shape in all of his students, myself in particular. Bibliography Ådna, Jostein. “Jesus and the Temple.” Pages 2635–75 in The Historical Jesus. Vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus. Edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Alexis-Baker, Andy. “Violence, Nonviolence and the Temple Incident in John 2:13–15.” BibInt 20 (2012): 73–96. Alkema, Roelof. The Pillars and the Cornerstone. Jesus Tradition in the Catholic Epistles. Delft: Eburon, 2018. 49

50

Van Bekkum, van Houwelingen and Peels, “Bijbelse hermeneutiek,” 254–55 (translation mine). Ibid., 255.

THE JOHANNINE PRESENTATION OF THE TEMPLE INCIDENT

81

Anderson, Paul N. “John and Mark, the Bi-Optic Gospels.” Pages 175–88 in Jesus and the Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Philadelphia: Westminster, 2001. Bahat, Dan. “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount.” Pages 300–307 in Jesus and Archaeology. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Bauckham, Richard. “Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple.” Pages 72–89 in Law and Religion. Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity. Edited by Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 1988. Bauckham, Richard. “John for Readers of Mark.” Pages 147–71 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bekkum, Koert van, Houwelingen, P.H.R. van, and Peels, Eric. “Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek.” Pages 243–255 in Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift. Edited by Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen and Eric Peels. Barneveld: De Vuurbaak, 2013. Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Chapple, Allan. “Jesus’ Intervention in the Temple: Once or Twice?” JETS 58/3 (2015): 545–69. Charlesworth, James H. “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” JSHJ 8 (2010): 3–46. Charlesworth, James H. and Pruszinski, Jolyon G. R. Jesus Research: The Gospel of John in Historical Inquiry. London: T&T Clark, 2019. Collins, Adele Y. “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple.” Pages 45–61 in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays in Ancient Religions and Philosophy. Edited by A.Y. Collins & M.M. Mitchell. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Croy, N. Clayton. “The Messianic Whippersnapper. Did Jesus use a Whip on People in the Temple (John 2:15)?” JBL 128 (3) (2009): 555–68. Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Domeris, William. “The Enigma of Jesus’ Temple Intervention. Four Essential Keys.” HTS 71(1) (2015) Art.#2954, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ hts.v&!/1.2954. Duff, Timothy E. “The Structure of the Plutarchan Book.” Classical Antiquity 30 (2) (2011): 213–78. Evans, Craig E. “Jesus and the ‘Cave of Robbers’: Toward a Jewish Context for the Temple Action.” BBR 3 (1993): 93–110. Fredriksen, Paula. “The Historical Jesus, The Scene in the Temple and the Gospel of John.” Pages 249–276 in John, Jesus and History. Vol.1 of Critical Appraisals of Critical Views. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just S.J. Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Goodman, M. “Chapter Five. The Pilgrimage Economy of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period.” Pages 59–67 in Judaism in the Roman World. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Vol.6. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Houwelingen, P.H.R. van. De tweede trompet. De authenticiteit van de tweede brief van Petrus. Kampen: Kok, 1988.

82

ROELOF ALKEMA

Houwelingen, P.H.R. van. Johannes. Het evangelie van het Woord. CNT 3. Kampen: Kok, 1997. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John. A Commentary. 2 vols. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003. Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Kennedy, George. Progymnasmata. Greek textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Levine, Lee I. Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2002. Licona, Michael R. Why Are there Differences in the Gospels? What We can Learn from Ancient Biography. Oxford; London; New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Mack, Burton. A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. McGrath, James F. “’Destroy this Temple’: Issues of History in John 2:13–22.” Pages 35–41 in John, Jesus and History. Vol.2 of Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just S.J. and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: SBL, 2009. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Pelling, Christopher. Plutarch and History: Eighteen Studies. London: Duckworth, 2002. Porter, Stanley E. and Dyer, Bryan R. The Synoptic Problem. Four Views. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Richardson, Peter. “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts.” Pages 507–23 in Society of Biblical Literature Seminal Papers. Edited by Lavering E.H. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Robbins, Vernon K. “Writing as a Historical Act in Plutarch and the Gospels.” Pages 142–68 in Persuasive Artistry. Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Edited by Duane F. Watson. JSNTSupp 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Robinson, J.A.T. The Priority of John. Edited by J.F. Coakley. London: SCM, 1985. Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE (JOHN 7:53–8:11): A LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF JOHANNINE VOCABULARY Jermo VAN NES

Abstract Most contemporary New Testament scholars are convinced that John 7:53–8:11, widely known as the Pericope Adulterae (PA), was not originally part of John’s Gospel. This scholarly consensus is inter alia based on linguistic considerations. In many studies, however, there is no principled approach used to determine whether the PA’s language differs significantly from other Johannine pericopes. Using linear regression analysis, this study focuses on hapax legomena by way of a test-case. It shows that – from a statistical point of view – there is no argument that indicates that the number of hapaxes in the PA is significantly different from other parts of John’s Gospel. On the one hand, this result disproves the common scholarly claim that the PA cannot have been part of the original Gospel of John because of its peculiar vocabulary. On the other hand, showing that the PA has not significantly more hapaxes in comparison to other pericopes in the Gospel of John can equally be taken as evidence of a skillful interpolator who successfully imitated Johannine style. Introduction Being one of the most popular stories in the Gospels, the episode of a women caught in adultery as recorded in John 7:53–8:11, widely known as the Pericope Adulterae (PA), is troubling in different ways for different readers. Some contemporary Westerners living in societies that openly promote committing adultery (e.g. in adverts and commercials) will find it shocking to see that, according to Jewish law, the punishment for this act was death.1 Others, including feminists, will be disturbed by 1

See, for example, Wim J.C. Weren, “The Use of Violence in Punishing Adultery in Biblical Texts (Deuteronomy 22:13–29 and John 7:53–8:11),” in Coping with Violence

84

JERMO VAN NES

the male domination reflected in the story as men are judging a transgression that by its very nature involves both a man and a woman.2 Yet others, especially New Testament scholars, are mainly puzzled by the absence of the passage in the oldest textual witnesses of the Fourth Gospel as well as the lack of textual and thematic affinities between the PA and the rest of the Gospel of John. Accordingly, one of the ongoing debates in Johannine scholarship is whether the PA was originally part of John’s Gospel.3 Textual Problems Most contemporary Johannine scholars are convinced that the PA is a later interpolation and not part of the original Gospel of John. This hypothesis has been forged over the past two centuries on the basis of three major lines of argument. First, the textual history of the PA is disproportionally complex. Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398 AD) may be the first Greek father who refers to the story in a commentary on Ecclesiastes, noting that it could be found only “in certain gospels” (ἔν τισιν εὐαγγελίοις).4 In the oldest textual witnesses of the Fourth Gospel, the PA is omitted.5 These include ो75 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV) and ो66 (Papyrus Bodmer II), which are both early third-century witnesses showing evidence of careful scribal transmission.6 While there was a general tendency among scribes in the

2

3

4

5

6

in the New Testament, ed. Pieter de Villiers and Jan Willem van Henten, Studies in Theology and Religion 16 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2012), 133–50. See, for example, Martin Scott, “On the Trail of a Good Story: John 7.53–8.11 in the Gospel Tradition,” in Ciphers in the Sand: Interpretations of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7.53–8.11), ed. Larry J. Kreitzer and Deborah W. Rooke, The Biblical Seminar 74 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 53–82. For a concise history of research on the PA in biblical scholarship, see Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 35–45. For a more detailed account, see Chris Keith, “Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53– 8.11),” CBR 6 (2008): 377–404. For a recent discussion of the literary authenticity of the passage, see the contributions in The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research, ed. David Alan Black and Jacob N. Cerone, LNTS 551 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2016). For the Greek text and translation, see Wieland Willker, “The Pericope de Adultera: Jo 7:53-8:11 (Jesus and the Adulteress),” vol. 4b of A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, 12th ed. (Bremen, 2015), 9, http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 187. Tommy Wasserman, “The Strange Case of the Missing Adulteress,” in Black and Cerone, The Pericope of the Adulteress, 37–40.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

85

earliest centuries AD to omit rather than to add textual materials, it appears that in the transmission process of John’s Gospel only inessential words (e.g. pronouns, articles) were sometimes omitted and only very few of these can be interpreted as intentional, theologically motivated deletions.7 Major redactional additions in the textual tradition of the Gospels are exceptional, but the inclusion of a number of non-received Jesus traditions in specific manuscripts (e.g. Mark 16:3 in Codex Bobbiensis or the Freer Logion at Mark 16:14 in Codex Washingtonianus) suggests that some scribes allowed themselves considerable freedom in incorporating their own and others’ traditions.8 This applies in particular to what scholars have called the “Western text” as represented by the diglot Codex Bezae and the Old Latin chapter divisions, capitula lists, gospels, Church Fathers, and Bible translations. From this Latin tradition, the first secure signs of the PA’s inclusion in the Gospel of John emerge as it is found in the oldest type (Cy) of chapter divisions and capitula lists dating from the early third century AD, the Vulgate (c. 390-405 AD), Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD), and at least 11 Latin authors writing in the fourth and fifth century, including Ambrosiaster, Ambrose, Augustine, and Cassiodorus.9 Other textual witnesses that include the PA can be dated from the seventh to the fifteenth century, with the vast majority of these dating closer to the twelfth century (e.g. 18, 180, 205, 579, 597, 700, 892, 1006, 1010, 1071, 1243, 1929, 1342, and 1505).10 While John 7:53–8:11 is the only attested location for the PA in all manuscripts dating from the fourth to the tenth century,11 at least nine alternative locations have been identified in later manuscripts.12

7

8 9

10 11 12

So James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, NTTSD 36 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 399–544, 615–704. Cf. Peter M. Head, “The Habits of New Testament Copyists: Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John,” Bib (2004): 399–440. Cf. Wassermann, “The Strange Case,” 49–62. Cf. Wassermann, “The Strange Case,” 58–63. See especially Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman, “Earth Accuses Earth: Tracing What Jesus Wrote on the Ground,” HTR 103 (2010), 416–22. Cf. Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 379. Cf. Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 383. At the beginning and end of John’s Gospel; after John 7:36, 44; 8:13, 14a, and 20; after Luke 21:38; and at the end of Luke’s Gospel. So D.C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 96; Maurice A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations Regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of Nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts Containing the Passage,” Filología Neotestamentaria 13 (2000): 39–49; and J. Neville Birdsall, “The Pericope Adulterae in Georgian,” in Historica, Biblica, Ascetica et

86

JERMO VAN NES

Second, the presence of the PA at John 7:53–8:11 is generally perceived as a disruption of the narrative. The setting of John 7 and 8 is in Jerusalem at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, during which Jews were accustomed to pouring water over a rock (in commemoration of the water supply coming from the smitten rock in the wilderness) and to igniting golden lamps (in commemoration of the pillar of light accompanying the Israelites in their wilderness journey). By inserting the PA at John 7:53–8:11, the continuity between both rituals to which Jesus refers in terms of being the true source of living water (cf. John 7:37–39) and the true light to be followed (cf. John 8:12) is disrupted.13 Tabernacles motifs, especially Siloam, continue in John 8:12–9:7, and, if the public event recorded in the PA actually did precede Jesus’ discussion of sin (cf. John 8:21, 24, 34, 46), it is curious that no allusion is made to it in light of the less public event at the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–9) to which is alluded frequently afterwards (John 5:16, 20; 7:21, 23).14 John 8:12 may also very well parallel Isaiah 9:1–2, providing a reproof to the Pharisees’ assertion concerning Galilee in John 7:52.15 In addition, there is the lack of dichotomies (e.g. light/darkness, heavenly/earthly, above/below, spirit/ flesh) that play such a prominent role not only in the PA’s immediately surrounding contexts (e.g. John 8:12) but also in the Gospel of John as a whole.16 Finally, the presentation of the adulteress in the PA differs considerably from the presentation of other women in the Fourth Gospel who appear as paradigmatic followers of Jesus (e.g. John 4:7–42).17 Third and finally, the language of the PA seems to be un-Johannine.18 At least 15 words in the episode are not found elsewhere in the Gospel of John.19 Similarly, the phrase οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (8:3) is unique to the Fourth Gospel and more akin to the Synoptics (cf. Matt

13

14

15 16 17 18

19

Hagiographica, ed. F. Young, M. Edwards, and P. Parvis, StPatr 39 (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 185–92. So B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, “Appendix I: Notes on Select Readings,” in Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1882), 87. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:735. So Philip Comfort, “The Pericope of the Adulteress,” BT 40 (1989): 146–47. Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 381. Scott, “On the Trail of a Good Story,” 73. For much of what follows in this paragraph, I am indebted to the research of Seth van der Bijl, “The Significance of the Linguistic Divergence of the Pericope Adulterae as Compared to the Gospel of John” (ThM thesis, Evangelische Theologische Faculteit Leuven, 2020). Cf. Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 380.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

87

23:2; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:21; 6:7; 11:53).20 Robert Morgenthaler identified 75 preference terms in the Gospel of John, of which only 16 appear in the PA while many are common vernacular (e.g. ἐγώ, εἶναι, ἔρχεσθαι, ἔχειν, etc.).21 Conversely, typical Johannine words and expressions such as ἀλλα, ἐάν (μή), εἰ (μή), ἐκ, ἵνα μή, μαθητής, and οἶδα are missing in the PA. Typical Johannine prepositions such as παρά, περί, and πρό are missing too, but the a-typical prepositions ἀπό, εἰς, ἐν, ἐπί, and κατά are present.22 The conjunction δὲ is used as many as 11 times in the PA instead of the common Johannine use of οὖν. As such, δὲ is used once in nine words (0.09) on average in the PA. This ratio is much closer to the Synoptics (Matthew 0.11; Mark 0.04; Luke 0.06) than to the rest of the Gospel of John (0.94).23 The PA also includes at least 10 compound words, whereas the Fourth Gospel uses only 110 in total.24 Syntactically, longer sentences with relative clauses are absent from the PA as well.25 While many commentators on John usually acknowledge the historicity of the story, they take the above considerations as cumulative evidence that the PA is a non-Johannine interpolation. As such, they prefer to discuss the passage in an excursus, appendix, or not at all.26 However, scholars continue to dispute the PA’s literary origins. Many have pointed to textual traditions outside the Fourth Gospel, ranging from Q to the Gospel of Peter.27 Some of the evidence suggests a Lucan origin of the PA as the Ferrar Group of manuscripts (f13), dating from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries, have the PA located after Luke 21:37–38: “Every day he was teaching in the temple, and at night he would go out and spend the night on the Mount of Olives, as it was called. And all the people would get up early in the morning to listen to him in the temple” 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27

Cf. Keener, The Gospel of John, 1:736. Robert Morgenthaler, Statistik des neutestamentlichen Wortschatzes, 3rd ed. (Zürich: Gotthelf, 1982), 61. Cf. Morgenthaler, Statistik, 61. Cf. Morgenthaler, Statistik, 61; Willker, “Pericope,” 20. Cf. Morgenthaler, Statistik, 61. Willker, “Pericope,” 20. See, for example, C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 589–92; D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 333–37; Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 258–65; D. Moody Smith, John, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999); Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to St John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2005), 524–36; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010); Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2015), 178–81. See Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 384–86.

88

JERMO VAN NES

(NRSV). The connection with the Mount of Olives and Jesus teaching in the temple on a daily basis closely resembles John 8:1–2. Also, the word ὄρθρου in John 8:2 (“early morning”) is only found in Luke (24:1; cf. Acts 5:21). So is the phrase καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν (cf. Luke 5:3). In addition, John 8:6a (ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ) corresponds almost verbatim with Luke 6:7 (ἵνα εὕρωσιν κατηγορεῖν αὐτοῦ). Parallels like these make a Lukan origin of the PA attractive.28 An Alternative Hypothesis? A number of scholars, including the honoree of this volume, have questioned the majority’s hypothesis, arguing that the available evidence allows for the literary authenticity of the PA.29 From a text-critical perspective, Maurice Robinson observes that there would be no strong reason to doubt the Johannine origin of the PA if it was not omitted from several early manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type (ो66, ो75, ‫א‬, and B).30 As many as 1,495 of all 1,763 extant continuous-text manuscripts of the Gospel of John include the PA (≈ 85%). Additionally, it is omitted from 677 Greek lectionary manuscripts over against 495 that contain it.31 This may explain the omission of the PA in a relatively large number of 28

29

30

31

Advocates of this theory include, inter alia, Henry J. Cadbury, “A Possible Case of Lukan Authorship (John 7:53–8:11),” HTR 10 (1917): 237–44; Eric F.F. Bishop, “The Pericope Adulterae: A Suggestion,” JTS 35 (1934): 40–45; Michel Gourgues, “‘Moi non plus je ne te condamne’: Les mots et la théologie de Luc en Jean 8,1–11 (la femme adultère),” SR 19 (1990): 305–18; J.M. Ross, “Floating Words: Their Significance for Textual Criticism,” NTS 38 (1992): 153–56; Josep Rius-Camps, “Origen Lucano de la Perícopa de la Mujer Adúltera (Jn 7,53–8,11),” Filología Neotestamentaria 6 (1993): 149–75. But see Kyle R. Hughes, “The Lukan Special Material and the Tradition History of the Pericope Adulterae,” NovT 55 (2013): 232–51. See P.H.R. van Houwelingen, Johannes: Het evangelie van het Woord, 4th ed., Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, derde serie (Kampen: Kok, 2011), 419–28. Other contemporaneous advocates of the PA’s literary authenticity include John Paul Heil, “The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress (John 7,53–8,11) Reconsidered,” Bib 72 (1991): 182–91; John David Punch, “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae,” in Black and Cerone, The Pericope of the Adulteress, 7–31; and Maurice A. Robinson, “The Pericope Adulterae: A Johannine Tapestry with Double Interlock,” in Black and Cerone, The Pericope of the Adulteress, 115–45. It will be interesting to see whether scholars will continue to credit much weight to the external evidence in light of the growing influence of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament textual criticism. This approach consciously abandons the categorization of text-types, including the idea that Alexandrian texts are the most reliable. See Tommy Wassermann and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, Resources for Biblical Study 80 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017), 8. Robinson, “The Pericope Adulterae,” 118.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

89

(early) textual witnesses and the various external locations found for the passage as this might be due to the lectionary system. During the Feast of Pentecost, for example, John 7:37–8:12 was read without the PA.32 John David Punch insists on the textual credibility of Codex Bezae, stressing that it includes a primitive form of the PA in comparison to later versions and that it lacks signs of interpolation such as scribal information concerning Jesus’ words or the woman’s name. Arguing for an early origin of the passage, Punch also points to a number of second- to fourthcentury sources which possibly refer to the PA, including Papias (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.17), Protevangelium Iacobi (16.2), Didascalia Apostolorum (7.2.23), and Pacian (Symp. 3.20.1).33 Other scholars have pointed out numerous literary connections between the PA and the rest of the Fourth Gospel. Rob van Houwelingen notes that the use of ἄγειν in the sense of “introducing” (8:3) is unique to the Gospel of John (cf. 9:13; 18:28). The same is true for λιθάζειν (8:5), “throwing stones” (cf. 10:31–33; 11:8). The throwing of stones is also mentioned in 8:7, and taken up again in 8:59. To address a woman, as in 8:10, is typical of Jesus in the Gospel of John (cf. 2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13, 15), and Jesus’ command to “sin no longer” (μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) is – among the Gospels – unique to John (5:14; 8:11).34 John Paul Heil adds that the same language in 7:14 and 8:2 is used for Jesus going “to the temple” (εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν) as “he was teaching” (ἐδίδασκεν) there, and that the parenthesis “He was saying this to test him” (τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγεν πειράζων αὐτόν) in 6:6a is very similar to “They were saying this to test him” (τοῦτο δὲ ἔλεγον πειράζοντες αὐτόν) in 8:6a.35 Heil also argues that from a narrative point of view it makes more sense if “them” (αὐτοῖς) in 8:12 refers to the people Jesus is teaching in 8:2 than to the ones who were present the last time Jesus spoke in 7:37–44; that the PA very well fits a recurrent theme in John 7 (vv. 1, 20, 25, 30, 33, 44) and 8 (vv. 20, 37, 40, 59), which is that the accusers were more interested in killing Jesus than the adulteress; and that Jesus’ statement to the Pharisees “You judge according to the flesh, but I judge no one” in 8:15 makes sense best in connection to Jesus’ refusal to condemn the adulteress in 8:11.36 Even Chris Keith, who thinks that the PA is a later 32

33 34 35 36

Cf. T. van Lopik, “Once Again: Floating Words, Their Significance for Textual Criticism,” NTS 41 (1995): 286–91. Punch, “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae,” 23–25. Van Houwelingen, Johannes, 422. Heil, “The Story of Jesus,” 183–85. Heil, “The Story of Jesus,” 185–91.

90

JERMO VAN NES

interpolation, believes that John 7:53–8:11 is not disruptive to the narrative flow of John 7 and 8 as it was inserted deliberatively by the editor to highlight Jesus’ ability to write in a way similar to God writing the Law, making Jesus superior to Moses, whom his enemies had challenged him to usurp by pronouncing judgment on the adulteress.37 With regard to vocabulary and style, Alan Johnson once countered that John 2:13–17, which is half the size of the PA, has twice the number of hapaxes.38 Similarly, a number of passages show a δὲ surplus and a paucity of οὖν (e.g. 6:1–12; 9:37–10:6; 10:38–11:5; 15:27–16:11) which is similar to the PA.39 Many of the hapaxes in the PA, Punch argued, can be accounted for by the influence of the LXX and the setting of the Feast of Tabernacles.40 Punch also discerned Johannine symbolism, irony, and dualism in the PA as well as various historical present tense verbs, which like all 162 historical presents in the Gospel of John are in the third person, in a narrative, and surrounded by secondary tenses.41 Pointing in particular to ἄγουσιν in 8:3 and λέγουσιν in 8:4, Robinson noted that they occur in the same order in the narrative of the man born blind (cf. 9:13, 17). In both passages, there is Pharisaic interaction (cf. 8:3; 9:13, 15, 16, 40) and a “light of the world” declaration (cf. 8:12; 9:5). Other verbal parallels include ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος (7:11) // ποῦ εἰσιν (K ἐκεῖνοι) (8:10) // ποῦ ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος (9:12) and σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις (8:5) // τί σὺ λέγεις περὶ αὐτοῦ … (9:17). Finally, Robinson illustrated that the greater bulk of the PA’s vocabulary appears elsewhere in the Gospel of John, either in identical form or in various root-based or compound usage, listing an additional 163 verbal, syntactic, synonymous, thematic, and phonetic links between the PA and the rest of the Fourth Gospel.42

37

38

39 40

41 42

See Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus, NTTSD 38 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), which he summarized and refined in “The Pericope Adulterae: A Theory of Attentive Insertion,” in Black and Cerone, The Pericope of the Adulteress, 89–113. Alan F. Johnson, “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae?,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 9 (1966): 91–96. Robinson, “The Pericope Adulterae,” 130. Punch, “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae,” 14–18, based on his bipartite study “An Analysis of ‘Non-Johannine’ Vocabulary in John 7:53–8:11,” In Die Skriflig / In Luce Verbi 47, #93/98 (2013): 1–6, doi:10.4102/ids.v47i1.93 and doi:10.4102/ids.v47i1.98. Punch, “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae,” 19–20. Robinson, “The Pericope Adulterae,” 126–41.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

91

Reassessing the Argument from Hapaxes The discussion above reveals that scholars on both sides of the debate continue their attempts to win the argument concerning the literary (in) authenticity of the PA mainly on the basis of numbers (e.g. number of manuscripts, number of δὲ and οὖν, number of hapaxes, etc.). Yet their studies on the PA, however valuable in their own right, are usually marked by an unprincipled approach. Therefore, the remainder of this study aims to help the debate move forward by introducing linear regression analysis as a principled means of determining statistically whether or not the observed (linguistic) data for the PA are significant. Since many scholars see the number of hapaxes as a critical factor, this will be used as a test-case.43 Simple linear regression analysis is a statistical technique widely used in the natural and social sciences to model the relationship between variables but has only seldom been used in New Testament studies.44 It involves a process of making predictions of variables, based on an assumed linear relationship between a dependent and an independent factor (or set of factors), and sets itself the task of finding a model or equation in order to make such predictions. For the purposes of this study, linear regression analysis helps to determine whether or not the actual, observed number of hapaxes in the PA fits the predicted number of hapaxes as based on the “standard” set by the rest of the Gospel of John. For a fair comparison, however, literary units of similar length to the PA need to be identified as well as the total number of hapaxes in the PA and these units. Both have their own complexities. First, the literary unity of the Fourth Gospel cannot be taken for granted. While David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874) could label John a “seamless robe” (ungenähtet Leibrock) in 1860, subsequent scholarship has seriously questioned this.45 Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) in particular has argued that the Fourth Gospel suffers from structural disunity. He 43

44

45

So, for example, Morgenthaler, Statistik, 61: “14 von den 82 Vokabeln kommen im übrigen Johannesevangelium nicht vor, also ungefähr gleichviel wie im unechten Markusschluß. Das spricht bereits für Unechtheit.” See, for example, Jeffrey M. Tripp, “Measuring Arguments from Order for Q: Regression Analysis and a New Metric for Assessing Dependence.” Neot 47 (2013): 123–48, and Jermo van Nes, Pauline Language and the Pastoral Epistles: A Study of Linguistic Variation in the Corpus Paulinum, Linguistic Biblical Studies 16 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2018). David Friedrich Strauss, Gespräche von Ulrich von Hutten, übersetzt und erläutert, vol. 3 of Ulrich von Hutten (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1860), xliv.

92

JERMO VAN NES

found three sources underlying John’s Gospel, which the Evangelist used and reworked into a first version. This version was later altered, redacted, and enlarged by others.46 While Bultmann’s complex diachronic sourcetheory is not commonly accepted by contemporary scholars, many doubt that the Greek version of John’s Gospel as we have it today was originally composed as one piece.47 Today the three-volume study by Urban von Wahlde is among the most exhaustive and detailed studies in this regard.48 Von Wahlde discernes 11 key themes and characteristics such as variations and repetitions in the Gospel of John, which he thinks are the work of three different redactors who enlarged each other’s edition. While Von Wahlde’s theory is not immune to (linguistic) criticism,49 this study will use his outline of John, in terms of pericope division, as it sides with the majority view that John includes different layers of material (see table 2). Second, the total number of hapaxes in the PA is not self-evident. Scholars disagree on the number of hapaxes in the PA. Some find 13,50 while others count 14.51 Chris Keith and Maurice Robinson even list 15, but their lists are not identical.52 This is partly due to their selection of the Greek edition of the New Testament, and partly due to their in- or exclusion of unique words in the PA that are used more than once. This shows that, for the sake of argument, it is important to clearly define the term hapax legomenon from the beginning. According to Hellen Mardaga, it is best understood as a word used only once in the Old or New Testament.53 Thomas Kraus, however, insists on a more pragmatic 46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

See Rudolf Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 21st ed., KEK 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). For an overview of older and newer source theories, see Paul N. Anderson, “On ‘Seamless Robes’ and ‘Leftover Fragments’ – A Theory of Johannine Composition,” in The Origins of John’s Gospel, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Hughson T. Ong, Johannine Studies 2 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016), 169–218. Urban C. von Wahlde, Commentary on the Gospel of John, vol. 2 of The Gospel and Letters of John, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). See, for example, David I. Yoon, “The Question of Aporiai or Cohesion in the Fourth Gospel: A Response to Urban C. von Wahlde,” in Porter and Ong, The Origins of John’s Gospel, 219–38. So, for example, Johnson, “Stylistic Trait,” 94, and Punch, “The Piously Offensive Pericope Adulterae,” 14. So, for example, Morgenthaler, Statistik, 61, and Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 245. See Keith, “Recent and Previous Research,” 380, and Robinson, “The Pericope Adulterae,” 127–28. Hellen Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena: A Neglected Field in Biblical Studies,” CBR 10 (2012): 264–74.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

93

definition that allows, for example, for words distinctive to a single text, such as the Gospel of John: “Ein Hap[ax] leg[omenon] ist somit nur dahingehend ein Einzelwort, als es in einem Text durchaus mehrmals auftreten darf, jedoch dann in einem bestimmten sprachlichen Referenzrahmen sonst nicht vorkommt.”54 Using both definitions, this study will consider hapaxes as words used only once in the Gospel of John. This gives a total of 329 of such words, of which 13 are in the PA (see table 2).55 Now, linear regression analysis assumes a linear relationship between the independent variable x, in this case the total number of words (= vocabulary tokens) of each literary unity in the Gospel of John, and the dependent variable y, in this case the total number of hapaxes in these units. By means of the linear equation y = mx + b, whereby m is the slope and b the intercept, it is possible to estimate or predict the dependent variable y from the independent variable x. The linear equation represents all predicted values for y. The differences between the observed values and the predicted values are called residuals (“left-overs”). They are essentially the unexplained parts of the regression analysis. Based on the linear equation, a so-called “prediction interval” is to be determined in order to identify whether or not the observed y-values for the PA fit the model as determined by the observed y-values for all other literary units in John. This prediction interval is calculated by means of the following formula:56

     

     
 

Prediction intervals have a minimal (min.) and a maximal (max.) value. These values indicate with 95% probability that it is not accidental that the number of hapaxes in a literary unit of John lies either outside or inside the prediction interval. Based on the pericope division proposed 54

55

56

Thomas J. Kraus, “Hapax Legomena: Definition eines terminus technicus und Signifikanz für eine pragmatisch orientierte Sprachanalyse,” NTS 59 (2013): 555–56. Numbers are based on Morgenthaler, Statistik, 67–157, but are slightly modified. Some words, including ἄρχειν, ἐπάνω, ἐπιχρίειν, κάτω, μηκέτι, παραγίνεσθαι, πειράζω, πυνθάνεσθαι, τρίτος, and τύπος factually appear more than once in John. Others, such as στήκειν and ταχέως, do not. ŷ = estimated y-value; tα/2 = T-statistic (from student’s T-distribution); SE = standard error; n = number (of observed values); x = observed x-value; ẋ = average of all x-values; SSxx = sum of all squared deviations (x-values).

94

JERMO VAN NES

by Von Wahlde and the number of hapaxes found by Morgenthaler, as discussed above, table 1 below shows all relevant data for doing linear regression analysis:57 Table 1. Hapax legomena in the Gospel of John

Pericopes

57

1:1–18 1:19–34 1:35–51 2:1–12 2:13–22 2:23–3:10 3:11–21 3:22–36 4:25–42 4:43–54 5:1–18 5:19–30 5:31–40 6:1–21 6:51–59 6:60–71 7:1–13 7:14–30 7:31–52 8:12–30 8:31–50 8:51–59 9:1–17

Vocabulary tokens (x) 252 272 305 209 167 239 211 263 290 224 276 255 162 323 181 195 214 278 363 367 370 171 292

Expected Hapax hapax legomena legomena (y) (y) 6 6 7 6 5 7 6 6 11 5 1 6 5 6 11 7 7 6 9 6 9 7 0 6 2 5 15 7 2 5 1 5 4 6 7 7 6 8 2 8 7 8 0 5 8 7

Prediction interval Min.

Max.

-2 -2 -2 -3 -4 -3 -3 -2 -2 -3 -2 -2 -4 -1 -4 -3 -3 -2 -1 -1 -1 -4 -2

15 15 15 14 14 15 14 15 15 14 15 15 14 16 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 14 15

The number of hapaxes in 10 literary units in John have been excluded from the analysis as these numbers turned out to be outliers, which are data points differing significantly from all other observations: 4:1–24, 5:41–47, 6:22–24, 6:25–50, 16:4b–33, 17:1–5, 19:31–37, 19:38–42, 20:19–23, and 20:30–31.

HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE

PA

9:18–41 10:1–21 10:22–42 11:1–27 11:28–46 11:47–57 12:1–19 12:20–36 12:37–50 13:1–20 13:21–30 13:31–14:14 14:15–31 15:1–17 15:18–16:4a 17:6–19 17:20–26 18:1–11 18:12–27 18:28–38a 18:38b–19:16a 19:16b–30 20:1–18 20:24–29 21:1–14 21:15–25 7:53–8:11

400 367 328 412 323 210 332 319 241 358 160 404 323 312 236 257 150 200 301 239 350 287 334 148 278 271 169

5 9 6 6 10 10 17 4 9 6 3 3 3 4 3 1 1 11 10 4 12 18 6 3 14 7 13

8 8 7 9 7 6 7 7 6 8 5 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 7 6 8 7 7 5 7 6 t |/2 SE n x SSxx

95 -1 17 -1 17 -1 16 0 17 -1 16 -3 14 -1 16 -2 16 -3 15 -1 16 -4 14 0 17 -1 16 -2 16 -3 14 -2 15 -4 13 -3 14 -2 15 -3 15 -1 16 -2 15 -1 16 -4 13 -2 15 -2 15 2,570581836 0,025 13,65845554 7 3441,857143 44266212,86

The data of table 1 can be plotted into a so-called “scatter diagram”, which in addition to all observed values displays the linear equation as a regression line (= the predicted number of hapaxes in John) as well

96

JERMO VAN NES

as the minimal and maximal prediction interval as polynomial lines. The overall result is shown in figure 1:58 &-
%#$
"'
(!''"'
+"(),
ZR
ae`Xd``
0(+,[ ™— ˜ ~˜!†š—

˜™~˜†˜ 

&-
"%#$
Z.[

˜œ

     

      






˜—   
  


œ       

— —

˜——

™——

š——

›——

      



œ—— %;,"69%